Win / GreatAwakening
GreatAwakening
Sign In
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Reason: None provided.

The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade defined viability as the ability to survive outside the womb, not the ability to survive outside the womb with no other human assistance. Obviously we're social creatures. We need each other to survive. But we hold the right to privacy and bodily autonomy as sacrosanct. Every bit as important as the right to life. It's why we feel ok using deadly force against invaders trying to take our land or trying to enslave us. It doesn't matter if they want to kill us or not, because freedom is worth dying, and killing for.

the timing of the murder is completely arbitrary.

Again you're ignoring realities about killing here in order to bolster a weak point. You know that not every killing is a murder. When a soldier kills another soldier in battle, it's not murder. When a father kills an intruder in his home, it's not murder. We define what types of killings constitute murder. Now, you clearly think that the moment a sperm enters an egg that nobody else's rights matter anymore, and frankly I agree with you in principle, but when I think about what this country would be like if we adopted that precedent, that the right to life immediately subordinates all other rights well...just think about that for a minute and tell me you'd be ok with that. Because I don't think you would either.

3 years ago
1 score
Reason: Original

The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade defined liability as the ability to survive outside the womb, not the ability to survive outside the womb with no other human assistance. Obviously we're social creatures. We need each other to survive. But we hold the right to privacy and bodily autonomy as sacrosanct. Every bit as important as the right to life. It's why we feel ok using deadly force against invaders trying to take our land or trying to enslave us. It doesn't matter if they want to kill us or not, because freedom is worth dying, and killing for.

the timing of the murder is completely arbitrary.

Again you're ignoring realities about killing here in order to bolster a weak point. You know that not every killing is a murder. When a soldier kills another soldier in battle, it's not murder. When a father kills an intruder in his home, it's not murder. We define what types of killings constitute murder. Now, you clearly think that the moment a sperm enters an egg that nobody else's rights matter anymore, and frankly I agree with you in principle, but when I think about what this country would be like if we adopted that precedent, that the right to life immediately subordinates all other rights well...just think about that for a minute and tell me you'd be ok with that. Because I don't think you would either.

3 years ago
1 score