Ron Paul ignored.

[Tiberius]

Yes there is an anti-authoritarian solution, and it is the one I suggested. Dont write legislations on the wall of someones womb.

...and so you've effectively legalised the murder of innocent humans. That is very much an authoritarian solution. By not legislating on abortion, the government is making a statement that in contrast to scientific facts, unborn children are not human, and thus have no human rights. I hold that the opposite is true; that since unborn children are genetically human, they must therefore have human rights.

At what point do children get their human rights in that case? At the moment of birth? If so, are you in support of abortion the day before the child was expected to be born? You speak about the "consequences" of my beliefs, but what about the consequences of yours? Where do you draw the line?

In other words, if I were to err, I would prefer to err in the direction of more freedom to the most amount of people as possible. that means I would STILL suggest that it is not the governments role to decide who MUST become a mother, and who has the option of terminating. I will choose the limited government solution because the government would only make matters worse in this situation.

I would argue that the decision that provides the most freedom to the most amount of people would be the opposite; that women (1 individual) can at minimum abort a single baby (1 individual), but have the capacity to abort several over the course of their lives (many individuals). In short, an abortion only takes one woman, but one woman can have many abortions.

Yes, the government shouldn't have to make a decision on who "must" become a mother, but the government should also uphold human rights, and I believe that the most important right humans have is the right to life.

Logical? You cant even make up your mind wether rights should be voted on or not.

Yet more proof that you still don't get the very basic difference between voting on whether rights are rights (which is absurd, since rights are rights by definition), and voting on what should happen when two rights come into conflict (as per the multiple examples I've given, but to which you've refused to respond).

You don't get to tell me that I can't make up my mind on a specific subject when I've argued it repeatedly, given you examples, and you have refused to respond to them. You haven't even made a comment, let alone a rebuttal of the whole "conflict of rights" issue, so how you can sit there and say that I "can't make up my mind" is beyond me.

In a debate, you can challenge your opponent on what they have said, and they can respond. What you can't then do is ignore their response, and continue to challenge them on the same thing. You can either (a) ignore their response and not bring up the issue again, or (b) challenge their response. I don't mind which you do, but please don't go down the line of accusing me of not being able to make up my mind, when I've already responded to that multiple times.