True.

It's practically futile.

In most cases it's no biggie.

However, in some debates the ignorance and denials has lead to...

well..

You know...

It's not that I don't believe you so much.... but I would have to judge that for myself.

I'm actually betting this would be a best seller!

I say go for it!

If only.....

No matter how hard I have tried to do exactly that... well you can see for yourself what I get - instead.

Not to be argumentive... but I have no want for acceptance or for others to 'like' me. If they do they do and if they don't they don't. I strive to be the person that I want to be and I don't much care at all if others accept me or like me.

I like myself (most days) and that's good enough for me.

It's a fair point but I didn't come to this thread expecting to have to defend republicans on the abortion issue.

And no-one else was making the point that I did so...

I had to do it myself.

Conservatives (republicans) see abortions as the molestations / murders of children in the womb. We would like to adopt the attitude of dimz and say "if you don't like the murders and molestations of children in the womb, don't do it." But you're right.

We can't do that.

John Brown was hanged for his acts of terrorism.

His crime was that the raided an armory and tried to wage a civil war to free American slaves.

I don't agree that he should have been executed for that crime.

I only believe in the death penalty if there is a threat to life or civil liberties.

Abortions take the lives of the children killed and abortions (by killing them) deny those children their lives and civil liberties.

But you don't see that as a violation of the child killed at all?

Amazing.

Dude. You have it close.... but there is just too many steps between the first and last frames. Their thought processes are much less linear than that. LOL!

I have had many purposes in my life so far. Though I would like some 'do-overs' sometimes... I don't see any of them as mistakes.

I do like the idea of being a warning to others!

:)

I was masticating as I read this!

I think the dictionaries have it about right. It can apply to the other acts... but it especially applies to coitus.

Good.

I hope Andy reads it too.

Attention? Just for the sake of attention?

Prodigee has that and he's banned.

Andy should do away with it.

The point whoring trolls would then move onto other things.

I'm not saying that I 'care about your views' as much as I am saying "your views matter more to me than these stupid points do."

Why do you even care?

No offense, we have agreed on a few things and I consider you to be an Ally because of it....

But I would rather know you for your views than for "how many points" you have or where you are on the leader board.

Leader board for what?

These imbeciles have proven with their multiple accounts and vote bombing that

the points don't mean jack shit.

You have more than 26,000 points and I only have 260.

I'll guarantee you that people here already know more about many of my views than they do yours.

You are only fooling yourself.

The definitions for both pro and anti- abortion are fine as they are.

You just don't like the one that applies to you.

So, you admit to using the dictionary definitions (for Pro & abortion) out of context to poke holes in the definitions it has for the word pro-abortion that are in the proper context.

(face wall)

And you think this is credible?

" Pro-abortion: For abortion. All pregnant women should abort their children."

Show me one dictionary that has that as a definition.

If I were to search through your past votes and posts?

I digress.

I see no need to do that at this point.

This is true!

Marriage is the leading cause of divorce!

You never did answer directly....

Do you support our efforts to ban abortion and to make it illegal?

Or do you oppose our efforts to do that?

Am I pro-life by definition?

Fair question.

Let me look it up and see...

PRO-LIFE

adjective

opposing abortion and euthanasia:

By that definition, I am.

Are you?

Do you oppose any efforts to ban abortion and to criminalize it?

If you do... you are by definition pro-abortion.

I used to be "pro-choice / pro-abortion" myself so it's very easy for me to look at it from the other perspective.

I was in denial... and so are you (in my opinion.)

There are only two sides to the "abortion should be legal" debate.

Those who are opposed to it remaining legal are anti-abortion.*

Those who fight to keep it legal are pro-abortion.

The Oxford Dictionary and others have it right.

You are for abortion remaining legal.

You are opposed to abortions being banned.

That alone is all it takes for others to see you as pro-abortion.

Again, the Dictionaries have it right.

You do know that an increasing number of people call themselves pro-abortion... Don't you?

Google the phrase +"I am pro-abortion" and see for yourself.

That is a typical pro-abortion response and attitude.

You have not only defended abortion by giving justifications for it.... you have also announced your opposition to anyone who wants to make abortions illegal.

You are pro-abortion.

Accept it, embrace it... look at it from another's perspective for once.

This is why you are incorrect in your analysis.

Any person who wants to can proclaim their indifference and leave it at that.

It is their actions of taking a side in the debate - either for or against the legality of abortion - that makes them what they are.

By opposing people who are trying to ban abortion, you are making a pro-abortion statement with your actions.... even if you deny it with your words.

You have it exactly right!

If a person wants to see voluntary abortions criminalized, they are anti abortion.

Anyone who opposes that effort is taking the pro abortion side of the debate.

guns

Plural.

Our right to keep and bear arms is not based upon a need.

It is based upon the knowledge of the fact - that "it is better for the people to have guns the ability to defend themselves and their rights and not need them - than it is for them to need gun to defend those things and not have them."

Dear Santa... I know it's a little early to be writing you and that I've not really been a very good boy for much of this year...

That's right.

That's what the 1st Amendment is all about. .

We all can do that.

Do you disagree that our laws are also an extension of the people's 'morality?'

"Depending on what personhood means, I'd want to change the law to make consciousness a factor in that. "

Well then you have an ever greater task ahead of you than I do. Because it is the most recent laws which define it as a child in any stage of their development and many States have followed suit with that (federal) definition.

Thank you for considering the information.

You are missing the point though - that 'brain waves' are not legally required for "personhood."

What about children born with no brain at all?

Would you consider reading this case that made it all the way to the Supreme Court?

There is no need to change the definitions of word children to include human fetuses because they are already included as such in many medical and legal definitions.

A 'child' in the fetal stage of their life can be called a fetus.

It's still a child.

It's still the young of the parents who created it.