No invade is plenty accurate. Like invasive surgery/minimal invasive surgery are common terms to describe medical procedures. People consent all the time to doctors invading their body for healthcare needs. But abortion is not about the healthcare needs of the mother the vast majority of the time. It is about killing the life of the child inside of them.
Regardless about how she felt she still accepted the results of the election. Trump has yet to do so with respect to the 2020 election and almost certainly never will do so. Also, the you way that framed her her statement is extremely misleading, while the quote is is indeed accurate she made the statement in 2019 not anywhere close in time to her concession speech. Furthermore she was probably referring to Russian interference in the 2016 campaign and maybe even the Electoral College. She never questioned the legitimacy of the vote count or nor has she suggested that she was the victim of fraudulently cast votes. If you were trying to draw an analogy between her statement and Trump's statements regarding the 2020 election, the analogy fails miserably. This is the news story regarding Clinton's complaint in which she referred to the 2016 election as "stolen". Note the date was May 6, 2019. Rather inaccurate to say "then she turned around and called it a stolen election". Hillary Clinton suggests election 'stolen' from her, other Dems could suffer same fate
You have completely ignored the facts that outlawing abortion, or anything for that matter, isn't an effective deterrent. And that there's plenty of evidence that those with means will simply travel to where abortion is legal to get the procedure. Those without will suffer, however, poor reproductive health outcomes, including death and infertility. A botched, illegal abortion that leaves a young women infertile, and causes her not to later in life have children, even though she may want one, is the reason why abortion is woman's healthcare. All laws have unintended consequences. And when you look at all the evidence around making abortion illegal, what actually happens is no lives saved. But more lives lost in botched abortion attempts, and more future lives lost because more women have troubles getting pregnant later after unsafe, illegal abortion attempts. These are the outcomes you get when you make abortion illegal.
In his mind he probably thinks lives are saved by outlawing abortion since as far as he is concerned implicitly the life of even a very early first time fetus or embryo is the equivalent of the life of a pregnant woman. As far as the hardcore "prolife" community is concerned they are all human lives with an equal right to life.
The issue of killing the innocent is not about an effective deterrent. That said. If you make sure the ones doing the procedure do it legally. It will help… It always baffles me that some try to justify killing the most innocent for convenience on this idea. If doctors are not performing the procedure for convenience. It will be a deterrent.
There is just zero evidence that outlawing anything with a high demand actually accomplishes the goal of lowering said demand. Or lowering supply, which means lower demand. Like Prohibition, when demand is high, and the law is against supply, supply simply creates an illegal, black market. And again, all evidence says making abortion illegal simply doesn't lower abortion rates.
Nah, you just like it because it is emotionally charged. The procedure for most abortions is not invasive (it is usually done by pill these day), which is itself a different word with a different definition that is applicable ("involving entry into the living body (as by incision or by insertion of an instrument)") that does not exist for the word "invade." You just like the emotionally charged nature of that word. You like it because it sounds like the evil doctor is "invading" somebody against their will.
To try to equate Hillary’s remarks, whatever they were, advised or not, with Trumps words and actions shows you can’t really be taken seriously.
Just because you think Hillary refused to accept her loss was a little bit more classy doesn't change the fact that she absolutely has gone on several speaking engagements saying how the election was stolen from her. At least if you are going to try and make a point you can start by addressing her claims. There is no doubt Trump has a completely different style than Hillary. He is much more in your face while Hillary lurks in the dark corners. Different styles doesn't mean they aren't putting out the same message. I have no problem with you thinking that Trump took it a "Bridge Too Far" but how do you completely discount all the times dems have been election deniers. Now you are just being totally partisan and not willing to face a fact. Hard to have a fair and open debate when you deny what is so universally true. And by the way I couldn't care less if you take me seriously or not. As what usually happens with your side you always refer to the ole democratic playbook. If you can't win a debate start calling the other side names.
I really don't care that you have a different opinion about my post all I asked is that if you are going to quote me, than quote me factually. Don't pick and choose which words you want to use. it's deceitful and creates a false narrative. There are many posts you have made that I completely disagree with..so what!!. However, I have never picked and chosen which comments you made that fits my narrative. Either use the whole statement to make a point or don't use it at all. That's just common decency.
You mean the Russian disinformation she bought and paid for. She knew it was bogus from the very start and if you can't accept that then it is hard to have a serious conversation with you. Again, dems deny everything but they want pubs to admit there parties wrongs. Sorry the more you hide in a shell about the flaws in your party the longer it takes to have a fair debate.
So you don't care if your wanted actions doesn't accomplish what you wish, which is reduce abortions. Nor do you care that the real life consequences are things such as more dead and infertile women. All you really care about, then is virtue signaling? Because if you were truly worried about saving the lives of the most innocent, you would be working towards not making abortion illegal, which is ineffective. But rather, increasing things like comprehensive sex education and birth control policies. Because these do lower the number of unwanted pregnancies, and in essence, lowers the demand for abortions, which means less abortions.
If you enforce the law it will be effective to protect the most innocent. The fact you want to support the legal killing of the most innocent for convenience is heartbreaking. JD Vance nailed it in his debate with Ryan. Enforce the law and we will stop the problem. Now I get you do not support protecting the most innocent and want to legally allow the killing of them via abortion. But we will absolutely reduce the death of innocent children in the womb if we enforce a law against it for convenience.
That isn't how it worked in places abortion where was illegal, why would we think it will work differently here if we also make abortion illegal?
Which is how you justify utilizing words meant to elicit emotions, even if that is not applicable, such as declaring that the Doctor "invades" or "intrude" to try to make it sound worse. Ends justifying the means stuff.
How successful has the war on drugs been in stopping, or even slowing down drug use? How successful was Prohibition on stopping alcohol from flowing? And how successful have other abortion bans around the country, and previously in this country been at stopping abortion? Answer these questions, and ask, how effective would a new abortion ban be this time around? If simply enforcing the law actually worked, then illicit drugs would be difficult to find. There are nearly 500,000 Americans incarcerated on drug charges in this country. Yet, is it really difficult to secure any illicit drug you want? Same thing will happen with abortion. Not to mention, if/when you incarcerate the women who wish to abort, you will be arresting a lot of mothers, as about 50% of women who have an abortion already has at least one child. So, you're not only screwing up the mother's life. You're damaging their children as well. You're doing nothing but virtue signaling. The actual results show a completely different reality. One you refuse to see.
