O-Trap;1848354 wrote:Okay, it appears you missed the analogy. No worries.

The toothpaste coming out of the tube is, in my analogy, representative of abortion being made legal in the first place.

It's not an unreasonable position, whether we're speaking on this topic or some other topic, to wish something had happened differently without thinking it should be changed now, particularly if things that have taken place between then and now would prevent the perceived benefit from coming about.

In simpler terms, making it illegal now might be seen as not having the same effect has keeping it illegal then, because the era we live in now has been the result of it being legal for several decades, and as such, the variables aren't all the same.

Con_Alma;1848355 wrote:I can't honestly speak to that being the case or not. I don't find it particularly of great importance whether it is or is not.

sleeper;1848359 wrote:Glad you are complicit with Donald Trump and his Republican cronies.

Con_Alma;1848360 wrote:I never thought that would make you glad. I have learned something today.

sleeper;1848358 wrote:... The only difference between legal and illegal abortion is the SAFETY of women....

Con_Alma;1848362 wrote:Which is one contributor to not having a desire to go back and have the decision reversed. I personally have stated multiple times that's not something I'm interested in. It's also been mentioned several times that abortions will occur no matter the law.

sleeper;1848361 wrote:You can add treating women as equals to that list. We had ~56M people who voted for Mr. ***** Grabber.

Con_Alma;1848365 wrote:I believe in treating women as equals too!

I wasn't one of those 56 million people who voted for President Trump but as I've stated before if he continues his record of nomination conservative judges and continues his efforts reflecte in his EOs then he may come closer to earning my vote should he run again.

sleeper;1848364 wrote:Okay, so again why do you support candidates that want to reverse the decision? That seems to be very important to you.

sleeper;1848366 wrote:Conservative judges who want to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Can you stop spinning in circles?

Con_Alma;1848367 wrote:I support some candidates that are pro-life. That's different than someone who wants to reverse the Roe V Wade decisions. Even Judge Gorsuch was very clear on such a stance.

Con_Alma;1848368 wrote:I'm not spinning. I am responding to your post.

I can't think of any that I have supported that want to overturn the decision. That's not going to happen and is completely a waste of effort and time.

sleeper;1848369 wrote:Pro-life people want to outlaw abortion which would require reversing Roe v Wade.

Again, can you stop spinning in circles?

sleeper;1848358 wrote:I understand the analogy clearly. It doesn't matter if you make it legal or illegal, women have been having abortions since the beginning of time. The only difference between legal and illegal abortion is the SAFETY of women. Republicans don't care about women's health, their reproductive rights, or their safety and we waste BILLIONS each year defending religious whack jobs who think women are second class citizens incapable of making choices that affect their own body.

sleeper;1848370 wrote:Okay, then you should not support pro-life candidates.

O-Trap;1848373 wrote:If you had understood the analogy, then you wouldn't have suggested that the toothpaste had been out of the tube since the beginning of time. The toothpaste being squeezed out of the tube was, in a quite direct parallel, abortion being LEGALIZED ... as in, legal documentation permitting it.

I must admit, however, that I don't understand what you are alluding to when you say that we're wasting billions each year defending religious whack jobs. Defending from what? Are we (by "we," I assume you're referencing all of us) paying someone's legal fees for something? Do please elaborate.

Con_Alma;1848374 wrote:I disagree. Pro-life candidates are not necessarily the same as candidates that wish to overturn Roe V Wade.

sleeper;1848370 wrote:Okay, then you should not support pro-life candidates.

sleeper;1848376 wrote:They are the exact same. Sorry!

O-Trap;1848377 wrote:It might be that he is not merely a one-issue voter.

Con_Alma;1848378 wrote:I've already given examples of that not being the case.

sleeper;1848375 wrote:Religious whack jobs try to pass what are called "TRAP(Targeted Regulations of Abortions Providers)" laws. These laws are designed to make getting an abortion very difficult by imposing onerous and unnecessary regulations to shut down clinics.

These are malicious laws that are constantly shut down by the Supreme Court but they do enough damage in the meantime to the health and safety of women. It's rather disgusting the lengths Republicans will go to harm women. It's a waste of money and political capital to fight; but Republicans support this.

O-Trap;1848381 wrote:While your vitriol in the latter paragraph isn't really substantial, I agree on this as well. If it is legal, let it be legal.

And I also agree that waging such legal battles would be unnecessary costs that shouldn't be incurred.

sleeper;1848350 wrote:The word you are looking for is "Fetus". Fetus is not a person. Reality.

Tell me more about your BIG GOVERNMENT intervention into the private lives of free Americans. You love BIG GOVERNMENT; just admit it. It is the reality.

sleeper;1848380 wrote:You are quite ignorant. Pro-life means to overturn Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion. You cannot separate the two. LOL