Abortion

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Make abortion safe, legal and accessible to people. We don't need to go back to the days where women had to travel states, get them done underground by dangerous methods, etc, to have an abortion. We don't need to legislate morals in government. If you're pro-life, great, then don't abort that unplanned pregnancy, but if you aren't, you should have the freedom to get an abortion. It's not like it effects the pro-lifer.

Actually, if you are pro-life, you should wait until you are married to have sex. Case closed.

Being 'pro-life' (a ridiculous and leading term, much like 'pro-choice') in this context would imply a deontological character to one's stance on the matter, not just a lifestyle preference. I also don't know where you're getting this idea, Steve, that being 'pro-life' and being opposed to premarital sex always coincide.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Make abortion safe, legal and accessible to people. We don't need to go back to the days where women had to travel states, get them done underground by dangerous methods, etc, to have an abortion. We don't need to legislate morals in government. If you're pro-life, great, then don't abort that unplanned pregnancy, but if you aren't, you should have the freedom to get an abortion. It's not like it effects the pro-lifer.

Actually, if you are pro-life, you should wait until you are married to have sex. Case closed.

Being 'pro-life' (a ridiculous and leading term, much like 'pro-choice') in this context would imply a deontological character to one's stance on the matter, not just a lifestyle preference. I also don't know where you're getting this idea, Steve, that being 'pro-life' and being opposed to premarital sex always coincide.

Let me put it to you this way. If you want abortion to be illegal, you should be prepared for the consequences of having casual sex without having all the options available to you. Of course there's child support.

Well obviously.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

it doesn't matter what they believe. if they are so anti-abortion, they don't have to have one. but they have to infringe on other people's rights too. trying to control women's bodies smacks quite heavily of sexism to me

I see you are still begging the question and asserting that your beliefs are objective fact.  If you were to take the opposite position as objective fact I could see an an alternate universe version of you writing:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

i'm not asserting anything as fact, except that they're trying to control women's reproductive rights, which they are.

Nobody is denying that. The only difference of opinion is over whether or not the situation merits such controls, which you're reducing to a question of personal preference because you don't think that it does and aren't demonstrating any interest in understanding the mindset of people who do.