Unwanted pregnancies did not increase as a result of legalized abortion, that's ridiculous. Unwanted pregnancies increased due to the sexual revolution and the realization that it is neither a crime or a sin to have sexual urges. Also ridiculous is robbery=abortion, don't try using that in your debate club.

I personally believe abortion should be legal but efforts should be made to minimize it's use. I would hope that individuals try to minimize it in a positive constructive way such as high quality and accessible sexual education. I would also like to see RU486 made more available so unintended pregnancies could be terminated at the earliest stages.

But I will reiterate that it is extreme...

Unwanted pregnancies did not increase as a result of legalized abortion, that's ridiculous. Unwanted pregnancies increased due to the sexual revolution and the realization that it is neither a crime or a sin to have sexual urges. Also ridiculous is robbery=abortion, don't try using that in your debate club.

I personally believe abortion should be legal but efforts should be made to minimize it's use. I would hope that individuals try to minimize it in a positive constructive way such as high quality and accessible sexual education. I would also like to see RU486 made more available so unintended pregnancies could be terminated at the earliest stages.

But I will reiterate that it is extremely easy for you to judge someone else when you will never have to make that decision. If men were capable of getting pregnant abortion would be legal in almost every county in the U.S.

Unwanted pregnancies did not increase as a result of legalized abortion, that's ridiculous. Unwanted pregnancies increased due to the sexual revolution and the realization that it is neither a crime or a sin to have sexual urges.

I think what I was trying to get across is that because people know they have an "easy out" with abortion, they are less careful when it comes to their sexual activity. Abortion was probably more a direct result of the sexual revolution, as you (probably unwittingly) suggest.

Also ridiculous is robbery=abortion, don't try using that in your debate club.

Let me explain. I was trying to show you how your logic would not work in anothe...

Unwanted pregnancies did not increase as a result of legalized abortion, that's ridiculous. Unwanted pregnancies increased due to the sexual revolution and the realization that it is neither a crime or a sin to have sexual urges.

I think what I was trying to get across is that because people know they have an "easy out" with abortion, they are less careful when it comes to their sexual activity. Abortion was probably more a direct result of the sexual revolution, as you (probably unwittingly) suggest.

Also ridiculous is robbery=abortion, don't try using that in your debate club.

Let me explain. I was trying to show you how your logic would not work in another similar context. Now explain to me how this is ridiculous.

But I will reiterate that it is extremely easy for you to judge someone else when you will never have to make that decision.

Ok...you have no idea of my background, my past, my present, the people I know, or the things I have witnessed, and yet you make a blanket assumption about me. Could that be called judging?

If men were capable of getting pregnant abortion would be legal in almost every county in the U.S.

That is one of the most tired arguments out there. It suggests that the only ones responsible for abortion are women. I remember to this day a girl I knew who was pregnant and wanted the baby, but the guy and his family pressured her into having an abortion. I personally feel that abortion is more for the benefit of the guy--to let him have an orgasm in just any way he pleases and get him off the hook when there are "consequences".

Actually, I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned that the sexual revolution showed us that it was "neither a crime nor a sin to have sexual urges". While that may be true, there are some sexual urges that it is both a crime and a sin to act upon--and trying to "abort" the unwanted consequences does not resolve the problem.

Well, Fetuses are not children they are zygotes in the process of becoming children.
Unless I am financially and emotionally prepared to care for another human being I think I would let other people make their own personal decisions.
Until the offspring is born it is part of the mother's body. If a woman wishes to cut her arm off it's Her descision.
Once a baby is born it becomes itself. If a baby is born that is alive and it is aborted then its murder. If a fetus can survive on its own outside the womb and it is aborted it is murder.
If someone else wants to assume the responsibilities for the fetus after its born then the woman should be allowed to sell it as she would a kidney or blood....

Well, Fetuses are not children they are zygotes in the process of becoming children.
Unless I am financially and emotionally prepared to care for another human being I think I would let other people make their own personal decisions.
Until the offspring is born it is part of the mother's body. If a woman wishes to cut her arm off it's Her descision.
Once a baby is born it becomes itself. If a baby is born that is alive and it is aborted then its murder. If a fetus can survive on its own outside the womb and it is aborted it is murder.
If someone else wants to assume the responsibilities for the fetus after its born then the woman should be allowed to sell it as she would a kidney or blood. If I wanted to sign for a child that was slated for abortion the mother should be allowed to say yes or no because its still part of her body. Abortion should be legal up to the time the fetus is able to live on its own. After that it is a person and abortion should be classed as murder.
If everyone that is so worried about the death of a fetus thru abortion they should be suing for the custody of the child.
Of coarse all these ideas should be recinded for the few percent that deal with rape and health issues.
But this is just my opinion.

Saying that because the baby can't live on it's own merit it should be killed is like saying that a child who is too young to work should be gotten rid of. I hate to use such a brash analogy but it is what results when your logic is used.

No its not.
I said that because its not murder to cut your arm off. A child is already a human being. A fetus that is still developing is not. Sorry but just because it may or may not 'become' a human being doesn't mean it is still a person.
I have a grandchild on the way right now. I don't want it to be aborted. The parents do not either. It probably will not. Until its born tho, Its not my grandchild. Its my daughter-in-law growing my grand...

Saying that because the baby can't live on it's own merit it should be killed is like saying that a child who is too young to work should be gotten rid of. I hate to use such a brash analogy but it is what results when your logic is used.

No its not.
I said that because its not murder to cut your arm off. A child is already a human being. A fetus that is still developing is not. Sorry but just because it may or may not 'become' a human being doesn't mean it is still a person.
I have a grandchild on the way right now. I don't want it to be aborted. The parents do not either. It probably will not. Until its born tho, Its not my grandchild. Its my daughter-in-law growing my grandchild. It's part of my son too but it IS my daughter-in-law.
If my daughter-in-law had a wart on her hand and it had bacteria growing in it. If she wished to have it removed(Cut off) I would tell her to do as she pleases because its her body. That's my grandchild after its born. I know that. Right now tho, its not my grand fetus. It's hers. Period.

So cold...do you have a jacket I could borrow?

What I mean by that is it takes 2 people to create. Why is it only the woman that is considered?

These two quotes are going to be answered with the same statement...
I believe it is the responsibility of the people involved to make the decision. Other people should stay out of the issue entirely. A zygote is a combination of the male and the female but the mass of the body is produced by the mother's body. A father should have a say but the mother's say should be final. I am incorrect because fatherhood only starts after a baby is born where motherhood is from the moment of conception. A mother is responsible for th...

So cold...do you have a jacket I could borrow?

What I mean by that is it takes 2 people to create. Why is it only the woman that is considered?

These two quotes are going to be answered with the same statement...
I believe it is the responsibility of the people involved to make the decision. Other people should stay out of the issue entirely. A zygote is a combination of the male and the female but the mass of the body is produced by the mother's body. A father should have a say but the mother's say should be final. I am incorrect because fatherhood only starts after a baby is born where motherhood is from the moment of conception. A mother is responsible for the development of the fetus. She is the fetus until the life takes on its own systems. A baby is not a person until it is born. until then it is just part of the woman's reproduction system.

If the man wants the baby and the woman doesn't, he should figure out a way the nurture the mass of cells himself.
I do NOT believe a clump of cells is a baby. It's not actually a baby for a long time. As I said before, I do not believe a woman should be forced to carry around something she doesn't want in her body if she doesn't want to.
Whether she wants to keep the baby or not, it is, by definition, a parasite until it's born. Some of you just don't like the negative connotation of the word. Whatever you choose to call it, it lives off the mother, stealing nutrients and oxygen until it's born. E.G., a parasite. Some women don't mind because it's a wanted parasite. Others do. Like I said...

If the man wants the baby and the woman doesn't, he should figure out a way the nurture the mass of cells himself.
I do NOT believe a clump of cells is a baby. It's not actually a baby for a long time. As I said before, I do not believe a woman should be forced to carry around something she doesn't want in her body if she doesn't want to.
Whether she wants to keep the baby or not, it is, by definition, a parasite until it's born. Some of you just don't like the negative connotation of the word. Whatever you choose to call it, it lives off the mother, stealing nutrients and oxygen until it's born. E.G., a parasite. Some women don't mind because it's a wanted parasite. Others do. Like I said before, I don't like it. Not for me.I wouldn't do it personally, but I don't believe "I" have that right to make that decision for someone else. I also don't believe the government does either. Government is too big as it is and meddle in everyone's business. I would become a libertarian, but they never have a chance in national elections.

Here's a rough analogy. Let's say you woke up one morning and, to your surprise, there were a bunch of tubes painfully attached to your body. You try to get out of bed and realize that the tubes are attached at the other end to a sleeping person. You start to remove them when someone says, "If you do that, he'll die, and then you'll be a murderer." When you ask for an explanation, you're told that you have to keep the tubes attached and carry the fellow around with you for the next nine months, and then you can hand him over to someone else to take care of.

If you think abortion is murder, then you also think the person in this situation who still thinks he has the right to remove the tube...

Here's a rough analogy. Let's say you woke up one morning and, to your surprise, there were a bunch of tubes painfully attached to your body. You try to get out of bed and realize that the tubes are attached at the other end to a sleeping person. You start to remove them when someone says, "If you do that, he'll die, and then you'll be a murderer." When you ask for an explanation, you're told that you have to keep the tubes attached and carry the fellow around with you for the next nine months, and then you can hand him over to someone else to take care of.

If you think abortion is murder, then you also think the person in this situation who still thinks he has the right to remove the tubes is also a murderer. Right or wrong. Anyone who pretends this is a simple, clear-cut issue is lying.

Here's a rough analogy. Let's say you woke up one morning and, to your surprise, there were a bunch of tubes painfully attached to your body. You try to get out of bed and realize that the tubes are attached at the other end to a sleeping person. You start to remove them when someone says, "If you do that, he'll die, and then you'll be a murderer." When you ask for an explanation, you're told that you have to keep the tubes attached and carry the fellow around with you for the next nine months, and then you can hand him over to someone else to take care of.

Let's examine the analogy.

People don't just "wake up one morning" to find themselves pregnant. The mechanics of the wh...

Here's a rough analogy. Let's say you woke up one morning and, to your surprise, there were a bunch of tubes painfully attached to your body. You try to get out of bed and realize that the tubes are attached at the other end to a sleeping person. You start to remove them when someone says, "If you do that, he'll die, and then you'll be a murderer." When you ask for an explanation, you're told that you have to keep the tubes attached and carry the fellow around with you for the next nine months, and then you can hand him over to someone else to take care of.

Let's examine the analogy.

People don't just "wake up one morning" to find themselves pregnant. The mechanics of the whole thing is that somebody is responsible--whether it be the guy or the girl or both. There is one person in the whole equation who is NOT responsible...and that is the baby.

This is the point when people usually start hollering about the fetus not being a baby. Thankfully, your analogy refers to a person--so we can skip all that.

Gotta side with brazilnut72. I cannot make any sense of that analogy. Folk may hope not to become pregnant, but they do not truly become pregnant against their will.

As for this quote: "Once the government has the ability to control our bodies, our freedom is completely gone. Where will it stop?" Just a couple of follow up questions: Is prostitution legal outside Nevada? Are mandatory seat belt laws widespread? If caught attempting suicide, does the legal system detain the person for their own protection or do they turn them loose to complete the job? Is the injection of heroin legal? I could go on, but I think you can grasp the point. There are all kinds of laws pertaining to the ...

Gotta side with brazilnut72. I cannot make any sense of that analogy. Folk may hope not to become pregnant, but they do not truly become pregnant against their will.

As for this quote: "Once the government has the ability to control our bodies, our freedom is completely gone. Where will it stop?" Just a couple of follow up questions: Is prostitution legal outside Nevada? Are mandatory seat belt laws widespread? If caught attempting suicide, does the legal system detain the person for their own protection or do they turn them loose to complete the job? Is the injection of heroin legal? I could go on, but I think you can grasp the point. There are all kinds of laws pertaining to the "body". Has been since the start of recorded history. This is an intellectually lazy argument.

People don't just "wake up one morning" to find themselves pregnant. The mechanics of the whole thing is that somebody is responsible--whether it be the guy or the girl or both. There is one person in the whole equation who is NOT responsible...and that is the baby.

Precisely. I said it was a rough analogy, and I expected this objection. It actually proves my point. When you come down to it, the objections to abortion have little to do with the fetus and everything to do with the "responsibility" of the parents. In other words, by rejecting the analogy, you show that your opposition to abortion is just as much about making sure the woman feels the effects of her unwise choices...

People don't just "wake up one morning" to find themselves pregnant. The mechanics of the whole thing is that somebody is responsible--whether it be the guy or the girl or both. There is one person in the whole equation who is NOT responsible...and that is the baby.

Precisely. I said it was a rough analogy, and I expected this objection. It actually proves my point. When you come down to it, the objections to abortion have little to do with the fetus and everything to do with the "responsibility" of the parents. In other words, by rejecting the analogy, you show that your opposition to abortion is just as much about making sure the woman feels the effects of her unwise choices about sex as it is about protecting an innocent victim.

Similarly, I hear very few anti-abortion activists, at least those who base their arguments on the supposed personhood of embryos and fetuses, advocating for an increase in research funding to fight what they must consider to be the #1 public health problem in this country: spontaneous miscarriages, which by some estimates claim the lives of one-third of the children conceived in this country, many more than are killed by abortion.

Most people on hearing this argument object that spontaneous miscarriages are just that -- spontaneous -- and that they're no-one's fault. But that completely misses the point. If you are really interested in protecting fetuses, then you should want to protect them from every kind of harm, whether or not it's an intentionally inflicted harm or not. The fact that you're not -- at least most anti-abortion activists are not -- shows that they're more concerned about regulating and punishing the actions of the prospective parents than about protecting the unborn "child" (or fetus, embryo, or blastocyst, as the case may be).

The point of the first analogy is that it shows you care more about the responsibility of the people having sex than you are in the well-being of the other life at stake.

When you come down to it, the objections to abortion have little to do with the fetus and everything to do with the "responsibility" of the parents.

No. That is not true. It was your analogy that was lacking, not my concern for those who are in unwanted pregnancy situations.

In other words, by rejecting the analogy, you show that your opposition to abortion is just as much about making sure the woman feels the effects of her unwise choices about sex as it is about protecting an innocent victim.

Once again, no. By rejecting the analogy, I show nothing other than the fact that it was a faulty analogy.

Similarly, I hear very few anti-abortion activis...

read more»

When you come down to it, the objections to abortion have little to do with the fetus and everything to do with the "responsibility" of the parents.

No. That is not true. It was your analogy that was lacking, not my concern for those who are in unwanted pregnancy situations.

In other words, by rejecting the analogy, you show that your opposition to abortion is just as much about making sure the woman feels the effects of her unwise choices about sex as it is about protecting an innocent victim.

Once again, no. By rejecting the analogy, I show nothing other than the fact that it was a faulty analogy.

Similarly, I hear very few anti-abortion activists, at least those who base their arguments on the supposed personhood of embryos and fetuses, advocating for an increase in research funding to fight what they must consider to be the #1 public health problem in this country: spontaneous miscarriages, which by some estimates claim the lives of one-third of the children conceived in this country, many more than are killed by abortion.

I am sure not against funding to help avoid the accidental death of the unborn. I am certainly AGAINST funding to support their purposeful slaughter. Do you see a difference there? Your line of reasoning would seem to suggest that because the unborn die naturally, it is ok for us to kill them. Of course this does not bear out for the rest of the human race, does it.

The point of the first analogy is that it shows you care more about the responsibility of the people having sex than you are in the well-being of the other life at stake.

What your bad analogy and subsequent defense of it show is that you have a pre-conceived notion of what motivates pro-life people.

Actually, no. Your response just shows you didn't understand my argument. You're basically just repeating your original argument, rather than responding to my point.

The point here is that if you're interested in protecting the unborn, protect them in all situations, not just in situations where someone's done something you don't like. And the particular criticism you make of my analogy -- and your apparent incomprehension of my response to your criticism -- shows that you either can't or won't separate the question of "moral responsibility" of potential parents from the question of the rights of the unborn baby. But you must recognize that they're two separate questions.

Nothing in my a...

Actually, no. Your response just shows you didn't understand my argument. You're basically just repeating your original argument, rather than responding to my point.

The point here is that if you're interested in protecting the unborn, protect them in all situations, not just in situations where someone's done something you don't like. And the particular criticism you make of my analogy -- and your apparent incomprehension of my response to your criticism -- shows that you either can't or won't separate the question of "moral responsibility" of potential parents from the question of the rights of the unborn baby. But you must recognize that they're two separate questions.

Nothing in my argument was intended to justify abortions, which I think are morally problematic. I was trying to show, though, that the issues are more complicated than most people like to admit, and that the pro-life position that claims to be justified solely on the basis of fetal personhood is, in most cases, internally inconsistent. To me, that suggests that there are other, implicit moral judgments being made here. Your arguments have repeatedly confirmed it: that you think abortion is a problem because the parents have a responsibility to care for their unborn child, not because the death of a fetus is in and of itself a horrible thing.

enbar,

I don't know how many ways I can say that you are wrong about what motivates pro-life people (or me, at least). The rough analogy you gave was an attempt to put me in a vise: either accept the analogy and thus accept the idea that abortion is at least acceptable (while perhaps "morally problematic"), or not accept it and brand myself a fundamentalist pig whose only concern is that too many people are having sex too often.

Please excuse me if I refuse to be caught in the vise. People in unwanted pregnancy situations should be treated with all kindness, sympathy...indeed love. Women who have had abortions need a special measure of love, because a good number of them are physicall...

enbar,

I don't know how many ways I can say that you are wrong about what motivates pro-life people (or me, at least). The rough analogy you gave was an attempt to put me in a vise: either accept the analogy and thus accept the idea that abortion is at least acceptable (while perhaps "morally problematic"), or not accept it and brand myself a fundamentalist pig whose only concern is that too many people are having sex too often.

Please excuse me if I refuse to be caught in the vise. People in unwanted pregnancy situations should be treated with all kindness, sympathy...indeed love. Women who have had abortions need a special measure of love, because a good number of them are physically and/or emotionally traumatized by the event.

However, something must be done to stop the systematic destruction of these. Perhaps the difference between us--other than geographic--is that you find abortion "morally problematic" while I find it morally reprehensible.

Wiccantexan - absolutely! Without a doubt. My sister's life - existing life - should take precedence. I take issue more, I think, with gratuitous abortions. I know someone who has had five abortions for no other reason than sheer irresponsibility. But in the case of health issues, rape, incest and deformity my conscience does not seer me as much because there are overriding considerations.

However, I have a family member who is a neo-natal nursing sister and she has had to handle late-term abortions. She says some of them cry and some suck their thumbs. She wraps them up (where other more hardened nursing staff don't bother), puts them in the kidney bowls and leaves them in the sluice...

Wiccantexan - absolutely! Without a doubt. My sister's life - existing life - should take precedence. I take issue more, I think, with gratuitous abortions. I know someone who has had five abortions for no other reason than sheer irresponsibility. But in the case of health issues, rape, incest and deformity my conscience does not seer me as much because there are overriding considerations.

However, I have a family member who is a neo-natal nursing sister and she has had to handle late-term abortions. She says some of them cry and some suck their thumbs. She wraps them up (where other more hardened nursing staff don't bother), puts them in the kidney bowls and leaves them in the sluice room where they eventually die. It kills her. I don't know how to handle or explain that on any level - intellectually, emotionally or spiritually.

I have been accused of thinking too emotionally about it. On the other hand a prime example of an intellect devoid of emotional intelligence would be Dr Mengele. All intellect with no heart.

michellezm, I agree with your sentiments above almost exactly.

I don't know how to handle or explain that on any level - intellectually, emotionally or spiritually.

I don't, either. I even understand how so many can make their rational against all abortion based on the small number of cases like those above. It's a moving argument.
I, personally, have never known anyone who "chose" a late term abortion.
People say it is irresponsible to have an abortion as birth control. I agree.
I have however, known 2 women who were irresponsible and anti-abortion. This is a terrible combination for the children born of these women. Odd, but they both have 5 children tha...

michellezm, I agree with your sentiments above almost exactly.

I don't know how to handle or explain that on any level - intellectually, emotionally or spiritually.

I don't, either. I even understand how so many can make their rational against all abortion based on the small number of cases like those above. It's a moving argument.
I, personally, have never known anyone who "chose" a late term abortion.
People say it is irresponsible to have an abortion as birth control. I agree.
I have however, known 2 women who were irresponsible and anti-abortion. This is a terrible combination for the children born of these women. Odd, but they both have 5 children that they have only participated in the upbringing of to a small degree. These kids (but for 1 who has an awesome, responsible dad, [That's one of 10 kids by 7 "fathers"]), who have lived their lives bouncing in and out of foster care, abusive situations, and despair at being unloved and inwanted.
This issue is a difficult one. There are NO easy answers. In a perfect world we'd have enough education and birth control to avoid most of these situations either way!!! Take a tour in some of the state run foster child facilities; group homes and such. That will break your heart! In a perfect world every child born would be wanted and loved and nurtured. In a perfect world abortion would only be the rare instance rather than a birth control method for the uneducated and irresponsible.
Since we don't live in a perfect world, and I am pro-child as well as pro-woman, and because I believe that allowing the government to legislate our health care choices is dangerous, I must end up on the side of choice. For me it's responsible choice. Educated choice. But in the end, still a woman's right to choose.

I don't approve of gratuitous abortions, but that is my belief and I cannot impose it on anyone.

However, It IS ok for abortionists to impose their view on society and force us to stand by while babies are slaughtered?

Because, at the end of the day, when I stand before God to give an account of my words and actions, I will be alone.

And what account will you give for discarding what YOU SAY is your belief and instead allow your moral conscience to be a slave to a materialist and evil idea?

Because, next on the materialist's agenda is cloning, eugenics, and maybe they'll even clone slaves. What the heck. The materialists justified slavery only 150 ye...

I don't approve of gratuitous abortions, but that is my belief and I cannot impose it on anyone.

However, It IS ok for abortionists to impose their view on society and force us to stand by while babies are slaughtered?

Because, at the end of the day, when I stand before God to give an account of my words and actions, I will be alone.

And what account will you give for discarding what YOU SAY is your belief and instead allow your moral conscience to be a slave to a materialist and evil idea?

Because, next on the materialist's agenda is cloning, eugenics, and maybe they'll even clone slaves. What the heck. The materialists justified slavery only 150 years ago. What goes around comes around. History is one big re-run.

It's called FREE WILL. You know, like freedom of speech, it's freedom of action. We were all born with a free will. People who cannot accept that are called TYRANTS. And it takes a tyrant to conquer a tyrant. Neither do I suffer from a 'saviour' complex. I have not been charged by God or anyone else for that matter to rescue all of humanity from their FREELY WILLED actions. NO ONE has the right to impose their ethics, values, morality, religion on anyone else. It can be discussed and shared, but not forced.

Every female has to make that choice HERself. I don't think WILLHELM you are ever likely to have to make that decision for yourself..

"... discarding What YOU SAY is your bel...

It's called FREE WILL. You know, like freedom of speech, it's freedom of action. We were all born with a free will. People who cannot accept that are called TYRANTS. And it takes a tyrant to conquer a tyrant. Neither do I suffer from a 'saviour' complex. I have not been charged by God or anyone else for that matter to rescue all of humanity from their FREELY WILLED actions. NO ONE has the right to impose their ethics, values, morality, religion on anyone else. It can be discussed and shared, but not forced.

Every female has to make that choice HERself. I don't think WILLHELM you are ever likely to have to make that decision for yourself..

"... discarding What YOU SAY is your belief and
instead allow your moral conscience to be a slave
to a materialist and evil idea?"

You have seriously lost the plot here and I see no further point in commenting on that, quite frankly, absurd comment.

Michellezm, Free will is not a fall back plan. Your definition of free will suggests we allow all sorts of vile activity. We do not. That IS NOT what free will means.
Please do not take offense to my comments. They are just my opinion. I am not spewing propaganda or "facts" here. I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of applying free will to this sort of practice. The concept of free will which, in fact, you are applying incorrectly as it applies theologically.

Also, I was speaking about your application of "imposing views on society". The only view that has been imposed on society is the practice of abortion.

This is the same materialist concept that imposed slavery on s...

Michellezm, Free will is not a fall back plan. Your definition of free will suggests we allow all sorts of vile activity. We do not. That IS NOT what free will means.
Please do not take offense to my comments. They are just my opinion. I am not spewing propaganda or "facts" here. I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of applying free will to this sort of practice. The concept of free will which, in fact, you are applying incorrectly as it applies theologically.

Also, I was speaking about your application of "imposing views on society". The only view that has been imposed on society is the practice of abortion.

This is the same materialist concept that imposed slavery on society. Which also, by the way, was directly contrary to the will of the people. But, Hey...free will, right?

It's called FREE WILL. You know, like freedom of speech, it's freedom of action. We were all born with a free will. People who cannot accept that are called TYRANTS. And it takes a tyrant to conquer a tyrant. Neither do I suffer from a 'saviour' complex. I have not been charged by God or anyone else for that matter to rescue all of humanity from their FREELY WILLED actions. NO ONE has the right to impose their ethics, values, morality, religion on anyone else. It can be discussed and shared, but not forced.

YIKES!

Better move to a deserted island, because you are opposed to the very idea of government and society. Laws are peoples ideas, opinions, and morals forced on other p...

It's called FREE WILL. You know, like freedom of speech, it's freedom of action. We were all born with a free will. People who cannot accept that are called TYRANTS. And it takes a tyrant to conquer a tyrant. Neither do I suffer from a 'saviour' complex. I have not been charged by God or anyone else for that matter to rescue all of humanity from their FREELY WILLED actions. NO ONE has the right to impose their ethics, values, morality, religion on anyone else. It can be discussed and shared, but not forced.

YIKES!

Better move to a deserted island, because you are opposed to the very idea of government and society. Laws are peoples ideas, opinions, and morals forced on other people. And if you have ever participated in an election by casting a vote then you have attempted to force your ideas / opinions / morals on other people, either by elected representitive or by ballot measure.