How did getting rid of slavery laws benefit Southern Society? This is not about "society", this is about victims. Just like slaves weren't really a part of "society", neither are fetuses. Maybe your argument is that the overall society would be better overall if we offed some people? The elderly in convalescent homes for example. You know the Eskimos used to push their elderly off on a glacier to drift out to sea... I bet some would say that made their society "better".
I will give you the benefit of being 100% right and having unlimited resources. Money, technology, and man power is no object. So how would you enforce abortion laws?
Sting operations are just one idea. We've talked extensively about how enforcement and investigation would work in other threads. A woman who attempts an illegal later-term abortion could have a monitoring device inserted into her womb. These days with advanced technology it could be a tiny little chip. If there is a baby in there, authorities will know. Kind of like a car interlock device for drunk drivers.
Yes, and thats why abortion laws cannot be enforced and have no benefit to society. Did sting operations win the war on drugs?
I do appreciate you comparing abortion laws to the colossal failure "the war on drugs". That is a fair comparison since abortion drugs would give the gangs and cartels another product. Drug users have to feed their addiction daily while those seeking abortions are likely a one-time customer. You will not be able to make a case showing ANY reduction. Criminal abortion only affects those too poor to take advantage of the booming medical tourism our proposed laws would create. The true number of abortions would be hidden from view. Abortions are already declining without government interference. Abortion laws cannot be enforced and have no benefit to society.
No, no one has ever shown how enforcement and investigation of an alleged abortion would work... never. Just wacky ideas about "chipping women"...and controlling women like cattle by taking away all their basic human rights.., the Anti-Choicers wet dream..
The pot is calling the kettle a dodger. I answered all your questions directly as my position is solid. You can read post #3360 again if you missed it.
Good topic. Start a thread and invite me, or join the discussion already in progress: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-stop-the-myths.264535/page-4#post-1061972271
You are incorrect. I already answered several times. The options that render abortion laws useless are: Medical tourism Abortion drugs Back room abortions Self induced abortions Abortion laws failed long before the internet and abortion drugs and you have not been able to show how they can be used to benefit society. In your effort to project an image of concern for these precious little lives, you have revealed that you are unwilling to do any more than entering text on a forum and waiting for the government to take care of it for you. (Even though you cant explain how) Sorry, efforts to appear sanctimonious on internet forums do nothing for these precious little lives.
You've already said that not everyone would be in a position to do medical tourism. Drugs cannot be used for all abortions obviously. No evidence that so called "back room abortions" would be performed, and even if they did, there's no reason to believe that they would be performed by people who don't know the first thing about medicine! No evidence that these would be performed. How do you know that I don't adopt? "These precious little lives" who you think it should be perfectly legal to kill. Don't pretend like you care about them! Don't make me LAUGH!
The "discussion already in progress?" You mean the discussion in which the most recent interaction was in 2012?
Over what time period? Yes women often have more than one abortion - spaced years apart!! it had to come up some time - the old hairy furphy that “some women use abortion like birth control “
I am not the one trying to force my beliefs on others. I oppose big government interfering in our lives. Back room abortions were performed before Roe. If you are going to debate the issue, at least do some basic research. I did ask you if you adopted. Should I go back or can you refresh my memory? I would never pretend that turning things over to the government qualifies as genuine concern. My father was a deadbeat, so my mother joined a program called Big Brothers and I had a positive male influence growing up. He is still part of the family today. Those with genuine concern are stepping up and making a difference. Those trying to appear concerned are waiting for the government to take over. You can't even describe how government could be used to enforce abortion laws to the point of benefiting society.
Yes. I use the search box on the upper right side of the screen to avoid starting duplicate threads. Drugs were still illegal in 2012.
So the answer is "by using government force" I don't have to describe how such force could be used because my position is against such force. Your position, on the other hand, is pro-government force, making the burden of describing how such force could be used to achieve your objective your problem. So far, you have not been able to describe how government force could be used to prevent abortion in spite of being given unlimited resources.
The same way you have been unable to describe this entire thread. Its your position, you defend it. My position remains unchallenged.
