I want to make my position very
V E R Y clear for anyone who doesn't know.

If you insist on arguing this with me, you're likely to find yourself blocked very quickly.

I won't accept arguments for The State as an excuse for violence.

The State doesn't protect you, or your rights. It merely punishes those who violate them, unless The State itself is violating them, (as it is now) in which case, you'll have no recourse.

As long as it exists, The State will first protect itself. If you are a threat, you'll be locked up, or eliminated.
#HisNameWasDuncanLemp

If you follow me only for my position on abortion as unethical, fine, I respect that. I won't pressure you to accept my other positions.

But please understand that they are inseperable for me. I oppose all aggression, all coercion.

So here's my position.
It's really very simple:

I. Abortion kills a human. The science is clearly understood on this, for those who oppose abortion.

Even without scientific study, logic readily lends itself to the idea that when a male and female from the same species engage in sexual reproduction, the only possible reproductive outcome will also be human.

The 1973 SCOTUS ruling of Roe V Wade was thus a critical error.

That brings us to the second part of my position:

II. The State is the structure that enables atrocities like abortion, and as such must also be eliminated.

Abortion advocates chose their method very carefully, knowing they couldn't otherwise obtain legal protections for what is clearly homicide.

If you've read my pinned post, you know this wasn't the first time an atrocity was legally protected.

I can argue abortion with anyone.

I've seen the rhetoric.
I understand it.
I empathize with it.
But if you want to excuse the very structure that permits such ethical abuses, and has throughout history, I have no time for you.

Make your case, that's fine.
If you can support it, ok.

But if you want to claim that such a structure is necessary to protect you, you're not going to have my time.

The State is as likely to trample your rights as it is to protect them, and if someone wants to infringe upon your rights, they will.

The State can only punish them after the fact. It doesn't prevent aggression any better than you could.

Is the threat of prison a deterrent? Sure, but an armed individual is an even greater deterrent.

So please, don't defend the existence of the only structure that has failed to prevent (and frankly, facilitated) every atrocity ever committed against humanity.

I will not argue with you.

I will block you.