Getting back to the abortion issue i.e. Roe overturned..

You say fault like pregnancy is a bad thing. Both parents are responsible for assembling a child and both parents are responsible to both the kid and each other. That's the way it is supposed to be.

And it's disturbing to me how some pro-abortionists fawn over the kids they let live-

"Precious us such a precious kid! He means everything to me! Not like the last kid that I had scrambled up and sucked out of my womb with a Shop Vac"

You just can't really trust a person like that.

 

If you want to bring men into the conversation then start acknowledging the fact that men have no say in abortion or the fact that they are forced to take responsibility if the woman decides to keep the child. Unlike women who are able to abdicate responsibility through abortion or even adoption if the man is not allowed to sign the birth certificate. NO ONE argues that men should not take responsibility. That is a leftist strawman argument.

Leftists need to start either acknowledging the above, and start acknowledging that women are just as responsible for creating that human life as the man is.

 

Where did I make that argument? Oh right. I didn't. Try again.

But I'm sure you consider it completely justified to use the coercive power of the State to impose your extremist view upon everyone.

 

read it

 

Why isnt it about drinking? If restricting guns is about saving lives, then alcohol is an even bigger cause of death. 'No one needs booze' ...right?

 

guns that take lives when used as a means of winning a fight or argument.
IE, taking the right of life away.

One drinking booze in itself is not taking any rights away.

None of this has to do with the topic, so my last response on this.

 

It is if you drunkenly slam ur car into someone. Are you suggesting gun control is more important than alcohol control because alcohol deaths tend to be accidents and gun deaths tend to be intentional? Because thats the only difference insofar as their effects on public safety and loss of life.

Personally I dont think an intentional homicide is objectively worse for society than a negligent homicide.

 

As I said several posts ago.

 

You didnt answer that question several posts ago either.

Are gun suicides worse than alcohol suicides?
Are shooting attacks worse than drunk driving accidents?

They cause a similar amount of injuries and deaths, so if one is worse than the other, an explanation as to why is necessary.

...because it seems to me the only explanation is some people dont like guns, but do like alcohol, and thus arent being objective in the reasoning for making laws, but are rather trying to enforce their personal moral preferences onto others, just like with abortion.

 

I don't know or don't care.
We make all kinds of laws to curb drinking and driving. It requires proof of being able to operate in order to drive and a certain age to legally drink.

So, we should address gun violence with similar approaches to curbing drinking/driving violence.

 

Now that's a new one:

 

So back to the ol 'treat guns like driving' argument...

That would mean I can own and operate any gun that exists so long as its not stolen, but only on private property, and to operate a gun on public property, it would have to be registered and I would need a liscense.

...and violations are subject to fines rather than jail time.

Is that the sort of gun control you want? Because thats how we do with driving cars. Im open to discussing that sort of gun control.

 

You clearly have no rational arguments for the United States following the practice of El Salvador, Nicaragua, or Iraq where the State has seized control of wombs.

 

I have science. If that is not a rational argument enough for you then you are the one that has no rational arguments. Science trumps your emotionalist argument. Sorry. Facts are facts, and they don't care about your feelings. And you have brought no facts to the table.

 

What "science" do you have as your pretext for your politicians seizing control of wombs and dictating to everyone as in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Iraq?

My "emotional" argument is for Americans to be free of government coercion that either proscribes or prescribes abortion.

It is a personal, private matter if and until viability is achieved.

 

No womb is seized, that is nothing more than hyperbolic nonsense. Both genetics and biology show that a unique human life begins at conception - These are scientific Facts, ones you cannot dispute honestly. And innocent humans have a Right to Life, if you believe otherwise then you are saying that the government has the legitimate power to take your life at any point in time for no reason at all.

Government has an obligation to protect innocent life. If you believe otherwise, then you are saying that the government has no legitimate power to enforce murder laws. Especially if it invades privacy.

 

Yeah, that totalitarian state won't let you kill your neighbor either and she is such a bitch! What is this world coming to?

It's not like you want to drag her out into the square and hang her. You just want to kill her in her sleep, you know, privately. What's wrong with that?

 

Thanks for the reminder.

Bowerbird, when does a mother's responsibility to her child begin?

 

I've expressed the consensus view of freedom-loving Americans on the topic.

A majority of Americans back abortion rights

64% of U.S. adults oppose overturning Roe v. Wade

Majority of Americans oppose bans of medication abortion drugs​

If you have contempt for them for not surrendering to the authoritarian dictates of totalitarian regimes in El Salvador, Nicaragua, or Iraq where politicians have seized control of wombs, so be it.

 

Fertilized eggs dont have any rights as defined in the constitution. This is about religious nuts and Christian zealots, forcing their beliefs on the rest of Americans with same emotional passion as Supreme Court full of vegans telling Americans we shouldn’t be eating meat, because slaughtering animals is cruel and evil.

 

do you realize that most commercially available hormonal birth control pills in the United States prevents implantation? That means an egg can be fertilized, meeting the definition of conception, but not be able to implant. The way you are defining murder, and what the government should do about protecting fertilized eggs implies that the majority of birth control pills should be illegal. That’s insane.

 

Except when the original decision was wrong. We certainly don't what to got back to Fred Scott or Separate, but Equal domains, do we?

Ruth Bader Ginsberg also found problems with the original Roe decision.

 

If I was scared of having to give birth I would probably not partake in the one action that puts me in that situation

 

Individual rights are the cornerstone of America, the principle being that all individuals have equal natural rights. You know, "..among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Heck, the right to life is the first individual right they listed.

A fetus is an individual. The science is clear.

 

The USFWS enforces the 1940 Eagle Protection Act.

If you so much as cause a mated pair of eagles to abandon their nest it is up to $100,000 fine and one year imprisonment first time offense.

https://www.fws.gov/law/bald-and-golden-eagle-protection-act

This all about people who think they can fornicate without consequences by destroying the evidence.