Obviously you didn’t attempt to understand what I said, so I won’t make an effort to understand your point past your fourth sentence. Sorry, but understand what’s said before jumping to conclusions.
Hillary Clinton wants to legalize a procedure that is not currently legal. That procedure is referred to as partial birth abortion. It’s not currently practiced. Get your facts straight.
The debate regarding the rest of the sane world has been referring to late term abortions where the baby’s and mother’s health are not in jeopardy. That is, the debate of free will to kill a baby. It’s a separate argument entirely, but I doubt you read this far to understand these words at all.
Peace be with you
Despite being put off by the incorrect assertion of what I am or what I believe, I re-read the initial comment again.
There are elements I agree with, which is less government and that politicians generally shouldn’t regulate something they know little about. Though, I think conceptually, politicians often (and must) regulate concepts they are not experts on, but in general they are familiar with birth. They don’t need to be a geologist to know effects of a threatened oxygen supply and can regulate based on expert testimony.
That said, just because something can be made illegal, does not mean there are not clauses to legitimize an action. Late term abortions can still be illegalized and exceptions can be made to permit doctors to discern if the mother’s life would be in jeopardy. In terms of statistics, those cases are very infrequent and I acknowledge data collected on these subjects are incomplete.
What is more common are people that use abortion as birth control at every stage of pregnancy — yes there are plenty of people that don’t know they’re pregnant until later stages of pregnancy. Unnecessary abortions incur unnecessary costs on society. What is more important is that a life in the womb that could potentially live outside the womb at the point of abortion has no rights. As I understand it, they are not protected by the US Constitution. I’m of the belief that our mindset should be to preserve lives or at least people’s right to live that have not forfeited it through some abhorrent act.
I suppose there are a series of questions one must ask to see if they are thinking about the matter clearly and free from influence (the you is rhetorical):
- Do you feel emotional about the subject? — a yes/no answer is not bad. A yes does increase the likelihood to adopt statements made that align or reinforce the emotions
- Is your peer group of people you trust all saying the same thing? We often are more influenced by opinions of people we trust, for various [subconscious] social reasons. If everyone around you is saying the same thing, that is a potential indicator that you are influenced by group think. Of course this is only a potential indicator as opinions about less contentious, generally accepted matters (murder is bad) would be shared by those around you. Seek out others that you value, about contentious topics and see if they can influence your thinking. If they even cause you to waiver a little, it should be revealing into your own mannerisms of how you dig in and become so assertive that your way is correct.
- How much time have you invested in understanding the other point of view? Many don’t even want to consider the opposing point of view. Often this is an indicator that someone is acting out of emotion. The best is to honestly attempt to be the other person. Think about their daily life, think about their job, think about their off-topic beliefs, and attempt to get into the mental state of that persona. It’s important to understand the persona in addition to the details of their opinion about a matter as we often only have limited time to suggest our line of thinking and certain assumptions are often overlooked. Given context, we may be able to understand the alternative POV has its merits.
- Are you on drugs or medication? Often people may not be aware of how strong their opinions come across. Those on regular medications to address neurological or psychiatric issues (psychosis, ADHD, depression, etc) should be especially sensitive to the fact that they carry traits that may be incorrectly perceived, or they may be at the influence of their drugs/medication.
Of course the questions don’t end here, but it is important to realize there are influences all around us; some being social (peers, family, career), medical, geographical, and those that target demographics (marketing/advertisement). Once we recognize that, we can understand how we may need to challenge more and push back against these influences to undercover truths.
I don’t blindly accept feeds in social media. I don’t accept concerns on Trump until I see charges and accusations. I challenge people’s sources and expertise. I play the devil’s advocate at times and have found that often I’m no longer playing the DA, but that the people I’m challenging are often wrong and acting out of influence (closer to radicals or activists) and that’s eye opening if you ever do the same.