The point isn't whether or not abortion is the taking of a human life. The point, whether you unambiguously think it is, you unambiguously think it isn't, or you're not sure, is whether or not you have the moral maturity to recognise that the taking of a life, or at least of something human, can sometimes be necessary. The evidence from other countries which have decided that it can never be such, and that therefore have banned abortion, seems to suggest fairly clearly that the decision we have made, that sometimes it is, is the correct one.

Well done, you have successfully copied and pasted a small part of a webpage.

I'm still waiting for some kind of actual argument though.

What is it with people who have no standards assuming that everyone else must not have standards either?

I apologise that behaving like a mature adult appears to be beyond the ability of the most powerful man in the entire world. Please stop criticising us liberals, however, for having tried to point this out to you in the first place. The fact you didn't listen is your problem.

Can forms of socialism work? Yes, of course they can. That's why things like state schools, public roads, public water systems, etc. exist. If you want to see unrestrained capitalism in action, then go to Somalia and see how you like it.

The non-facetious answer to the question I suspect you were actually trying to ask, does a fully socialist state system work, is that the historical evidence mostly suggests that it does not. It's important to note, however, that this doesn't mean, as some conservatives try to suggest, that trying to ameliorate the extremes of capitalism or trying to add those socialist aspects which can be seen to work is somehow automatically doomed to failure.

So what, are you referring to yourself in the first person now, or did you just forget to switch to one of your sockpuppets before posting this absurd trash?

Given that the Republicans are currently engaged in a massive and pathetic effort to justify presidential actions which not only make a mockery of everything that the American republic stands for but are almost tantamount to treason, I really think that you're opening yourself up to accusations of hypocrisy here.

So I explained it quite clearly to you, and you willfully decided not to listen to the explanation. Well, it's good to confirm that your ignorance is a matter of choice as opposed to accidental.

Now come on, let's not compare apples and oranges here. It's a typical dishonest leftist trick to try and act as if the behaviour of Hillary Clinton, a fully grown, mature adult, is comparable with the dooshy behaviour of Donald Trump, an orange infant.

Well, it's amusing to note that as well as believing in various shades of political nonsense you also subscribe to psuedomedical quackery.

Why is it that so many people seem to think that if they happen to hold one stupid belief they must completely abandon their sense of reason and believe in a bevy of other nonsense as well?

The penalties are there for the fairly simple reason that they are important to discourage the already healthy from remaining uninsured, and hence to try and prevent insurance only being purchased by the already sick, which would risk resulting in increasing costs in a fairly classic "death spiral". It's that thing called "basic economics" which you are always accusing we liberals of not understanding.

The funniest thing about you conservatives is when you arrogantly ask a question to which you think there is no answer, but for which the answer is actually very simple and gettable if you were to think about it for a while.