I think they should make laws to discourage people from religion, after all if a person really wanted to be religious and didn't care that it was illegal, they could just find religion anyways. Making religion illegal doesn't force people to not have religion. If a person wants religion and feels that it is the right choice, they would have religion regardless. I think there should be laws to discourage people from owning guns, after all if a person really wanted a gun and didn't care if it was illegal, they could just get a gun anyways. Making guns illegal doesn't force people to not have a gun. If a person wants a gun and feels it is the right choice, they would have a gun regardless. I wonder if Sam can see they absurdity of his argument.
Lame comparison. Laws against religious expression are far easier to enforce than laws against abortion. In countries such as North Korea and Saudi Arabia, people can get in legal trouble if they are caught gathering together in a building, reading a bible. If abortion was illegal, it would be extremely difficult to prove that a woman was pregnant on monday, but not pregnant on Thursday. Btw, what are you trying to argue, by bringing up religion? How is that relevant to abortion?
Uh, Sam, it wasn't a comparison.... AND: There would be no way to tell if a woman had an abortion, no way to prosecute, it doesn't cut down on the number of abortions as has been PROVEN to you on numerous occasions, it would just make life harder for some women which seems to be your nasty goal.
Your comparison is absurd, because laws against religious freedom are easy to enforce and they get people arrested, in countries such as North Korea, etc. Abortion laws would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to enforce, in most situations
Stop repeating yourself! Answer my question, please. I am explaining why I believe my arguement is not absurd.
Isn't it obvious why your argument is absurd, by changing just a few words this comment ^ it can be made to say the same thing about anything. do you condone making toothless laws?
Hostile intent? ROFL! Do you realize here that you are now accusing a zygote, an embryo, and a fetus of willful malice? How can a "clump of cells" have any kind of intent at all? In order for something to have intent, it must have consciousness. Uh oh. You're about to unravel your people's entire argument that a child is not a person.
Then you are mistaken, intent is not required on the assailant part only the perceived intent felt by the victim, you really should learn your own laws on self-defence. Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didnt actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these situations is whether a reasonable man in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm. The concept of the reasonable man is a legal conceit that is subject to differing interpretations in practice, but it is the legal systems best tool to determine whether a persons perception of imminent danger justified the use of protective force. - http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html#sthash.Xak8fTKK.dpuf Care to try again?
forgot to add that it makes no difference to my argument whether the fetus is a "person" or not. in fact if they are it strengthens my argument
