Madanthonywayne said:
Even someone who does consider killing an embryo murder would not support such a policy as it would be impractical.
So, while it sounds great as a political slogan, it's too expensive for reality?
A similiar situation might be the policy of the police to not investigae a missing person report until the person has been missing a few days. The police refusal to start searching for someone missing only a few hours does not indicate their approval of kidnapping, it just indicates that they live in the real world and have limited resources. Despite your fondness for ideological purity, practicality must be considered as well.
You should have left that in the trough with the rest of the swill. It's not a matter of purity, but one of integrity. If impracticality is a reason to not try to do important things, where would humanity be?
It's not avoidance. Your questions are simply absurd and impractical.
Says you, who has a vested interest in never answering the question.
I would suggest, then, that you drop the "baby killing" rhetoric, since any sort of integrity about it is too impractical.
You might just as well say we should have a speed limit of 5 mph. Just think, there would be ZERO traffic fatalities at 5 mph! Anyone opposed to traffic fatalities should support a speed limit of 5 mph, or they're a hypocrite!
Traffic fatalities, much like unplanned pregnancies, plane crashes, cougar attacks, and the occasional spontaneous combustion, are part of the toll of modern society.
That people are unwilling to face up to the obligations of the slogans they advocate highlights the fact that these are
mere slogans. It's not something these people actually, genuinely believe, but rather something they're willing to pretend to believe because they think it will get them something else they want.
Which brings us back to authority. Dominion. Control over fellow human beings.
And in the meantime, as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, this clamor for dominion focuses on
women, and aims to bring unwanted children into the world, where many of them are neglected and abused. But, of course, that's not the anti-abortion people's problem, is it? After all, the abuse and neglect of those who have made it to the world is an entirely separate issue from trying to force more children into the world to face abuse and neglect.
Saying that it's too hard to resolve the implications of what you say so the question of those implications is therefore invalid is ... well .... It's a cheap dodge. Nothing more than horsepucky politics.
You know, American slave owners often actually believed that the measures they implemented to keep slaves ignorant and tractable were
compassionate measures. Some who argued against women voting said that it was cruel to women that they should vote. There are those who actually believe that if you can bring a woman to orgasm, then it isn't rape. Do you understand? There is what people call it, and then there is what it is.
I mean, there are some who still insist what happened in Vietnam wasn't a war.
And while I don't deny that there are significant practical challenges to the implementation of the necessary policies reflecting the "life begins at conception" and abortion as "baby-killing" rhetoric, that's the point.
If these people genuinely believed what they were shoveling, they would show it in other ways, too.
Ding-ding. Hop on the trolley.