Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinMike
After thinking about it, I realize I was wrong. I shouldn't have said "Fair point."
Believing in having choices and rule of law do not contradict each other. Since you like to point these things out, let me point out to you that that's a false equivalency. You can believe in freedom of choice and rule of law.
I believe everyone should have any choice for any situation.
That doesn't mean there can't be adverse consequences for certain choices/decisions. Some choices/decisions can result in the restrictions of future choices, i.e., prison.
But you do have me curious. What choice do you think nobody should have, i.e., what choice do you want to take away from everybody?
|
You cannot believe in an absolutist, hardline with no exceptions “right to choose” and any meaningful rule of law. Law is intended to constrict and punish certain choices people make, that is the purpose of every law. You clearly know this, as you even specify prison as a result of unlimited free choice.
A choice I would like not to be legal is slaughtering a roomful of children.
You know damn well, no matter how stupid you pretend to be, that pro-choice and pro-life are both positive sounding brandings for differing positions in abortion, not absolutist universal philosophies. Neither makes any rational sense as an absolutist universal philosophy. You can throw a tantrum as much as you want, but every single person here is aware of this. This is an extreme and idiotic hill to plant your flag on.