Do you have any idea how far some of these women travel now? Some of them cross state lines when they don't even have to.
OK, we're talking past each other. You're saying some women would cross state lines. Absolutely.
I'm saying some, maybe even a lot, would think twice rather than traveling several hours to go get an abortion.
If you really think that banning abortion FEDERALLY would actually lead to no abortion happening, I believe you are in error. I'm guessing you don't think that, but it seems like you do based on the arguments you're giving.
Ideally, I would support a human life amendment to the US constitution. Short of that, I support the state's right to decide. My reason for that is this, everyone has their pet issue that is just so important that you just have to have a Federal mandate. You're only going to agree with me on some of these but... for some people, its guns. Some people decided that automatic weapons were so evil/dangerous that they just had to be banned everywhere. Some people thought the same with drugs. Still others with Obamacare/health insurance. Still others, food quality, which is why we have the monster known as the FDA...
You know what? Honestly, I don't think the Federal Government can do anything "Correctly." If they banned abortion at the Federal Level, they would use it as a crusade to impose even more of an Orwellian State than we already have. I don't want the Federal Government getting involved in Law Enforcement. I'd much rather just let people like Scott Roeder go, as we continue to fight for state level laws.
I refuse to fall into the trap of "My issue is so important that we just have to have a Federal law without regard for the constitution."
Have you ever protested at a mill?
No, why?
And if there is a federal law that bans all abortion?
Good luck with that.
I'm not sure what you're asking.
Would you punish a civilian who did business in those countries or would it just be the government that would not be allowed to do business there?
No, I support a theonomy.
Also, "theirs."
I understand the subtle difference, but it is a subtle one.
I would be enemies with most.
Fair enough.
It must be practical [feasible/doable] and absolutely necessary. If we can eliminate a threat without it then it is unnecessary.
So... did you support the War in Iraq?
The question then becomes, to whom are they a threat? If a threat to us then we must do something about it. If a threat to their own people then we can attempt to deal with that on a business level, as in doing none with them. But if that has no effect something must be done. The question then becomes are we the ones to do that? And if so, how? If active war is unnecessary then it should never come into play.
Sanctions don't actually work, they just make things even worse for the people under their rule. Actual war makes things even worse than that.
I know you think about social policy way more than foreign policy, maybe you should look up what the Founders said about foreign policy?
You believe that abortion should be legal in rape cases. You have no leg upon which to stand, and no integrity in this fight. So shut up.
The irony of this never ceases to amaze me.
