RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/6/2016 11:58:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Bounty, if you want to argue that abortion is morally wrong, fine, I can understand that However, outlawing abortion would force people's actions to follow your beliefs, and I will argue that until the end of time So if I was an atheist advocating that abortion is wrong, you'd have no problem with it? I believe in Libretarian Socialist Capitalism. I believe second and third trimester abortions to be too far into term. I believe that even if abortion is legal, it should be a last resort. I believe mothers selling fetal tissue is amoral. I believe clinics encouraging abortion to sell tissue is wrong. I believe in stem cell research; my family has donated stem cell tissue without an abortion More importantly, I believe we should be having this discussion. I'm not saying pro-life or pro-choice is right. I'm drawn by both sides of the argument. However, making abortions illegal is asserting certain people's views on others. I'm not saying asserting your views is wrong either; its a huge basis for democracy. But making abortion illegal is forcing others to follow the physical guidelines of certain people's beliefs. Does that make sense? It's a complex issue which I have been torn on Thank you for a considered and considerate response. But I think you missed the thrust of my argument. You're saying making abortion illegal is asserting certain peoples views on others. My immediate rejoinder is - if the person protesting abortion is an atheist he is not asserting any moral belief on another person. Making an act legal or illegal does not require a belief. We hold the act of murder to be illegal. It does not require a Christian belief to wish to proscribe murder. Continue this thought for a moment. If you hold that proscriptions about murder are asserting one's beliefs on another person - then why is ok to assert these beliefs in the case of murder, but not ok in the case of murdering a baby? As for stem cell research- - adult stem cell research has progressed to the point that it is identical to fetal stem cell research. Fetal stem cell research is simply not necessary any more.

DominantWrestler -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 12:31:28 AM)
I am saying that making abortion illegal, regardless of why you believe it to be wrong, is forcing your beliefs on others. If you are Catholic and believe abortion is wrong or if you're atheist and believe abortion is wrong, you are still forcing your beliefs by making abortion illegal Once again, not judging the morality of abortion or asserting one's beliefs, just denying hypocricy

bounty44 -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 4:25:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Bounty, if you want to argue that abortion is morally wrong, fine, I can understand that However, outlawing abortion would force people's actions to follow your beliefs, and I will argue that until the end of time So if I was an atheist advocating that abortion is wrong, you'd have no problem with it? I believe in Libretarian Socialist Capitalism. I believe second and third trimester abortions to be too far into term. I believe that even if abortion is legal, it should be a last resort. I believe mothers selling fetal tissue is amoral. I believe clinics encouraging abortion to sell tissue is wrong. I believe in stem cell research; my family has donated stem cell tissue without an abortion More importantly, I believe we should be having this discussion. I'm not saying pro-life or pro-choice is right. I'm drawn by both sides of the argument. However, making abortions illegal is asserting certain people's views on others. I'm not saying asserting your views is wrong either; its a huge basis for democracy. But making abortion illegal is forcing others to follow the physical guidelines of certain people's beliefs. Does that make sense? It's a complex issue which I have been torn on as to the boldened part---this is because you keep seeing things from the perspective of the adult, rather than the baby's. to the people who are pro-life and more importantly, the baby---its murder. again, you are obliged to argue that laws against murder are instances of forcing one's beliefs on another. alternatively, you can argue how its not murder---but resorting to "legalized killing" in this case doesn't work. I understand abortion is legal, that doesn't change its essential nature however, the premeditated taking of an innocent life without its consent. and in that latter part there is sufficient answer to your question of morality. the baby is an unwilling and innocent participant to someone purposely killing it.

bounty44 -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 4:28:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Bounty, if you want to argue that abortion is morally wrong, fine, I can understand that However, outlawing abortion would force people's actions to follow your beliefs, and I will argue that until the end of time So if I was an atheist advocating that abortion is wrong, you'd have no problem with it? I believe in Libretarian Socialist Capitalism. I believe second and third trimester abortions to be too far into term. I believe that even if abortion is legal, it should be a last resort. I believe mothers selling fetal tissue is amoral. I believe clinics encouraging abortion to sell tissue is wrong. I believe in stem cell research; my family has donated stem cell tissue without an abortion More importantly, I believe we should be having this discussion. I'm not saying pro-life or pro-choice is right. I'm drawn by both sides of the argument. However, making abortions illegal is asserting certain people's views on others. I'm not saying asserting your views is wrong either; its a huge basis for democracy. But making abortion illegal is forcing others to follow the physical guidelines of certain people's beliefs. Does that make sense? It's a complex issue which I have been torn on Thank you for a considered and considerate response. But I think you missed the thrust of my argument. You're saying making abortion illegal is asserting certain peoples views on others. My immediate rejoinder is - if the person protesting abortion is an atheist he is not asserting any moral belief on another person. Making an act legal or illegal does not require a belief. We hold the act of murder to be illegal. It does not require a Christian belief to wish to proscribe murder. Continue this thought for a moment. If you hold that proscriptions about murder are asserting one's beliefs on another person - then why is ok to assert these beliefs in the case of murder, but not ok in the case of murdering a baby? As for stem cell research- - adult stem cell research has progressed to the point that it is identical to fetal stem cell research. Fetal stem cell research is simply not necessary any more. I have asked that question over and over and it keeps not getting answered.

DominantWrestler -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 5:50:21 AM)
This is what happens when I treat you like an adult bounty, you say you don't agree and that because other's belief doesn't agree with you, it doesn't count, and repeating your statements Let me try from the baby's perspective. "Mommy is wonderful. She worked hard all her life to achieve success in business. Then my daddy raped. Now mommy can't sleep at night. Mommy keeps reliving the experience, and if I'm born, I will be a constant reminder of the worst experience in her life. How can she love me when I look like Him. And I'm bastard, raised without a father. But republicans say she has to keep me. Instead of letting Mommy get past the worst experience of her life, they would perpetuate the impact. Shame on republicans." So, from the baby's perspective their existence burdens their mother, and if their mother is strong enough to raise them, they will always be treated differently than legitimate children. Is this sinking in now or are you still a century behind? How about this. You think it's wrong to kill babies even before they have a brain to have sensation, when the baby has less physical mass than a pimple or wart. Abortion is legal, get over it. Go be sexist elsewhere

bounty44 -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 6:05:11 AM)
its keeps getting "repeated" Sherlock because you keep not answering it. and since you keep ignoring the essential question I can only assume youre incapable of answering it. let me try from the baby's perspective then since you genuinely didn't (meaning your asinine rape example aside): "I want to live and its wrong to kill me."

DominantWrestler -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 6:05:35 AM)
So, once again. I wasn't even saying abortion is right or wrong, but it's forcing your beliefs on others, wasn't even saying forcing your beliefs is right or wrong, but you're an idiot and hypocritical for saying it's not forcing your beliefs on others. Outlawing murder is forcing your beliefs on others, but unlike abortion, there is general consensus in belief that murdering a person that has been born is murder. "Nuh-uh" doesnt work as counterpoint

bounty44 -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 6:17:44 AM)
"general consensus" doesn't matter---you wanted to criticize Christians without understanding their position nor examining the logical repercussions and downstream conclusions of your position. ive repeatedly said to you, if you say that outlawing murder is "forcing someone's belief on others" then i'll acquiesce and say that people trying to stop other people from having abortions is them trying to force their beliefs on someone else. okay, so then it is and i'll agree youre speaking consistently with how you understand the law. now---good luck in explaining how that's different from practically every single law that's on the books. and since its pretty much not, then how can "forcing one's beliefs" on another when it comes to the law even be considered as a viable criticism? and im an idiot? and you want to pretend youre interested in civil conversation?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 6:21:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 its keeps getting "repeated" Sherlock because you keep not answering it. and since you keep ignoring the essential question I can only assume youre incapable of answering it. let me try from the baby's perspective then since you genuinely didn't (meaning your asinine rape example aside): "I want to live and its wrong to kill me." Howz about the fact that your 'baby' doesn't have the brain to formulate such an argument, and as such, the mother has every right to not have such reminders haunting her for the rest of life?? Or that if she does (or is forced by society) to go through with the birth and decides that she cannot cope with said reminders that she A) abandons the baby; or B) commits suicide because of the anguish it is causing her. So... is the baby's life worth more than that of the mother? Even though I don't support abortion as convenient get-out-of-jail-free card, I do support the notion that it should be a choice for the mother to make. But of course, our abortion laws are more restrictive than those in the US and some of the horror stories I have read with very late terminations over there would make me think twice. Either way, I don't see it as murdering a child.

DominantWrestler -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 7:04:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 "general consensus" doesn't matter---you wanted to criticize Christians without understanding their position nor examining the logical repercussions and downstream conclusions of your position. ive repeatedly said to you, if you say that outlawing murder is "forcing someone's belief on others" then i'll acquiesce and say that people trying to stop other people from having abortions is them trying to force their beliefs on someone else. okay, so then it is and i'll agree youre speaking consistently with how you understand the law. now---good luck in explaining how that's different from practically every single law that's on the books. and since its pretty much not, then how can "forcing one's beliefs" on another when it comes to the law even be considered as a viable criticism? and im an idiot? and you want to pretend youre interested in civil conversation? You just don't read what's typed. Try reading my last few posts and tell me which post I said making murder illegal is forcing your beliefs on people regardless if it's a person or fetus Bounty, you posted that making abortion illegal was not forcing your beliefs on others, which is not true. I was not trying to prove abortion isn't murder, I just wanted to prove you to be a liar and a hypocrite Now do you get it, or are you still not reading posts?

bounty44 -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 7:55:50 AM)
"We encourage pro-life groups and individuals to use these images, keeping in mind the words that pollster Harrison Hickman spoke to the 1989 conference of the National Abortion Rights Action League" quote: "Nothing has been as damaging to our cause as the advances in technology which have allowed pictures of the developing fetus, because people now talk about that fetus in much different terms than they did fifteen years ago. They talk about it as a human being, which is not something that I have an easy answer how to cure." Day 1 - conception takes place. "Many internationally-known geneticists and biologists have testified that human life begins at conception. In 1981 (April 23-24) a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on the very question: When does human life begin? Following are testimonies from two of the doctors who testified:" quote: 1. Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, said: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." 2. Dr. McCarthy de Mere, a medical doctor and law professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception." "The Father of Modern Genetics" Testifies Dr. Jerome Lejeune, known as "The Father of Modern Genetics," also testified that human life begins at conception before the Louisiana Legislature's House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice on June 7, 1990. 7 days - tiny human implants in mother’s uterus. Dr. Lejeune explained that within three to seven days after fertilization we can determine if the new human being is a boy or a girl. "At no time," Dr. Lejeune said, "is the human being a blob of protoplasm. As far as your nature is concerned, I see no difference between the early person that you were at conception and the late person which you are now. You were, and are, a human being." 10 days - mother’s menses stop. 18 days - heart begins to beat. 21 days - pumps own blood through separate closed circulatory system with own blood type. 28 days - eye, ear and respiratory system begin to form. 42 days - brain waves recorded, skeleton complete, reflexes present. 7 weeks - photo of thumbsucking. [image]http://priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/fig20baby7.jpg[/image] 8 weeks - all body systems present. "Doctor handed live baby at 8 weeks gestation...Consider Dr. Rockwell's testimony: "Statement by Paul E. Rockwell, M.D.:" quote: "Eleven years ago while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured ectopic pregnancy (at 8 weeks gestation), I was handed what I believe was the smallest living human ever seen. The embryonic sac was intact and transparent. Within the sac was a tiny human male swimming extremely vigorously in the amniotic fluid, while attached to the wall by the umbilical cord. This tiny human was perfectly developed, with long, tapering fingers, feet and toes. It was almost transparent, as regards the skin, and the delicate arteries and veins were prominent to the ends of the fingers." Dr. Rockwell continues, "The baby was extremely alive and swam about the sac approximately one time per second, with a natural swimmer's stroke. This tiny human did not look at all like the photos and drawings and models of 'embryos' which I had seen, nor did it look like a few embryos I have been able to observe since then, obviously because this one was alive! When the sac was opened, the tiny human immediately lost his life... 9 weeks - squints, swallows, moves tongue, makes fist. 11 weeks - spontaneous breathing movements, has fingernails, all body systems working. [image]http://priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/fig05leg12.jpg[/image] 12 weeks - weighs one ounce. 16 weeks - genital organs clearly differentiated, grasps with hands, swims, kicks, turns, somersaults, (still not felt by the mother.) [image]http://priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/fig14face4mos.jpg[/image] [image]http://priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/fig01baby4mos.jpg[/image] 18 weeks - vocal cords work – can cry. 20 weeks - has hair on head, weighs one pound, 12 inches long. [image]http://priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/fig03face5mos.jpg[/image] 23 weeks - 15% chance of viability outside of womb if birth premature.* 24 weeks - 56% of babies survive premature birth.* [image]http://priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/fig07face6mos.jpg[/image] 25 weeks - 79% of babies survive premature birth.* http://www.prolife.com/FETALDEV.html http://priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/fetaldevelopment.htm quote: It’s especially critical to show people the images of babies aborted in the first trimester. It is in regard to such children, who constitute 90% of abortion victims, that the myth persists that they are not really children at all. At 7 weeks: [image]http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/weeks3.jpg[/image] [image]http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/weeks4.jpg[/image] [image]http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/weeks2.jpg[/image] And later: [image]http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/LateTermAbortions/abortedbaby05.jpg[/image] [image]http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/LateTermAbortions/abortedbaby04.jpg[/image]

bounty44 -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 8:05:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 "general consensus" doesn't matter---you wanted to criticize Christians without understanding their position nor examining the logical repercussions and downstream conclusions of your position. ive repeatedly said to you, if you say that outlawing murder is "forcing someone's belief on others" then i'll acquiesce and say that people trying to stop other people from having abortions is them trying to force their beliefs on someone else. okay, so then it is and i'll agree youre speaking consistently with how you understand the law. now---good luck in explaining how that's different from practically every single law that's on the books. and since its pretty much not, then how can "forcing one's beliefs" on another when it comes to the law even be considered as a viable criticism? and im an idiot? and you want to pretend youre interested in civil conversation? You just don't read what's typed. Try reading my last few posts and tell me which post I said making murder illegal is forcing your beliefs on people regardless if it's a person or fetus Bounty, you posted that making abortion illegal was not forcing your beliefs on others, which is not true. I was not trying to prove abortion isn't murder, I just wanted to prove you to be a liar and a hypocrite Now do you get it, or are you still not reading posts? look at the highlighted part above---now do you get it? but i'll try again, yes I agree then its true. you keep conveniently forgetting the point that the genesis of this conversation was you stating that "Christians protesting" was where the "force" occurred. even apart from that, beats me where any hypocrisy or lying having occurred. and yep, i read some, but not all posts---all you have to do is to look at the way you treat me in order to figure out why. you want more direct responses, stop being as insulting as you are. you've called me dim-witted, a simpleton, a liar, and a hypocrite and who knows what else in your responses ive not read. id much prefer a civil conversation. but if you want to keep beating that drum by way of avoiding the essential component, have at it, in the meantime, i'll still look forward then to how, since all laws are a group of people forcing their beliefs on others, "Christians forcing their pro-life belief on people who want to be able to kill their babies in the womb" is an actual criticism.

DominantWrestler -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 8:54:43 AM)
Did I ever agree with second or third trimester? Do you eat meat?

bounty44 -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 10:13:50 AM)
the post you commented on is not necessarily or singularly directed at you. its to anyone who's reading the thread. the trimester argument is not unimportant in that pro-life people can make some gains in their position in terms of the law, but that doesn't change the foundation of the argument, which is that abortion kills a baby human, no matter when it occurs. as far as eating meat---you have a stretch to go in order to equate human life and animal life from a either a Christian, or secular (Darwinian) worldview. secondarily, how killing animals in order to eat them is the moral equivalent to aborting babies, which for the most part happens for reasons of convenience. but as to your immediate question, ive been a vegetarian since the mid 80s.

Lucylastic -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 10:26:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 its keeps getting "repeated" Sherlock because you keep not answering it. and since you keep ignoring the essential question I can only assume youre incapable of answering it. let me try from the baby's perspective then since you genuinely didn't (meaning your asinine rape example aside): "I want to live and its wrong to kill me." you only think you know what a fetal perspective is. Yet you care more about that than the womans perspective. Ignorant and immoral, when you don't give a damn after birth. About Either BTW< Pictures of abortion used to be disallowed, and may have horrendous trigger effects on anyone who has had a misscarriage.. Oh to me, the pictures prove you are just hanging on to emotional rage.. Should I show you some pics of kids being abused and killed by their parents after they are out of the womb??? NOT to mention SO many of those pictures are false and at the wrong age of gestation. BTW, if the zygote doesn't implant in the uterus, it is not usually viable, result, it dies You want to imprison women for miscarriage(spontaneous abortion) ?

Lucylastic -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 10:28:06 AM)
quote: which for the most part happens for reasons of convenience. Yet you claim to know a fetal perspective, you dont even want to know a womans perspective.

BamaD -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 2:02:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Bounty, if you want to argue that abortion is morally wrong, fine, I can understand that However, outlawing abortion would force people's actions to follow your beliefs, and I will argue that until the end of time Aren't people who want unrestricted immigrantion trying to force those who don't want open borders to follow their beliefs? Don't those who want decriminallization of drugs want to force those who think that drugs destroy lives to follow their beliefs? Any law that anyone supports can be described as an attempt to force those who disagree to follow the beliefs of the laws supporters. If everyone agreed on what everyone should do there would be no need for laws.

Lucylastic -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 2:46:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Bounty, if you want to argue that abortion is morally wrong, fine, I can understand that However, outlawing abortion would force people's actions to follow your beliefs, and I will argue that until the end of time Aren't people who want unrestricted immigrantion trying to force those who don't want open borders to follow their beliefs? Don't those who want decriminallization of drugs want to force those who think that drugs destroy lives to follow their beliefs? Any law that anyone supports can be described as an attempt to force those who disagree to follow the beliefs of the laws supporters. If everyone agreed on what everyone should do there would be no need for laws. reducing the effects of childbirth to the feelings of immigration protesters is ridiculous

Phydeaux -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 3:15:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler So, once again. I wasn't even saying abortion is right or wrong, but it's forcing your beliefs on others, wasn't even saying forcing your beliefs is right or wrong, but you're an idiot and hypocritical for saying it's not forcing your beliefs on others. Outlawing murder is forcing your beliefs on others, but unlike abortion, there is general consensus in belief that murdering a person that has been born is murder. "Nuh-uh" doesnt work as counterpoint You are being hypocritical in continuing to throw insults around DW. Kindly desist. "legal because we say it is" is not a logical argument differentiating murder and abortion. What I was originally asking is the logical distinction between the two. By saying the distinction is "we say it is" you are, in essence, giving the correct answer that there is no logical difference. We have, in essence, carved out an exception to murder being against the law. One class of people are denied equal protection of the law, based on the desires of a preferred interest group. I have religious, logical and procedural differences with R v W. Ignoring the religious for the moment, R v W means: a. That the principle of "personhood" is subject to political definition. It seems to me that the definition of being a person should not be subject to political redefinition. If so, it should occur through the regular procedure, which allows all concerned to have a voice. (See procedural argument). By this same process, nothing is stopping the courts from removing rights from any group. People rightly criticize that slavery counted blacks as 3/5ths of a person - yet, here we have gone farther in declaring a baby as a non person. Lest you think my comparison to slavery is over the top - let me quote you Martin Luther King: "The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.” How can the “Dream” survive if we murder the children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate. " b. Since R v W, more than 65% of abortions have been to minorities. Planned Parenthood was founded on the idea of eliminating minority (black) babies. And to date, more than 40% of black pregnancies end in abortion. In 2009, more blacks were killed by abortion than all other cuases - in fact more than twice as much as all other causes. 286,623 blacks were killed. Since R v W, more than 17 million black babies were aborted. In 2012 & 13, the Supreme Court ruled that even non-intentional statistical disparities count. There is no question that the R v W has had disparate impact, per capita black women have abortions at 5 times the rate of white women. There is no question that we have set up a system of rules and economy that is genocidal to blacks. 17 million black babies. c. It is striking to me that we will protest jeer and argue and picket about the 4000 deaths in iraq, or the 2000 deaths in afghanistan. Or 443 black people killed by police. Yet we will not confront the 55 million abortions. Our deaths from two years of abortions exceed US fatalities in all wars, in its entire history. The Department of transportation will spend $10 million dollars to prevent 1 statistical death, and yet we spend almost nothing to minimize abortions. We do not talk about it. We do not desire to minimize it. Rather, it is truly the third rail in American politics. I find the dichotomy abhorrent. Procedurally, I get tired of the Supreme Court inventing shit. The procedure to change the constitution is supposed to be ammendment. What it has become is confirm judges willing to change the law to conform with one party or the others point of view. The states were in the process of being the laboratory - of determining solutions for the issue - and the supreme court stopped that process - depriving the citizens of the opportunity of having their voices heard. Roe v Wade - invented an implied right of privacy, and used that to trump explicit consititutional protections.

DominantWrestler -> RE: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2/7/2016 3:24:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Bounty, if you want to argue that abortion is morally wrong, fine, I can understand that However, outlawing abortion would force people's actions to follow your beliefs, and I will argue that until the end of time Aren't people who want unrestricted immigrantion trying to force those who don't want open borders to follow their beliefs? Don't those who want decriminallization of drugs want to force those who think that drugs destroy lives to follow their beliefs? Any law that anyone supports can be described as an attempt to force those who disagree to follow the beliefs of the laws supporters. If everyone agreed on what everyone should do there would be no need for laws. Unless they are forcing you to take drugs, they are not forcing you to follow their beliefs. Ironically, it's the libertarian argument Bounty said that outlawing abortion was not forcing others to follow your beliefs. I argued it is forcing your beliefs. That's all.

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625