Abortion Providers Speak

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Ahhh… and here we have the actual reason behind the debate. You think that abortion is wrong because of your belief system. What happens when someone else’s belief system (say, a young mother-to-be) and yours don’t agree? Who gets to decide? [/quote]

You must know the answer to this, as I think it’s been covered in earlier threads. Via public discourse, and the democratic process, our society will define it’s own civil and legal morality.

Well my young friend Lothario, Zeb is after you now, so I’ll let him have at it for a bit.

22

On what mertdawg wrote:

Just wanted to add back to the original issue is this all a question of the supreme court making a big mistake? In a way, the court didn’t pull abortion up from the state to federal level, it pushed it down a level and made the woman an autocrat over a very small space.

23

I guess I’m not quite sure why Christians are so bent up about abortion (other than the fact that there some Christians who just like to be upset about things; Spongebob, Janet’s titty, etc.) I mean, look at what your book says about it:

The Bible repeatedly makes references to life being connected to breath.

Genesis 1:30 - And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.

Genesis 2:7 - then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Genesis 7:15 - They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life.

Genesis 7:22 - everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died

Etc., etc.

Feti do not breathe. (I’m not saying a fetus isn’t alive, I’m just looking at what the Bible says.)

God performed over 1 million abortions in 2000, about 16% of all pregnancies. Where do these unborn babies go? Not heaven, they have not accepted Jesus Christ, and they are still burdened with Original Sin. Why aren’t you guys mad at Him? It’s not as if He has an issue with killing babies, He seemed to be quite the fan of it:

Psalms 137:9 - Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!

Numbers 31:17 - Now therefore kill every male among the little ones.

Deuteronomy 2:34 - utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones.

Deuteronomy 28:53 - And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters.

I Samuel 15:3 - slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.

2 Kings 8:12 - dash their children, and rip up their women with child.

2 Kings 15:16 - all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.

Isaiah 13:16 - Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished.

Isaiah 13:18 - They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.

Lamentations 2:20 - Shall the women eat their fruit, and children.

Ezekiel 9:6 - Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children.

Hosea 9:14 - give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.

Hosea 13:16 - their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

He even sent a pair of bears to tear apart 42 children for saying “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” to a prophet. I guess words can hurt you!

Okay then. Finally there is this example of Mosaic law:

Exodus 21:22-25 - When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

According to the Bible, the penalty for killing a human being (non-slave, of course) is death (Ex 21:12). However, the penalty for causing a miscarriage (abortion, i.e. killing a fetus) is only a fine. Therefore, the Bible states that a fetus is not a human being, just like an acorn is not an oak and a seed is not a flower.

Yet the debate will go on, until loth gets off his ass and finishes his POD! Hurry up man!

24

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Do you think a woman “controls herself” when the law says she cannot prostitute her own body? What’s a little sex for money going to hurt? Why does the law step in there? The law also says she can’t run around nude in most public places (dang law)it’s her body I don’t get it. The law says she can’t kill her self. Now go figure…it’s her body. Right?

Tell me lothario which of these moral laws that were meant to both protect the woman and society should we eliminate?[/quote]

Well, I’m not a liberal wonder boy, but here goes:

You can have sex for money. It’s called porn. Take away the camera and have the guy give you the money instead of a producer and you have prostitution. Eliminate laws against prostitution and regulate and license establishments that have hookers. Require regular medical screenings and check ups, and ensure safety equipment is used. Consensual sex between right-minded adults shouldn’t be illegal, even if there is an exchange of goods involved.

Nudity. Well, I can understand why people have to wear pants/shorts. If someone takes a big nasty dump and then sits down somewhere with nothing on, would you want to sit there afterwards? Imagine what the seats at Taco Bell or White Castle would look like! So I can accept that for hygiene reasons. However, why can’t women walk around with their shirts off in the summer like men can? I don’t know why, probably some conservative bullshit. They think someone might get a woody, and that would be bad somehow.

Third and final: suicide. Good question. Like you said, it is her body. If there is one thing that you can truly possess as your own, shouldn’t your own life be it? Isn’t it stupid to have a crime that if you commit successfully, you cannot be prosecuted? I say, if you want to end your own life, it is your life to do with what you please.

So, I can’t speak for lothario, but I would say eliminate/modify all of them.

25

On what ToShinDo wrote:

Yea, I think that the issue really is a new testament one. If the Son became incarnate in a human “conceived” of the Holy Spirit but fetuses are not human beings then you’ce got some theological issues. The bible mentions that John the Baptist recognized Jesus from the womb.

An it may not be murder. From a true Christian theological perspective, abortion may simply be something worse-assuming the judgement that should be God’s.

However many bible quotes and terms above are out of context.

26

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
However many bible quotes and terms above are out of context.[/quote]

While that may be true, bible quotes taken out of context tend to be a hallmark of the anti-abortion crusaders, so why not use the same? Besides, is there a context that it’s okay to slaughter every man, woman and child in an area? And it seems to be pretty clear that causing a miscarriage would only be a fine and nothing more serious.

27

ToShinDo:

I see, then we need to do away with all moral laws, is that what you are saying? So, if some guy wants to walk around with a “woody” (as you put it) no problem with you right?

If my 9 year old daughter happens to be standing there when he does this (or many of them do it as there is no law saying they can’t) no problem, right?

Anything goes right? If not, tell me where you draw the lines, and most importantly, why?

28

Draw the Line
performed by Victoria Jackson (date unknown)

Talk about love
Talk about morality
Are we having an affair
Or are you just glad to see me

Will a kiss goodnight
A kiss timed by the minute
If a minutes too long
Does the sweet little kiss have the devil in it

If we whisper low
Things no one else can hear
Will my husband know
Will he think my vows were insincere

Where do you draw the line
Between love and adultry
If your a friend of mine
Can I hold your hand
Where do you draw the line
Bump de Bump
(It’s suppose to make you think)

Do you think it’s O.K.
If I tickle your ear this way
Or if I lick the lint out of your navel
With my tongue
Will the neighbors talk
will they missconstru
And think you are not just my boyfriend
But that I am in love with you

Where do you draw the line
Do you think it’s O.K.
If our clothes accidentaly fall off
When you come over to be comforted
Because a family member died
Or if we cuddled under the covers
of your bed because my heater wasn’t working
And it was really really really really really really really really cold outside

Were the last two people on earth
And had to perpetuate the species
Or if a mafia hitman ordered us to
sleep together on day
Or what if the doctor said I had this terrible disease
And the only way to cure it would be
To take a shower with you naked

Where do you draw the line
Where do you draw the line
Where do you draw the line

Thank You

29

[quote]ZEB wrote:
ToShinDo:

I see, then we need to do away with all moral laws, is that what you are saying? So, if some guy wants to walk around with a “woody” (as you put it) no problem with you right?[/quote]

I think laws should be reviewed, and adjusted in some cases. As to a guy walking around with an erection, why would I care? It’s not as if I could do anything about it anyway. Weren’t you ever in high school? I’m sure you’ve walked around with an erection before, most guys have at one time or another. My point was that some conservatives seem to have an all-encompassing fear that someone, somewhere might have sexual thoughts.

When he does what? I’m not real clear on this. Why doesn’t your daughter have a chaperone?

I don’t recall ever saying “anything goes.” I just think that laws against prostitution and suicide should be revamped. And I can’t think of a good reason why women should not be able to walk around with no shirt on if a man can do it. Ooooh, dirty pillows…

30

[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
ZEB wrote:
ToShinDo:

I see, then we need to do away with all moral laws, is that what you are saying? So, if some guy wants to walk around with a “woody” (as you put it) no problem with you right?

I think laws should be reviewed, and adjusted in some cases. As to a guy walking around with an erection, why would I care? It’s not as if I could do anything about it anyway. Weren’t you ever in high school? I’m sure you’ve walked around with an erection before, most guys have at one time or another. My point was that some conservatives seem to have an all-encompassing fear that someone, somewhere might have sexual thoughts.

If my 9 year old daughter happens to be standing there when he does this (or many of them do it as there is no law saying they can’t) no problem, right?

When he does what? I’m not real clear on this. Why doesn’t your daughter have a chaperone?

Anything goes right? If not, tell me where you draw the lines, and most importantly, why?

I don’t recall ever saying “anything goes.” I just think that laws against prostitution and suicide should be revamped. And I can’t think of a good reason why women should not be able to walk around with no shirt on if a man can do it. Ooooh, dirty pillows…[/quote]

“Laws should be reviewed and adjusted in some cases.” According to whose standards? (male college student standards of course…LOL)

“As to a guy walking around with an erection why should I care.” I was making a point that if there were no “moral laws” what would stop someone from walking around naked with an erection? Then of course a child could be exposed to this (by the way how would a chaperone prevent someone from simply appearing on the scene in your liberal world?) I know you don’t care, right? You don’t have any kids, you are in your 20’s and the world needs to loosen up some…yea.

Got it.

Bye.

31

[quote]ZEB wrote:

“Laws should be reviewed and adjusted in some cases.” According to whose standards? (male college student standards of course…LOL)[/quote]

Are they worse than your standards? How so?

[quote]“As to a guy walking around with an erection why should I care.” I was making a point that if there were no “moral laws” what would stop someone from walking around naked with an erection? Then of course a child could be exposed to this (by the way how would a chaperone prevent someone from simply appearing on the scene in your liberal world?) I know you don’t care, right? You don’t have any kids, you are in your 20’s and the world needs to loosen up some…yea.
[/quote]

Where did I say people should walk around naked? I said they should be able to walk around without shirts on, should they desire. There are places in the world where people do walk around naked, as far as I know it’s not a big deal. Besides, if a guy does have an erection, you can usually see it anyway, through his pants. What about a woman with erect nipples? They are usually visible too, unless she’s wearing a parka. What will you do when she sees these? How about if she comes in while you’re showering? Oops! I know you probably lock the door, but shit happens and you’ll probably have to have an akward conversation with her sometime. Anyway, she’ll see a guy’s erection eventually, whether or not people are allowed to run around naked.

Since when is this “world” liberal? Most Dems wouldn’t support these things.

Ah, I see. Your point was if all “moral laws” were abolished, someone could walk around naked with a hard-on and your kid could see it. Okeedokee. I would say the odds of that would be about the same as they are now. How many guys (even if they could) would walk around naked in public with an erection? Pretty few. It’s uncomfortable. Where would he go? Even if the unthinkable happens and we become a nudist nation, it would eventually become a social norm, and no one would really care then. Just like our women are now brazenly walking around with their heads uncovered and legs exposed. Gasp!

32

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I see lothario is once again spouting off about “belief systems.” How politically correct of you! lothario apparently demands no moral law! True?[/quote]
ZEB, I must say that you are a wonder. You are one of my very favorite people on this forum. I used the phrase “belief system” out of respect for Mr. Chen’s religious beliefs, and to lend a generality towards religion, rather than lay this on the doorstep solely of Christianity. If that’s too PC for you, then I guess I could go back to calling Jesus a sandal-wearing hippie with magic powers, but maybe that would just have nothing to do with the issue at hand, and just annoy everybody. I’m trying to not be a jerk and call y’all “brainwashed” here. Ya know?

Right. And those instances which you mention are fundamentally different from what an abortion law means. Here, let me explain:

Prostitution, nudity, hell… almost any law at all… is a matter of public behavior and interaction. The contents of a woman’s uterus is not in the public purview. It is a private matter which doesn’t involve anyone else. We (Mr.Chen and I) haven’t really touched on this yet, but there it is. The argument you could make is “it’s half of my baby too…” but I think we can safely say that the man made his contribution at conception, and is pretty much out of the picture biologically. Yes, this is an internal, personal, and most importantly, female issue.

I’ll say it again: we are outsiders in this. We will never know what it means to nurture a life inside of our own bodies for ten months (hopefully that long) and then give birth. We will also never fully understand what it means to come to grips with the decision and aftermath of deciding to not go through with this, and getting an abortion.

Burying your head in the sand, and saying “providing a safe way for a woman to end a pregnancy is wrong because something (or somebody, whatever) dies…” is a supreme cop-out, and I think that as a modern society we can do a little better for these women than letting them use coat-hangers and bottles of mustard and whatnot. Get it through your heads, guys: a woman who wants to end her pregnancy will find some way to do it.

I would go further and say that in the framework of your belief system (that phrase!) she not only has the right, but the God-given right (seeing as how God is responsible for how and why we procreate) to kill her fetus, should she choose to do so. If God wanted men to have any say in this He would have made us differently.

In my opinion, any law that doesn’t have a public setting (assisted suicide laws, sodomy laws, abortion laws, etc.) does not need to be on the books. But hey… that’s just me. The “liberal wonder boy”.

33

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Burying your head in the sand, and saying “providing a safe way for a woman to end a pregnancy is wrong because something (or somebody, whatever) dies…” is a supreme cop-out, and I think that as a modern society we can do a little better for these women than letting them use coat-hangers and bottles of mustard and whatnot. Get it through your heads, guys: a woman who wants to end her pregnancy will find some way to do it.[/quote]
I just thought of something else. I might be mischaracterizing y’all here. Answer me something: is the pregnant woman’s uterus a public area because the fetus inside of her is a United States citizen? Because that would make some kind of sense to pass a law restricting the abortion procedure. Abortion would be equal to first-degree murder then. Kinky. I like that.

All kinds of cool stuff follows behind this, and it’s not even “slippery slope” argumentation like you always use in gay marriage threads, ZEB. When a fetus becomes a citizen, then we will as a matter of following our laws need to investigate all spontaneous abortions (you call them “miscarriages”) as a possible criminal matter. Just as a reminder here: we see about half a dozen of these a day in Tallahassee. Not that that’s gonna stop us, though. We will also need to incarcerate any pregnant woman found with a positive drug screen… this goes almost without saying. We may also need to monitor pregnant women as a matter of legality as to whether or not they are taking their prenatal vitamins, eating enough, not endangering their feti somehow, etc. Do you see what I’m getting at, chief? Let’s get BB in here and ask him how making a fetus equivalent to a citizen would affect our daily lives. I’m sure he can do a much better job of this than me.

34

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
When a fetus becomes a citizen, then we will as a matter of following our laws need to investigate all spontaneous abortions (you call them “miscarriages”) as a possible criminal matter. Just as a reminder here: we see about half a dozen of these a day in Tallahassee. Not that that’s gonna stop us, though. We will also need to incarcerate any pregnant woman found with a positive drug screen… this goes almost without saying. We may also need to monitor pregnant women as a matter of legality as to whether or not they are taking their prenatal vitamins, eating enough, not endangering their feti somehow, etc. Do you see what I’m getting at, chief? Let’s get BB in here and ask him how making a fetus equivalent to a citizen would affect our daily lives. I’m sure he can do a much better job of this than me. [/quote]

Just notes

  1. Murder requires intent.
  2. Slaves weren’t citizens but it was murder to kill them. Same with visiting Canadians. You don’t have to be a citizen to be murdered.
  3. As I said before: the supreme court has made women autocrats over what happens iside their bodies. They are monarchs. Is it a valid legal supposition-yes. Was it the right supposition: the debate continues.
35

ToShinDo,

Did you type all those bible verses out by hand after looking them up in your own bible, or do you have a bible study program on your computer? Or, maybe you just cut and pasted them from an anti-christian website. Don’t tell a lie now.

It appears there is much you don’t know; here is a partial list:

[1]The Creator has the right to take the creature’s physical life at any time, and in any way. We do not have this right to take life, except under His guidelines.

[2]The soul does not need to breathe. We don’t have souls because we breath.

[3]Unborn babies go to heaven. There is a clear doctrine of innocence in the bible, supported both in the old and new testaments.

[4]Causing a miscarriage, and intentionally aborting a baby are not equal. You are a very sloppy reader my friend. In Exodus 21:22-25, it is fair to ask what the pregnant woman was doing in the middle of 2 men striving together. If a woman got between 2 men going at it, she would must surely by accidently struck, and it wouldn’t take much to cause the baby to be lost. So obviously the penalty is not as severe.

[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
I guess I’m not quite sure why Christians are so bent up about abortion (other than the fact that there some Christians who just like to be upset about things; Spongebob, Janet’s titty, etc.) [/quote]

You know, this idea that Christians can’t speak up for what they believe is just so much crap. If you can’t handle the discussion, than sit back down in your seat.

36

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Just notes

  1. Murder requires intent.[/quote]
    Thus the investigation. How are we going to be able to know for sure that the miscarriage wasn’t self-inflicted unless we ask questions, gather evidence you know, ask around to her family and friends, “was she unhappy with her pregnancy? Did she ever mention that she wished she wasn’t pregnant?, etc.” You know what I mean, right?

Ah! So what do we classify the fetus legally then? How do we legitimize the fetus as a person without making it a citizen? Call a duck a duck. Sure a Canadian is a citizen somewhere. If we’re going to make this illegal we have to have grounds, buddy. The uterus becomes a public place, with public oversight if you will, when we make laws about its contents. How else is this accomplished (uterus control) without legitimizing our actions somehow? Why are we taking away the woman’s choice if isn’t for the sake of the fetus? You are “citizenizing” here, even if you don’t realize it.

I will say it was a great… no, fantastic idea to let a woman decide her own fate. The fact that one of her fertilized eggs (still inside of her own body, even) is involved doesn’t have to mean that it changes anything. Unless that fetus has rights just like you and me. Let’s start picketing! :slight_smile:

37

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[3]Unborn babies go to heaven. There is a clear doctrine of innocence in the bible, supported both in the old and new testaments.[/quote]

But does that mean as soon as the baby breaches the birth canal, he/she is stained with original sin? At what point exactly does that “loss of innocence” occur? Just wondering… I’m not exactly a bible scholar.

38

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Mr. Chen wrote:
[3]Unborn babies go to heaven. There is a clear doctrine of innocence in the bible, supported both in the old and new testaments.

But does that mean as soon as the baby breaches the birth canal, he/she is stained with original sin? At what point exactly does that “loss of innocence” occur? Just wondering… I’m not exactly a bible scholar.
[/quote]

Original sin is not a function of age, it’s comes with being an ancestor of Adam:

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die…

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned

Please note the 2nd half of Rom 5:12 (above), we are subject to death because we sin. The sin nature is in us because we are part of Adam’s race.

Notice the 2nd half of the next verse, Rom 5:13:

…but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

There is clearly a difference between having a sin nature, and sin being imputed to the individual. Exactly at what age this happens is hard to say. I think first we must remember that God is fair as well as just, and would not harshly judge an immature conscience.

There is one instance in the Old Testament where everyone 20 years and under were let off from being punished. That’s in Numbers 14:29. Actually, the age of 20 is clearly the age of responsibility in the OT, it is used as the cut off age for many things. I think God gives every man’s conscience a chance to mature before He holds in to full account for his actions. I don’t know as that we can fix it at 20 though.

How old is your conscience?

39

ToShinDo:

LOL, go have another beer your crazy kid!

40

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I see lothario is once again spouting off about “belief systems.” How politically correct of you! lothario apparently demands no moral law! True?
ZEB, I must say that you are a wonder. You are one of my very favorite people on this forum. I used the phrase “belief system” out of respect for Mr. Chen’s religious beliefs, and to lend a generality towards religion, rather than lay this on the doorstep solely of Christianity. If that’s too PC for you, then I guess I could go back to calling Jesus a sandal-wearing hippie with magic powers, but maybe that would just have nothing to do with the issue at hand, and just annoy everybody. I’m trying to not be a jerk and call y’all “brainwashed” here. Ya know?

lothario asks the question: “Can we trust a women to have the wisdom to exercise control over herself?” Here we go again! Tell me lothario old buddy old pal, do you think we need any moral laws? Do you think a woman “controls herself” when the law says she cannot prostitute her own body? What’s a little sex for money going to hurt? Why does the law step in there? The law also says she can’t run around nude in most public places (dang law)it’s her body I don’t get it. The law says she can’t kill her self. Now go figure…it’s her body. Right?

Right. And those instances which you mention are fundamentally different from what an abortion law means. Here, let me explain:

Prostitution, nudity, hell… almost any law at all… is a matter of public behavior and interaction. The contents of a woman’s uterus is not in the public purview. It is a private matter which doesn’t involve anyone else. We (Mr.Chen and I) haven’t really touched on this yet, but there it is. The argument you could make is “it’s half of my baby too…” but I think we can safely say that the man made his contribution at conception, and is pretty much out of the picture biologically. Yes, this is an internal, personal, and most importantly, female issue.

I’ll say it again: we are outsiders in this. We will never know what it means to nurture a life inside of our own bodies for ten months (hopefully that long) and then give birth. We will also never fully understand what it means to come to grips with the decision and aftermath of deciding to not go through with this, and getting an abortion.

Burying your head in the sand, and saying “providing a safe way for a woman to end a pregnancy is wrong because something (or somebody, whatever) dies…” is a supreme cop-out, and I think that as a modern society we can do a little better for these women than letting them use coat-hangers and bottles of mustard and whatnot. Get it through your heads, guys: a woman who wants to end her pregnancy will find some way to do it.

So the liberal wonder boys like lothario would have you believe that while a woman cannot do all of the above she should still by some strange twist of liberal logic have the right to kill her fetus. Yea, that makes sense, um wait nope…none at all!
I would go further and say that in the framework of your belief system (that phrase!) she not only has the right, but the God-given right (seeing as how God is responsible for how and why we procreate) to kill her fetus, should she choose to do so. If God wanted men to have any say in this He would have made us differently.

Tell me lothario which of these moral laws that were meant to both protect the woman and society should we eliminate?

In my opinion, any law that doesn’t have a public setting (assisted suicide laws, sodomy laws, abortion laws, etc.) does not need to be on the books. But hey… that’s just me. The “liberal wonder boy”.

[/quote]

lothario:

I see, Christians are “brainwashed” but liberal wonder boys are free thinking and open minded and dog gone it just better people. Got it, and thanks for clearing it up. Someday we will have to get into how it’s open minded and wonderful to bash Christians. Yet, if anyone even breaths a word of opposition regarding homosexuals they are somehow evil and oh soooo homophobic (which of course means homorepugnant :).

Next point, you claim since abortion has nothing to do with “public behavior” and is solely a womans body then it should be legal. I submit to you that suicide is all about a womans body, her entire body! Yet, suicide is illegal. You state that, “yes this (abortion) is an internal personal and most importantly female issue.”
Is it really? Your argument is that it is so personal that no one else is involved. Not true!

When a child (fetus) is killed because of abortion many are involved. Someone does not become a father, what about his rights? Someone else does not become a grandparent, what about their rights? Not to much different than suicide really. Someone is deprived, other than the person acting. You are claiming it’s her uterus so she can kill anything in it. I am claiming that if she can kill anything in her uterus then why can’t she kill her uterus along with herself? Moral law is moral law.

Your final statement is sort of…um nutty (sorry). “Any law that does not have a public setting does not need to be on the books.” Then I guess someone can get together with their gang, in private, and plan a murder? Someone can rape a 10 year old girl as long as it is done in private? Somone else can beat their wife as long as it’s in private?

(shaking head) you liberals are an odd lot indeed. On one hand you want to squash things like “hate speech” and create things like “hate crimes” (ever see a “love crime.?”) Then you come out in favor of eliminating “any law that does not have a public setting.”

Haha you nut. :slight_smile: