This is post #361, and that question was answered at post #135. You just don’t like the answer. And I don’t think, 226 post later, anyone’s mind is going to be changed.
It was never answered because you refuse to explain how it “protects” the unborn to refuse to punish the women who “murder” the unborn. You keep crowing that it’s all about “protecting” the unborn, yet when it comes right down to it, your plan (that you claim isn’t your plan, so whose is it?) will not and cannot protect the unborn because you will not and cannot take any steps to prevent a woman from seeking an abortion.
Joe Schmoe wants to stop people from kerfluffing. Lots of people kerfluffle. He decides to get a law passed to make kerfluffing a serious crime. But there will be no penalties for those who kerfluffle. There will be penalties for aiding a kerfluffle, but not only is self-kerfluffing possible, investigations into known kerfluffing will be extremely difficult. How much kerfluffing will he prevent by passing the law?
Seriously, the only excuse I can come up with for most of this thread is that the anti-abortion people want some feel good legislation to appease the throngs of anti-abortion voters.
I do not like your answer because it has no logic or rationale beyond political expediency. It makes zero sense from any rational viewpoint beyond political grandstanding for a particular constituency. If you think I am wrong about that and there is a logical rationale beyond “the law can’t be passed in any other form” (I am not quoting you…just highlighting that part) then feel free to enlighten me.
I doubt you will though. This entire thread you have been unwilling to stake out your position and defend it. Mostly you have contented yourself with one or two line zingers to goose others. You have avoided direct questions put to you time and again so you are right, I do not like your answers. Not because they disagree with my viewpoints but because they can only be considered answers in the most generous use of the word.
If you don’t believe in political expediency, well, too bad. But it is an answer to the question, and it is realistic. I quite disagree with you: political expeidency is VERY logical. Supporting an abortion law that would never pass (i.e., targeting pregnant women) is very illogical.
Why is equal protection violated if every woman who seeks an abortion is exempt from prosecution? Equal protection recognizes that there are different “categories” of people who can legitimately be effected differently by a law.
Now I see. I provided that cite as evidence that a pro-life position needn’t be religious, not as a cite that is necessarily consistent with my position. As a matter of fact, I specifically noted I’m religious. Those guys don’t speak for me.
Do you think this “evidence” concludes that religious people, on the whole, are less likely to want to help people? You need to try again. If you want to use the Pope as an example, are you excluding Catholic charities and hospitals? Be consistent.
Can you quote the part of the COnstituion for me that supports what you think it supprts? Thanks.
I noted it was hypocritical. Are you suggesting I’m making some different argument?
Fine. This would still be a logical fallacy, however.
I just noticed this part of your post. No, I don’t believe my post implied that and did not for a second consider that it would be taken the way you did. I expressly noted that I was responding to the notion that religious people are opposed to spending money and energy. Not sure how much more explicit that could be.
I’m not a virgin, I was drugged and raped (not brutalized, not sodomized), I’m not a religious person and as a lesbian I can’t get married. I’m a tough chick and am not “messed” up, but I don’t want to carry the child of my rapist.
Do I fit Sen. Napoli’s profile? Doesn’t look that way to me, so every woman isn’t allowed the ‘exception’, only the ones that Napoli feels are ‘special’.
Do you still believe all women are treated equally under this law, according to Sen. Napoli’s rules of exception?
C’mon. The guy’s asked what type of case he would consider worthy of exception and he spins this fancy of a religious girl, a virgin, of course, beaten half to death, fucked up the ass (of course), who’s now been driven insane by the event.
Do you consider that example as being a realistic?
Exactly. He didn’t just say, “Oh, a rape victim.” He invented an extreme scenario, and then said well she would be an exception. If any rape victim would be an exception, why didn’t he say that? Why use a standard that so few women would ever be able to meet? My guess is because he doesn’t want the standard to be met, that he gave this example because this is the only type of exception he’d make.
And, of course, it would please the people who want to punish the sluts.
I believe someone else already posted it, so don’t waste my time. So far, you really have had nothing to say, and nothing to back it up - no logic and no trustworthy cites. I’m bailing out - this thread is no longer worth any of my time. I had a fairly long post earlier in the thread, and none of it was addressed or refuted. So, have fun, see ya around.
IIRC one of the arguments used to oppose RU486 was/is “it’s a dangerous drug with terrible side effects”.
Brilliant strategy, make it difficult to get, and too scary to use, a self-closing loophole.