A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Boss]

Ah, but you see, then my desire for your shit is supported by Mr. Colt. We're right back to your life, and well-being being jeopardized. We tried that approach, and found it didn't work very well. Which is why, for our mutual self-preservation, we decided that agreeing on preventative measures was simply more conducive to each other's self-preservation. Again, remember it was not my self-preservation that motivated you - it was yours.

Right... we collectively made the moral decision that it was more humane and civilized to respect each other's property.

 

[Czernobog]

Really? Because you have a majority in both the House, and the Senate, and you still can't get the damned thing passed. Note, I didn't say you couldn't get it signed into law, implying that Obama is the only thing standing in the way. I said you can't even get it passed. It would seem that even your fellow conservatives think your opinion of what a fetus should be is flawed.

I'm sorry... you're obviously mistaking me for someone else... I don't have any bills before Congress. I honestly don't know what you are talking about here. I've already stated, if your argument is about what the current laws say, you win... the law totally allows you to kill unborn fetuses. That's just not the argument I am having... nor am I arguing for any particular bill or pending legislation.

Furthermore, appeals to popularity are pointless here. Before blacks were ever given any constitutional rights, the overwhelming majority of people didn't think they deserved them. Just because you have a bunch of people who agree with your opinion doesn't mean that it's right. Never has, never will. That's why we're not a Democracy.

Okay. Well, you're entitled your opinion...

 

[Czernobog]

Ah, but you see, then my desire for your shit is supported by Mr. Colt. We're right back to your life, and well-being being jeopardized. We tried that approach, and found it didn't work very well. Which is why, for our mutual self-preservation, we decided that agreeing on preventative measures was simply more conducive to each other's self-preservation. Again, remember it was not my self-preservation that motivated you - it was yours.

Right... we collectively made the moral decision that it was more humane and civilized to respect each other's property.

That's not even close to what I said, but okay. This does explain your position, anyway. since you erroneously think that all laws are based on some moral code, it is completely logical that you would think you should have the right to impose your morality on others.

Your position proceeds from an incorrect premise of the nature of laws.

 

[Boss]

Really? Because you have a majority in both the House, and the Senate, and you still can't get the damned thing passed. Note, I didn't say you couldn't get it signed into law, implying that Obama is the only thing standing in the way. I said you can't even get it passed. It would seem that even your fellow conservatives think your opinion of what a fetus should be is flawed.

I'm sorry... you're obviously mistaking me for someone else... I don't have any bills before Congress. I honestly don't know what you are talking about here. I've already stated, if your argument is about what the current laws say, you win... the law totally allows you to kill unborn fetuses. That's just not the argument I am having... nor am I arguing for any particular bill or pending legislation.

Furthermore, appeals to popularity are pointless here. Before blacks were ever given any constitutional rights, the overwhelming majority of people didn't think they deserved them. Just because you have a bunch of people who agree with your opinion doesn't mean that it's right. Never has, never will. That's why we're not a Democracy.

Okay. Well, you're entitled your opinion...

Yep, and I am as equally entitled to make my opinion law of the land as you are.

 

[Czernobog]

Really? Because you have a majority in both the House, and the Senate, and you still can't get the damned thing passed. Note, I didn't say you couldn't get it signed into law, implying that Obama is the only thing standing in the way. I said you can't even get it passed. It would seem that even your fellow conservatives think your opinion of what a fetus should be is flawed.

I'm sorry... you're obviously mistaking me for someone else... I don't have any bills before Congress. I honestly don't know what you are talking about here. I've already stated, if your argument is about what the current laws say, you win... the law totally allows you to kill unborn fetuses. That's just not the argument I am having... nor am I arguing for any particular bill or pending legislation.

Furthermore, appeals to popularity are pointless here. Before blacks were ever given any constitutional rights, the overwhelming majority of people didn't think they deserved them. Just because you have a bunch of people who agree with your opinion doesn't mean that it's right. Never has, never will. That's why we're not a Democracy.

Okay. Well, you're entitled your opinion...

Yep, and I am as equally entitled to make my opinion law of the land as you are.

If you can manage to get enough people to agree with it, which doesn't seem likely. But, hey. Good luck with that. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

 

[Boss]

If you can manage to get enough people to agree with it, which doesn't seem likely. But, hey. Good luck with that. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Thanks for wishing us luck. Just like many other previous human rights struggles, we will endure the fight to the end and righteousness will prevail. When we are finally victorious, I hope that you will feel better knowing you're part of a society and culture that respects human life.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Nothing should happen to the woman who chooses an abortion .. and there is no need to worry about what conservatives think.

Conservatives have LOST on virtually every social issue they're against.

 

[Czernobog]

If you can manage to get enough people to agree with it, which doesn't seem likely. But, hey. Good luck with that. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Thanks for wishing us luck. Just like many other previous human rights struggles, we will endure the fight to the end and righteousness will prevail. When we are finally victorious, I hope that you will feel better knowing you're part of a society and culture that respects human life.

LMFAO! You really need to learn to recognise sarcasm, when you see it. I was "wishing you luck" in order to let you know that you're pissing in the wind. The society I feel better living in is the one that values individual liberty over moralistic authoritarianism. And, if you should ever manage to turn America into an Authoritarian State, I shall mourn the loss of liberty.

Incidentally, Boss, you have made several references to the slavery issue. You do get that it was the nation's social conservatives who were defending slavery, and fighting against its abolition, not liberals, right? And now it is social conservatives who are fighting to return us to a state where men get to tell women what they can, and cannot do with their bodies. Considering the track record of social conservatives to turn this nation into the authoritarian state that they want, dictating their morality on everyone else, what makes you think you will fare any better in this fight - like, ever?

 

[Zoom-boing]

It's a semantics misnomer and it causes little shitheads to make outrageous assumptions that aren't true and defy biology. The zygote is comprised of two cells, the male and female gametes. One is inside the walls of the other but it's still two cells. They call it a single "fused" cell because everything is happening inside the walls of the single egg cell, but there is another cell already present. If there wasn't another cell, reproduction couldn't happen.

The important thing is note the reproduction. All this single cell nonsense amounts to is a silly semantics argument with shitheads. A new living organism begins whenever reproduction of new cells happen. Nothing else is added or needs to happen for it to be an independent new living organism. Viability and personhood are criteria placed on the organism that do not have any bearing whatsoever on what the organism is. Likewise, terminology for various stages of development have nothing to do with what something is. An adult seal is the same organism as a baby seal.... there is no difference in what they are, only in their developmental stage.

So, whether it is a fetus, a baby, an infant, a zygote, a toddler, a blastocyst, an adolescent... it's a human being in a certain stage of development.

^ This. 100%.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Now, this is a question specifically directed towards the anti-choice activists. Let us begin with the most common premise of the anti-choice folks: A fetus is a person. Abortion is killing a person without justification. Ergo, abortion is essentially state sanctioned murder. (Now, let us be clear, I Do. NOT agree with this premise, at all. However, it is the premise of nearly every anti-choice advocate. So, to follow this position to its logical conclusion, we are going to allow this premise from the outset.)

So, we have established that a fetus is a person, and abortion is equivalent to murder. Proceeding from that premise, there are actually two people involved in the planning, and executing of said murder - the doctor, and the pregnant woman. Now, the anti-choice advocates have made no secret of their contempt for the doctors who participate in abortions, Oklahoma going so far as to pass a new law criminalizing abortions, and levying heavy penalties against the doctors who participate. However, no one, including Oklahoma, seems interested in punishing, or even acknowledging, the pregnant woman's role in this action. So. What about her? What punishment is reasonable for a woman who contracts a medical professional to murder her unborn child?

Nothing should happen to the woman who chooses an abortion .. and there is no need to worry about what conservatives think.

Conservatives have LOST on virtually every social issue they're against.

But, Boss seems to think they will ultimately succeed.

 

[Chuz Life]

War has no due process, nature has no due process. Seems your Right to Life needs a bit of work there.

Jack...you know you're really not helping here, right? Tell us Jack, what is the first line of the second paragraph of the Declaration of independence. Quote that for us, then explain to us, exactly, to what, you think, the line was referring?

The D of I, why would anyone give a shit about that? It has no standing at all. Purely historical.

If you wish to quote from the Mayflower Compact, enjoy.

Wow...really? So...you don't think that was foundational for the ensuing Constitution?

No. If you want that use the Articles of Confederation, also historical.

Okay...ya kno what? I'm gonna just let that go. I have not really involved myself in Jack's meanderings, anyway; I'll just let him fend for himself...

In the meantime, the 14th Amendment is actually the most germane to this issue:

Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

"...born, or naturalized..." "Born". "Or." "Naturalized". You'll notice what word was missing from that description? "CONCEIVED". That's right. When it came time to define exactly who should be considered a citizen of the United States, and, therefore, under the protection of the United States Constitution, the idea that "fetuses are people, too" was never even considered. And, before some moron suggests, "Well, that's because it wasn't a problem then," do keep in mind that there has been recorded evidence of abortions being performed, in one fashion or another, since as early as the Greek civilization. So, please do not suffer under any delusions that women were not inducing abortions throughout American history.

There just is no end to your cherry picking and ignorance. Is there.

The part of the 14th amendment that says "born or naturalized" is talking about what it takes to become a CITIZEN. Dumbfuck.

Read it again.

It goes on to say that all PERSONS (not only citizens) are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

Damn you are a dense SOB.

 

[Boss]

If you can manage to get enough people to agree with it, which doesn't seem likely. But, hey. Good luck with that. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Thanks for wishing us luck. Just like many other previous human rights struggles, we will endure the fight to the end and righteousness will prevail. When we are finally victorious, I hope that you will feel better knowing you're part of a society and culture that respects human life.

LMFAO! You really need to learn to recognise sarcasm, when you see it. I was "wishing you luck" in order to let you know that you're pissing in the wind. The society I feel better living in is the one that values individual liberty over moralistic authoritarianism. And, if you should ever manage to turn America into an Authoritarian State, I shall mourn the loss of liberty.

Incidentally, Boss, you have made several references to the slavery issue. You do get that it was the nation's social conservatives who were defending slavery, and fighting against its abolition, not liberals, right? And now it is social conservatives who are fighting to return us to a state where men get to tell women what they can, and cannot do with their bodies. Considering the track record of social conservatives to turn this nation into the authoritarian state that they want, dictating their morality on everyone else, what makes you think you will fare any better in this fight - like, ever?

LMFAO... I totally recognize sarcasm. Those who fought for abolition were also "pissing in the wind" for quite a long time before righteousness prevailed. They pissed in the wind for another 100 years through Jim Crowe and segregation fighting for basic civil rights. Sometimes, righteous struggles take a long time and a lot of pissing in the wind.... they ultimately prevail. Ignorance and intolerance for human rights ultimately fail.

You are illiterate on your history, it was not social conservatives who defended slavery. The abolition movement started with Quaker ministers... the most moralistic and social conservative people of their time. Abolition was fought against, just as civil rights was fought against, by Democrats who argued solely from a standpoint of popularity.

We've already discussed morality... every law that has ever been made is based on some moral determination. You do not have the autonomous right to declare your immorality for the rest of society... that is authoritarianism.

 

[Czernobog]

Jack...you know you're really not helping here, right? Tell us Jack, what is the first line of the second paragraph of the Declaration of independence. Quote that for us, then explain to us, exactly, to what, you think, the line was referring?

The D of I, why would anyone give a shit about that? It has no standing at all. Purely historical.

If you wish to quote from the Mayflower Compact, enjoy.

Wow...really? So...you don't think that was foundational for the ensuing Constitution?

No. If you want that use the Articles of Confederation, also historical.

Okay...ya kno what? I'm gonna just let that go. I have not really involved myself in Jack's meanderings, anyway; I'll just let him fend for himself...

In the meantime, the 14th Amendment is actually the most germane to this issue:

Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

"...born, or naturalized..." "Born". "Or." "Naturalized". You'll notice what word was missing from that description? "CONCEIVED". That's right. When it came time to define exactly who should be considered a citizen of the United States, and, therefore, under the protection of the United States Constitution, the idea that "fetuses are people, too" was never even considered. And, before some moron suggests, "Well, that's because it wasn't a problem then," do keep in mind that there has been recorded evidence of abortions being performed, in one fashion or another, since as early as the Greek civilization. So, please do not suffer under any delusions that women were not inducing abortions throughout American history.

There just is no end to your cherry picking and ignorance. Is there.

The part of the 14th amendment that says "born or naturalized" is talking about what it takes to become a CITIZEN. Dumbfuck.

Read it again.

It goes on to say that all PERSONS (not only citizens) are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

Damn you are a dense SOB.

The only dense person here is you. You are so desperate to turn this country into a moralistic Authoritarian state that you are willing to try to rewrite the 14th amendment to make it mean what you want it to. Go learn something about the Constitution you dumbfuck, and then come back when you're educated.

You are dismissed.

 

[Czernobog]

We've already discussed morality... every law that has ever been made is based on some moral determination. You do not have the autonomous right to declare your immorality for the rest of society... that is authoritarianism.

No, its not. You just want to believe that it is so that you can justify turning America into an Moralistic Authoritarian State. Whatever. Good luck with that. I feel confident that lovers of individual liberty will never allow you to do that.

 

[Chuz Life]

The D of I, why would anyone give a shit about that? It has no standing at all. Purely historical.

If you wish to quote from the Mayflower Compact, enjoy.

Wow...really? So...you don't think that was foundational for the ensuing Constitution?

No. If you want that use the Articles of Confederation, also historical.

Okay...ya kno what? I'm gonna just let that go. I have not really involved myself in Jack's meanderings, anyway; I'll just let him fend for himself...

In the meantime, the 14th Amendment is actually the most germane to this issue:

Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

"...born, or naturalized..." "Born". "Or." "Naturalized". You'll notice what word was missing from that description? "CONCEIVED". That's right. When it came time to define exactly who should be considered a citizen of the United States, and, therefore, under the protection of the United States Constitution, the idea that "fetuses are people, too" was never even considered. And, before some moron suggests, "Well, that's because it wasn't a problem then," do keep in mind that there has been recorded evidence of abortions being performed, in one fashion or another, since as early as the Greek civilization. So, please do not suffer under any delusions that women were not inducing abortions throughout American history.

There just is no end to your cherry picking and ignorance. Is there.

The part of the 14th amendment that says "born or naturalized" is talking about what it takes to become a CITIZEN. Dumbfuck.

Read it again.

It goes on to say that all PERSONS (not only citizens) are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

Damn you are a dense SOB.

The only dense person here is you. You are so desperate to turn this country into a moralistic Authoritarian state that you are willing to try to rewrite the 14th amendment to make it mean what you want it to. Go learn something about the Constitution you dumbfuck, and then come back when you're educated.

You are dismissed.

There is no need to rewrite the 14th Amendment, fuctard. Though clearly its current language sailed right over your little pinhead. Any 7th grader with even a modicum of reading comprehension can see that the only mention of a person being "born or naturalized" is in the context of what it takes to be a "citizen" of this country.

They can also comprehend that the 14th protects the rights of ALL persons. . . be they a citizen of the U.S. or not.

 

[Czernobog]

Wow...really? So...you don't think that was foundational for the ensuing Constitution?

No. If you want that use the Articles of Confederation, also historical.

Okay...ya kno what? I'm gonna just let that go. I have not really involved myself in Jack's meanderings, anyway; I'll just let him fend for himself...

In the meantime, the 14th Amendment is actually the most germane to this issue:

Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

"...born, or naturalized..." "Born". "Or." "Naturalized". You'll notice what word was missing from that description? "CONCEIVED". That's right. When it came time to define exactly who should be considered a citizen of the United States, and, therefore, under the protection of the United States Constitution, the idea that "fetuses are people, too" was never even considered. And, before some moron suggests, "Well, that's because it wasn't a problem then," do keep in mind that there has been recorded evidence of abortions being performed, in one fashion or another, since as early as the Greek civilization. So, please do not suffer under any delusions that women were not inducing abortions throughout American history.

There just is no end to your cherry picking and ignorance. Is there.

The part of the 14th amendment that says "born or naturalized" is talking about what it takes to become a CITIZEN. Dumbfuck.

Read it again.

It goes on to say that all PERSONS (not only citizens) are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

Damn you are a dense SOB.

The only dense person here is you. You are so desperate to turn this country into a moralistic Authoritarian state that you are willing to try to rewrite the 14th amendment to make it mean what you want it to. Go learn something about the Constitution you dumbfuck, and then come back when you're educated.

You are dismissed.

There is no need to rewrite the 14th Amendment, fuctard. Though clearly its current language sailed right over your little pinhead. Any 7th grader with even a modicum of reading comprehension can see that the only mention of a person being "born or naturalized" is in the context of what it takes to be a "citizen" of this country.

They can also comprehend that the 14th protects the rights of ALL persons. . . be they a citizen of the U.S. or not.

Yet, no where in the Constitution does it ever suggest that fetuses are, or ever were, considered persons fucktard. Even someone with the reading skills of a third-grader could tell you that. How the fuck did someone so clearly stupid as you ever graduate high school. I'm surprised you don't' need someone to help you tie your shoes, and remember to eat!

 

[Chuz Life]

No. If you want that use the Articles of Confederation, also historical.

Okay...ya kno what? I'm gonna just let that go. I have not really involved myself in Jack's meanderings, anyway; I'll just let him fend for himself...

In the meantime, the 14th Amendment is actually the most germane to this issue:

Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

"...born, or naturalized..." "Born". "Or." "Naturalized". You'll notice what word was missing from that description? "CONCEIVED". That's right. When it came time to define exactly who should be considered a citizen of the United States, and, therefore, under the protection of the United States Constitution, the idea that "fetuses are people, too" was never even considered. And, before some moron suggests, "Well, that's because it wasn't a problem then," do keep in mind that there has been recorded evidence of abortions being performed, in one fashion or another, since as early as the Greek civilization. So, please do not suffer under any delusions that women were not inducing abortions throughout American history.

There just is no end to your cherry picking and ignorance. Is there.

The part of the 14th amendment that says "born or naturalized" is talking about what it takes to become a CITIZEN. Dumbfuck.

Read it again.

It goes on to say that all PERSONS (not only citizens) are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

Damn you are a dense SOB.

The only dense person here is you. You are so desperate to turn this country into a moralistic Authoritarian state that you are willing to try to rewrite the 14th amendment to make it mean what you want it to. Go learn something about the Constitution you dumbfuck, and then come back when you're educated.

You are dismissed.

There is no need to rewrite the 14th Amendment, fuctard. Though clearly its current language sailed right over your little pinhead. Any 7th grader with even a modicum of reading comprehension can see that the only mention of a person being "born or naturalized" is in the context of what it takes to be a "citizen" of this country.

They can also comprehend that the 14th protects the rights of ALL persons. . . be they a citizen of the U.S. or not.

Yet, no where in the Constitution does it ever suggest that fetuses are, or ever were, considered persons fucktard. Even someone with the reading skills of a third-grader could tell you that. How the fuck did someone so clearly stupid as you ever graduate high school. I'm surprised you don't' need someone to help you tie your shoes, and remember to eat!

As was pointed out to you earlier, neither did the Constitution recognize the personhood or rights of women or blacks. . . did it fucktard? Whatever school you attended owes your parents a refund and an apology.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay...ya kno what? I'm gonna just let that go. I have not really involved myself in Jack's meanderings, anyway; I'll just let him fend for himself...

In the meantime, the 14th Amendment is actually the most germane to this issue:

Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

"...born, or naturalized..." "Born". "Or." "Naturalized". You'll notice what word was missing from that description? "CONCEIVED". That's right. When it came time to define exactly who should be considered a citizen of the United States, and, therefore, under the protection of the United States Constitution, the idea that "fetuses are people, too" was never even considered. And, before some moron suggests, "Well, that's because it wasn't a problem then," do keep in mind that there has been recorded evidence of abortions being performed, in one fashion or another, since as early as the Greek civilization. So, please do not suffer under any delusions that women were not inducing abortions throughout American history.

There just is no end to your cherry picking and ignorance. Is there.

The part of the 14th amendment that says "born or naturalized" is talking about what it takes to become a CITIZEN. Dumbfuck.

Read it again.

It goes on to say that all PERSONS (not only citizens) are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

Damn you are a dense SOB.

The only dense person here is you. You are so desperate to turn this country into a moralistic Authoritarian state that you are willing to try to rewrite the 14th amendment to make it mean what you want it to. Go learn something about the Constitution you dumbfuck, and then come back when you're educated.

You are dismissed.

There is no need to rewrite the 14th Amendment, fuctard. Though clearly its current language sailed right over your little pinhead. Any 7th grader with even a modicum of reading comprehension can see that the only mention of a person being "born or naturalized" is in the context of what it takes to be a "citizen" of this country.

They can also comprehend that the 14th protects the rights of ALL persons. . . be they a citizen of the U.S. or not.

Yet, no where in the Constitution does it ever suggest that fetuses are, or ever were, considered persons fucktard. Even someone with the reading skills of a third-grader could tell you that. How the fuck did someone so clearly stupid as you ever graduate high school. I'm surprised you don't' need someone to help you tie your shoes, and remember to eat!

As was pointed out to you earlier, neither did the Constitution recognize the personhood or rights of women or blacks. . . did it fucktard? Whatever school you attended owes your parents a refund and an apology.

Well, when the Constitution has been changed to recognize the personhood of a fetus, then you can gloat. Until then you are just another authoritarian fuckwit who understands dick about the Constitution, and who's assfuck opinion is meaningless.

You are dismissed.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Boss]

We've already discussed morality... every law that has ever been made is based on some moral determination. You do not have the autonomous right to declare your immorality for the rest of society... that is authoritarianism.

No, its not. You just want to believe that it is so that you can justify turning America into an Moralistic Authoritarian State. Whatever. Good luck with that. I feel confident that lovers of individual liberty will never allow you to do that.

You can call it whatever you want to, I will continue to stand up for the right to life for the unborn. After nearly 1,200 posts, the only area of the argument you can win is that it's still currently legal to kill the unborn. That's why you continue to run back to that point over and over.

I am for individual liberty too but individual liberty doesn't mean you have the right to kill innocent people. They should also have the individual liberty to live, just like you have.

 

[Czernobog]

We've already discussed morality... every law that has ever been made is based on some moral determination. You do not have the autonomous right to declare your immorality for the rest of society... that is authoritarianism.

No, its not. You just want to believe that it is so that you can justify turning America into an Moralistic Authoritarian State. Whatever. Good luck with that. I feel confident that lovers of individual liberty will never allow you to do that.

You can call it whatever you want to, I will continue to stand up for the right to life for the unborn. After nearly 1,200 posts, the only area of the argument you can win is that it's still currently legal to kill the unborn. That's why you continue to run back to that point over and over.

I am for individual liberty too but individual liberty doesn't mean you have the right to kill innocent people. They should also have the individual liberty to live, just like you have.

That's because the rest is just so much ideological opinion. You feel science proves you right, we don't. And neither will ever convince the other. So the only question that matters is which will control the legislative, and judicial future of our nation.

Time has been on our side, and considering how your side continues to perform, politically, I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk