They're always pro abuse.

It's never "no matter what" but just "when it's not me". When you have to constantly manipulate reality to match your morals, you end up in a world that only makes sense to you.

It's only an accessory charge that only applies when a fetus' death is caused alongside the one pregnant. It's then not about protecting the sovereignty of one's body but simply to inflict harm for harm's sake.

When you're done screaming into a mirror, let me know.

There are illegal abortions across many states. Feigning ignorance is more a reflection of your intelligence than mine.

Ah, my apologies. I understand now

Assaulting a woman that causes a miscarriage is not an abortion. I'm concerned that you think it is.

It's not legal, not in the way I would argue, so also... no. Try again? Maybe actually engage with the argument so you know the opposing position before crashing out.

Whataboutism isn't relevant here. I'm not arguing that legality and morality is always aligned, nice try though.

Do you always spend your time fantasizing about what pro-choice people might say/do?

I am able to understand their comment just fine, even with a couple typos. So, bad faith or poor reading comprehension--which is your excuse now?

Considering I'm not the person you asked and misinterpreting authors of a post is a common problem for AI... It does seem even more likely now.

The only way you wouldn't be able to understand that sentence from context clues is due to purposeful ignorance or.. being a bot.

No, it's just common sense to protect the information of minors to Internet strangers. Especially the kind who are fine justifying ALL harm/trauma/harassment to women and kids if it means a baby is born.

You don't even know what my position is, so how can it have changed?

I asked what percentage of Medicaid dollars went to abortions, despite the Hyde Amendment forbidding it.

No, I pointed out that your argument was in bad faith because the reasons why you say abortions are bad are almost never present. Then you tried to make your argument mine. My opinion on abortion is nothing that you've claimed thus far.

Yes, I volunteer with organizations that work to get kids adopted. If you had any knowledge of the field you'd know I'm not at liberty to discuss any information outside of vetted potential adopters.

Ironic to say "life saving" when those states had maternal and infant mortality more than triple.

Weird. I know dozens of children personally waiting in the system to be adopted. All between four and six, so I find that to be suspicious.

Such bad faith arguments... Not that I'm surprised. No, my argument doesn't hinge on the presence of cardiac cells nor does the mainstream left position.

What percentage went to abortions vs other services? I assume you recognize the Hyde Amendment as well and why they receive funds in the first place. Specifically attacking those who can't afford healthcare is an interesting tactic.

Also, most of PPs money comes from private donations and goes to support women in ways that no other non-profit does.

The "baby" at the time of the vast majority of terminations has none of the things you describe minus DNA. --And cellular life with unique DNA is quite a meaningless line to draw. We kill off cellular life ALL the time, from brain dead patients to embryos in a petri dish.

Let me guess, they went to China because they would only adopt a newborn? The list is only long for "desirable" ages/children.

That is only true if you ignore the significant rise in self-managed abortions and the rise in neighboring states where it is legal. Overall, abortions have risen nationwide, meaning the legislation has had the exact opposite effect.

Not in the legal sense, which is the only one that matters in such a debate.

**literature not legislation

I have never seen a single shred of evidence declaring that after implantation an embryo is 100% likely to survive to full-term gestation and delivery. In fact, I can point to many, many, pieces of legislation disproving that statement. Also, "literal" is not a variation of the definition.

Murder in the legal or moral sense? Clearly not legal, since it isn't designated as such even in the most 'right' leaning states.