>>175
What was rhetorical about that? He asked a stupid fucking question. You can try and cover up that stupidity with snarky comments all you want, but he still didn't know that protection is possession. There are some parts of society, or the collective where we do need to protect and possess other people.
But this becomes immoral when we eliminate the possibility of choice. What you wish to happen is for abortions to be completely outlawed in the states...and I'm telling you that without compromise, meaning, letting the states decide, your zealotry is only going to win us a civil war.
You're never going to force anyone to see abortion as murder if that's the way they don't want to look at it. You can't lock people up or strip them of their liberties because
you think he's not living up to your "standard".
Oh Ethics! Oh Morality! I have news for you: No one cares. Rest assured everyone is going to go right on doing whatever they want and you're going to get increasingly bitter until no can stand to be around you and they'll end up moving to one of the cities (Blue states). Or would you put a law in place so that no one can ever leave North Dakota?