Replies

The purpose was to establish a government of laws that would protect and secure each person's Creator- endowed rights to life, liberty, and property.

And how can this be if as you state a person's life belongs to the state? Because you have made it very clear that you think a person only has a right to their own life when fundies think it should. A person dying of cancer's right to life is nonexistent, their life is property of the state, essentially. What they do with their life is restricted by only what would be considered "holy" or something or other like that.

And how can this be if as you state a person's life belongs to the state? Because you have made it very clear that you think a person only has a right to their own life when fundies think it should. A person dying of cancer's right to life is nonexistent, their life is property of the state, essentially. What they do with their life is restricted by only what would be considered "holy" or something or other like that.

Is that the only way you can debate, is to lie about the stance of your opponents?

No one here claimed that any citizen's life is 'the property of the state'. You made that up.

Our lives belong to God, whether we admit it or not.