Well, one of those people are sentient and feel pain, one does not, that’s a large part of the criteria, not to mention, abortion rights itself is largely an issue of where people draw the moral line, since it’s morality is unsure, but there’s not truly a right or wrong answer before the fetus can feel pain. He also doesn’t believe GMOs should be banned, he’s actually been fighting Mexico about un-banning corn GMOs in trade, and when he says that drugs should be legal, it’s paired with heavy restrictions upon them, rehab centers, and cleaner drugs overall to cripple the sales of cartels.
@Patriot-#1776Constitution2mos2MO
There is truly a right and wrong answer before the baby can feel pain – right answer – defend him, wrong answer, murder him. This ain't rocket science. How am I certain of this? It's in the Bible, which is the only logical explanation and justification for our reality.
@9CJ6CB62mos2MO
Bible isn’t a basis of law, it wasn’t written to be one either. If the child cannot feel, think, or move on it’s own, that’s not a child, that’s a fetus, though it’s DNA is different, that doesn’t make it of the same moral value as a fully grown and birthed child. Morality is something that varies between conditions in certain aspects, and this is one of those times where it varies.
@Name-IrrelevantConstitution 2mos2MO
The ability to feel pain has never been a determination of what does and doesn't count as life. Coma patients are never declared non-human simply because they can't feel pain (as far as we know). Therefore, we can't discount the human status of the unborn simply based on whether or not they're known to feel pain.
@9CJ6CB62mos2MO
And they’re also fully grown, pain is one of many factors here, it’s just the most powerful one I commonly use.
@Patriot-#1776Constitution2mos2MO
If the Bible, which in our previous conversations I have proved, is the only logical possibility, why should we not base important laws off the truths we read of therein?
@9CJ6CB62mos2MO
Because regardless, the law restraining things based off of what is a sin directly encroaches upon the capacity for someone to even choose right or wrong in a victimless manner. If we made every sin illegal, where’s the choice to not do it in the first place? That’s the basis of the Christian gospel, it must be chosen, not forced, and its moral values do not speak for everyone, nor is it even built or stated to do so. Nationalizing religion is a perversion of its purpose, and a failure of trust in faith itself, opting to enforce it based on one’s own religious opinions that… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution2mos2MO
You've committed the Strawman Fallacy (again!) attacking a position I never claimed to hold (that every sin should be illegal). Rather, what I said was the the MURDER OF THE UNBORN should be illegal. I never said I was in favour of government banning things like insulting people, hitting people, and excluding people – I said I was in favour of government preventing the shedding of innocent blood. Quite a difference, that.
