In response to:

Making the Case For Life

Caveat emptor Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 11:26 AM
GodsLaws wrote to me at 10:38am "Then in your case I am too. I am pro-choice concerning my choice to kill you; and pro-life concerning my choice to live in a world without a morally bereft, dangerous barbarian like you." And then GodsLaws wants anyone to consider him or her a sain moral agent?
GodsLaws Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 11:49 AM
The ONLY morally valid reason to kill another human being is to defend one's own life or property or the life or property of another person who is being attacked.

Caveat and the mob of leftist ghouls who advocate, demand, kick and scream and perform regular childish tantrums to secure their "right" to slaughter innocent, defenseless children without due process constitute a credible and imminent danger to human life.

Therefore, killing them is a morally valid and justifiable act.

If only we could get their mothers to bring them to the death factory the way they have done with 55 million others who did nothing to deserve death.

Do I want to kill Caveat?

Absolutely.

Did I actually THREATEN to kill him/her/it?

Nope. I don't threaten.
Van Lingle Mungo Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 11:33 AM
what is "sain"? Wasn't he a pitcher with the Braves in the 50's?
Ken6226 Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 11:29 AM
He was pointing out the absurdity of your argument, nitwit. If you're really "pro-choice", then why would you interfere with his choice to kill you?

In an ideal world, Roe v. Wade -- perhaps the most insidious Supreme Court ruling since the infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857 -- would be overturned. And contrary to what most leftists assert, however, this does not necessarily mean that abortion would be universally prohibited and illegal. For example, before Roe became the law of the land in 1973, abortion was permissible in certain states. The legality of abortion, then, should be decided by individuals at the state level -- at least in the short-term -- not by a High Court of un-elected, unaccountable judges in Washington. This would...