Canada has NOT LAWS against abortion. In fact, they pay for abortions through their national health system. You can not possible get more "lax and liberal" than that. It is YOU who is being blatantly dishonest. I've not seen ANYONE make claims as off the rails as this post of yours.
OK, show the states that have more "liberal" or more lax laws on abortion than Canada…. AND did you know that STATES are NOT comparable to a country??? Did you know there IS a difference?????
Why would you think that free abortions would lower the abortion rate? Do you realize what we are talking about here? Remember (in case you forgot), your whole argument is that if the US only had policies like Canada, the abortion rate would be lower like Canada.
?? You really need to read posts and think through what they mean. My point is that Canada's policy is more successful than ours, EVEN THOUGH they have zero laws against abortion and have government pay for abortions. YOU keep insisting on controling women's healthcare by the force of government coming down on them. Yet, you just do not have evidence that your direction can be successful - even if people disregard the harm done to women - a level of disregard Americans are very clearly NOT accepting.
There are many Eastern European countries with abortion laws like Canada, but with higher abortion rates than the US.
How does a fetus in the third trimester have less protection from being killed than a born person, in a State where abortion is not allowed in the third trimester unless it is to save the woman's life? And you think that this has been achieved by making abortion easier to access?
Correct, which is why it's a crime to kill a fetus against the mothers will. When did I say that an "embryo is a person?" Isn't it laws against men too? If both the mother and the father want an abortion but cannot have one, then it affects them both.
There is no equivalency. You can't even say why churches would be burned down and why preachers would be put in prison!
The woman would NOT also have to be prosecuted as I have "explained" to you now MULTIPLE times that she wouldn't have the sufficient mens rea. Plus, I could be as petty as you and ask, what does abortion have to do with hitmen? I am of course referencing when you have challenged my usage of analogies, but apparently it's okay when you use them! I wouldn't. I never suggested such a ludicrous thing! Nope. They would just receive further protection to what they already have. After all, fetuses don't need to be a legal person in order to not be killed. If they DID, then they could be killed in the third trimester in every single US State! But they're aren't, unless it is to save the woman's life! Simple! Except a fetus has NO CHOICE to not physically damage the women. The difference is that the impact of a beating can be brain damage or death. Do women get brain damage from pregnancy? Women can die obviously, but they can have an abortion to prevent that. Yes, but the law can change. You would VERY quickly stop using the legal argument if the law made fetuses legal persons and abortion was banned! Yes, that's why I said "protections", not rights. So what is the physical difference between the kid as they travel down the birth canal, and birth? Your predicted answer: the kid is now a legal person! What the hell is wrong with you? I quoted my post in which I responded to life long bodily damage, psychological trauma and crippling medical debt. I cannot believe that I'm bothering to do this, but here it is again:
Are you really this slow or are you just being a jerk? Preacher = Doctor performing abortion. Church = Clinic. Bible salesman = Anyone providing anything related to abortion. Christian = Unwillingly pregnant woman. The analogy makes perfect sense.
No, because you haven't even said why it might be justified for churches to be burned down and for preachers to be put in prison!
FoxHastings said: ↑ So if abortion is banned you contend that nothing will change for women....then what would be the purpose of banning abortions????????????????????????? I don't think you get my question above..... ...who has abortions?
Uh, maybe you should explain what YOUR definition of "mens rea" Why would you want to ask such a stupid question when the analogy , which is SIMPLE, has been explained to you several times. I'll try to make it even simpler...If a [person hires anyone to commit any crime for them, they are as responsible. , Awww, did I hurt your feelings over your analogies that made no sense... so now it's pout time and you won't/can't accept my analogies to "get back" at me.....LOL....how toddlerish.. Ya, right here : ""The woman would NOT also have to be prosecuted""" So you have changed your mind and now DO believe that if someone hires someone to commit a crime they are both responsible.....????? NOPE, there needs to be something better than that to take to the Supreme Court...... What? You're saying this person inside the woman can't make a choice!!!! Well, that doesn't sound like a PERSON to me!! YEAHHHHH, you FINALLY admitted the fetus harms the woman it's in !!!!! Something the entire rest of the world knew for eons....LOL... And it doesn't matter whether the fetus can't make a choice, it STILL is harming the woman... It is STUPID to discuss every single beating or harm that there ever was and compare it to pregnancy..... harm is harm... as to the incredibly stupid statement :""Women can die obviously, but they can have an abortion to prevent that."" Women die from pregnancy BEFORE they can get an abortion..... Women die from pregnancy Please don't further exhibit your complete lack of knowledge of pregnancy any more than you have to... Then I'd fight back to change it....but hey in over 50 years no one has done a thing about RvW ( so how QUICKLY do you think this can happen? )….and the coming generations of women want equal rights, too...I am not worried that misogynists will get to ban abortion.. And I was making the point that fetuses have "protections" which are NOT rights....you seem to get those two things mixed up a lot I'm asking again, Please don't further exhibit your complete lack of knowledge of pregnancy any more than you have to... LOL, I ask you a question about something you posted and you just repeat the post...guess ya didn't have an answer...[/QUOTE]
Uh, only women get pregnant, only women have abortions.....I see you still don't seem to know much about pregnancy like who gets pregnant and who doesn't...
I am only addressing LIVING humans in my overarching question, of which I believe can be agreeably defined as "having a pulse/heartbeat", since that is how medical doctors determine whether or not a human is "alive". The non-existence of (or the "inability to detect") a fetal heartbeat falls outside of this definition of "living human". So, to be clear, I am NOT saying that "one should (or shouldn't) abort" such fetuses; I am only saying that such fetuses fall outside of the scope of my overarching question, thus are irrelevant to the question.
