But you're not. Not even remotely. You're pretty much dependably wrong on nearly every subject you choose to spout off about, and when people use facts to point out how wrong you are, you either use false equivalencies, move the goalposts, or flat-out ignore the comment that proved you wrong. I mean, I know this is what a troll does, but that doesn't make it any less irritating.
I occasionally get things wrong. I don't ignore the posts. Just the other day I asked what profession other than police someone would sue the employee rather than the employer, someone said doctor. I did not move goalposts or ignore the comment, I gave it a like. I've conceded entire arguments just because I accidentally put one user's words in another's mouth by accident. If you catch me in an genuine error, I'll admit to it. I don't think you ever will personally, since your responses here have been nothing but baseless personal attacks without any consideration of the actual discussion, but I certainly welcome you to try.
Swiftly approaching moot point again. There are few organs a person can donate while alive and proceed to still live a perfectly healthy life afterwards, and talking of obligation to care for dependents, even fewer that could possibly make sense. And even fewer still that would be viable. And already not that many children needing transplants. And they're basically all getting transplants already from the existing organ donation pool. Could I imagine compelling a parent to donate liver if their kid is guaranteed to die otherwise? Yeah, probably. Is that an imaginary hypothetical? Absolutely.
Like, I know you want to conjure an image of rounding up people and harvesting their organs, but pregnancy is not random organ harvesting, that's the mother whose body is nourishing the child.
The worst part of this? Women are going to start dying much much more often while doing abortions. One of the biggest results of Roe v Wade was a sharp decline in the number of abortions that resulted in the mother dying from the procedure because surprise surprise, having free access to a means of abortion that both definitely works and isn't harmful to the mother results in that.
Women who want to abort are not going to suddenly stop aborting because states ban it. They're either going to go to states that haven't banned abortion or if they can't for whatever reason they'll go to have it done illegally in probably filthy underground "clinics" or even resort to trying to do it at home through various methods that may or may not work. The result is a lot of dead women along with the fetus. In short, abortion being illegal is by the numbers objectively far worse for everyone than it being legal.
Roe didn't cause a sharp decline in mortality from abortions. Medical science did that. From the early 20th century to Roe, by the best estimates available, the risk of death from abortion fell like 99%, from several thousand a year in the 20s and 30s to about 50 the year before Roe, with many of those 50 deaths from legal abortions. Setting the laws back to 1972 isn't going to set medical science back to 1920.
Conversely, the rate of abortions did shoot up sharply after Roe v Wade, which is rather strong evidence that abortion legality impacts abortion rates, and banning it will prevent people from having them. It would be a rather convenient coincidence for abortion rates to jump when legalized and slowly drop down as abortions laws got increasingly stricter over time, but have no causal relation.
If you want to talk about things "by the numbers objectively", you should probably look up the numbers first. Cause judging by the actual numbers, deaths aren't going to rise in any significant way, and abortion rates are gonna drop more.
