[edeal]

If you had read it, you will see that I was responding to someone who was criticizing libertarians (notice small "l", Libertarians are nothing more than weed addicts who try to get Democrats elected). In the end, I said I like to err on the side of liberty and that Terry's free will is not being followed because her intent cannot be known.

We are basically taking the word of a man who is as far removed from her as one can be. He has a 9 year old child by another woman (not his wife), if i remember correctly. What bonds could he still possible have with her that qualify as a husbandly?

In any event, I believe that congress should not have HAD to do anything, but also, Congress has the right to defend the right to life. So, they can make pretty much any law they want which prevents one party from inflicting death on another without their consent.

Why can Congress regulate the labels on milk of a small dairy (which they shouldn't be able to do), but cannot act to prevent the state from committing homicide out of convenience.

So in short, you were attacking me for agreeing with you by not reading the conclusion, just a randomly selected phrase.

[frogjerk]

So in short, you were attacking me for agreeing with you by not reading the conclusion, just a randomly selected phrase.

Reading your comments from a different point of view (other than yours) I found it confusing because it jumped around a bit. Now that you have ironed things out, I understand and apologize for the offense.