[ordu]

> If access is not easy, there needs to be a different solution.

The only way is to make access easy. If you make it hard, then demand for black market drugs will drive supply. Which in turn would drive a repressive machine. Sites blocked, people convicted and so on.

I don't know why anti-abortion activists are unable to understand it. The only working hypothesis they are actively resist any understanding. A dogmatic worldview can lead to such behavior.

[lelanthran]

> I don't know why anti-abortion activists are unable to understand it. The only working hypothesis they are actively resist any understanding. A dogmatic worldview can lead to such behavior.

The pro-lifers don't have a monopoly on stupid people - see above where a pro-choicer is arguing that abortion 1 day before delivery should be legal.

[ordu]

> The pro-lifers don't have a monopoly on stupid people

Tu quoque[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque_defense

[lelanthran]

You don't appear to know what that means :-/

There are two parties in this argument; you appear to belong to one party in this argument.

1. You propose that the other party in an argument are stupid people.

2. I point out that both parties are demonstrating an inability to reason.

3. You now claim that lack of reasoning from your party does not make the other party's argument stronger.

4. You completely missed my point that lack of reasoning from your party does not make your argument stronger.

Your link is frequently posted by people who have no wish to argue rationally. At this point, it's almost like an indicator for a troll :-/

[ordu]

> argue rationally.

Argue rationally about what? I invite you to stop for a moment, reread our converstaion while asking a question: what about are we supposedly arguing. There was no rational arguments, you've changed topic from peculiarities of anti-abortion mind works to peculiarities of pro-abortion minds, which I'm not interested in, how you can imagine. It is not a rational debate, it is a rhetorical trick to lure me into a discussion I don't want to be a part of.

> Your link is frequently posted by people who have no wish to argue rationally.

I suppose it was LLM who told you that? I personally never saw that link posted. In these situations people mostly invoke "whataboutism", but I just thought it was not right, before we established beyond reasonable doubt that you are fighting a political debate. I mean, we see demagogy used, check. But your motives are still not clear enough to claim with certainty that you are caught up in political partisanship and it is the reason behind your behavior.

[lelanthran]

You entire thesis was that one party to the argument is stupid.

My reply (with evidence, btw, see poster upthread) is that both parties are stupid.

I am obviously not on any one side of this issue (see all my other replies); you obviously are on one side of this issue.

After all, while you call the pro-lifers "anti-abortion", you aren't calling the pro-choices "anti-life", are you? There's a reason all the rest of us have settled on "pro-*", and that's because we are respecting the arguments being made.

You are merely slinging mud. After all, which sane person can really be proud of saying things like this:

> I mean, we see demagogy used, check.

> anti-abortion

> you are caught up in political partisanship

> It is not a rational debate, it is a rhetorical trick

(It's Not X, It's Y - huh, where do we usually see that?)

> unable to understand

> A dogmatic worldview can lead to such behavior.

Did you notice that you entire argument is based around calling people names and/or attributing malice intent to their position?

You didn't even try* to make an argument. If I was you, I'd be too ashamed to even post here...

Oh, and finally...

> I suppose it was LLM who told you that?

If it makes you feel any better about yourself, then sure. Believe that.