His point is that you're free to act in any way you want to. What you're not free to do is to deny or otherwise limit other people's decisions.

Pro-Lifers aren't having their babies forcefully aborted now are they? Well at least not in this country. I've heard they do that in China.

And that pretty much sums up everything, except the whole "baby soldiers" thing.

So what youre saying is that pro-lifers should become pro-choice? Isnt that (youre quote) the definition of pro-choice?

I'm not really saying anything. Merely trying to clarify what somebody else said. I just support the status quo. It pleases nobody. It doesn't have to. It works.

States are free to put whatever limits they deem necessary, yet they lack the power to outright ban them.

In a well run democracy, I don't see freedom as being as important, let alone more important, than the majority's opinion. It's pretty clear what the people of South Dakota want. If you're saying that your freedom is more important than the majority's decisions, why have any laws at all?

They can act upon their beliefs by not partaking in the procedure... that's what pro-choice is... having the choice whether or or not you wish to partake in something. If your religious or personal beliefs are that you should not partake in something then that is your choice to follow your belief. Enacting a law that places those beliefs for all to have to follow removes that choice to for an individual to decide.

So do a lot of laws. Why do we have a law against murder in general? That's just Christian Ten Commandments hogwash anway.

I think that might also come out of the "My rights end where yours begin."

Isn't that one of the reasons we're not a pure democracy?

We're not a pure democracy because when our country was founded, it was not practical. We remain a fake democracy because it's nearly impossible to change anything in this country, especially when the people in power are so comfortable.

Why are you assuming a law against abortion has religious foundations? I don't need religion to tell me not to terminate a pregnancy.

There you get into the whole moral and immoral (or amoral for some) discussion. Is it moral or immoral to kill another human? Various religions believe it is immoral and not just Christianity. Then again, various religions find it moral under certain circumstances... even when the rest of the world might, uhmmm, frown on it.

Listen, I can think gravity doesn't exist and the world is flat. That doesn't make it so.

Uh, you do realize that some women, even *gasp* secular women, are anti-abortion?

You want to get rid of the Supreme Court?

You would get preached at regardless. People preach about all sorts of things. That doesn't mean their only possible motivation is religion.

And don't forget that I said secular women. Not just women.

Anyone else notice how you don't hear about these morality topics during years where there isn't elections? I wonder why that is.

So, how does it feel to be manipulated as tools of a political agenda?

Maybe they should. I'm not arguing that.

You see, your mistake is labeling these people "the religious right" - a fringe movement that is a loud minority. I think this may be a flawed perception, though. Taken as a whole, I'm not convinced that our country supports abortion. And don't go showing me any polls, either. Most people who are against abortion probably never participate in those.

Well, on the basis of legality, it should be whatever the hell the majority thinks. Why is this so hard to swallow?

So, Minion doesn't believe in Rights, and we're all tools of a political agenda.

Wonderful.

Who said I don't believe in rights? Someone has to determine what our rights are. Who could possibly do this?

Cue arguement about the right to privacy ad tedium.