Yeah... I figured you'd fail to grasp the economics of it. Here's another example. Remember when everyone was clammoring for NC to start doing the "lottery for education" to boost revenues for said purpose? Well, we now have the lottery. How's that education budget faring? I mean... NC government is obviously getting that extra money because people that want to gamble have to do it through a state institution. All of that is supposed to go to the kids, right?
I was waiting for more information to form my own judgement regarding this guy. My first inclination was to look to the hunting escorts that should have been familiar with the territory and the laws that guide it. Zimbabwe seems to have dealt with them appropriately. However, this dentist seems to have had several proven brushes with various legal systems for this kind of thing, so his plea of ignorance doesn't hold water. If normal people are convicted of a particular crime, they normally take extra precautions to keep from doing it inadvertantly in the future. A precious few people simply modify their mode of operation to simply evade legal trouble. This guy definitely seems to fit the latter profile.
Still refusing to come to grips with the reality of economics, I see. If business A get subsidized for their business model and business B does not, which is far more likely to be "too big to fail"? If said subsidies come from forcibly mandated regulation penalties and manipulated tax code by compulsion, is it more likely that: a) Business A will get money from Business B by force, or b) Business B will get money from Busienss A by force, or c) Both Businesses get to compete in an open market and on a level playing field? I'll give you three guesses. I'm betting you'll need all three to get it right.
Perhaps that is the GOPs agenda. My agenda as a libertarian is to get government out of these businesses altogether. Picking market winners and losers. Doing it with compelled revenue. People voting themselves other people's property. A ruling class that picks and chooses law based in morality according to perceived majoritarian tyrannical rule rather than respecting individual liberties. That same ruling class that gets to live their lives independently of the rules the rest of us have to live by. Spare me the hyperbolic pablum. Republicans want to get re-elected... just like Democrats. They depend on suckers to buy into hyperbolic pablum to keep this game going. That you buy into this spin on what was obvious from the video that started this last round is pretty sad. Perhaps that's too high minded.... how about something the public can eat up?
That's currently happening with zero liability voting. I'd rather bring governmental spending as close to local municipalities as possible. It's that little thing called liberty. You might have heard of it
I've read it twice as well. For someone donning an authoritative tone to speak for God, you seem to have missed the mark pretty badly. I'd expect that from someone with a grade school level of reading comprehension, so... no surprise there. But if you put in the effort, then you get credit for going through the motions. As for classifying a fetus as a person, there are lots of contradictions in the Bible to that point. If we were to abide by the example of Abraham, abortions could be committed into years after a child's birth. If we were to abide by the parables of Jesus, then abortions at any time of realization of one's existence is an abomination. For whatever reason, you've decided to clump all of these together into a singular paradigm of your own choosing. As for a grotesque procedure, if you're lamenting the shooting of a lion while being fine with fetal dismemberment, then your conscience is pretty hollowed out and/or twisted to rationalize a practice that doesn't dovetail with your ideology. You are correct that personhood is a philosophical question. Because people come to different conclusions does not invalidate the question nor does it lessen its importance. So, given all of this, it comes as no surprise whatsoever that you cannot comprehend what is a relatively simple exercise to understand ethics from various perspectives. What makes you an ogre is that you insist that everyone else conform to your level of non-comprehension rather than consider that perhaps not knowing an answer definitively may be indicator where laying down the "faith by the sword" mantra is a more sensible option.
Not surprising given the makeup of DC politicians these days. I'd wager that Democrats want to dismantle the Constitution every bit as much, but build an America in their own image. In essence, we've devolved from a political model ideally conceived in tolerance to one of jockeying for the position on the top of the mountain. Let's hurry up and wreck this train to get the cycle over with.