I agree that better sex ed, and birth control availability are good things. I just don’t agree with every form of both. For example, pushes to make birth control over the counter seem ill-advised. The possible side effects are very dangerous, and more common than you would think. My wife nearly died from birth control…

Your point is one of the best on the subject, but I think it should point us to a particular solution rather than an arbitrary designation for a few reasons:

You are right that legalizing abortion does not require individuals to abort, but allowing murder doesn’t require individuals to commit murder. We as a society make choices that involve harming others illegal, not merely leaving them as something people can choose to do what they wish.

While the idea isn’t totally crazy, I don’t see how it helps, or how it would be fully legal without major revision, which makes me see it as yet another governmental bloat/ regulation that isn’t worth it.

Abortion is the termination of a genetically human entity, that is neither its mother nor its father. If a criminal kills a pregnant mother and their unborn child, they are charged with a double homicide. Scientifically the fetus is a human entity, and while portions of our law are contradictory, a significant portion…

Can you rephrase that - I think your first 2 sentences are missing something.

Not an adequate response. Try this one - I’m anti murder, so I won’t murder anyone, but I won’t force my beliefs about murder on anyone else. Religion has nothing to do with the topic - it is about whether a fetus is human - something science has certainly affirmed to a point (after the point of viability) and cannot…

There would be many ways to make a gun fire just 15-30 rounds per minute. One would be some sort of screw mechanism that delayed the next round’s chambering for 2 seconds, which would not require any increased difficulty of use. Gun manufactures are clever - giving them a reasonable set of restrictions they could…

Point by point:

This has to be one of the most racist things I’ve ever read:

This conclusion follows EXACTLY from Jim’s argument. Here are his claims:

Even if you use the parasite, you have 2 distinctions from a normal parasite:
- It is a human being, not a non-human organism
- Most parasites are accidentally acquired. A fetus is the product of a choice (except in the case of rape, which represents <1% of abortions) willingly made by the mother and father

How the fetus came to be in the position is absolutely important. Consider the two potential scenarios:

Give me other data to work with. I didn’t claim to have the best data - I gave the first google result with a study of >10,000 people, not cherry picked data. Show me a report with statistics to support your claim.

I fail to see the inconsistency: every conservative I know thinks that what the Vegas shooter did was evil, and we all agree it is illegal. We all agree that had he not killed himself, he should spend the rest of his life behind bars, if he isn’t executed for his disregard for human life. Life remains #1, liberty #2,…

Hopefully there can be some frank discussion rather than just party line arguing - it looks like conservatives are ready to consider restricting these, so there may be hope.

So, if the fetus could survive outside the womb, but is still in the womb its not human yet?

Conservatives believe fundamentally that the government is established to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

“Privacy. It’s protected by the Constitution. Stop trying to take it away.”

And that would be? The problem is any distinction that separates a fetus from a human equally applies to another group of human persons we decide to protect. You can speak in vague distinctions, but if you attempt a precise definition it falls apart - so what is it that makes a fetus not a human person?