So, our elected officials determine for us what is and is not moral?
Learn how to read. I literally just told you that THE PEOPLE determine via the representatives who they elect.
Then why haven't they outlawed extra-marital sex?
You are still avoiding the fact that The People, via their elected representatives in government, ALREADY legislate morality. Just admit that I was correct about this and you were wrong, otherwise we're just going to continue going in circles.
But not everything which is immoral should be illegal...
You really can't stay focused on a single topic, can you? Is your strategy to fatigue me by bouncing all around to different topics and continuously moving the goalposts around?? STAY FOCUSED!!!! You claimed that you oppose "legislating morality" and I have refuted your claim by pointing out that government ALREADY "legislates morality" (see the current murder and theft laws THAT YOU SUPPORT, for example).
And there's you, being a monumental failure at explaining the "why" part of the question...
There's no need for me to explain anything... You are simply bouncing all around various topics and rabbit holes, continuously moving goalposts around, instead of staying focused on a single point of discussion (because you keep losing each one that you bring up).
Horse shit. If you were, you'd have explained the "why" behind your answer of "Maybe we should"...
Horse shit. I've been straightforward with you this whole time while YOU have been continuously bouncing around random topics, rabbit holes, and goalpost shifts. STAY FOCUSED.
Hardly. Unless you take the position that every immoral act should be illegal, you're a hypocrite...
Once again, STAY FOCUSED..... You made a claim that one shouldn't "legislate morality". I've refuted that claim by telling you that morality IS ALREADY BEING LEGISLATED (see current murder and theft laws for example) and that you support those laws, thus you support the legislating of morality.
Sure, why wouldn't she?
Then again, I didn't mention Wisconsin, you did, simply because you can't argue my point about a woman in Portland
No, I mentioned Wisconsin because I am in Wisconsin and because it is an example that needs to be treated the same as your "murder and theft" being "the law" statement. In Wisconsin, abortion is treated the same way and is "the law".
without your ignorant "What if I'm her husband" bullshit scenarios.
As you phrased your initial question, I could be affected by her abortion decision if I happened to be her husband (and the father of the kid being aborted).
You're NOT her husband, and you KNOW you're not affected by it...
Continued goalpost shifting...
We disagree, although I can acknowledge (and I'm assuming here) that your faith dictates that belief...
It CAN dictate it, but it doesn't have to. Science also supports my position (human life development stages, etc), so I have no need to appeal to my religious beliefs.
Do you understand what "viable" is?
Yes. Now answer my questions:
What is developing inside of the mother's womb for 9 months if not her child? What comes out of her womb after 9 months if not her child?
And if I were talking about what moral and legal in Wisconsin, you might actually have a point.
So you're just going to ignore any example that refutes your position?? Got it.
Wow.
I asked how a woman getting an abortion in Portland affects you
That's not what you asked originally. Continued goalpost shifting.
and, instead of actually answering the question (which you remain being a pathetic failure at)
I answered the question that you asked. I'm not answering all of your goalpost shifting questions.
You want me to consider "What if" scenarios like you being her husband or her boyfriend. Sorry, Chief, but that's not reality.
No, that was made in response to your original question as you originally asked it. It showed you examples that refuted your position... and you don't like that so now you are moving goalposts. I'm gonna be done responding to your drivel after this response since you are incapable of holding an honest discussion without constantly moving goalposts around after you get refuted.
You can't answer my question because you're afraid to answer it honestly...
I've already answered it. Now you are moving goalposts because I successfully refuted your position. I'm not playing that game.
Says the "What if I were her husband" guy...
It was a direct answer and refutation to your claim, as originally claimed. You've since shifted the goalposts, and I'm not letting you off the hook for it.
No, you didn't. Please stop being such an idiot.
Yes I did. You should take your own advice.
REAL CLEAR QUESTION: How does a woman that you don't know, getting an abortion in Portland, adversely affect you in Wisconsin?
Continued goalpost shift. Summarily dismissed.
That's the last time I'm going to ask.
I've already determined that I'm done beating a dead horse who can't stay focused on a single point of discussion without constantly shifting goalposts.
If you come back with some "What if I'm her boyfriend" bullshit I'll be left with no option than to label you a ******* retard and mock and taunt you.
Now you're resorting to insults.
I already know you won't answer it. I know that because I've asked it numerous times and each time you've cowardly avoided providing a direct, succinct answer...
RQAA.
Do you actually know how to read? I have to ask that because I've stated it several times...
Projection.
www.usmessageboard.com
