Politics and CoJ... I'm impressed (Page 4)

Well, ok.

Or you could give me an example. 

like.... freedom to marry?  To be allowed  to go to school without being physically attacked?  To attend your life partner's bedside in a hospital?  That's all this "progressive liberal" is asking for.

the classic liberalism to which you refer was perhaps about freedom for some people. 

oooh, sorry.  I guess I don;t know you well enough (yet! I'll pay attention from now on! ) 

I think the first question is whether it is freedom to define marriage as one wants, or whether one is taking license to do so.

But that's a natural law stroll. 

Or a stroll down who gets to be free, 

Oh yea, one more thing.

There is an entire class of people today who are being denied the basic human right to be born.

How the left can continue to argue that it is for freedom, yet deny that fact, is chilling. 

If that's a human blastocyst, then yes I do.

Human blastocyst equals human person.

Human embryo  equals human person.

Human fetus equals human person.

Human baby equals human person.

Human toddler, adolescent, young adult, old adult, all human persons.

Show me where on the continuum of conception to natural death a biological human suddenly becomes a human person.  Where's the empirical evidence for that?

And just to add so I'm not ducking your other two points.

The current legal right to an abortion is based on a theory of a right to privacy. If such a right to privacy exists, and John Roberts for one believes that it does which is good enough for me, then it's exercise is dependent on other supervening rights.

For example, the right to liberty can only be exercised if one is also exercising their right to life. You can't have liberty if you're dead.

In the same way, the right to privacy can only be exercised if you have life.

Life comes first.

So in the often tragic situation of a woman being pregnant when she doesn't want to be, the right to life of the preborn child trumps the right to privacy of it's mother. In cases where the mother's life is in danger from the pregnancy it's a different issue, as long as the primary purpose of a procedure is to protect the mother, rather than the primary purpose being to kill the child. A good example is an ectopic pregnancy.

This constitutes freedom because it is clearly right to value life above valuing privacy. Both are important, but life comes first. It's freedom because it's living according to the truth of the matter.

As far as IVF goes, yes I believe it's wrong. However, I don't want it made illegal. Just don't directly kill the embryos that are conceived through the process, or use them for research.

nope, not joking.  

I completely agree that not everything traditional is bigoted or right wing. And I am not asking you to compromise your traditions, I am asking for fairness under the law.  Traditions are not what laws are based on, or shouldn't be, IMO. My marriage does not affect you or yours one iota.

Don, please, where is the empirical evidence for God?  (And you know I think there is one, but not because I have empirical proof, but because I have faith.) 

I don't have any empirical evidence for God. I base it on faith as well.

I'd just like to know what people who believe that at birth we suddenly are endowed with rights, but not a moment sooner, I'd like to know what they're basing that belief on.

Where's the empirical evidence for that.

Lacking empirical evidence, is the belief that we suddenly are endowed with rights at birth a faith based belief?

If it is faith based, that's fine. But then maybe we should turn to the tools of theology or philosophy to come to a better understanding of the question.

I'm taking someone else's advice to say only "never mind"

But this thread is about politics, let's keep it on point, eh?