There are a hell of a lot of things people can do that if someone else does it it becomes a crime. A woman can choose to have sex with a man, and its legal, but the man can't just decide to have sex with her. I can choose to give my television away to someone, but someone else can't decide to just come and take it from me

The whole "war" analogy is apt. War and abortion are two things that sometimes are more practical to do than not to do, but are both things that should be avoided in all possible cases. Now sometimes the woman in the case of abortion may not be making the most prudent decision, but (to turn the tables on the righties that love to talk about this), when is it the government's job to tell people whether they're making the wisest possible decision or not?

It would be foolish to completely remove war as a recourse for action, but it is amoral to conduct war wantonly, and so it is with abortion.

thats a great comparison and all, but it still doesnt answer how the baby is a person when a 3rd party kills it, but not when the women kills it.

its either human or its not you cant have it both ways, if it nots human then the 3rd party could get charged with something like assault and battery of the women, and since abortion is legal has not ended any life therefore no murder took place.

I agree that that definition of personhood should be clarified, but that is a legal issue, and not a moral one, and the punishment for it should still be level, just classed as a different crime

yes that was just one of my many points in the hypocrasy of this stuff.

also i dont understand why people that advocate for the right to abortions, they say hey we all want to limit/decrease the number of abortions, we just feel they should be legal. why would you want ot limit something that is not bad, if it not ending a life, why limit it, its potentially really helping the would be mother by getting rid of a potential burden. no need to try to lower the number of abortions, if its not wrong/bad in the first place.

if abortions okay, then lets keep em rolling

edit: there may have been a misunderstanding i wasnt comparing war to abortion, it was a complete different argument

also heres a qustion, maybe you know the answer. i dont

isnt it a crime for someone to kill another, even if they asked them to kill them?

also is it illegal to kill yourself?

Ask Jack Kevorkian.

These are valid questions. I was aware that you didn't make the war argument, Sapphi did, and i merely felt it was an apt analogy because it is hard to dispute the necessity of war, and yet acknowledge that it is evil and should be limited, much like abortions should be limited, though the calculus in limiting abortions really comes down to better education and availability of contraceptives. We should be minimizing unwanted pregnancies, and working to make sure that the decision to even commence bringing a life into the world and even putting the woman in that position is the woman's choice, and a choice made responsibly

Killing yourself is only in extremely rare situations a responsible one, which is why it should be illegal, except, i may argue, in clear cases of terminal, or mortally debilitating disease, or in very odd cases like a spy captured behind enemy lines offing himself to prevent intel from being leaked. And similar moral foundations would apply to assisted suicide, that your doctor can off you with your very clear consent only in cases of mortally debilitating (think Terri Schiavo) or clearly terminal illness, instances where we can medically say that there is no point to continuing to live (e.g. you'll suffer in the time it would take you to die, your family would suffer indirectly watching you suffer, and someone would have to foot the bill for you suffering through to an inevitable death)

No, I ignore the things that are irrelevant.

And how am I a dispicable human being? I'm not the one invading other countries for no legitimate reason. You keep repeating the propaganda you've heard countless times ('they're risking their lives to protect our freedoms'), without actually thinking 'what freedoms were threatend in the first place?'. And even after it's revealed that no actual freedoms were threatened in the first place, you still try to justify this immoral conflict as 'freeing a country from a terrorist regime' when, not only is this not even the business of your country to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, but the real terorrists were certainly not inside the country.

I'd also like to know how exactly the US army is defending MY freedoms?

Im guessing by dealing with evil man with beard with turban from the desert? I.E fighting jihad terrorists? They can strike everywhere

Ummm according to my studies in highschool about marriage laws the reason benefits were given to married couples was to promote family growth and encourage husbands and wives to reproduce and have families. Many of these benefits are to encourage property purchases or help with family planning. I know my mom and dad had help thanks to these benefits before they divorced.

So should those benefits be offered to gay couples? No they shouldn't gay couples can't reproduce or create a family. Helping them out financially to encourage them to found families is stupid and makes no sense. These breaks were intended to help grow families and the community and giving these benefits to gays does not benefit society at all. Unless maybe the gay couple adopts.

But here's the fact, Stephen Harper talked about giving gays these benefits under a civil Union. So this argument makes no sense even If I don't think gays should get these benefits they were going to anyways just under the name union instead of marriage. Again equal treatment!

How is Athiesm not a religion? They have as much faith in their beliefs as anyone from any religion. They may not believe in a God but Athiest church's are popping up and Athiest missionaries are going out. Agnostics and Athiests are doing things like putting signs on busses saying their probably is no God. Buddhists don't believe in God, yet they are classified as a religious belief. Any organised group that believes in a creator whether intelligent or a big bang or what ever other theory is a religion. You can't escape the fact that what you believe is a faith based belief in a creator or lifestyle. Some will say "Well we believe in scientific fact meaning we don't have faith and aren't a religion" but I have yet to see a single scientific fact that proves how the earth was made, all that exists are theories and hypothesis that may or may not be based on Scientific fact. Fact is you have faith in the unseen and unproven.

As for the job description changing. Its not the employee's fault that the employer made a decision that violates the employees religious rights. The employer should find a job that doesn't require the employee to violate his beliefs. Their is a reason these things are called rights. A huge example is in Canada when their is a religious holiday you are entitled to the day off if you practice that religion. If you hire someone with a religious viewpoint then you as the employer need to respect and accomodate that religion. To do other wise is discrimination or persecution.

As for pastor's being hunted down. They actually were, a group of like 50 gay rights activists picketed my church after the pastor refused to marry the gay couple. They said horrible things and tried to block traffic into the church. They yelled at us and even spit at some congregants who came out to give them coffee and donuts. Fact is spit is assualt and picketing a church because a pastor stands up for his constitutional rights is totally wrong.

You can try to come up with as many arguments as you want but nothing is going to change the fact that marriage is not a right. Its not an equality issue either. You can argue longer and longer but just because you'd like something to be fact doesn't make it so!