As usual, the biggots are showing their ignorance.

Now think, think really really hard. I know you and Jake may be hampered by a low IQ, but you can do this,

what is the difference between two consenting gay adults marrying, and your list? (minus the last one, because it's the same thing as gay marriage)

hint: two consenting adults

I love how the "keep guvment out" people are the first ones who want government to interfere with the rights of others.

It's none of your businesss what two consenting adults do. End of story, and why do you care?

The only reason, and this is shown quite often with the preachers who talk all day about how evil gay people are,

that one would so hate something different, is because they are a little more like what they hate than the want to admit.

So I'm going to go ahead and assume what I assume with anyone who spews hatred,

You are gay.

It's okay Kinda, I'm pretty sure Jake is also. Hopefully within the decade it will be legal for you two to marry.

1. The Hyde ammendment took rights away, it did not keep the status quo at all.

2. The Bill without that shortsighted and completely useless ammendment keeps the status quo, it doesn't increase pro-choice rights at all.

So as is the case with every dabate Joe has ever made, it's based around an incorrect assumption, and tagged idiotically, and he will go on to answer disproofs with fallacies, and when all else fails he will begin making jokes.

Because the fact is, Joe is wrong, and instead of owning up to it, he will continue to hide behind "humor" then make an identical debat 3 days later only worded a bit differently.

That said,

I'm morally against the war in Iraq, and that killed people who were actually alive.

I still have to pay taxes.

This debate shows a fundamental misunderstanding of every aspect of democracy, and is quite pathetic.

I assumed another ultrasound video, and I've seen like 50 of them. But this is even worse, no one wants to see your sisters, and that video has 0 to do with abortion since they are already born.

This is ridiculous. Yes I've seen all of this stuff. I even had a girlfriend who had an abortion. You're being ridiculous, just because you feel something doesn't make it true.

I think that there may be an underlying flaw in your logic.

You seem to be assuming that allowing everyone healthcare would somehow take healthcare away from someone, it would "trample everyone else’s right of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as you would say.

I don't understand how this could be. It seems to be the same argument Joe regularly makes that allowing gays to be married somehow invalidates his own marriage.

It seems to be a fatal flaw in logic. I simply cannot comprehend what would lead a thinking person toward this conclusion.

Even if it did happen, which it would not, that having a public option would lead to higher prices for some,

It seems to me the equation, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, in no way gaurantees lower insurance rates.

In fact, the Life and Pursuit of Happiness parts of the quote you use several times,

would imply healthcare would be a right regardless of cost.

I mean, it seems people are forgetting we are talking about human lives. Does it matter that some would be poor, or if people like Joe hate them? They're humans still who as far as we know have done nothing wrong.

Why shouldn't they have as much a right to life, and as long and healthy a life, as anyone else?

It makes no sense morally, or even legally if one is going by the mantra you use continually "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

I'm afraid this constitutional argument simply falls short. There is nothing to lead anyone to believe providing healthcare is unconstitutional, quite the opposite in fact. (I know the quotes from the Declaration of Independence, but typical, the right's calling it a constitutional argument)

Okay, so I just don't get that argument at all, and I find it hard to believe you really buy into it... Joe okay, he's a moron, but I can't believe you think it's legitimate.

And getting rid of health insurance all together seems an even worse idea. I mean, literally at the most 1% of the world population could afford a simple procedure today like removing breast cancer. And that could be the difference between dying within the year, and living a long happy life and dying of old age. Why would we want that?

And how many bright people, if doctors decided to lower costs enough so that maybe 5% of the world population can afford a relatively simple procedures, would still want to be doctors?

7-10 years of higher education, and student loans anywhere from 100,000 to half a million. Who can afford that?

It seems to me getting rid of any health insurance at all is a one way trip back to the gilded age, where you have a handful of travelling doctors who don't know that much and do it out of the kindness of their hearts.

... unless you're talking about single payer national healthcare. In which case you retain your genious status and I'm all for it.

I don't care what anyone wears anywhere.

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

Rattle my cage thewayitis?

I didn't' realize you had a hidden camera in my home and could tell my emotions...

perhaps create debate should have emoticons so you will not be confused as to my emotions, they look something like this ._. - as in "is this guy for real?"

As for changing the premise, I did not. It's quite evident in fact if you read my argument that I am indeed replying accidentally to two different people at once, then you will see on the other side I addressed the question in a more focused manner.

Anyway,

you seem to think you know a lot of stuff. You have the answers, you know "the way it is" already,

but when one bothers to explore the logic of your statements they will find them baseless.

You make wide claims that sound nice. Case in point: "all definitions of religion should be taken into consideration. Arguments should be directed to both meanings of the word, your meaning is no better than the definition that I put forth. It is only equal to it."

Okay, it sounds inclusive and sensible.

But just a little thought and one finds it's pure silliness.

Everyone does things in such a way that we would call it "religiously" you take the next step and call that religious, when in fact "religiously" in this context simply means often or regularly.

In spite of the similarities of the two words, they are very very different.

But you go on to describe how then everyone must be "religious" because they do things "religiously."

I mean, it's basically 3rd grade thinking you dress-up in a 10th writing level... okay 12th grade, maybe that's what annoys me further.

I would dislike you less if you just said it like this:

"Like but... if like you do stuff um religiously, then like that's like you're religion and um, you should think about that because it's deep... and stuff"

Now, I actually began reading and I was giving you the benefit of the doubt because I believed you must be making some deeper point,

for instance, even if you don't believe in any diety, something in your life will take it's place, whether work, family, or some negative thing.

To which I would still argue you are incorrect, and that religion is just a decoration,

but it became apparent at least to me that indeed unfortunately you were trying to make this "religiously v religious" argument.

So I called you out on it.

I assure you if I had a cage, it would not have rattled a bit.

Again Joe,

Newsmax is not a news source.

None of those things are the least bit true.

You're tags make you an idiot. No one thinks he's perfect.

And what do you mean everything is pro Obama? all you and a few others do all day is spew retarded crap about him based on your own deep psychological issues and completely void of any contextual relevance in the real world.

I have an idea, think of a specific issue you don't like, and explain why you disagree without using vague innuendos of eminent destruction, socialism, fascism, and whatever other bs your fevered conspiracy addled brain runs on.

1. The left is generally anti-war, pro healthcare, pro helping starving people in Africa, etc, all of which saves lives. Since I don't consider a fetus a life, from my standpoint the right is more concerned with vague moral standards only shared by the right than saving lives, but whatever.

2. I'm talking about self-awareness, as in feelings. A fetus before the third trimester has 0 capacity to feel. They're not sad about being aborted, it doesn't hurt them, they don't have these human emotions yet. This is what I'm talking about. That an already born child likes its mom in no way invalidates this point.

3. And here is the disconnect, you are absolutely correct. But the leap so many on the right are not willing to make is that abortion is always something to anguish over. Sure, there are bitches (and I don't use that term lightly) who simply don't care. But the vast vast vast majority of abortions are performed by women who feel they simply have no choice. It is not a party. But it's their choice, something they have to live with. Not the right wing, not you personally, just her, no one else's business. The only thing making abortions illegal would change is the number of mothers who die with the child. That's all it changes no matter how pretty this anti-abortion idea that "if we just shove what we really really really feel down everyone's throat everyone will live happily ever after, amen" - that's not how it works. Woman have been having abortions one way or another, legal or illegal, since the beginning of time.

As for your point about rape. It's not the fault of the "child" only because the "child" doesn't exist. It's a cluster of cells and if she wants to abort it it's her choice, again, not yours.

4. facts and logic never vary. People are wrong about facts and logic, but in and of themselves, they are constant. It is a fact the earth is round for example. Some have the "opinion" it is not, but this is not an opinion, this is simply wrong. There is a fact at the bottom of when a fetus becomes self-aware, people who study biology for a decade before becoming a doctor believe this to be around the 3rd trimester. Whatever the answer really is, I trust the dude who studied it for a decade over people who think they speak in tongues and give their live savings to Jerry Falwell. Is the exact moment as definite as the shape of the earth? No, probably not. But it's not that big a mystery, and while a valid opinion may vary by a month or so of when this elusive self-awareness begins, it most certainly is not upon conception, or even 2 or 3 months later. It's akin at that point to saying the earth has to be flat because when I stand on my roof I can't see it curve.

Here's the difference between an argument with two different opinions, and the abortion debate.

Indulge me, I enjoy coming up with analogies.

2 people are walking through a forest. 1 wants to go left, the other right. The one who wants to go right says they both have to go right. The one who wants to go left says his friend can go right if he likes, but for himself, he thinks he should be able to choose.

That's the gist of it. It's not a matter of two sides fighting about what everyone should do. It's about one side trying to force everyone to do something they may or may not want to and the other saying since we really don't know where either leads, people should have the choice.