Ah .... emotional arguments based on your own bias, deflecting from the issue at hand. Congrats on your new level of zealotry.

What is at hand is the fundamental issue of liberty.

Your view of the subject matter is just that. And you are free to hold such views. At the same time, it does not change the fact that your views are not the laws people are duty-bound to live by, lest you wish for a " liberty oriented society" of your own making, that is, you get to choose what liberty is.

There are many systems that purport to stand for some idea what liberty should be, but on closer examination they are just another iteration of brute Force.

In a way, we are discussing the translation of personally held strong beliefs versus the operation of government. I will revisit this a little bit later.

Anarchism is just that, a society without an archon. Be it a president, a mono-arch (monarch), a small group of people deciding what is and what is not desirable( a Soviet, a committee, and what have you). Lacking knowledge of the articles of confederation and the operation of that compact, is detrimental to grasping what the intent was of these compacts.

Freedom requires virtue as opposed to servitude to a system of thought, system of behavior. It requires self determination to never be dependent, will-power, critical thinking, work-ethos, etc.

What I have shown you with a few words in my other posts, is there is a difference between your version of government, and our government. You are free to live according to any set of religious standards as long as you leave others the same courtesy. Why? Because then you would be trespassing on the rights of others.

That is the nucluous of the Roe v Wade Ruling which for sheer zealotry, you have not read. If you would, depending on how you read, you might come away with a different viewpoint. But I guess your mind is to closed to even be able to read and grasp the argument made in that ruling.

While the Scotus held that individual freedom cannot be trespassed against is a basic tenet of our co-habitation, it introduced State-interest, turning any pregnant woman into a ward of the state. Although there indeed is such a thing as state interest, the only interest the state has is the preservation of rights of individuals. By that standard, both federal and state are totally failing and by the same standard this ruling fails.

Reversal of Roe v Wade then mean what exactly? Not what you think it is. Reversal would mean putting the issue back where it belongs, with the individual and the State. However, a state too is bound by the limits put on it due to it's charge: the protection of the rights of the living, thinking, acting. ( Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness)

What you want is a total prohibition. And if one thing is clear from experience, prohibition does not work. See the prohibition amendments. It was a stupid, costly and unconstitutional amendment. This is a utilitarian argument. The principle is that a prohibition trespasses on the rights of the individual.

Even you can grasp the idea that the sovereign people create a state, the states create the fed. Fed then is a servant to the states, the states to the people.

The death-jab is in the same area. Prosciption or mandates vs rights of the individual. I am sure you would choose to defend liberty.

It seems your idea of principle is limited. Freedom is either a principle or it is not. If it is, it should function as the focal point to how we view any issue larger than our own circle of life.

Our experience in our life is a total inversion, where we are not free but subordinated to the state and the fed government. This is exacerbated by the unlimited creation of fake money. It breeds corruption and a unhealthy power distribution.

This corruption is taking shape on a large scale and of such eggregious level, it threatens to undo the social fabric. We already discussed the phenomenae.

In your personal life, living by your conviction is a good thing. But this country was not founded as a theocracy, it was founded on the principle of freedom, so as to facilitate your version of living by standards you are convinced are the ultimate truth. And only living beings of sound mind and heart can do so. Again, I point you to both the declaration of Independence, and the 1793 farewell address of George Washington.

To expound on the issue, it will perhaps surprise you that philosophically there was a time when debates were raging whether locals in Africa and America had a soul at all. You do not have to trust me on this. Simply read a book on late middle age philosophy. It is all out there. Or read up on witch hunts. These are disquieting. The commonality is a lack of knowledge and insight.

For practical purposes, government can never make any law establishing a religion. Hence, the reason for any action must therefor be free of religious connotations, as that would violate the sovereign right to freedom of the living, thinking, acting.

So, in essence, take out the source of the corruption, and then revisit this topic again. It will be of a different magnitude.