If you support abortion sue to bodily autonomy then you have to support abortion up until birth

Why would I deny, what is by your own description a “left wing source”?

 

Why would you deny? Seriously - you do it frequently.

 

Millions is always a large number.

 

And hundred millions is two orders of magnitude larger.

 

No I critique the evidence but I do read and review

 

Doesn't negate my point. 20 million crazies or 9 million, it is a lot of crazies, no matter how you slice it.

I find it amusing you are going to go to lengths to deny there are a ton of crazies on the right.,

Sorry, you'll just have to live with it.

 

The evidence that Government/Big Climate provides you; and you defend it unquestioningly.

 

I just follow systematic review’s especially if it incorporates meta analysis

BTW fair warning

I have promised the moderators that I will make their job easier by not quoting posts I have reported

 

And still a small percent of the entire population.

Nope I'm just applying democratic principles at defending their right to express their opinion.
To me the crazies are those that champion abortions when every pharmacy in the country has a huge birth control aisle and doctors are willing to write prescriptions for several types of contraception.
.

 

which agrees with your opinion.

Threats? You're gonna make empty reports.

 

Then your claim is an empty one, as such, dismissed as unsubstantiated.

 

You don't get to make that call. I asserted and proved my point; you try to dance around the point, toss out non sequiturs and ignore the facts before you.

 

You did not substantiate your claim thus

Dems coerced their candidates to support on-demand abortion as a requirement to get party support.

Unless you can, your claim is unfounded and dismissed. By that, I mean it's a vacuous claim, unfounded.

Millions of persons on the right who would force a 12 year old girl give birth against her will if her Uncle raped her is a lot of crazies, that is a fact you ignore.

sorry 'bout the fact that your side has 4 times has many as my side who won't accept a rape/incest exception for abortions.

 

. Again, you don't get to make the rules. Nor do your silly non sequiturs. Your appeals to emotion logical fallacy changes nothing. 80-90% of the adult popular supports the availability of abortion, either with no, or some reasonable requirements.

Oh, and by the way - link >. you might find this interesting <--

 

[null

 

Hmmm, but you didn't mention that the vast majority of those are Democrats and left leaning independents.

i'm not making any rules. 'dismissed' simply means I reject your claim given your failure to substantiate it. Please do not make stuff up.

As for your link, here's a summary by webpilot:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Thomas Perez has ignited controversy by stating that every Democrat should be pro-choice. This statement has been criticized by pro-life advocates who argue that it is equivalent to being "pro-abortion." Perez's statement has been seen as excluding pro-life Democrats from the party, with critics claiming that there is no room for dissent or exceptions on the issue of abortion within the Democratic Party. The National Right to Life President, Carol Tobias, argues that Perez's stance sends a message that pro-life Democrats are no longer welcome in the party. It is pointed out that 28 percent of Democrats believe that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, highlighting the division within the party on this issue. The question is raised as to whether high-profile Democrats who identify as pro-life, such as Senators Joe Donnelly, Bob Casey, and Joe Manchin, will stand up to Perez and run as pro-life candidates without DNC support, switch parties, or change their position on abortion. The controversy surrounding Perez's statement began when he criticized Senator Bernie Sanders for supporting Democrat Heath Mello, who had opposed pro-abortion legislation in the past. Perez emphasized the need for loyalty to the party's stance on abortion and called on all Democratic candidates to do the same. Some top Democrats, such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, have suggested that there can be differing opinions on abortion within the party, while also affirming that the party is strongly pro-choice.​

When you wrote:

Dems coerced their candidates to support on-demand abortion as a requirement to get party support.

I thought you meant 'on-demand' as any point in the pregnancy'.

If that is what you meant, the statement is false. But if it's just Roe V wade type of policies, then to that I say BFD, it's a traditional democrat position. The article doesn't conflict with that view. However, I would be concerned about some dems in red states, such as Manchin in West VA, if such a DNC policy is wise. It might cause him and a few others to jump ship. But, I don't think the DNC can compel any candidate to comply with the DNC. There's going to be some head butting on this issue, for sure.

 

Nor have you PROVED IT. you'r making unsubstantiated guesses.

I'm not. It' completely substantiated.

unsubstantiated nonsense.

How in the world could you come up with that nonsense?
Sorry, discussion is over. You pitiful attempts to spin and fabricate have failed.[/quote][/quote]

 

And that's the core issue that's a problem for a lot of us. The life that PHYSICALLY exists doesn't change based upon the mother's feelings about it. To decide the consequence for killing a human life based upon whether it is wanted or not, is a moral problem. If a drunk driver crashes into a car carrying a woman with a 10 week wanted pregnancy and is charged for killing the fetus because the woman WANTED to bring it to term, yet a woman CHOOSING to kill the a 10 week fetus via abortion is not charged, there is a dichotomy there, because the fetus is the exact same LIFE in both cases. To say one is ok and one is not ignores physical reality, and it is a very slippery slope to allow the value of a human life to be determined by feelings.

 

I agree, allowing the value of a human life to be determined by feelings is a slippery slope.

But the ones who are using emotion is the "pro life" crowd. The push for things like "heartbeat bills" that have nothing to do with a heartbeat. They talk about "unborn children" when there is no such thing as an "unborn child"

Prior to viability there is no human in the womb.

 

That is not a fact, it is a matter of opinion and also semantics, and what drives a lot of this debate. There are legitimate arguments that can be made based upon science to argue in either direction discounting religion entirely. Either way, accepting this as what you perceive to be the legitimate opinion, would you agree that any laws which would punish someone for killing a fetal life prior to viability (other than the woman via abortion) are incorrect? It seems to me that would be a logical conclusion to the point of view that there is no human in the womb.

 

Its very simple, if the woman doesn't want it inhabiting her body she has every right to have it removed even if this results in its death

 

Scientific studies of reproductive coercion demonstrate HIGHER incidences of NEGATIVE outcomes for the UNWANTED kids compared to those children who were WANTED.

 

It's a rather hypocritical view, since you are determining the value of a human life by feelings in determine whether or not to impose risks and dangers on a woman by forcing her to maintain a pregnancy, rather than her deciding whether or not to take those risks. Further, in any scenario so far given where an outside agency causes the death of the fetus the woman is carrying, neither that fetus nor the woman is violating the other's bodily autonomy. Even in a case where the woman was going to get an abortion, and you were to slip her a drug that causes no other damage to her other than to induce a miscarriage, you are still in violation of her bodily autonomy since she did not consent to you putting that drug into her body.

 

That is incorrect. There is indeed a human in the womb. It's certainly not a dog. However, the fact of the fetus being a human has no bearing on the fact that it is using the woman's bodily resources, and as such is subject to her continued or withdrawn consent. The fact of the fetus being a human also holds no bearing on whether it is a being yet or not, but that status too does not affect the autonomy position.

 

What you do you think makes something a human?

It's certainly not DNA or else every skin cell I slough off would be a human.