It's the way of the world. Determinedly vote in a party to cut taxes, eventually realise a load of infrastructure dependent on taxes has fallen to shit and its causing a ton of problems, then vote in the other party to fix it, and then promptly object to getting to taxed to repair infrastructure and put the tax-cutters back in.
A) "Should" is a dangerous concept. Thinking in terms of what you think should happen often leads to impossible solutions.
Sure we can. It's just that doing so is generally more painful and riskier that just suffering through it.
So, if a car company makes a bunch of crappy brakes or air bags (and it not being known by the public) ... it's the drivers fault for using the car and they suffer the consequences
Again, if you get injured by faulty car features, it doesn't matter if you're at fault, the car company cannot magic away your injuries. The idea that if you're not to blame for something it means you're entitled to a magical undo button of the effects is completely fiction. It's not a matter of should or should not. Should or should not are things that exist primarily in our fantasies. I'm reminded of an ad for cancer awareness where the people insisted that breast cancer is unacceptable, as though you can defeat cancer by insisting you don't accept it.
Correct.
Is that controversial? The people who take actions are not always the people who suffer the consequences of those actions. I'm not sure what that's explaining to you.
www.npr.org
Because you want the unborn to carry the consequences and pretend you solved all the problems?
How come massive corporations are off the hook for fucking up people's lives in the pursuit of a dollar, but individual poor people have to live with the consequences?
You're really conflicting with yourself in a single post. You think unplanned pregnancies are the fault of big contraceptive companies, you're accusing me of defending them, but then also advocating for the slaughter of human beings as a genuine solution to the problem. Are you proud to defend massive corporations with human sacrifice?
You think terminating a foetus is literal human sacrifice? That is deranged.
Corporations in general, really. They'll fight for years and spend millions of dollars for the right to dump toxins into groundwater and zero bad things happen to them.
It's literally killing a human. Beyond that, "human sacrifice" is a matter of intent. I don't think most or possibly any people get abortions with the intent of human sacrifice, but if someone is going to characterize it as a measure of justice to take away the burdens of corporate malfeasance, that's getting pretty darn close.
You're blaming me for the realities of human reproduction. To save a would-be mother from pain, you are killing another person. Not I, nor anyone else, made it so that the person exists inside the womb and birthing them is painful. You wish for a way to sidestep that reality, but you're living in fantasy.
To save a would-be person, you are violating the rights of an existing person.
