The Glade 4.0

Since Taskiss asked for it:


Its necessary to establish a framework and points of commonality.

We agree in principle that killing a person without just cause is wrong.
We agree in principle that killing a person in self defense can be morally justified.
We agree in principle that a non-person's life's value is something less than a person's life to varying degrees. (We kill germs without a second thought, we kill insects when they annoy us, we kill 'lower mammals' for sport, we kill cows for food, we euthanize dogs, horses and cats or other domesticated animals when we cannot financially support them.


Can we at least agree on this much?

I don't know your personal stance on turning off life support, but to continue the above argument, turning off life support is something a family member may do when a former person is no longer capable of making that decision. (persistent vegetative state, etc) So somewhere along the way most people agree in principle that it isn't DNA, it isn't Heartbeat, it isn't reflex that makes a person a person.



As a side note I've been dealing with a lot of death the last 3 months, having had to say good-bye to 2 grandparents and a dog.
This isn't some academic debate for me, this is a practical view of how I've had to deal with life and death. In my grandmother's case we agreed she would not want to be on life support and the decision was made collectively to turn off the machines. In theory she could have clung to life for several more years on the machines, but it would not have been her.



My opinion on abortion is based on my definition of personhood.

For me what makes a person is based on sapience; the capacity for independent thought, self-awareness, a personality defined by the sum total of the individual's experiences, memories, genetics. (Nature+Nuture put another way)

A human life is more than a collection of their cells. It isnt the fact that I have a heartbeat + Human DNA.

Put another way: What makes humans unique from other species? (lets not delve into great apes, dolphins, or any other species that has self-awareness for the moment) Why are they the only ones we have this concern for?

In my view a fetus does not pass the test for personhood. Its as simple as that. It has no self awareness. It is merely a collection of cells following its dna-encoded programming. As it matures it develops insticts, a more complicated program but a program the same. (just as an Ant reacts to stimuli)

Because it fails the personhood test it must therefore fall somewhere south of the value of a full person.




NOW: you may not *LIKE* my definition, you may not agree with my definition, but its not hypocritical; its consistent.

The problem with the debate you want to have is that we don't agree on your basic premise. (that a fetus is a person)

The fact that we don't agree on this basic point means there will probably never be any consensus.

This is why I reject your attempts to claim some basic inconsistency in my logic. My 'higher goal' is to protect 'persons' A fetus does not meet the qualification, so becomes a lesser priority when weighed against other concerns.
Example: I'm against the death penalty for any number of reasons,(cost of incarceration/appeals on death row vs life in prison, the number of people eventually exonerated, inconsistent sentencing) but not the least of which is the immorality of killing persons when other alternatives exist. I am pro-doctor assisted suicide because a person has the right to self determination.

On the list of 'evils' I wish the gov't to combat, higher on the list of priorities is the number of persons killed each year by firearms and/or violence.
On one hand, lots of persons being killed, on the other, no persons being killed. Seems simple calculus here.


I submit then, that if you start with the same basic premise that I have, you would easily reach the same conclusions and positions I do.
You, on the other hand, start with a different basic premise. and I will freely admit that with that basic premise one could easily reach the conclusion that abortion is an evil.

Anti-abortion advocates are not evil as a group. But there is certainly a subset that are. (The "Pregnancy Crisis Centers" that masquerade as health facilities, emotionally manipulate women, even lie to them or trick them for example)

Now, if you would like to discuss ways of reducing abortions, lets talk about federally funded birth control. Lets talk sex education and the abolition of abstinence only sex-ed courses.

Abstinence only sex-ed courses are proven to be utterly ineffective at reducing teen pregnancy (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... ort-argues , https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/)

On the other hand, making abortions illegal doesn't do much to reduce abortions, it simply means women get unsafe abortions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... 709326/#B4

The concept of "personhood" is the problem. The reliance on "sapience" is the problem. I've run across this before, years ago, and not to justify abortion but to justify robbing impaired people of their property.

The fact is that adult humans are the baseline for "sapience" in the first place. We invented the concept. It exists entirely to describe us.

The baseline case for a human is that we develop into such adults. Now, obviously in some cases that does not happen. Those are edge cases. The baseline case is that it does, which is how the species perpetuates itself.

Because all other cases are edge cases, they are not useful for describing the baseline objective. They are useful for designing exceptions. Various situations where an adult of normal - or even minimally sapient intelligence - will not develop are edge cases; they cannot be used to justify any case for abortion in general, only in edge cases. the same applies to rape; forcible sexual intercourse is not the baseline, or the norm; it is an edge case.

In the baseline case, a fetus will develop into a baby, which will become a child and then an adolescent and then an adult.

It is not the sapience at the particular point in time that matters; it is the sapience of the adult at the end.

As to sex ed, while abstinence only sex ed may be ineffective, that does not mean abstience as an option is unworkable, and it ought to be taught that way. The fact is that birth control is cheap and readily available and sex ed is practically everywhere. If you are pregnant, or father a child and no force was involved it is your own fault, period. It is not as if using a condom requires more than the most cursory instruction.

Arguments about one's own body are similarly only useful in edge cases where the mother is at risk of serious bodily harm or death. Other than that, the "its my body" argument is completely irrelevant. No one made women responsible for bearing children; that's just how biology works and women are fortunate that child-bearing is not automatically fatal as in some species. Now, we have come up with some mechanisms to make fathers responsible as well, but those methods are unfair and unjustifiable as long as we continue to ignore science and pretend that a fetus is a "cluster of cells". It is even less justifiable in the availability of methods to prevent pregnancy, available to literally everyone - there is NO ONE in the west who cannot afford condoms. If there is such a person they can refrain from sex until they can send $7; the problem is trivial.

The underlying problem is that people want consequence-free sex. This is not something people are entitled to; it is not the norm, it is possible only because of a technologically advanced society and you are not entitled to it nor is there any moral issue if you do not get it; especially given that it is very easy to get if you take simple precaustions which you CAN afford. No level of poverty excuses not getting it; those that do indicate that you NEED children because you live among primitives where children are labor capital.

Again, this is the base case. Edge cases do not matter; they can be addressed as edge cases.

Oh and one last thing - abortion, even legal, is not something to be done lightly. It is akin to an animal chewing its leg off to escape a trap. This is not something to celebrate or encourage, and the people that would "shout their abortion" or in any way glorify it are human swine who ought to be publicly whipped.



As for this, these people are not doing any of this, and the abortion crowd, including you, are not to decide what is evil, what is a health facility, or who is tricking people.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Potentiality does not equal actuality. An egg is not a chicken. A canvas and paint is not a painting.

And while I hate to use this as a source, it at least illustrates the point I'm making about CPCs:

https://youtu.be/4NNpkv3Us1I

A single specimen of any species has distinct, and not so distinct, phases of physical and intellectual capabilities.

The milestone of human self-awareness (recognition of oneself in a mirror) is one of the phases of the human condition that every healthy specimen transitions into at around 18 to 24 months, given a normal physiological environment

It's human before and after that milestone. All living organisms always phase developmentally, through all of the normal process of it's development. The human being isn't less of a human prior to self-awareness, no more so than a fledgling is less of a bird because it can't yet fly. Your distinction of self-awareness, even your totally fabricated "personhood" indicator is yours alone, there's no scientific support for that position at all.

In fact, the science is clear - take a clumps of cells, drop it off on mars, and the scientific community would pronounce "LIFE FOUND ON MARS!", and if those cells happened to contain human DNA, the pronouncement would be "HUMAN LIFE FOUND ON MARS!". A fetus isn’t a potential human, it’s a full fledged human. It’s potentially a doctor, a teacher, or a world leader, but no potential is needed for that fetus to be considered a person, it is, absolutely and without a doubt, a human being - a person.

Your rationalizations are irrelevant. Abortions are killing humans because they would be inconvenient to take care of.

What I find interesting is, your argument mirrors one rationale used to promote slavery - it’s not actually a “real” person, it’s inferior in some important aspect that allows some to rationalize their atrocity since it’s towards the “lesser” person.

But, just out of curiosity, how many other humans do you feel fall south of where you are on the “right to be alive”-o-meter?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

A human embryo/fetus is not like any of those things. It is not merely "potential"; it is in the process of developing into an adult; this is like treating a painting as "not artwork" because it isn't finished yet, and if it is damaged or destroyed pretending that it was only paint and canvas that was lost. It is not merely "could be" but "will be" in the normal course of events. An unfertilized egg is a potential human. An embryo or fetus is already a human; it is a potential adult - not significantly different from a teenager in that regard; it is merely earlier in the course of events.



Yeah, comedians are not a serious source of support, and I'm not wasting 21 minutes watching a video.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's not actually true. (http://www.mind.ilstu.edu/curriculum/wh ... person.php for just one example ) "personhood" is a fairly common definition, but even if it were totally unique to me, you asked me what my definition is. Again, you don't like it. You don't agree with it. But it is totally internally consistent and therefor not, as you claim, hypocritical.




Part of a thing is not the thing itself. Nor as DE claims, is the precursor to an object the object itself. A pool of water in the arctic is not ice. It will eventually BECOME Ice if it remains in its current environment. A fetus is not a person.

And since you provided the ammunition here, it most assuredly would NOT declare Human Life found on mars. To be LIFE (not alive mind you) but the generally accepted definitions for life include several things that a group of cells cannot do. Bacteria, single celled organisms? Sure. Because those are self contained lifeforms. A few cells of a human possess none of the characteristics of a human outside cell structure and dna.

And in fact, somewhere along the way I'm sure there were a few skin cells that made it on to one of the Mars rovers. But Humans have not been to Mars.





No.



Interesting. Aren't you allied with those who advocate shooting refugees if they try to cross the border? Isn't that killing humans because they would be inconvenient to take care of?

Thats really just a strawman though. The fact is you're leaving out they could also be a drug dealer, a serial killer, a rapist or the next Adolf Hitler (or >gasp< the next Barack Hussain Obama, or Hillary Clinton) The fetus is not yet any of those things. In fact many abortions, specifically what most people term are the most horrific of techniques (dilation and extraction) are typically done when the fetus will be none of those things. (typically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydranencephaly ).




Once out in the world, possessing memories, thoughts, insights of their own, pretty much anyone qualfies as a person. The only exception being someone who is brain dead, in which case, you're absolutely right; I don't think they're a person any more.

Hell, (yes I realize I'm setting you up for a cheap shot here) if someone were to happen to come across me in a hospital with no brain activity, I hope you'd have the decency to unplug me. Because 'me' isnt there anymore.


I reject your basic premise that human life=person. A person has value, and while we often shortcut the two terms the are not, in fact, equivalent.

I wouldn't try to equate a body that was brain dead but who's body worked fine otherwise with a mind who's body had all but stopped functioning but the mind still worked.

Would you truly have selected Terry Shaivo over Steven Hawking if you had to save one?



But lets take this discussion in another direction:

We both agree that killing a person without just cause is wrong.
Why?
What is it at the core of the act that is morally repugnant?

Yeah wouldn't want to watch anything that cites facts that directly contradict statements you made.
And the video actually has on camera statements from CPC employees that are pretty damning.

But if you'd like other articles on the subject, just to name a few:

Fixed Hyperlink
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/maga ... NshX/wMaAg
https://web.archive.org/web/20110629023 ... %2C00.html
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/22/us/a ... p=9&st=cse
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2412004155

There are hundreds more.

I don't consider comedy routines credible sources and I'm on pretty firm ground in that regard.



According to someone who comes into it with a completely biased view (that'd be you)

[quote[But if you'd like other articles on the subject, just to name a few:

https://www.contraceptionjournal.org/ar ... 10-7824(12)00415-5/fulltext
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/maga ... NshX/wMaAg
https://web.archive.org/web/20110629023 ... %2C00.html
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/22/us/a ... p=9&st=cse
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2412004155

There are hundreds more.[/quote]

Ok, so we have one article that pretty much says "yeah there's post abortion trauma", one that talks about being "in the clutches of a pro life organization" (this kind of language is why Time is not really a credible source these days) and claims the place was somehow at fault for deceptive practices because of where the phone company decided to list them, to say nothing of being from 32 years ago, one where I get a "page does not exist" error, one ***** about "misleading advertising that's from... 24 years ago, and a study that actually claims there is no such thing as post-abortion stress.


Yeah, sorry. It might help if the pro-choice people would admit that abortion is basically like an animal chewing its leg off to get out of a trap, rather than getting a mole removed - horrible, but sometimes necessary (there are edge cases where an abortion can be justified such as serious encyphalitis, if I'm spelling that right where the child is essentially born without a brain, or rape cases, etc) but trying to pretend that discouraging abortion is some horrible evil is well... evil.

"In the clutches" of a pro life group, indeed. I'm really not sure why killing babies is so sacred in some people's mind, and I'm a pretty harsh person. Babies will die sometimes; that's a fact of life. They'll even get killed sometimes. That doesn't mean killing babies is like getting treated for an anal fissure. Yes, I'm sure there are hundreds more articles produced by people who just can't stomach the thought of unbiased research or reporting. This is what we get for permitting total liberal control of academics and the press.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Dude, you realize this definition of personhood justifies euthanizing retards.

There's not a lot more to say. This is a purportedly scientific article citing "Star Trek".

I mean, WTF?

Oh wait, I forgot. Ethics and thought academics can tell themselves it's ok to **** retards.

This is what we get for letting total shitlords dominate our academics unchecked by having to deal with opposing views on a level playing field.



So, until its basically 3 years old it's not a person? Because kids under that age don't really have memories and under about 2 they don't have much in the way of thoughts. As for insights lol if you think those appear until at least 5 or 6.

WTF is wrong with you? More importantly, wtf is wrong with the people coming up with this crap?

There are a lot of PhDs that need to have their credentials revoked and go work at Starbucks, and they're not the ones in the engineering department.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

...Proving you’re failing to understand me.

(Or deliberately misconstruing what I said)

Since mentally challenged still possess thoughts, memories, emotions and self awareness, they are still considered persons. (I listed these criteria at least twice. So either you’re not paying attention or you’re just being a dick)

No, I pretty clearly repeated back criteria you used at a different point.

It's fairly obvious that the criteria are whatever they need to be in order to justify abortion - on demand - at any given time.

My being a dick is not really relevant, truthful though it may be.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Fixed the one hyperlink. The Glade doesn't properly parse URLs with parenthesis in it apparently.

I realize this is cherry-picking, but even reading in the context of the argument you're trying to make, I don't understand this.

The logical extension I get from this is like suggesting the vagina (or uterus, in the case of C-section) magically confers some moral status on the baby as it exits that makes it unlawful to kill. What makes the baby lawful to kill at 20 weeks vs 24 weeks vs 37-40 weeks just before birth vs 2 days postnatal?

If surviving to the outside world is part of the criteria, would infants surviving a botched abortion procedure be subject to protection? I understand the practicality of this is simple because the doctor would simply finish the job, but what criteria should ideally apply there?

I guess the ultimate problem I have with the argument you make, at least as I understand it, is that it gives moral justification for killing a (currently) protected class of person.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Yes before 3-4 most humans have no long term memory when it comes to the ability to replay events. They do have learned skills, recognize people, form relationships, carry on conversations, read a book. You're a parent, you know this. So obviously memory is in play. Personality is in play.
Differences in personalty are identifiable; at some point there is indeed a threshold of 'personness' that is crossed. After the 2nd trimester perhaps. Certainly not at conception, or 8 weeks.

As for the Star Trek article, the link was only to provide proof for Taskiss that I'm not the only one who regards personhood as a concept.


Though as a side node, Taskiss so good of you to contradict yourself so blatantly in just a few posts.
Which is it? Do I only parrot back what the liberal media tells me without an original thought in my head (as you posted in another thread)
Or am I the only person who thinks this way?

Which is it? My thinking is consistent. Yours seems to just be whatever stream of consciousness insult you can throw my way demands.

No, that's a valid point Screeling, but I would argue that a fetus in the womb is mostly devoid of outside stimuli (at best they get muffled sounds, light) Most research points to 18 weeks before the structures to even process sound are formed, and the fetus doesn't respond to external sounds until 25-26 weeks. (right at the end of the 2nd trimester) Its not the Uterus that provides some special status, but rather the fact that a) the fetus has no ability to even sense sound (no ear structures, no brain structures to process it) b) the womb does insulate the fetus from exterior stimuli.

What specific class are you referring to? (I can see you extending your argument in a couple of ways from there, I'm just curious which way you're going)

Abortion is fundamentally a feels issue. Trying to implement a 100% logically consistent solution will always run into intractable problems.

If life and personhood are defined as beginning at conception, that rules out most forms of birth control. Some simply prevent implantation (like the copper IUD) and would basically constitute dozens of murders a year each. Even hormonal birth control fails to prevent ovulation enough to allow its use if a fertilized egg is a person with rights, as it's effectiveness comes from multiplying a low rate of ovulation by a low chance of implantation, should ovulation and fertilization occur. Also, an exception for rape is fundamentally also an argument from "inconvenience" like most pro choice positions, rape does not justify murdering a healthy person.

From the pro choice side, most pro choice arguments can easily be used to justify killing live children without affecting their consistency. at all, which is not acceptable either.

The fact is a blastocyst does not appear human, so killing it does not trigger a defensive emotional response and as such it has majority support. As pregnancy progresses and the fetus looks more and more human, support accordingly drops. Abortion protesters don't show up with pictures of late term aborted fetuses for no reason.

I'm pro choice because pro lifers have a tendency to argue from a hypocritical position of personal responsibility. They say society has a responsibility to force you to have the baby and raise it to a given minimum standard, but society has no obligation to actually help you do that. If you find yourself pregnant, you better figure out how to do that on your own, or else. Non abortion methods that allow unfit mothers to escape responsibility, like safe haven infant dropoffs, will not last long under the personal responsibility narrative. These women knew the risks when they chose to have sex! Why should we allow these irresponsible sluts to steal your hard earned tax money in order to raise the child they irresponsibly crwated?

Pick an endangered bird. Would you want people prosecuted for destroying a nest of eggs the same way as killing a single bird?

If we kill all fetuses what happens to the species?

Look abortion arguments always fail at the same exact points.
1. Disagreement about when human life biologically starts. The most basic point is where the entity can be first identified as discreet. That's a few minutes after fertilization and the RNA has done its work.
2. Setting the brightline boundry for rights posession (personhood here)
A. Heartbeat
B. Sentience
C. Sapeince
D. Birth

Well D is so moronic that some magic happens at the birth canal that we can toss it, sapience shows at 18-24 months and thats morally repugnant still to enough people that there won't be any will to support it without seeing claw hammers in the heads of judges so we can move past that as well. Sentience is veering quickly to near-birth but this would grant human level rights logically to a host of species including some house pets so the very nature of human rights is blurred to not be identifiable. Heartbeat well that just blurs it more because it ignores the question of why is it a HUMAN rights and not mammilian rights so poof. And all of these lines have changed vastly in the last two decades as our knowledge grows.

The single point that avoids any mistake possible from future knowledge and prevents counter arguments such as 'person in a coma or asleep' or 'if time travel is used as murder it cannot be illegal when you return to the present' is when human life biologically starts.


It is logical and moral which is the distilled best the species can be.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

One can train one's mind just as one trains anything else if one wants to improve. Identify the source of your emotion and crush it out of you with a stronger one - self-loathing of being weak enough to fall to emotion or a burning hope to elevate one's understanding of the self in order to see objectively and thus actually come closer to being able to see a path forward for humanity. Hell pick and choose between the two or throw in honor or pride if you want. Whatever it takes to get you to be able to rise out of the swamp of mediocracy that is the pool of human emotions when one is trying to discover truth of something important and fundamental to the human condition.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I also know that children still in the womb can hear their parents' voices, especially their mothers and can be affected by that stimulation during development.

We don't actually need a concept of "personhood". The concept seems to appear only when some so-called ethecist or abortion defender wants to crap on someone by making them 'not a person'. It is entirely irrelevant whether an 8-week-old fetus has crossed some fuzzy imaginary line of 'personhood' or not; in the normal course of events they inevitably will be a person. They are no longer a "potential" person; that process is already started.

Now, we can certainly accept that outlawing abortion entirely (which isn't what would happen; even without Roe V. Wade it would remain legal in likely well over half the states) is impractical; such a law would create an equally-undesirable black market for abortions. Some minimalistic level is required to avoid compounding the abortion with the dangers of shady medical operations. Emergency contraception is preferable to abortion; if there must be abortion it ought to be limited to far earlier than it presently is.

You see, although abortion is baby-killing I'm well aware that some level of baby killing is unavoidable. We kill some babies with Hellfire missiles in the process of killing terrorists; this ensures that terrorists cannot effectively use babies as human shields. Some level of collateral damage is unavoidable. The same applies here. It's unavoidable, so that unpleasant reality must be handled expediently. It is not about preventing some ridiculous handmaid's tale fantasy that's far more about having scary conservatives to hate than it is about anything real. It is also not about "control of your own body." Control it the same way men are expected to - with $12 worth of condoms. Then, you can legitimately claim child support is justified too.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If it is not your body it is not any of your business. This discussion is really unsolvable because no matter what someone or somethings autonomy is being violated.

My real answer: what happens to the species (if it is human) is we get what we deserve, and what we have earned.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Which is fine, except that a fetus is not part of the mother's body. It is a genetically seperate and different individual.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Yeah. When you point that out they go to personhood, when you defeat that they say men shouldn't have a say when you ask if we have a say for a male fetus they just call you a nazi or something that makes them feel better about themselves like an emotional lollipop.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

...

No ****.

Feel free to pontificate as if we've never been here before though.

Edit: I'm going to contain myself to the Russia thread and any supplemental threads I have created, or will create.

Cheers

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

On the contrary, no one's autonomy is being violated by being unable to obtain an abortion. The only possible exception is a rape case, in which case it's the rapists fault, not the state's or the babies. In cases where the mother is at risk of serious bodily harm or death, it isn't the autonomy that's at issue; it's that the child's life is not greater than the mother's. Still, rape and danger of death cases are edge cases, not a source of baseline policy. I can, however, testify from personal experience that it is not lifelong trauma to raise a child that arose from a sex crime.

Pregnancy is an entirely temporary condition. It will resolve itself within a set amount of time, or less, one way or another. The child can be put up for adoption. (and yes, pro-life people need to be more willing and active in adopting than they are. I can, however, say I've done my part in that regard) We have mechanisms to require fathers (and in some cases, mothers) to shoulder part of the burden of raising the child. Arguments about raising the child after birth are a complete departure from the bodily autonomy argument, yet it is interesting how easily they are deployed as if they were part of that point.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This is why the liberal narrative about conservatives falls to ****. To a conservative, a thing is what it is. It can't change what it is unless that change is part of the pattern that thing has been cast from.

Every human has the same inalienable rights that I do, and because that mass of cells, from the moment the first cells divided, will become just like me unless it's killed, it is unequivocally a human and has the right to be alive.

Now, you can kill it as is your right (at least for today), but don't tip-toe about the truth. Do so and you're killing an innocent human. It's not the liberals that "think of the children", it's the conservatives. Liberals conjugate truth to squeeze out the essence of their agenda by any means possible. You're sanctioning murder of innocent citizens who are as legally protected by the state from all others at the point of conception as I am, from everyone except their mother and any butcher she may employ.

And you can call a penis a vagina all you want, as you and yours are seemingly so ready to do. You can re-define any word you want, and try to hide from the truth. But, why? Don't try to sugar coat it with bull ****. You can't. Embrace your inner god-self, the one you put before all others, the one that allows you to decide on life and death of innocents. The one that lets you sleep after making the decision that you can kill innocents while you yourself remain innocent.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.