Abortion ban attempt was STOMPED in heartland red state South Dakota.
A complete ban on abortion was stomped. A ban with some exemptions would likely pass in 40 of 50 states–or Roe v. Wade (1973) wouldn’t be a litmus test for Democratic nominees to the Supreme Court.
Laws against murder and rape are less about morals than that of order and survival; e.g. it would not immoral to kill Hitler, Stalin, or SS camp guards at Dakau. Yours is a false argument.
You might want to look at a dictionary, or the penal code of your state, and see what “murder” is defined as, so that you don’t make these false statements.
Your key phrase “impose” is key here. Almost all people agree rape murder robbery etc is bad. There’s nothing being imposed. It’s universal agreement.
Wrong again. If it was a “universal agreement” then there would be no murders, rapes, or robberies. Clearly, a minority of Americans believe that it is perfectly okay to commit murder, rape, and robbery. It’s a small minority, so we can get away with imposing overwhelmingly majority will, but there is no “universal agreement.”
I agree that as long as a sizable minority disagrees, imposing a ban is probably going to create more problems than it solves. But don’t pretend that all laws represent “universal agreement.” They don’t. And liberals especially shouldn’t use that as a goal, since the vast majority of liberal policies are, at best, supported by slim majorities–and often not even that.
Only 23% think abortion ought to be verboten. “Impose” now fits.
Wrong again. Only 23% think that abortion should be prohibited under all circumstances; there’s another 52% say that it should be prohibited under some circumstances.
If you want to argue that 75% shouldn’t be allowed to impose their will on the minority, make that argument. But then the rest of the liberal agenda goes away, much of which doesn’t even enjoy 51% support.
