Why are liberals so CLUELESS? (want to take our rights away?)

[Town Heretic]

Her moral role certainly isn't minimized by the pro-life crowd, as such how can one justly ignore her physical risks for the same?

I haven't meant to suggest there isn't a moral consideration, only that it needn't be applied (except in the sense any system of value, including the belief in right itself is, inevitably) to posit a pro-life position. As to ignoring risk...you could say, for the most part, that women entering into a behavior that could reasonably produce the risk have assumed it. More, there is risk attending most decisions, including surgical ones.

Then I'm doubly curious about your parsed deletion of my quote that included the importance of the pro-life valuation as weighed option and its general effect upon the uninhibited choice to abort. I'd "Go to" the quote...but apparently compromise is an angle of little concern to you.

Well...if you won't show where then the complaint is really difficult to answer. Where I omit a thing it's almost always a couple of things... Either I've chosen a bit of line to include the larger answer for the sake of length/space, or it's a point answered at another point, usually referenced. Well, that and points of agreement or illustration where the point is contained sufficiently to make sense of the answer to those who might only just be tuning in.

Your response failed to address my concerns.

Then you might want to simplify or straighten the way of your prose, because I attempted to as I understood them.

Add ignorance to the mixture of impulsiveness, passion, social/peer-pressure, hedonistic pleasures...etc. and you concoct an admixture of unintended pregnancies that simply aren't alleviated by a law which mandates abortion unlawful...though as a consequent, many such situations will be "alleviated" in spite of such demands.

There are as many variables for any law, I'd imagine. But when we look at the reasons women give here, ignorance isn't much of a contributing factor and the rest boil down to choice, to taking a risk for the perceived reward and that carries consequence for more than the mother with it. That said, no, a law won't end every instance of action leading to the consequence it addresses. People will still violate any law. All you can do is advance the right and hope it impacts and guides decision to the extent it can...which is mostly what law does, on the approach to violation.

"Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection."

In the spirit of Justice Blackmun's court delivered statement above, our goal should likewise include an objective rational discourse on the matter.

I'd answer that one can be impassioned and wholly rational, that the larger issues of our day have always been emotionally charged, mostly because the balance weighed human right and suffering. I'd ask Mr. Blackmun if he found the repudiation of slavery, one integrally joined to human feeling, irrational or suspect for its tie to value and emotion.

Leave the impassioned pleas to the politician's soap-box and ideologues. One can't approach objective exchange with interjected (unqualifed) images of mewling babies and axe murdering villains.

Of course, all I actually did was age the subject and note the disparate response. A bit like Grisham managed in his closing speech during A Time to Kill, where the lawyer painted a picture of violation before attacking the inherent bias of the jury by moving their imaginations to a point of empathy precluded by that bias else.

Just so, we have many people who would publicly share the sentiment of loss, intellectually and emotionally, if their bias didn't preclude it. Pulling down the veil of a few years to illustrate that isn't emotionalism run amok or even an appeal to it, but a way of engaging beyond the chronological point to reach the human one.

There's no right-to-life requirement at the expense of another's life... in part or whole.

Not something I'd argue against, depending on what you mean by expense. The right to self-defense is likely as old as criminal law, distinguishing the act of murder from killing.

One cannot hold such a requirement of enslavement upon another via either chains or umbilical cord.

And that's not emotional rhetoric? Every man and woman is, if you insist, enslaved by the law which restricts what they may willfully do without consequence. The question is, what are the limits of imposition and what is the root of the necessity for it?

Here there's the time necessitated by nature for the delivery, a delivery itself almost completely contingent upon a voluntary behavior that should reasonably carry with it an assumption of risk and does--presently in the form of an unintended pregnancy or a surgical procedure. And the inarguable inconvenience of that weighed against the unconsidered but argued right of the unborn is the point of many if not all who oppose abortion.

A woman does indeed hold the right to presume permission preceding any trespass upon her body.

The unborn being a foreseeable invitee in nearly every instance can hardly be charged with trespass.

To the point, she's a just, moral right to deny permission to any existing fetus.

Why should her right trump the rights of the unborn where her assumption of risk has led to it? And how, reasonably, can the assertion of a diluted liberty (see: ingestion, suicide, etc.) trump the right to life itself?

Your assertion of "complete autonomy of self" myth simply does not hold here.

It absolutely does and simply waving it away isn't rebuttal. You have no absolute, uninfringed right to personal autonomy. In balancing your rights against your neighbor's there will inevitably come restriction. The oldest example being your right to swing fist ending at the tip of my nose, though it actually ends far short of that, depending on the circumstances.

The parallel is patently obvious....it resides in her ability to freely choose a course of action that subsequently ends the life of another.

No one is arguing that people have the ability to end life with consideration. It's the right of the killing that's in question.

Again, have you any qualms regarding these particular modes of choice or explanation of moral antinomy regarding these succumbed lives? Why not?

Qualms? No man is an island. Of course I'm disturbed by the loss of human life, even where the loss is unavoidable. What reasonable mind would not be repelled by the violence and loss of war? And what reasonable mind would fail to recognize its tragic necessity upon occasion? Else, supra.

You, more importantly your rights, are not being juxtaposed against the backdrop of the womb.

I have, in fact, done precisely that by extension of reason.

Such unopposed rights remain fully vested ...they exist absent threat of abrogation, protected by law, save specific exceptions noted above.

Only to the point where I do what you say I am not doing, which is pointing to that place on a chronological line where you arbitrarily negate what everyone agrees I am entitled to and without which no right is meaningful.

A discordant comparative fact you continually ignore by way of a non-impeachable right-to-life presumption you've bestowed on behalf of the unborn.

Rather, I'm presenting an argument that isn't presumption and notes the existence of a thing you must sever but cannot sever without the exercise of an arbitrary valuation.

Or, I have right. You take that right from me along my chain of being, reduce and negate it for no better reason than it suits your notion of an otherwise diluted liberty on the part of the mother. I say that is an offense to reason and right.

A wilful denial of existing contingencies is simply an emblematic condition of an inflexible ideology...no use in arguing to the contrary.

A consideration wherein a thing is found insufficient shouldn't be conflated with a willful denial of its existence. And any answer is inflexible if true. The knowledge of a thing precludes the argument against it, by way of.

 

[quip]

I haven't meant to suggest there isn't a moral consideration, only that it needn't be applied.

Then the case be neither a consideration nor moral. Now is it?

More, there is risk attending most decisions, including surgical ones.

If you'd only thought to add the supplementary risks associated with a surreptitious abortion procedure...you might be on to something here.

There are as many variables for any law, I'd imagine. But when we look at the reasons women give here, ignorance isn't much of a contributing factor...

Rather, the natural, personal expressive impulse for sex as primary contributing factor. Coupled with issues of bodily autonomy....leave such cases within its own unique, qualifying catagory ..at least where the law and curbed behavior may concern itself.

and the rest boil down to choice, to taking a risk for the perceived reward and that carries consequence for more than the mother with it. That said, no, a law won't end every instance of action leading to the consequence it addresses. People will still violate any law. All you can do is advance the right and hope it impacts and guides decision to the extent it can...which is mostly what law does, on the approach to violation.

Odd wordage. I would say a desired removal of a painful tooth could likewise be deemed a "perceived reward". Difference being the fundamental liberties to remove it, and the right to a safe and legal means to actualize said "reward".

I'd answer that one can be impassioned and wholly rational, that the larger issues of our day have always been emotionally charged, mostly because the balance weighed human right and suffering.

A complete, non-partisan examination of such is exactly what your premise denies by default.

I'd ask Mr. Blackmun if he found the repudiation of slavery, one integrally joined to human feeling, irrational or suspect for its tie to value and emotion.

As opposed to the opposition's emotive tack? Rather, a concerted move away from.

Just so, we have many people who would publicly share the sentiment of loss, intellectually and emotionally.

Feel free to express such genuine loss though, not in a framed context as primary methods of persuasion.

Never exploited by others in such a manner...yes?

Not something I'd argue against, depending on what you mean by expense. The right to self-defense is likely as old as criminal law, distinguishing the act of murder from killing.

You've no comment in regard to someone acquiring your kindney short of your consent?

And that's not emotional rhetoric?

Grist for the mill...it seems.

Every man and woman is, if you insist, enslaved by the law which restricts what they may willfully do without consequence. The question is, what are the limits of imposition and what is the root of the necessity for it?

The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights seem an appropriate starting gun.

Here there's the time necessitated by nature for the delivery, a delivery itself almost completely contingent upon a voluntary behavior that should reasonably carry with it an assumption of risk and does--presently in the form of an unintended pregnancy or a surgical procedure. And the inarguable inconvenience of that weighed against the unconsidered but argued right of the unborn is the point of many if not all who oppose abortion.

The unborn are far from unconsidered...necessarily so. You've nothing to hang your hat upon here.

The unborn being a foreseeable invitee in nearly every instance can hardly be charged with trespass.

Hence, the concept of eviction...legal and colloquial.

Why should her right trump the rights of the unborn where her assumption of risk has led to it? And how, reasonably, can the assertion of a diluted liberty (see: ingestion, suicide, etc.) trump the right to life itself?

Why do the physical circumstance involved with pregnancy assign incipient life to the precarious manner in which it must exist? Incipient life is just that...fragile and in constant need of a womb for maintained survival. the unborn necessarily persists upon an assenting host..much like a failed kidney victim is at the mercy of a suitable donor. You and I've no requirement to save either.

It absolutely does and simply waving it away isn't rebuttal. You have no absolute, uninfringed right to personal autonomy.

And no one is arguing the point of absolute-ness/uninfringment.

My point is a rational application of limited right to bodily autonomy - we both currently enjoy - extended as just exception to this rule.

No one is arguing that people have the ability to end life with consideration.

Rather, it's the pro-life moral inconsistencies of those very considerations.

Qualms? No man is an island. Of course I'm disturbed by the loss of human life, even where the loss is unavoidable. What reasonable mind would not be repelled by the violence and loss of war? And what reasonable mind would fail to recognize its tragic necessity upon occasion? Else, supra.

Try again...I'm referencing the means..not the ends.

I have, in fact, done precisely that by extension of reason.

Only to the point where I do what you say I am not doing, which is pointing to that place on a chronological line where you arbitrarily negate what everyone agrees I am entitled to and without which no right is meaningful.

Or, I have right. You take that right from me along my chain of being, reduce and negate it for no better reason than it suits your notion of an otherwise diluted liberty on the part of the mother. I say that is an offense to reason and right.

Your current rights-to-life status is not questionable here nor applicable as qualifying premise to the mother/unborn physical union.

Your insistence upon conflating the two exposes a (intentional?) conspicuous lack of diligence on your part....at least to the goal of objective, rational discourse.

Rather, I'm presenting an argument that isn't presumption and notes the existence of a thing you must sever but cannot sever without the exercise of an arbitrary valuation.

Constitutional justification...arbitrary or no.

A consideration wherein a thing is found insufficient shouldn't be conflated with a willful denial of its existence. And any answer is inflexible if true. The knowledge of a thing precludes the argument against it, by way of.

Insufficient..by what standard, quixotic ones? Such willful denial drawn upon contrived "insufficiencies" draws an identical unresolved conclusion: You've offered no compelling evidence for the claim; simple apologetics for a simple, unfleshed adjudication. :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

Then the case be neither a consideration nor moral. Now is it?

Something in that went sideways for me. I'm saying that you can make an argument (and mine was) as a proposition of right and reason, without making moralistic appeals, except that valuing right can be said to be that thing.

If you'd only thought to add the supplementary risks associated with a surreptitious abortion procedure...you might be on to something here.

I've done that prior, when I noted that you have some additional risk to the mother against a certain fatality for the unborn. But ultimately risk isn't the issue, if your guiding principle is the preservation of the fundamental right to be.

Rather, the natural, personal expressive impulse for sex as primary contributing factor.

Are you suggesting impulse control is the root of the problem?

Coupled with issues of bodily autonomy.

Which, again, isn't anything close to absolute for far less compelling reason on less important issues.

Odd wordage.

You didn't. lain:

I would say a desired removal of a painful tooth could likewise be deemed a "perceived reward". Difference being the fundamental liberties to remove it, and the right to a safe and legal means to actualize said "reward".

I've never suggested that those who desire abortions don't take some measure of satisfaction from the ending of that life. But there is no more fundamental and meaningful right than the foundational right to existence. To make that a slave of an already compromised (and for lesser reasons) notions of personal autonomy would appear to have the cart before the horse.

A complete, non-partisan examination of such is exactly what your premise denies by default.

Examination of what? There are two positions with regard to the vestment of rights. The rest is rational debate.

I don't pretend to be unaligned or undecided on the matter of right and life. I have arrived at a rational objection to what seems to me at best a grotesquely mistaken valuation of a largely mythical personal autonomy over the right to be, fundamentally.

As opposed to the opposition's emotive tack? Rather, a concerted move away from.

I doubt you'd find a more emotionally tied consideration than slavery was in the abolitionist camp. And moral too, brought to the front of public discourse in large part by ministers and men who felt a fundamental, God given right was being denied. As is the case here.

I wrote: Just so, we have many people who would publicly share the sentiment of loss, intellectually and emotionally, if their bias didn't preclude it. Pulling down the veil of a few years to illustrate that isn't emotionalism run amok or even an appeal to it, but a way of engaging beyond the chronological point to reach the human one.

Never exploited by others in such a manner...yes?

I don't see how that's responsive to my advance. Do some people attempt to exploit emotion in lieu? Sure. On either side. Fortunately, I'm only responsible for my own advance.

You've no comment in regard to someone acquiring your kindney short of your consent?

I'd have a number of comments. Now how does taking something I require to live compare with being barred from taking everything another soul needs to exist?

The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights seem an appropriate starting gun.

Works for me. Unfortunately for both of us neither document has presented a clear enough opinion on this issue, which is why the law has played to both sides.

The unborn are far from unconsidered...necessarily so. You've nothing to hang your hat upon here.

Your pronouncement notwithstanding, we differ. I think the abortion crowd tends to rather singularly relate their concern for the mother's relatively new found right to choose.

Hence, the concept of eviction...legal and colloquial.

Well, you settle on which rhetorical approach you want and I'll settle in objection.

Why do the physical circumstance involved with pregnancy assign incipient life to the precarious manner in which it must exist? Incipient life is just that...fragile and in constant need of a womb for maintained survival.

Why should fragility impact the value and right? Are the wholly dependent lesser in that particular? A dangerous notion in any number of ways. No, if right attaches then it becomes, subject to the same universal notes prior, the individual's.

the unborn necessarily persists upon an assenting host..much like a failed kidney victim is at the mercy of a suitable donor. You and I've no requirement to save either.

Did you mean a resisting host compelled by law? We aren't talking about efforts to save, but efforts to take life. It invites a different approach.

And no one is arguing the point of absolute-ness/uninfringment.

Excellent. Then let's be done with the holy grail of autonomy and speak to whether this right to reproductive

My point is a rational application of limited right to bodily autonomy - we both currently enjoy - extended as just exception to this rule.

My answer is that it is impossible to consider our limited right as being superior to the preservation of life.

Rather, it's the pro-life moral inconsistencies of those very considerations.

Try again...I'm referencing the means..not the ends.

How so? I'm reading you as plainly as I can but you use a remarkably loose approach, rhetorically, and it is apparently one that allows for more latitude than you intend.

Your current rights-to-life status is not questionable here nor applicable as qualifying premise to the mother/unborn physical union.

Like that. What do you mean by "qualifying premise"? It's an argument. I have right, fully vested. Any attempt to divest me of the right flows from an arbitrary valuation.

Your insistence upon conflating the two exposes a (intentional?) conspicuous lack of diligence on your part....at least to the goal of objective, rational discourse.

I'm not conflating a thing. I'm making an argument about right and its severing. Prior to that I addressed the notion of personal autonomy and the conflict between mother and child, including an examination of value on both parts.

Constitutional justification...arbitrary or no.

Appeal to authority isn't argument or answer. No one is arguing what the law is. Rather, the argument is about whether the law is just and whether it should remain. I stand, for reasons given here and prior, in the camp of those who believe the Court was as mistaken as it was on slavery and a few other issues of importance in our national history.

Insufficient..by what standard, quixotic ones? Such willful denial drawn upon contrived "insufficiencies" draws an identical unresolved conclusion: You've offered no compelling evidence for the claim; simple apologetics for a simple, unfleshed adjudication. :idunno:

A lot of curious construction that really only sums in difference. There's nothing quixotic, insufficient or unresolved in my position. Compelling? I think an argument you can't answer directly on its point should compel someone to wonder at the why of it, if not you.

 

[quip]

Something in that went sideways for me. I'm saying that you can make an argument (and mine was) as a proposition of right and reason, without making moralistic appeals, except that valuing right can be said to be that thing.

Yes, you can make the argument...putting prose to practice is another matter.

I've done that prior, when I noted that you have some additional risk to the mother against a certain fatality for the unborn. But ultimately risk isn't the issue, if your guiding principle is the preservation of the fundamental right to be.

Ultimately it is at issue...if justice, freedom and objectivity guides ones principles.

Are you suggesting impulse control is the root of the problem?

I'm certainly not denying its accompanying role. You?

Which, again, isn't anything close to absolute for far less compelling reason on less important issues.

So you've pronounced..repeatedly. Though, assuming such, can it can bear its own weight under load? Doesn't seem to hold absolute grip for the remainder of humanity. Wherefore the special consideration for the unborn?

You didn't. lain:

Now..now. Be nice, we all don't have your blessed gift for... flourish.

But there is no more fundamental and meaningful right than the foundational right to existence. To make that a slave of an already compromised (and for lesser reasons) notions of personal autonomy would appear to have the cart before the horse.

Under typical conditions this normative proclamation serves us well. The conditions under which gestation occures doesn't fit quite so well under the umbrella you're laying out here.

Equally under such a supposition I could justly demand of you a kidney to which you'd have no recourse to prohibit me. You'd simply not accept such an arrangement...facts contrary to your insistence otherwise regarding the unborn.

Examination of what? There are two positions with regard to the vestment of rights. The rest is rational debate.

Examination regarding exception to the vestment of rights. Classic false dilemma.

I don't see how that's responsive to my advance. Do some people attempt to exploit emotion in lieu? Sure. On either side. Fortunately, I'm only responsible for my own advance.

Tell me you certainly don't discourage such tactics nor deny their exploitive efficiency in matters of such visceral nature?

I'd have a number of comments. Now how does taking something I require to live compare with being barred from taking everything another soul needs to exist?

Depends on the circumstance. Are you so bold as to meet the demands of a complete stranger per his right to "be". Perhaps, you indeed seek such nobility...nonetheless, I speak for the remainder.

Works for me. Unfortunately for both of us neither document has presented a clear enough opinion on this issue, which is why the law has played to both sides.

Well, I'd say moreso on your side of the aisle.... with ample reason.

Your pronouncement notwithstanding, we differ. I think the abortion crowd tends to rather singularly relate their concern for the mother's relatively new found right to choose.

Such tactfully placed monikers show a palpable bias..one significant enough to warrent a charge of non-objectivity. As I've been wont to point out.

Why should fragility impact the value and right?

Because its denial of trespass upon her body results in its death..mom's a necessary component to the efforts of sustainability. Much like her body to the continued existence of an undesired tumor. Could you justly ignore her role and likewise her means to remove said tumor?

Are the wholly dependent lesser in that particular?

Dependency is an understatement. Incipient life is, biologically speaking, the physically subservient of the two...moral ordinance does not change this brute fact. (Though, that's not to imply a total absence thereof.)

A dangerous notion in any number of ways. No, if right attaches then it becomes, subject to the same universal notes prior, the individual's.

Moot. No one has right to bodily trespass. Supra.

We aren't talking about efforts to save, but efforts to take life. It invites a different approach.

Take.... or rather refuse life? A subtle though salient distinction.

Excellent. Then let's be done with the holy grail of autonomy

I believe it's quite common. Implicit, if not fully appreciate, in millions of lives, daily...outside the realm of abortion, that is.

How so? I'm reading you as plainly as I can but you use a remarkably loose approach, rhetorically, and it is apparently one that allows for more latitude than you intend.

Your pro-life predisposition in favor of life and subsequent emotional response to such loss is certainly not in question. Rather, it's your inconsistent lack of objection in cases of volitional acts which result in intentional human deaths in stark contrast to your vehement objections regarding such volition in the cases of induced abortion.

Like that. What do you mean by "qualifying premise"? It's an argument. I have right, fully vested. Any attempt to divest me of the right flows from an arbitrary valuation.

Meaning you nor your rights (by logical extension) abide within a womb. The circumstances attending differ dramatically. Conflating the two (as premised by your argument) is specious at best.

Appeal to authority isn't argument or answer.

No less so than an appeal to the right to life.

Especially so, given its assumed wellspring.

No one is arguing what the law is. Rather, the argument is about whether the law is just and whether it should remain. I stand, for reasons given here and prior, in the camp of those who believe the Court was as mistaken as it was on slavery and a few other issues of importance in our national history.

I'm of the opinion that the law made a just and correct call. Moreover, unsupported appeals to past constitutional dereliction fails to note that the very principles in question, served in the redress of slavery....furthermore attended the RvW decision.

 

[Town Heretic]

Yes, you can make the argument...putting prose to practice is another matter.

As with any law.

Ultimately it is at issue...if justice, freedom and objectivity guides ones principles.

There is nothing just in denying the whole of right for the sake of a lesser and often abrogated power and justice demands a broader consideration than the rights of one.

Re: impulse as justification for the necessity of an onerous choice.

I'm certainly not denying its accompanying role. You?

I'm implying it might be human nature to desire all sorts of things, but so long as we remain creatures of will and reason we can decide how those fit into our life. We often, in life, refrain from doing that which we would and do that which we would not. And the means by which we succumb to temptation is the same by which we resist it. It is for that very reason that man is ultimately responsible for his actions absent mental defect.

Simplified: you aren't a slave to your desires unless you mean to be.

So you've pronounced..repeatedly.

I've done a bit more than that, demonstrating the truth of it. I hate declarations sans argument or illustration making the thing.

Though, assuming such,

And here is the likely reason for the repetition. This isn't a hypothetical, you aren't graciously assuming for the sake of argument. It's a legal reality and one that strikes at (or should) the reasonableness of the "my body/my choice" crowd...who don't seem to care much for the unborn's body or choice, peculiarly.

can it can bear its own weight under load?

I have no idea what you mean by that. Can it bear its own weight in what fashion?

Doesn't seem to hold absolute grip for the remainder of humanity. Wherefore the special consideration for the unborn?

And that is similarly less than clear because it absolutely does hold true for us (and so the laws/prohibitions noted). There's no special status being given the unborn by this, only a recognition that their right to existence is more important than any competing right or privilege.

Now..now. Be nice, we all don't have your blessed gift for... flourish.

It really isn't though. We all have a certain style. So long as it enhances rather than limits our ability to communicate I'm fine with it...and when it doesn't we should be ready to clarify or illustrate or simplify as needed.

Under typical conditions this normative proclamation serves us well. The conditions under which gestation occures doesn't fit quite so well under the umbrella you're laying out here.

See, that's style. Ultimately you're only saying that what I'm suggesting isn't a perfect fit. I'd respond it does and by necessity. All rights are given meaning by existence and robbed of meaning by its absence. It is, by its very nature, preeminent in consideration.

Equally under such a supposition I could justly demand of you a kidney to which you'd have no recourse to prohibit me.

That's not a parallel. First, nothing in my actions has invited your state. Second, I may in the forseeable future have need of it. Thirdly, the mother isn't being asked to give up any necessary part of her person. The only real connection is that you're speaking to an inconvenience relating to the body, though more attaches that makes even that comparison a bit pale.

You'd simply not accept such an arrangement...facts contrary to your insistence otherwise regarding the unborn.

I'd reject it along all the lines above and it's simply nothing like the point under consideration, supra.

Examination regarding exception to the vestment of rights. Classic false dilemma.

That's a neat declaration. Now try connecting the dots. I'm precisely considering the problem of an arbitrary assignment on your part and anyone's part to the vestment of rights. We agree they exist, but there ends all agreement. And so my argument, which cannot be illustrated to contain a false dilemma, though I hope you make the actual attempt now.

Tell me you certainly don't discourage such tactics nor deny their exploitive efficiency in matters of such visceral nature?

Well, I've always noted that any approach to difference should be reasoned and that while passion can be admirable it must be mated to the former to compel. Certainly as a matter of law.

Depends on the circumstance. Are you so bold as to meet the demands of a complete stranger per his right to "be". Perhaps, you indeed seek such nobility...nonetheless, I speak for the remainder.

Whether or not I'm selfish or saintly or to what degree I could be described in conduct as either is a separate issue. And we aren't speaking to demands, but to right. Beyond that, I am not in my actions willfully causing harm to a soul. I am not doing that which I understand will lead to someone's death.

Well, I'd say moreso on your side of the aisle.... with ample reason.

I'd agree that the law has traditionally protected life and with that ample reason, but of late? Sadly, no for the unborn.

Such tactfully placed monikers show a palpable bias..one significant enough to warrent a charge of non-objectivity. As I've been wont to point out.

Bias isn't problematic if supported in reason. I think Hitler was a monster. I have reasons to do so.

Because its denial of trespass upon her body

Again, it isn't trespass. The consequence of her actions are forseeable and the child is more reasonably seen as an invitee.

Much like her body to the continued existence of an undesired tumor

Comparing the unborn to a tumor. Well, I think you just won the bias war.

Could you justly ignore her role and likewise her means to remove said tumor?

A tumor is removed to preserve life. A child is murdered to preserve an unmerited notion of personal autonomy that can all too often be fairly described as the end product of a monstrous narcissism.

Dependency is an understatement. Incipient life is, biologically speaking, the physically subservient of the two...moral ordinance does not change this brute fact. (Though, that's not to imply a total absence thereof.)

I'm not suggesting a contrary fact.

Moot. No one has right to bodily trespass. Supra.

It's not trespass. Not sure why you keep attempting the term.

Take.... or rather refuse life? A subtle though salient distinction.

Take. Kill. End. That's what abortion does.

I believe it's quite common. Implicit, if not fully appreciate, in millions of lives, daily...outside the realm of abortion, that is.

What's quite common, personal autonomy relating to the body? As I noted, it's abrogated in any number of ways from things you may ingest to what you are allowed to use it for, so the right isn't inviolate.

Your pro-life predisposition in favor of life and subsequent emotional response to such loss is certainly not in question

Your description is misleading. My response is rational. My argument is rational. But I feel strongly about it.

Rather, it's your inconsistent lack of objection in cases of volitional acts which result in intentional human deaths in stark contrast to your vehement objections regarding such volition in the cases of induced abortion.

Now that's a neat trick. My lack of objection not stated where?

Meaning you nor your rights (by logical extension) abide within a womb. The circumstances attending differ dramatically. Conflating the two (as premised by your argument) is specious at best.

I don't now and I can well understand your desire to limit the consideration of my rights to the moment, but those rights either have always been mine or vested at some point. And therein attends the argument.

I wrote that an appeal to authority isn't an argument.

No less so than an appeal to the right to life.

Which isn't what I'm doing. Our compact is predicated on the belief that we are born with rights, not that we create or confer on individuals their rights. The first among rights is the gateway to every other, the right to existance itself. This is the context within which arguments related to law must be raised.

Especially so, given its assumed wellspring.

If you mean my religious views they don't enter into my proffered argument, though I can make and do have a moral argument. I've advanced a secular distinction and appeal within the framework of a secular compact.

I'm of the opinion that the law made a just and correct call.

So I gather, sadly.

Moreover, unsupported appeals to past constitutional dereliction fails to note that the very principles in question, served in the redress of slavery....furthermore attended the RvW decision.

I haven't made unsuported appeals so I'll leave that one on the vine, so to speak.

:e4e:

 

[quip]

And that is similarly less than clear because it absolutely does hold true for us (and so the laws/prohibitions noted). There's no special status being given the unborn by this, only a recognition that their right to existence is more important than any competing right or privilege.

One cannot premise an assertion of equal rights (qua existence) for the unborn without necessary augmention of this right by allowing an unwarrented encroachment upon another's body... especially by way of the necessary maintenance of said premise. Rights bestowed post-gestation don't grant such uncontestable liberties nor deny the right to protect ones life and/or quality thereof against such bodily infringement. The special considerations you bestow the unborn remain unprecedented, unconstitutional and clearly beg the very question of unborn right itself...

That leads us to this:

The parallels of kidney to womb:

That's not a parallel. First, nothing in my actions has invited your state. Second, I may in the forseeable future have need of it. Thirdly, the mother isn't being asked to give up any necessary part of her person. The only real connection is that you're speaking to an inconvenience relating to the body, though more attaches that makes even that comparison a bit pale.

Your required dance around the subject's periphery make a conspicuious effort at ignoring the underlying priniciple involved. Namely, the parallel involving my limited access of right to your kidney as to the unborn's limited right of access to mom's body ...for the equal sake of "being".

Well, I've always noted that any approach to difference should be reasoned and that while passion can be admirable it must be mated to the former to compel. Certainly as a matter of law.

Is this to mean, "no"?

Whether or not I'm selfish or saintly or to what degree I could be described in conduct as either is a separate issue.

On the contrary. Your personal views are drawn upon by your methods of reasoning. Which in turn advance efforts in establishing laws in reflection of such. Thus, they cannot be earnestly segregated from the subject at hand.

Comparing the unborn to a tumor. Well, I think you just won the bias war.

A tumor is removed to preserve life. A child is murdered to preserve an unmerited notion of personal autonomy that can be fairly described as the end product of a monstrous narcissism.

:doh: Don't declare a surrender to the bias war..then lob a salvo next breath. Tacky. Otherwise, this moral pronouncement rest entirely upon an asserted "unmerited notion"...one in which the particulars of merit become defaulted by you courtesy of mere declaration... not via unbiased reasoning. Else, supra.

I'm not suggesting a contrary fact.

No, but you deny such facts' relevance to the principles involved...by arbitrary design.

It's not trespass. Not sure why you keep attempting the term.

Because it's apt...moral objection aside. Use whatever similar term that holds less literal import for you. intrusion, impingement, encroachment, approximation....all come to mind. All of which remain prescient to the concept of eviction, as noted prior.

Take. Kill. End. That's what abortion does.

I'm quite sure any attending malicious intent to kill on behalf of the abortion obtainer is a rare find indeed. Most intend a removal of an undesired fetus, surely weighed against the gravity of the situation...more/less so, depending on the individual. The unfornunate fact that the unborn invariably die moves toward the fragile, inability to independently sustain itself and subsequent lack of qualification to the rights granted, pertinent and pursuant to the individuals sustained/sustainable and naturally unassisted capacity for such. Supra.

What's quite common, personal autonomy relating to the body? As I noted, it's abrogated in any number of ways from things you may ingest to what you are allowed to use it for, so the right isn't inviolate.

Again, no one is appealing to an "involate right" to bodily autonomy. Rather, to the integrity for and discretion to protect against violation. Of which - ironically - many of its abrogations exist in protection of.

That's not meeting argument with argument or even critical analysis. That's just dressed up name calling, if aimed at the posit instead of the originator. My argument notes a universally agreed set of rights and a fractured, objectively suspect difference over the point of vestment.

Praytell, what constitutes "universal agreement" Is this in an official standard and practice of evaluating the law..or more a mere appeal to existing (unexamined) popular consensus? (As a curious side note: Not sure of your "dressed up name calling" charge. :idunno: )

Which isn't what I'm doing. Our compact is predicated on the belief that we are born with rights.

Your appeal lies well stipulated beyond the scope of birth. Where, when or whomever this appeal generates is of little concern to me...though, an appeal it remains nontheless.

If you mean my religious views they don't enter into my proffered argument, though I can make and do have a moral argument. I've advanced a secular distinction and appeal within the framework of a secular compact.

The convenient parsing of the two remains disingenuous...especially given your moral admonishments of "murder" and "monstrous narcissism" among others. The moral significance of the unborn and the perceived moral transgressions involved in its abort hold necessary prevalence to your argument. Else, you'd simply hold no indignation for the act itself, nor incitement to argue against.

All I ask of you is an honest approach.

 

[Town Heretic]

One cannot premise an assertion of equal rights (qua existence) for the unborn without necessary augmention of this right by allowing an unwarrented encroachment upon another's body...

I'd agree that you can't defend the unborn without a woman lacking something she doesn't possess uniformly to begin with, that none of us do...

The special considerations you bestow the unborn remain unprecedented, unconstitutional and clearly beg the very question of unborn right itself...

In order: there are not special considerations, Roe argues against the unprecedented part and as I noted in my last post, the unconstitutional appeal amounts to "Well, that's the law". Well, it shouldn't be and for the reasons given and the argument relating to and offered without particular rebuttal prior.

Your required dance around the subject's periphery make a conspicuious effort at ignoring the underlying priniciple involved.

I've done nothing of the sort.

Namely, the parallel involving my limited access of right to your kidney as to the unborn's limited right of access to mom's body ...for the equal sake of "being".

I not only didn't dance around it, I rejected it directly and set out the why. It remains a near tangential attempt at parallel for the reasons given in my last.

Your personal views are drawn upon by your methods of reasoning.

I know what my personal views are. I don't know what you mean when you say they are "drawn upon by [my] methods of reasoning".

:doh: Don't declare a surrender to the bias war..then lob a salvo next breath. Tacky.

I was pointing out a degree of inconsistency in your rhetorical complaint, suspicions, and approach.

Otherwise, this moral pronouncement rest entirely upon an asserted "unmerited notion"...one in which the particulars of merit become defaulted by you courtesy of mere declaration... not via unbiased reasoning. Else, supra.

It was a response in kind, murder for tumor. Supra.

No, but you deny such facts' relevance to the principles involved...by arbitrary design.

No, I don't deny that the unborn are utterly dependent upon the mother. Which is why I said I wasn't arguing the point.

Unless you believe that dependence lessens right, which I think you might want to rethink, assuming. If not, you don't have a point.

Because it's apt...moral objection aside. Use whatever similar term that holds less literal import for you. intrusion, impingement, encroachment, approximation....all come to mind. All of which remain prescient to the concept of eviction, as noted prior.

Well, it's not apt, which is why I noted it. Trespass is a poor choice made to attempt to put the mother in the role of victim. But given pregnancy is the foreseeable consequence of a willful act (exceptions noted) you can't reasonably use trespass to describe it. The synonyms suffer similarly.

I'm quite sure any attending malicious intent to kill on behalf of the abortion obtainer is a rare find indeed.

Malicious? Who knows? Profoundly indifferent? Insufficiently empathetic? However framed, the entire point of the procedure is to take the life of the unborn. Does it matter if a person killing or enlisting the aid of another to take a life to advance their own flag is hostile or indifferent or even slightly if insufficiently sympathetic? It doesn't to the unborn, at any rate.

Most intend a removal of an undesired fetus,

And we both know that wan euphemism covers the taking of life.

The unfornunate fact that the unborn invariably die

No, this isn't some unfortunate byproduct. It's the point of the procedure.

Again, no one is appealing to an "involate right" to bodily autonomy. Rather, to the integrity for and discretion to protect against violation. Of which - ironically - many of its abrogations exist in protection of.

The woman bears the undesired but foreseeable consequence of her action, as the rule. The notion that the desire to live free of that consequence is of greater value than human life is the tragic, again, narcissistic wonder of an age.

Praytell, what constitutes "universal agreement"

It began as an observation wrapped in the robes of philosophy. The proposition was founded in the understanding that without that right no other proposition of right could have meaning.

Your appeal lies well stipulated beyond the scope of birth

You assume that birth is a line of demarcation here and it underlines my point. Not even the Court you rest on would find that particular meaningful on the point of vestment. And so the arbitrary nature of assignment forward or denial looking back along that chronological line is made again.

The convenient parsing of the two remains disingenuous.

First, I'm completely genuine in my objection and I haven't parsed the two. I noted that I have a moral objection but I've advanced a secular, rational argument on principle.

..especially given your moral admonishments of "murder" and "monstrous narcissism" among others.

Those aren't my arguments against abortion, they're my judgments in relation to people who are so poorly constituted and lacking an essential human decency as to put their convenience above the life of their unborn child. They're also a jab at your protest and subsequent rhetorical usage.

The moral significance of the unborn and the perceived moral transgressions involved in its abort hold necessary prevalence to your argument.

No, they don't. You appear to need them to, but you can't actually hang that on my proposition.

Else, you'd simply hold no indignation for the act itself, nor incitement to argue against.

Rusha, who is without my faith, will be amazed to hear it. lain: Or, that's self-evidently not the case. Fool and others who don't have a belief in God or follow my particular religious principles have as indignant a response on the point.

All I ask of you is an honest approach.

It's exactly what you've gotten.

:e4e:

 

[quip]

I'd agree that you can't defend the unborn without a woman lacking something she doesn't possess uniformly to begin with, that none of us do...


In order: there are not special considerations, Roe argues against the unprecedented part and as I noted in my last post, the unconstitutional appeal amounts to "Well, that's the law". Well, it shouldn't be and for the reasons given and the argument relating to and offered without particular rebuttal prior.

Want to address that again..this time in whole?

One cannot premise an assertion of equal rights (qua existence) for the unborn without necessary augmention of this right by allowing an unwarrented encroachment upon another's body... especially by way of the necessary maintenance of said premise. Rights bestowed post-gestation don't grant such uncontestable liberties nor deny the right to protect ones life and/or quality thereof against such bodily infringement. The special consideration you bestow the unborn remain unprecedented, unconstitutional and clearly beg the very question of unborn right itself...

 

[Town Heretic]

Want to address that again..this time in whole?

I don't believe I've avoided anything, but:

One cannot premise an assertion of equal rights (qua existence) for the unborn

Translation...I can't premise an argument (I never merely assert) of equality in right between the unborn and the mother, without...

Here your sentence goes off the rails a bit. Because your next turn is:

without necessary augmention of this right

Augmentation? It's no more augmented than it is for the mother. It's the essential right to be.

by allowing an unwarrented encroachment upon another's body...

That's not an augmentation, supra. What you seem to be saying is that it's more because it cannot be maintained without an imposition on another. That's not infrequently the case, if less dramatically, in the larger world beyond this illustration. A one year old is as dependent as the unborn, merely removed to a different dependent context, by way of additional illustration.

To continue...

especially by way of the necessary maintenance of said premise.

That seems to be a rephrasing of the last point.

Rights bestowed post-gestation

That's an assertion at odds with the law's foundation. The whole question/argument turns on my note that any question of rights begins with two understandings: first that our collective premise isn't that we bestow the right to life, but that we recognize and protect it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...​

That's the context for the rights enumerated within the law. Second is the unavoidable understanding that when we attempt to create a point of vesting we attack that foundation by acting as though we do, in fact, create right and that the law in this regard is an instrument of creation instead of recognition, as it approaches right.

It's one of the errors made by the Roe Court in its approach.

don't grant such uncontestable liberties nor deny the right to protect ones life and/or quality thereof against such bodily infringement.

There is an enormous gulf between the principle of self-preservation, which will allow one to subordinate another's right in limited circumstance (where the other is acting in such a way as to unlawfully deprive you of your own life) and killing another human being because you make a value judgment that your life would be less enjoyable, that you would be inconvenienced, to whatever degree.

The special consideration you bestow the unborn remain unprecedented, unconstitutional and clearly beg the very question of unborn right itself..

To answer this part in order

This special consideration: again, there's no special consideration. Both mother and child have a fundamental right to exist and that right, that preeminent right, without which no other right can be said to meaningfully exist, is preserved equally for both. No one has a right to be uninconvenienced by the exercise of another's right.

which you bestow [upon] the unborn: our rights aren't bestowed, they're protected, supra.

remain unprecedented: not, in point of fact, true at all. In some countries my understanding is the norm. And in this compact the unborn were protected far longer than they have been subject to an abrogation of their right. That's why Roe was required to move the point.

unconstitutional : that's the authority bit again, addressed. Slavery was constitutional too. We're arguing whether that's in keeping with our mission statement and the spirit of the law. I'd argue that both are regrettable mistakes in reasoning and approach with horrific consequences. Both may well be reversed in the same fashion, by Constitutional amendment.

and clearly beg the very question of unborn right itself..: not unless you don't understand what "begs the question" means. It doesn't mean asks or insists upon inquiry, as some use it, but that an argument has a premise that assumes the conclusion.

By way of example, God is real because I experience God. While satisfying to me it isn't an argument for God's existence. It's an offer of proof, but not an argument.

Or, I want X because X is desirable.

My argument isn't that thing at all or in part. Certainly not as it stands between mother and child.

:e4e:

 

[quip]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —

Yes, the Declaration of Independence...a historical, American document many of us justly hold dear. An important pronouncment of independence as is, as mere declaration though, it rests. Such was written not as a definitive elucidation of Life, Liberty nor the pursuit of Happiness but rather as a manifesto; principles absent from the rule of Great Britain.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

As such, "Life" as declared, does not define nor dictate its conditions; method of creation, specific creator; properties thereof or otherwise.... no more so than either "Liberty" nor "Happiness' pursuit". Nor is this it's intended purpose, though you seem to infer otherwise.

Life, as precursor to the latter two, holds well as a general declarative principle though, such cannot mean to imply its de-facto preeminence at the very cost of those - equally endowed and unalienable - pair. Is it not a fact that wars have been waged in defense (with subsequent life being spent in cost) of maintaining happiness and peace as afforded by liberties?

Now, I realize that you don't morally apply death as a just condition of liberty in cases involving induced abortion (which is fine and fully understandable..I'm not arguing to that point) Yet, you've no recourse (beyond declaration) against its practical advancement in regard to liberties so endowed.

That brings us to the pragmatic exigencies:

Would you accept the forced abnegation of your liberties in lieu of a declared moral demand consisting of an encroachment upon your body for the sole purpose of sustaining an otherwise anonymous life?

If not, wherefore such a special pleaded demand set upon a pregnant woman?

Your declarative appeal to "God", the Declaration of Independence or some personally interpretive commingle...simply doesn't pass pragmatic muster.

 

[Town Heretic]

Yes, the Declaration of Independence...a historical, American document many of us justly hold dear.

A mission statement from the men who drafted the Constitution and set the compact on a secular course. It announces, among other things, the philosophical bedrock upon which our law and compact rests.

As such, "Life" as declared, does not define nor dictate its conditions;

Why would it? It wasn't a science document and life isn't a thing that confuses anyone absent some sort of significant cognitive limitation.

method of creation, specific creator;

Because we weren't framing a theocracy.

properties thereof or otherwise.... no more so than either "Liberty" nor "Happiness' pursuit". Nor is this it's intended purpose, though you seem to infer otherwise.

No, I really haven't. I set out why I noted it in fairly unambiguous language.

Life, as precursor to the latter two, holds well as a general declarative principle though, such cannot mean to imply its de-facto preeminence at the very cost of those - equally endowed and unalienable - pair.

Or, as I noted, absent life no other right has meaning. And "cost" is another fairly ambiguous term. If you mean we should be unwilling to defend the taking of life because liberty is as important I think you haven't thought it through. The rest, more reasonably framed, is about where the necessary limitation of any right rests in relation to the rights possessed by others.

You seem to value liberty so much that you're willing to support someone taking a life to further their own interests in its name. A sentiment or principle I imagine you wouldn't want enforced against you should your neighbor take an interest in the sum of your possessions.

Is it not a fact that wars have been waged in defense (with subsequent life being spent in cost) of maintaining happiness and peace as afforded by liberties?

Of course. Wars have been fought for all sorts of reasons, but the preservation of all right will frequently necessitate their risk.

Now, I realize that you don't morally apply death as a just condition of liberty in cases involving induced abortion (which is fine and fully understandable..I'm not arguing to that point)

I don't really understand what that means past a point. Applying death as a just condition of liberty...do you mean I don't agree that one can end the life of another in the name of personal liberty? If so, then yes. I'm arguing against the notion that we should have the liberty to take life for no better reason than will and inconvenience.

Yet, you've no recourse (beyond declaration) against its practical advancement in regard to liberties so endowed.

Stuff and nonsense. I reject and offer argument against the notion of that particular degree of liberty, along with the mistaken approach that begins with the notion that right is conferred, in contravention of the actual (and demonstrated) foundation of the laws and Constitution of our land.

That brings us to the pragmatic exigencies:

Would you accept the forced abnegation of your liberties in lieu of a declared moral demand consisting of an encroachment upon your body for the sole purpose of sustaining an otherwise anonymous life?

See, that ultimately reduces to: would I agree to a limitation (not abnegation) of my personal liberty in order to secure the life of a stranger. I hope so, but it's not what we're actually considering here.

Else, there are a number of argued assumptions in that inquiry that preclude a yes or no answer. First, I agree with the idea and application of law. Law by its nature limits right, in part to balance the natural competition between rights. Limitation isn't, however, abnegation (or abrogation).

And, of course, there is a great deal of difference (as per my response to your kidney dilemma) between the fruit of my actions and this anonymous encroachment you work into the hypothetical.

If not, wherefore such a special pleaded demand set upon a pregnant woman?

I'm not offering a special pleading. No idea why you'd suggest it. The issue is, again, whether or not a woman, who willfully engaged in intercourse, the foreseeable potential result of which is the creation of another life, should be entitled to end that life absent a direct medical necessity that would, in essence, constitute self-defense.

How did I put it...Why should her right trump the rights of the unborn where her assumption of risk has led to it? And how, reasonably, can the assertion of a diluted liberty (see: ingestion, suicide, etc.) trump the right to life itself?

Your declarative appeal to "God", the Declaration of Independence or some personally interpretive commingle...simply doesn't pass pragmatic muster.

Which would be a fine rebuttal had I done that, but we both know I haven't. That instead I've offered a fairly straight forward argument against the imposition of an arbitrary standard, a to my mind false notion of conferral (that being the singular reason for introducing the Declaration) providing the actual founding principle in relation to right, and a challenge regarding the arbitrary abrogation of a right fundamental to any liberty.

 

[Ktoyou]

Rusha, you're deluding yourself . In fact, if the government makes it illegal again, the abortion rate will INCREASE markedly, and many poor women will die from botched illegal abortions, the same as before Roe.
Every time a country has made abortion illegal again after it has been legal, the abortion rate has increased greatly, and this will happen in America. More abortions happen in countries where it isilllegal than where it is legal .

You are nuts! Most persons do not commit crimes because it is fun; that would be the only way to explain an increase, without confounded variables.

 

[Town Heretic]

You are nuts! Most persons do not commit crimes because it is fun; that would be the only way to explain an increase, without confounded variables.

It's a ridiculous notion that making abortion illegal would increase the rate. It is the legality and access that raises rates.

"In 1973, right after abortion was legalized nationwide, the U.S. abortion rate increased somewhat as safe legal abortions replaced unsafe illegal ones. The rate peaked in 1981..." Facts and Consequences: Legality, Incidence and Safety of Abortion Worldwide, By Susan A. Cohen

"...Following the legalization of abortion in New York State in 1970 and in several other states between 1970 and 1973, the annual number of legally induced abortions rose dramatically, especially in New York City and California. For example, 586,760 legal abortions were performed in 1972—more than 20 times the number reported three years earlier..." The Public Health Impact of Legal Abortion: 30 Years Later, By Willard Cates, Jr., David A. Grimes and Kenneth F. Schulz

 

[quip]

Or, as I noted, absent life no other right has meaning.

Nor, logically speaking, may they ...though, mere declaration of such serves as no guaranteed access to life nor access to the right thereof. Rights (and their subsequent import) are retained, unarguably, by and for the living ...whilst per the commission of specific liberties, a resultant loss of life may occur...as noted by me and further acknowledged by you prior.

You seem to keep calling forth this prescriptive declaration as if it has non-reproachable import.
It doesn't.

 

[Town Heretic]

Nor, logically speaking, may they ...though, mere declaration of such serves as no guaranteed access to life nor access to the right thereof.

There's no "mere declaration" except by truncation. And that's a reflection of your editorial action, not my lack of more or of argument.

Rights (and their subsequent import) are retained, unarguably, by and for the living

Of course.

...whilst per the commission of specific liberties, a resultant loss of life may occur...as noted by me and further acknowledged by you prior.

No one denies that there are justifiable homicides or that people safeguarding right may risk and lose right on occasion in its defense. And neither of those approaches my argument against abortion in any substantive part.

You seem to keep calling forth this prescriptive declaration as if it has non-reproachable import.
It doesn't.

Where you keep a) failing to answer the argument offered and b) mischaracterizing my proffer, since I do a great bit more than that... But even in that, there is an argument you actually don't argue against, supra.

 

[quip]

Where you keep a) failing to answer the argument offered and b) mischaracterizing me. I don't simply declare a thing. It's an argument in itself and one you actually don't argue against, supra.

A rather weak one. QED

 

[Town Heretic]

A rather weak one. QED

Now that's a declaration and an unproven one.

 

[Rusha]

A rather weak one. QED

None of the anti-abortion arguments are weak ... you just don't like them because ... you are pro-abortion.

 

[quip]

Now that's a declaration and an unproven one.

Edit notwithstanding?

 

[ok doser]

Rusha, laws against murder, rape, assault, theft, etc can be enforced.

right, by setting out penalties and punishments for committing those crimes, without expecting to prevent every single one

But there is absolutely no way to do this against abortion.

of course there is, the same way we enforce laws against murder, rape, assault, theft, etc

by setting out penalties and punishments for committing the murder of an unborn child, without expecting to prevent every single instance

... if the government makes it illegal again, the abortion rate will INCREASE markedly ...

you've made this foolish statement before, often

how do you think that will work?

that by making abortion illegal, it will cause women to go out and deliberately become pregnant so that they can flout the law and get abortions? :idunno: