>>>>You're kidding right? The whole debate revolves around when the fetus becomes a 'baby'. If someone is going to use the word baby as if there is total agreement on what it means, then you can bet your boots I want to know what his definition is. You're doing it too. Please don't pretend there is universal agreement on when a fetus becomes a 'baby' just because you like your own definition.
>>>
>>>You're kidding right?
>>>Does that mean you don''t have your own convictions and opinions? Is this a liberal thing or what? ;-)
>>
>>Of course I have, but that isn't the point. I didn't make the statement. John made the statement about killing 'babies' as though his definition is the only one that counts, so of course I asked what his definition was. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
>
>I think he needs three more messages until he fulfills his quota of distractions from the actual issue at stake, which is not any right to life at all, but revocation of any liberties or social network which aren't condoned by the bible belt. Rollback everything that is contrary to "homo homini lupus" - unless it's "I'll get all the money first, then be the master of it and decide to, or not to, give some as charity... but they'll have to depend on me, no guarantees, everyone for themselves".

It just shows that liberties are numerous and every person has own priorities. For some people freedom means right to keep own property untouchable; for others, it is an opportunity to go outdoors without pants.