WHole lotta post for an entirely false argument - point A) at the bottom is wholly opinion, and point B) is entirely too strict a confine for an intelligent argument to commence. Ignoring the rest of the libertarian psychobabble, there is absolutely no way one can argue that folks don't have a choice - they always have, no matter how much you banter or how many non-emotional arguments you try to make - you can't sweep it under the rug like practically every other dogmatic nontruth the average righty uses to justify their lunatic positions. Sorry man. For all your bluster, you just fail.
I tried to say this to Fugazi, but I'll make it plainly clear: Naturalism is absolute. There is no argument against Nature, there's just the choice to defy Nature, but Nature's there all the same, omnipresent and ruling over our circumstances. Take for example, diseases in the human body. They develop regardless of the person's will, because the person's will alone doesn't suffice to defy the nature of his/her body. And the claim that my logic is opinion is also ironic: The lawful writings(including that of the Supreme Court) is deemed a 'lawful opinion'. Which is why even Fugazi chose not to use those words, because he knew I'd point that out. We're all ostriches. We can choose to duck our head into the ground and ignore reality, or we can choose to observe reality. I choose to observe it. Human intercourse's main purpose is for reproduction of the human species and that's absolute no matter how many crack lawyers want to believe their own "opinions"(Your statement, not mine) surpassed the laws of the universe. Equally as such, we should uphold it in value because if we don't value life when it begins, we certainly won't value it when it ends. It's really that damn simple. You uphold the snap judgment of other people, called "lawyers" who often make statements based on being paid off, their own collective self-interest which in of itself denies a plank of intelligence. I on the other hand uphold reality as it is. I don't need to twist and turn my statements. We know what intercourse is, we know what makes humans. We know that the distributive property is sperm. We also know that nothing else can fulfill this role. Henceforth, it's natural and organic. The only way Fugazi could argue otherwise, is to claim that humanity itself is not natural. But if he claims that, then NOTHING is natural. Not even the grass on the ground. Everything is organic, anything that can be seen, witnessed, touched or smelled by our five senses(impairment not withstanding) is clearly based on our physical universe. You don't see wind, is it any less natural? Naturalism holds within it no exceptions. We're not making an exception to the rule, we're just ignoring it for our own convenience. Now one can argue the economic necessity of those conveniences, I won't necessarily agree or disagree there. Except to say there are better options. But you can't argue that "human laws" come even close, let alone supercede nature. Have our laws yet, managed to supress our own nature? Why do we separate ourselves from the animal kingdom if in fact we have conquered nature? We haven't conquered nature, we've separated ourselves but not wholly. Just from the standpoint that our ecosystems are different.
Nice attempt at running from your own arguement are you suggesting PP doesnt constantly hammer away suggesting there very existance is "Womens health"? Lets pretend that Gynos dont exist.....
Yes, she broke the law by distributing information about birth control through the mail. Nowadays, any 3-year-old can see in living color that same information on TV. What's obscene?
Running from my own argument .. I don't think so, you seem to be confused .. it is the "women's health" thing that these TRAP laws are using, and PP are there not just for Women's health or are you under some illusion that they only treat females?
Then explain that to the third wave feminists who say women would be "dying in the street" without PP.
I'd rather explain it to right-wing conservative religious motivated pro-lifers and their false "It's murder" sound-bites.
Except you are 100% wrong in your assumption of what or who I am, oh and BTW I already did explain it to you.
