Yes, that’s a great idea. Just repeat what obviously wasn’t clear enough before, in the hope that it will suddenly make sense now that you (in a stroke of blinding insight into the components of successful explanation) have put it in bold and italics. I bet you’re one of those people who, when talking with someone that doesn’t speak English, just says the same over and over again, but LOUDER each time, in the vain hope that somehow the sufficient volume will create some sort of telepathic effect. I asked you when you would make an exception for rape, and you reply with a statement about when you would not make an exception. Are you really this lacking in common sense?
So all of this excess of verbiage was to tell me that you would not make an exception in any case? Why didn’t you just say that? Do you have some sort of bizarre brain disorder that prevents you from directly stating what you want to say? If you don’t think that rape is relevant, why did you say this
I’ve been reading this for quite some time, and it seems to me that the basic question boils down to this…if you believe that life begins at conception, then it is inconsistent to allow abortions in cases where the conception occurred in less than favorable conditions…obviously. Most anti-abortion activists would agree with this, however, since the American people seem to believe that this rape/incest exception is a necessity, the anti-abortionists are willing to compromise on that point in order to get the more basic agenda through.
Second, why should this “difficult to enforce” thing make a difference as to whether or not the whole rape/incest exception is put into a law? I agree that it would be extremely complicated and be easy to abuse, but so are our perjury laws. Those are probably THE most difficult cases to prosecute, ask any attorney, yet we still have them on the books. So should we get rid of the perjury laws simply because they are difficult to enforce and people find ways to get around them all the time?
The quote isn’t ambiguous in and of itself, it’s that it simply does not address my questions except in an indirect way. If I had answered your question with the statement “I don’t understand what your position is”, that would not be an unambigious statement, but it would be an ambiguous answer, because you would not be able to conclude from it what the answer to your question is.
If you understood, you don’t have a legitimate question.
You are fucking around, wasting time, impeding real thought. Since you admit you know better, this makes you a troll. You’re just playing for attention.
What part of “I understood what you said, but it doesn’t answer my question” do you not understand? Just because one statement is unambiguous, that doesn’t mean your entire position is unambiguous. I did not ask you whether you would make an exception for rape after the first trimester, I asked whether you would make an exception ever.
I’m not the one that has drawn a simple question into a protacted argument. You could have prevented all of this by simple saying “yes” or “no”.
The original Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade wanted an abortion because she claimed she had been raped.
She was lying.
I will dig up the cite if anyone cares to dispute the point.
The decision in Roe v. Wade found that states did not have the right to regulate abortion under any circumstances during the first two trimesters of a pregnancy.
For the record, I find two positions to be logically inconsistent.
The first is that a fetus is a separate human life, and abortion can be allowed in the case of rape or incest. This amounts to killing a child for the crimes of their father.
The second is saying that women (and men) have a right to choose whether or not to have or support abortions, but funding abortions with public money. If I do not support an organization, taking money from me forcibly and giving to that organization means I have no right to choose whether or not to support it.
So you are suggesting that there be boxes on your tax form where you check off where you want your tax dollars to go? For every single budget item, in complete detail? And doing your taxes takes too long already?
Sorry, that’s why you elect a legislature and if the majority of elected officials want your money spent in a particular way you have given your tacit approval, as a resident of your country, of what they do. Don’t like that? Find a country that handles it better or get a majority of your countrymen to agree with you.
Partial birth abortions are very rarely used for birth control and I am tired of political postures that imply they are. I have two SILs who were in situations where one would be recommended. In both cases the eight-month fetus was severely damaged. Not retarded in such a way that there was ANY CHANCE AT ALL that “quality of life” would enter into the decision. Simply put, these were lumps of tissue without brains and would not survive outside the womb except on a respirator and, even then, only for a very short while. In one case the doctor induced labor and the mother lives with memories of going through the whole birth process to produce a dead baby. She even gave it a full funeral. In the other case the mother opted fot the procedure villified by “pro-life” activists. Both babies were “wanted”—planned and provided for. Both mothers were traumatized by their loss and the decision they had to make. Turning either into a criminal for political gain is a callous and heartless act.