koshergrl
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2011
- 81,129
- 14,025
- 2,190
It's not murder just cause you say so, there are laws against murder. If it was murder, the law would be enforced.
I am not in the slightest bit interested in your quibble.
Abortion is NOT murder. No shit, Sherlock. The POINT is that YOU claim that the "choice" to have an abortion is a choice belonging entirely to the mother. And you argued that it is somehow hypocritical to place value on freedom of choice in all other contexts, but not in this. So, I pointed out to you that it's not true.
I place great stock in our liberties and freedoms. But I recognize -- all the same -- that there are LIMITS. And just because the fucking SCOTUS once "ruled" (legislated from the bench to be more honest about it) that there is a "right" to an abortion, that does not mean that there is no viable way to challenge that fucking unauthorized judicial EDICT.
I get it that YOU may not agree. I also get it that there ARE very thorny complications. The entire moral debate is beyond complicated. NEVERTHELESS, there are those who firmly commit themselves to the precept that the right to life is the PARAMOUNT right of all human beings. (Without life itself, there are no other rights.)
And some of these folks BELIEVE that a pre-born human being is no less entitled to that right to life itself than you are today. And to the extent that they are right and justified in that belief, then the right to "choice" does take a back seat. Just like our firm commitment to personal liberties does not authorize us to steal whatever we wish whenever we want something. And just like our belief that our home is our castle and that we have a legitimate expectation of a right to privacy in our homes does NOT make it "ok" to conspire to murder someone (as long as the conspiracy communications are conducted within our own walls).
There is a whole lot MORE to this "debate" than YOU seem willing to either recognize or admit. YOUR simplistic formulations are just that: simple. But simple is not the same as "right."
Now I see why this is so long. Its full of bullshit.
1st point I never said the choice is "entirely" up to the mother. But you need a straw man to argue with. Neither did I say "somehow hypocritical to place value on freedom of choice in all other contexts, but not in this." as you claimed...if you can find it post and stop translating. I speak english just fine. Thats just the first paragraph.
2nd Paragraph...Whew! Wow, so you are saying there are limits to freedom? Whoa, next you're going to tell me that trees have leaves and other mindblowing discoveries.
3rd paragraph...You can find people that believe all sorts of bullshit. Just because they believe it means diddly squat. And making laws or restrictions based on what some wackjob "believes" means nothing. Trying to make laws based on those idiots belief is giving the wack jobs credibility that wack jobs dont deserve because ...yanno, wacko
There is no more to this debate. Here's the debate in a nutshell. I say women have the right to choose according to the law and the wackos "believe" in a sky man that according to their interpretation of the sky man this legal thing should not be legal because they "believe it to be true"
If I believed that the bible entitled me to your money. Would you say, "This is my money BUT there is more to this debate."? Hell noBut that is what you are doing taking the beliefs of one person or group and without evidence that these things are true you demand everyone make the people who believe feel better.
Fuck 'em...
![eusa_eh :eusa_eh: :eusa_eh:](/styles/smilies/eusa_eh.gif)
![cuckoo :cuckoo: :cuckoo:](/styles/smilies/cuckoo.gif)
You calling anyone else a wacko is really beyond the pale.
![lol :lol: :lol:](/styles/smilies/lol.gif)
![lol :lol: :lol:](/styles/smilies/lol.gif)
![lol :lol: :lol:](/styles/smilies/lol.gif)
![lol :lol: :lol:](/styles/smilies/lol.gif)