>If you don't want to be called a duck, stop quacking.<
Let's see...compelling people to deliver babies they don't want, sometimes for medical reasons...isn't compelling them because that is what you want...not telling them what to do IS compelling them, because you say so.
Reality doesn't work that way.
Who suggested that? I think you are just making stuff up. I also think you really need to seek professional healp about your numerous issues.
You need to read up on the history of Roe v. Wade. This court case that trumped virtually every democracy-based approach to defining whether abortion should be legal by discovering an unwritten penumbra emanating from the SCOTUS' fertile imaginations is the ultimate coercion. Further, the public funding of abortion is taxation for murder, regardless of one's willingness to condone or condemn.
Besides, you obviously discount the fact that the only 100% effective birth control method is abstinence. Even abortionists sometimes screw up and one gets out alive. The "choice" is made when the woman and man decide to do the deed. Cases of rape (real rape - where threat of force or actual force is in play) and incest are issues that don't fit neatly into this definition of choice, but they are hardly the majority of abortions, are they? If you want to debate these corner cases, start by taking a position on them and defending it logically, and not by attacking anyone who disagrees.
I would introduce you to further reality, FRiend, but it is obvious that you prefer the region of that Egyptian river.
Oh - and just so you don't continue to misconstrue my last post - the "quacking" commentary was in regard to your personal attacks (that's what ad hominem means) on the other posters. You were slightly more original than most, using islamofacism instead of nazism, but just as ineffective.
Only a liberal could change murdering their children into "compelling people to deliver babies they don't want".
I'm going to miss you, you are a poster child.