No, you have not. I have an issue with those who conflate all late term abortions (21 weeks or more) being the same as abortions at the time of birth (40 weeks gestational age). I realize that to many people, they are all one and the same philosophically, but there is a difference from the healthcare perspective.
Ah. From the healthcare perspective, then, what limit would you prefer be placed on abortions? Of course I expect that you distinguish between elective and medically necessary, as well as make distinctions between physical and mental health justifications.
Also, I, and probably the majority of American citizens do not believe 'any abortion is OK' as a black and white statement.
Just to be clear, in point #1 I was trying to convey that anyone who believes that abortion should be allowed under particular circumstances might be considered pro-abortion. I thought you had (correctly) stated in one of these threads that most Americans are pro-abortion to some extent under some circumstances, and was simply trying to reiterate that point, not make some jab about the majority being okay with all abortion. I apologize if I failed to properly communicate that.
See also: https://www.sacurrent.com/news/bad-takes-the-rabid-right-believes-the-second-amendment-has-no-limits-not-even-nukes-27777351
https://www.newsweek.com/candidate-running-primary-elise-stefanik-says-people-should-able-own-nuke-1606617
https://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-legalize-recreational-nuclear-weapons-0e0861b0-bfdc-480c-887e-195e1a20b365
Thanks for that. Okay, you have certainly found a couple of politicians who do support ownership of private nuclear weapons - one who was a former vice chair of the Republican Party of Texas but as far as I can tell has never actually served in office, and the other a member of the House of Representatives who also calls the idea crazy.
Oh, and a failed change.org petition that is likely with less than 300 signatures and also reads like a joke.
I concede that such politicians exist, although if that was the best you could find they are clearly rarer than hen's teeth.
From the above, should we generalize that all Second Amendment supporters are in favor of the right to bear nuclear arms? What part of 'shall not be infringed' is unclear?
First of all, let me be clear that I agree that most people who are pro-abortion (including those who have had or are involved in performing abortions) do not like the idea of late term abortion, full-term abortion, partial birth abortion, or anything like that. However, your allegation that people who are in support of abortion up to the point of birth are equal in number or percentage or whatever comparison you want to those who support private ownership of nuclear weapons is still preposterous.
Couldn't find the raw data, but the Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll shows 6% who believe that abortion should be permitted "up until the birth of the child".
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/446367-poll-nearly-half-of-americans-say-supreme-court-should-uphold-roe-v-wade/This
COSA poll shows that 11.6% of respondents and 18.8% of Democrats support abortion "up until the moment of birth, including partial birth" but that poll didn't have any option between second trimester and the up to point of birth, so I think that is a weak poll.
If you need me to provide some quotes from mainstream pro-abortion politicians in support of the idea that a woman should be able to kill her baby up to the point of birth (not generic late term abortions) I'd be happy to do so.
Because of the extrapolation here that if you do not oppose all abortions under all circumstances, you are a supporter of abortion on demand at the time of birth and baby chop shops. There is no middle ground.
I know you are trying to play the "reasonable centrist" role, but I'm not sure you understand your opposition.
