Yes, but if the Constitution didn't exist, then you would only be left with a moral argument. Simple!
No, wrong, which you should know, because I answered both questions: how does a person's murder affect me, & how does the destruction of a fetus, not yet legally considered a person, affects me. So, you tell me, Chris-- what am I to think? I answer your questions, which you nevertheless repeat, over & over. Do you not bother to read my answers? Is there some comprehension problem if which I am unaware? Or, perhaps you are suffering some mentally degenerative disease, affecting your memory? The only other possibility that comes to mind is that you read my answers and understand what I am saying, even have at least a vague recollection of my answering something along certain lines, but you proceed to re-ask the question anyway. That is my first question-- why the repetition of questions? My other question is, regardless of which of the above scenarios explains it, can you see any reason for me to continue wasting my time, RE-answering questions I'd answered for you just a page or so beforehand? Because, after all the times I've made these same basic points, if you still haven't at least grasped what my opinion is, I frankly see no chance that you ever will.
To confirm, I am talking about an illegal abortionist who kills born kids at the mother's request. How does that affect you?
What the freak is your point? In a world without laws or science, we'd just have to rely on morals? By the same G.D., idiotic token, if the friggin' Bible didn't exist, but the Constitution did, then you would only be left with a LEGAL argument. Simple! And if I wanted to debate someone whose points were of the calliber of this argument of yours, I'd go see my 7 or 8 year old neighbor-- S I M P L E !
Already answered. Read my damn reply, or my re-reply. Or get someone to read one of them to you! There is no reason you should be in doubt as to my answer, as I have spelled it out in the plainest language possible, about a half dozen times so far. If any obscurity remains, it is solely an attribute of your mind, not my repeated explanations.
I don't know that this is even true. Since human beings have always been communal, there must have been, from the very beginning, certain unwritten, but understood, codes of behavior, both expected & prohibited: in other words, laws. So, at best, one might make a case that personal morals developed concurrently with law, as some saw the laws, for example, as rules that one need obey, while others saw them, no doubt, as things to get around, either by brute force, or through their cunning, allowing them to not get caught.
Sorry, but your argument relies on Roe v Wade. Prior to that ridiculous ruling which completely manufactured the right to abortion, you would have had no argument!
Since that, "ridiculous ruling," was made by the Supreme Court of the United States, and has for almost half a century been the law of the land in this country-- how do I break this to you?-- it actually edges out your own, eminent reputation. And since your, "argument," so far has consisted mostly of asking me questions, then saying that I never answered them & so asking them again, that does not beat out the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling, in a debate-- your calling of the ruling ridiculous, notwithstanding-- surprising as that may be for you to hear. But your being able to laugh, in abject defeat, is a good quality (probably a necessary one, if that was what you considered making the case for your opinion).
1) A woman has the right to choose to get an abortion with no limitations. We can not legislate morality. 2) Anyone has the right to view those who had abortion as murderesses. 3) Many women and many men claim that "men are trash", that men are oppressors, that men are immoral. Men should answer: "I have faults, but given what you have done you are in no position to judge me".
You can not legislate morality. That is her decision. That is a moral crime she has to live with. I would never shame a woman for her choice to kill her unborn child -- unless she expresses the view that she is morally superior to me.
Uh, how do you know she's not? In her opinion she may be, just like it's only your opinion she isn't.
"Sarcasm." You make no argument to show that this Supreme Court ruling (which-- shocker!-- are generally regarded with much respect) is, "ridiculous." So, apparently, you believe that your prestige, in matters of law, is so great that merely your uttering an insulting term is enough, for some people, to take seriously (or else, why say something that everyone will regard as completely meaningless?). And, once again, I find myself needing to explain the logical implications of your own words to you-- good times.
In my opinion a woman who has killed her unborn child is a murderess. I am not advocating for it to be illegal. I would not even point that out unless she uses shaming language first.
An example of shaming tactics commonly used on men: I would not shame a woman who has not used shaming language. But when she points a shaming finger at others, the moral significance of her actions must be reiterated. Many people view abortion as murder.
If it is illegal, then the State will prosecute the murderer. If not, then it does not affect me. Many American men who committed war crimes in Korea/Vietnam/Iraq function normally in Society. Most women who had killed their unborn children function normally in Society. I could be a friend of such a person, but if they point an accusatory finger at me, I will remind them.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Uh, how do you know she's not? In her opinion she may be, just like it's only your opinion she isn't. It's only an opinion. But I didn't know it was a contest, too...LOL BTW, if women are committing murder why haven't you called the cops?
Almost everyone has done something unethical in their lives. I have cheated on my History exams in High School. Many people view abortion is extremely unethical as murder. It is not illegal and I am not advocating for it to become illegal. I generally would not throw anyone's unethical past at them unless they tried to shame me or judge me.