The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Murder is not taking responsibility...

Murder is avoiding responsibility, in the harshest of terms; there is no more egregious means to avoid responsibility.

Problem is "Murder" is your opinion, not based on anything other than your bronze age superstitions.

Murder is: the morally unjustified taking of human life. Taking a life because that life is an inconvenience is not a sound moral justification.

That's a fact of sound reason.

But, in fairness... as a Relativist, there's no way you could have known that.

It's not a fact of law, however – where as a fact of law abortion is not 'murder.'

 

[koshergrl]

So, I see on this thread that the real wrong is that people get abortions rather than abstain from sex.

I'm curious. how are you going to implement the solution? I mean, this is going to take one hell of a sales job to convince people to stop having sex. Will this be a billboard campaign?

Don't have sex until you're married.

It worked for centuries.

 

[Boss]

I didn't say anything about "outlawing abortion." I personally couldn't support such a notion because of what you are saying. I believe abortion should be made very rare and not "on-demand." I think it is a ruse to claim "abortion rights" as a women's issue without having any regard whatsoever to the effects of abortion on the mental health of those who chose them. Especially late term abortions, where the mother has no doubt in her mind she is killing her unborn child. It is repugnant to me that we've developed this culture in society who thinks this is a right women have that needs protecting.

We have a right as humans to stand up for the injustices against the innocent.

Nobody has a late term abortion (actually a "late" abortion, there's no such thing as 'Late term".) unless something has gone wrong with the pregnancy.

In fact, 99% of abortions are performed before the 20th week.

And, yes, the right of a woman to make this decision SHOULD be protected from people who want to impose thier bronze age superstitions on them. No one should make that decision but the woman and her doctor.

Joe, if you want to believe that respecting human life is a bronze age superstition, that is entirely your business, but it illustrates the problem dealing with this issue as a society. Instead of being able to sit down like rational adult and discuss the issue on merit, you had rather interject religious bigotry and hate and be an extremist. You've conditioned yourself to think this is appropriate discourse. Fuck life if it gets in the way of sticking it to religious folks.

My point had nothing to do with when most abortions are performed. I'm intelligent enough to know that 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, even partial-birth abortions, are happening every single day in America. My point was specifically about mental health issues involving those who chose to have an abortion. We see a considerably greater (100x) risk of depression, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse later in life, from women who had an abortion. No one ever mentions this. Not only are we destroying the life of the unborn, in many cases we are destroying the life of the mother as well because they just can't live with what they did.

Joe, I am not a religious person, I don't oppose abortion because God says it's wrong, I oppose it because I believe human beings have the basic fundamental human right to life. That's not a bronze age superstition.

 

[Boss]

Okay. Fetuses still aren't human lives. They can't live separated from your body any more than an appendix or a tonsil. So abortion is more more murder than a tonsillectomy.

Yes, the fetus is a human life. I am sorry if you are too ignorant to grasp biology, but that is the only form of living organism a fetus can be, if it's inside a human. You're placing an artificial criteria on the human organism, claiming it isn't a human life because it can't survive outside the womb. When newborns arrive, do they care for themselves or are other humans obliged to care for them? Can a male and female newborn reproduce? Of course not, it will be 12-13 years before that can happen biologically, so are they technically living organisms? To be an organism it must be able to reproduce, therefore we can play semantics games and render anyone under age 12 a non-human organism. This is why it's important to stick with biology over semantics. Fetuses are human lives, they began being living human beings at point of conception.

A toenail and appendix are not living human organisms.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well, the baby is created from a man's sperm and a woman's egg, ergo, it "belongs" to both parents. And those two, in their own privacy, have their child.

Thank you. It stands to reason then, that if a child was not created privately by one person, it can't be destroyed by one person either.

That's the way it usually turns out because that male has already turned his back and walked away. If he's found he usually claims that it's not his child and will fight tooth and nail to not have to have anything to do with that child.

I know one man who claimed that his wife had a miscarriage before they broke up and there was no child. Problem was, that was a lie. The woman had to take her 2 year old child with her to court to prove what a liar that man was. He never even once tried to contact that child or be a part of her life in any way. Not even a birthday card. He never sent one penny to help raise his own flesh and blood.

The nutters will tell you that she should have kept her legs closed and that its not the man's responsibility.

Stupidly, they think men should "sow their wild oats" but women should be virgins. They can't explain how they can make that happen though.

They can't understand how stupid and ridiculous their statements are.

If women are supposed to remain virgins until they marry, who are all those single men going to have sex with to sow their wild oats?

Meanwhile millions of American children are growing up without their dad's love.

It's just fine for men to turn their backs and walk away from their own flesh and blood but it's not ok for women to have sex before marriage and they're not supposed to have any freedom to choose when and how many children they have.

Sounds like a lot of feminist tripe. Women are the gate keepers, the ones who will decide when a child is brought into the world, with whom, and under what circumstances. With great power comes great responsibility. If her choices led to the creation of life, she cannot erase her mistake by killing it. Men too must take full responsibility for their choice to create life by supporting that life into adulthood. That's why a lot of men pressure their girlfriends to abort, so they can get off the hook. That's how many abortions happen, a child is murdered because its parents conspired against its life to duck their responsibilities. So this isn't a "male" thing. Leave the feminist nonsense out.

Given the absurd drivel you post there is no way that you are married with 4 kids of your own. I doubt that you are of American Indian descent too. You don't even come across as a genuine Christian for that matter.

Far more likely is that you are just some poorly educated adolescent living in your parent's basement.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What they object to is the SCIENCE of creation.

KG pushing her bogus "creating science" agenda again.

 

[BlindBoo]

When does a person become a "person"? Apparently the surpreme court gets to decide this based on whatever arbitrary reason they see fit. At one time a fetus was a person, but that was before the Roe vs. Wade decision.
Perhaps in the future the supreme court will make a fetus a person again, or maybe it will be changed in the other direction and "it" will not be a person until 2 years after leaving the womb.

Perhaps there should be a constitutional amendment to state when a person becomes a person.

Link?

Why the red? do you think you are a mod?

link? Use some common sense. Abortion was illegal before Roe vs. Wade. Was it because a fetus at that time was considered a vegetable?

Abortion was legal in several states before Roe v. Wade.

 

[BlindBoo]

The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?

And, it seems that the answer depends on where you reside on the political spectrum
For Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, a major selling point of their worldview is in allowing moral relativity, self-determined morality, and 'if it feels good, do it."

The corollary of same is that one must never, never be judgmental.
And with abortion, the right to kill "it" depends on how you define....or rationalize....what "it" is.

1. The abortion argument revolves around whether or not life begins at conception. For those who wish to see abortion as the mothers’ right, or decision, then there must be a separate understanding of the terms ‘life’ and ‘person:’ such a distinction is widely accepted today on the secular Left.

a. If life begins at one time, and ‘personhood’ comes into being some time later, then, clearly, they are two different things. The validation of this thinking can be found in Roe v. Wade, which found that a fetus is human from the beginning, but not a person until some time later, at 24 weeks, “the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.”
Civil Rights of a Fetus - Law Philosophy and Religion

b. Dating back to antiquity, most cultures have assumed that a human being comprises both physical and spiritual elements: body and soul. Contemporary thought, it seems, has split these apart. In accordance with liberal or Postmodernist thinking, there is the autonomous self, the person versus the Modernist concept of a biochemical machine, the body.

1. 1. If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.
   2. An interesting comment is that of Joseph Fletcher, founder of the theory of situational ethics: “What is critical is personal status, not merely human status.” In his view, fetuses and newborns are “sub-personal,” and therefore fail to qualify for the right to life. Joseph Fletcher, “Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics,” p. ll. "It struck me how similar this idea is to the Nazi concept of “untermenschen” for Jews, gypsies, slavs, any non-aryans." Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three

1. As for the response ‘If you’re against abortion, don’t have one,” it’s not quite that easy…this rebuttal sidesteps the fact that once one accepts this view, it entails acceptance of the worldview that justifies same. It is less a private matter than one that dictates how people can behave toward each other...e.g., "if you don’t agree with robbing banks, then don’t rob any.”

If one has that that view so common in Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, .....this means that anything....anything, no matter how heartless or diabolical....one chooses to do with/to the pre-person stage.....it's all good.

That's why Liberals/Progressives/Democrats were fine with electing a President who had no problem with infanticide.

Life begins; like everything else... at the beginning. And the Beginning of human life is conception... and despite the Left's chronic attempt to debate, this is not even remotely debatable.

"Personhood" is a foolish rationalization which came about by a child. She was an anti-theist, a feminist and a fool who was attending Harvard and authored a paper which espoused the 'personhood' thesis.

As all rationalizations do... "Personhood" avoids reality... and specifically the reality that for there to be a right, that right must exists for everyone... and the exercise of that right cannot usurp the means of another to exercise their own rights. And Abortion strips a human being of its life, thus usurps the means of that human being to exercise it's right to its life.

And that is truly all there is to this...

A Woman's 'right to choose' is very real. It is exercised by the woman making the decision, thus the choice, in with whom, when and where she allows a man to enter her body through sexual intercourse. As long as the male is aroused, thus indicating his willingness to enter her... and BOTH are aware that the behavior in which they are about to engage is that which nature designed for procreation... and that the pleasure that is at hand is going to last a few minutes, but that the responsibility for the life that will likely be conceived is going to last for DECADES, at that point she has MADE her choice. At which time the right ends and the responsibilities BEGIN.

When nature designed us, having lots of babies was necessary for the survival of the species.

Yep...

And nothing's changed, accept people no longer respect themselves or their responsibilities to others, which is a manifestation of evil. And evil produces only chaos, calamity and catastrophe.

Now, there is only one set of ideas which reject objectivity. What is that Ideology?

In the answering of THAT, you'll find: The Problem.

What? Nothing's changed? Child rearing has completely changed. Modern science, the modern world and modern medicine have negated the need for having huge families in order for a few to survive into adulthood. Our sexual drives have not changed.

Tell that to the people who are dying faster than they can be born in Africa.

The idea that progressive baby killers want to save the population is a lie. They are most adamant about inflicting abortion upon OPPRESSED people. Rather than work to eliminate the horrific conditions that lead to the hideous mortality rate of poor countries, they instead advocate baby killing. To more effectively kill off those populations.

If only someone would come up with a machine that could turn human waste into potable water and electricity!!!!!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

When does a person become a "person"? Apparently the surpreme court gets to decide this based on whatever arbitrary reason they see fit. At one time a fetus was a person, but that was before the Roe vs. Wade decision.
Perhaps in the future the supreme court will make a fetus a person again, or maybe it will be changed in the other direction and "it" will not be a person until 2 years after leaving the womb.

Perhaps there should be a constitutional amendment to state when a person becomes a person.

Link?

Why the red? do you think you are a mod?

link? Use some common sense. Abortion was illegal before Roe vs. Wade. Was it because a fetus at that time was considered a vegetable?

Abortion was legal in several states before Roe v. Wade.

Great!

So you are allowing that the subject of abortion is one best handled by the "50 laboratories of democracy," rather than totalist federal government.

Will wonders never cease!
You might even admit that the origin of the nation centered around federalism....
"....the distribution of power in an organization (as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units..."
Federalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[BlindBoo]

"Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti- abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals."
-- Ayn Rand; from The Ayn Rand Letter

-

Oh I totally agree with every BIT of that... except where it rationalizes that the child in utero is not a child. Pretending otherwise rejects the responsibility intrinsic to being female.

No one should take on the raising of a child lightly, and as a result, no one should engage in the behavior designed for that which should not be taken lightly, lightly. Because as a great thinker one noted, human beings are not stock-farm Animals, we have the means to reason, to know that what should not be taken lightly... because there's a life at risk, which is not yours.

In short: You have no right to screw, when such results in someone besides you, getting screwed.

It's not yet a child, but it IS a life-form.

Child refers to a human life in the earlier stages of development. So it's a child, which be human life; ergo: A human being.

A fertilized egg is the earliest stage of development. Are you saying that is a child?

 

[BlindBoo]

When does a person become a "person"? Apparently the surpreme court gets to decide this based on whatever arbitrary reason they see fit. At one time a fetus was a person, but that was before the Roe vs. Wade decision.
Perhaps in the future the supreme court will make a fetus a person again, or maybe it will be changed in the other direction and "it" will not be a person until 2 years after leaving the womb.

Perhaps there should be a constitutional amendment to state when a person becomes a person.

Link?

Why the red? do you think you are a mod?

link? Use some common sense. Abortion was illegal before Roe vs. Wade. Was it because a fetus at that time was considered a vegetable?

Abortion was legal in several states before Roe v. Wade.

Great!

So you are allowing that the subject of abortion is one best handled by the "50 laboratories of democracy," rather than totalist federal government.

Will wonders never cease!
You might even admit that the origin of the nation centered around federalism....
"....the distribution of power in an organization (as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units..."
Federalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

No not at all. I offered no opinion on how best to handle abortion. "Was" is the key word. A historical fact ignored by the previous poster.

 

[BlindBoo]

20,000 years ago what was the chance a human baby would survive until age 5?

If you don't think we are a product of nature, take that up with Eyes "BOTH are aware that the behavior in which they are about to engage is that which nature designed for procreation"

What people existed 20,000 years ago?

Us. Homo Sapiens, at least 50,000 years ago:

Human - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Really? What civilizations existed 20,000 years ago? Where's the archeological evidence of humanity?

Humans have been on this earth for millions of years. New estimates as of 2007 from fossil evidence that humans have been on this earth over 4 million years.

You need to actually accept scientific fact though.

First Humans: Time of Origin Pinned Down

People build civilizations that leave archeological evidence. That's what our species does to survive. We are unique in our ability to fashion tools, invent and progress, form languages, and build societies. The archeological evidence does not point to humanity as we know it existing for millions of years. Not even close.

In January 1987, Rebecca Cann, Mark Stoneking, and Allan Wilson published a paper inNature that dropped a bombshell of our understanding of human evolution. Until then, the prevailing theory held that different groups of humans had evolved separately in different regions, beginning about two million years ago. Their groundbreaking work revealed all humans carried mitochondrial DNA in their cells that dated back to a single woman who had lived just 200,000 years ago. This woman was dubbed Mitochondrial Eve.

How Mitochondrial Eve connected all humanity and rewrote human evolution

Humans didn't start building lasting civilizations until we started farming and domesticating animals.

 

[Boss]

A fertilized egg is the earliest stage of development. Are you saying that is a child?

"Child" is a stage of human development. A fetus is no more a child than a teen is a geriatric. However, they are ALL human life. What we commonly refer to as "a fertilized egg" is somewhat of a misnomer because it is actually the fusing of egg and sperm cells and is already more than a singular egg cell. When this fusion of sperm and egg cells begins to generate new cells, it is officially and forever a living human organism.

Any debate on the termination of human life needs to be made on this basis in fact, that we ARE talking about human life. Now if we want to draw some distinction as to the "value" of that life based on level or stage it has reached, you think "Child" is appropriate, and that is fine. I would argue that we should just extend that on out to 18 years old. Why not? Save us the problem of having to raise the snot-noses! No more smart mouth teen delinquents! We can justify it by saying it's the parents right to have "post-birth abortions" and everything will be fine and dandy, right?

 

[JoeB131]

Joe, if you want to believe that respecting human life is a bronze age superstition, that is entirely your business, but it illustrates the problem dealing with this issue as a society. Instead of being able to sit down like rational adult and discuss the issue on merit, you had rather interject religious bigotry and hate and be an extremist. You've conditioned yourself to think this is appropriate discourse. Fuck life if it gets in the way of sticking it to religious folks.

I've conditioned myself to think that religion is fucking evil and stopping it at every oppurtunity is a great and noble cause. So if this sticks it to them, so be it. Fetuses aren't people.

My point had nothing to do with when most abortions are performed. I'm intelligent enough to know that 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, even partial-birth abortions, are happening every single day in America. My point was specifically about mental health issues involving those who chose to have an abortion. We see a considerably greater (100x) risk of depression, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse later in life, from women who had an abortion. No one ever mentions this.

No one ever mentions this because it's a bunch of lies being spread by the religions assholes.

Actual research shows most women who have abortions are just fine with it.

Abortion and Mental Health Myths and Realities

C. Everett Koop tried to find the mythical depressed abortion woman and never did.

Joe, I am not a religious person, I don't oppose abortion because God says it's wrong, I oppose it because I believe human beings have the basic fundamental human right to life. That's not a bronze age superstition.

NO, you're probably just one of these wingnuts who his terrified of women controling their own vaginas. When you fuckheads start taking care of the poor kids who ALREADY HERE, then I will take your concern about Fetuses seriously. Until then...

Yes, the fetus is a human life. I am sorry if you are too ignorant to grasp biology, but that is the only form of living organism a fetus can be, if it's inside a human. You're placing an artificial criteria on the human organism, claiming it isn't a human life because it can't survive outside the womb. When newborns arrive, do they care for themselves or are other humans obliged to care for them? Can a male and female newborn reproduce?

Again, you are getting off the track. A fetus removed from the womb 20 weeks or earlier WILL DIE. Every time. Therefore, it's not "a life".

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti- abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals."
-- Ayn Rand; from The Ayn Rand Letter

-

Oh I totally agree with every BIT of that... except where it rationalizes that the child in utero is not a child. Pretending otherwise rejects the responsibility intrinsic to being female.

No one should take on the raising of a child lightly, and as a result, no one should engage in the behavior designed for that which should not be taken lightly, lightly. Because as a great thinker one noted, human beings are not stock-farm Animals, we have the means to reason, to know that what should not be taken lightly... because there's a life at risk, which is not yours.

In short: You have no right to screw, when such results in someone besides you, getting screwed.

It's not yet a child, but it IS a life-form.

Child refers to a human life in the earlier stages of development. So it's a child, which be human life; ergo: A human being.

A fertilized egg is the earliest stage of development. Are you saying that is a child?

If by person, you're asking if it is human life in its earliest stages of development, then yes...

If by person, you're asking if it is sentient, fully developed human being, then no, it is not a person.

And while it is a human life, it is not YOUR life... . Thus 'you' have no RIGHT to destroy it.

You DO have a right not to conceive it tho'... , if that helps.

 

[Carla_Danger]

So, I see on this thread that the real wrong is that people get abortions rather than abstain from sex.

I'm curious. how are you going to implement the solution? I mean, this is going to take one hell of a sales job to convince people to stop having sex. Will this be a billboard campaign?

Don't have sex until you're married.

It worked for centuries.

No it didn't.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A fertilized egg is the earliest stage of development. Are you saying that is a child?

"Child" is a stage of human development.

Semantics... the fertilized human egg IS human life.

Your need to rationalize otherwise, is irrelevant.

That it is NOT your life, means that you've no right to kill it, unless it represents a threat to you. And then, only where you are innocent of causing the threat to yourself.

Meaning that you can't rob someone, then in the process of that action, claim that you had to kill the innocent, because they were a threat to your life. Just as ya can't reasonably claim that the pre-born baby is a threat to your life, after you willfully engaged in sexual intercourse, resulting in the conception of that life.

 

[Boss]

Joe, if you want to believe that respecting human life is a bronze age superstition, that is entirely your business, but it illustrates the problem dealing with this issue as a society. Instead of being able to sit down like rational adult and discuss the issue on merit, you had rather interject religious bigotry and hate and be an extremist. You've conditioned yourself to think this is appropriate discourse. Fuck life if it gets in the way of sticking it to religious folks.

I've conditioned myself to think that religion is fucking evil and stopping it at every oppurtunity is a great and noble cause. So if this sticks it to them, so be it. Fetuses aren't people.

My point had nothing to do with when most abortions are performed. I'm intelligent enough to know that 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, even partial-birth abortions, are happening every single day in America. My point was specifically about mental health issues involving those who chose to have an abortion. We see a considerably greater (100x) risk of depression, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse later in life, from women who had an abortion. No one ever mentions this.

No one ever mentions this because it's a bunch of lies being spread by the religions assholes.

Actual research shows most women who have abortions are just fine with it.

Abortion and Mental Health Myths and Realities

C. Everett Koop tried to find the mythical depressed abortion woman and never did.

Joe, I am not a religious person, I don't oppose abortion because God says it's wrong, I oppose it because I believe human beings have the basic fundamental human right to life. That's not a bronze age superstition.

NO, you're probably just one of these wingnuts who his terrified of women controling their own vaginas. When you fuckheads start taking care of the poor kids who ALREADY HERE, then I will take your concern about Fetuses seriously. Until then...

Yes, the fetus is a human life. I am sorry if you are too ignorant to grasp biology, but that is the only form of living organism a fetus can be, if it's inside a human. You're placing an artificial criteria on the human organism, claiming it isn't a human life because it can't survive outside the womb. When newborns arrive, do they care for themselves or are other humans obliged to care for them? Can a male and female newborn reproduce?

Again, you are getting off the track. A fetus removed from the womb 20 weeks or earlier WILL DIE. Every time. Therefore, it's not "a life".

A fetus removed from the womb 20 weeks or earlier WILL DIE. Every time. Therefore, it's not "a life".

Then how in the hell can it "DIE?"

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Joe, if you want to believe that respecting human life is a bronze age superstition, that is entirely your business, but it illustrates the problem dealing with this issue as a society. Instead of being able to sit down like rational adult and discuss the issue on merit, you had rather interject religious bigotry and hate and be an extremist. You've conditioned yourself to think this is appropriate discourse. Fuck life if it gets in the way of sticking it to religious folks.

I've conditioned myself to think that religion is fucking evil and stopping it at every oppurtunity is a great and noble cause. So if this sticks it to them, so be it. Fetuses aren't people.

My point had nothing to do with when most abortions are performed. I'm intelligent enough to know that 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, even partial-birth abortions, are happening every single day in America. My point was specifically about mental health issues involving those who chose to have an abortion. We see a considerably greater (100x) risk of depression, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse later in life, from women who had an abortion. No one ever mentions this.

No one ever mentions this because it's a bunch of lies being spread by the religions assholes.

Actual research shows most women who have abortions are just fine with it.

Abortion and Mental Health Myths and Realities

C. Everett Koop tried to find the mythical depressed abortion woman and never did.

Joe, I am not a religious person, I don't oppose abortion because God says it's wrong, I oppose it because I believe human beings have the basic fundamental human right to life. That's not a bronze age superstition.

NO, you're probably just one of these wingnuts who his terrified of women controling their own vaginas. When you fuckheads start taking care of the poor kids who ALREADY HERE, then I will take your concern about Fetuses seriously. Until then...

Yes, the fetus is a human life. I am sorry if you are too ignorant to grasp biology, but that is the only form of living organism a fetus can be, if it's inside a human. You're placing an artificial criteria on the human organism, claiming it isn't a human life because it can't survive outside the womb. When newborns arrive, do they care for themselves or are other humans obliged to care for them? Can a male and female newborn reproduce?

Again, you are getting off the track. A fetus removed from the womb 20 weeks or earlier WILL DIE. Every time. Therefore, it's not "a life".

A fetus removed from the womb 20 weeks or earlier WILL DIE. Every time. Therefore, it's not "a life".

Then how in the hell can it "DIE?"

LOL! Oops.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Grow up, learn that no one wants to "control women's bodies" and that's not what this is about. Reasonable people who want to reach a solution our civilized society can accept, are not impressed with militant-style protest chants. Ethical and moral people in society are not going to accept exterminating a million Americans every year out of vanity and convenience. That won't happen forever, we will eventually put an end to it because it's not right and we know it's not.

Here's the problem.

No society has ever been able to outlaw abortion effectively.

Maybe you need to look up Romania's attempt to outlaw abortion AND birth control. It failed, miserably. Women found ways to get abortions in a Communist Dictatorship determined to stop them.

Of course for most on the social right it's not about ending abortion, it's about using the practice as a political weapon, a way to control others and compel conformity.