-XBAR- said:
The character assassination happened when my conceptual understanding was questioned by calling me a dimwit.
I think abortions after 20 weeks are sickening too- but out of principle, I'm unsure if I want the government's reach to extend to our insides. I'm certain I don't want it to extend into the privacy of my home.
you mean like denying a lung transplant because the odds are too low for success?
i get it. you finally admitted that the government should have some restraint.
perhaps you could explain your perspective on what the federal government's responsibility's should be limited to with regard to states rights.
that way, if one wanted to live in a state where abortions were illegal after 20 weeks, one could have the choice to go there, and if they didn't, they could live elsewhere. it sort of resembles that whole choice issue. people could live where they wanted by groups of people who came to the same conclusion independently. for some reason, you want to impose your beliefs on everyone rather than giving people the choice through a multi-state incubator system where the federal government's role is restricted to what's in the constitution. for some reason, that isn't good enough for liberals and most conservatives.
the reason for the dim-witted comment is that you like selective choice rather than choice.
you want choice for ending human life, but apparently little else. to me, that's dim witted. i'm sorry for the characterization of you personally rather than just your logic.
