One party being intolerant does not prevent the another party from being intolerant. As I have tried to show repeatedly, multiple parties can be intolerant.
> In Alabama, according to your original comment, the intolerant are the pro choice ones: according to your reasoning, not to mine.
Expectant women in Alabama do not suddenly lose their rights when Alabama declares 'fetus' = 'child'. Alabama instead chooses to override women's rights and place fetal rights above it.
> Of course that you could just accept the obvious, that the concept of intolerance is clearly abstract, and finish the discussion
I could repeat this statement back to you, with the only change being my claim instead of yours, and it would mean just as much as it means when you say this. But that would be discourteous and discouraging of discourse, so I will try yet again, one final time:
The concept of intolerance is not any more "abstract" than "the concept of harm".