the exceptions don't really matter here, you're applying your personal moral feelings on a specific thing to everyone else, hence the term universal, hence the shitstorm of replies

again, you're trying to make a universal moral argument about what is essentially your own personal feelings. Don't confuse the two.

Your problem is you think of morality as a singular objective truth that you can apply to everyone universally. You can't. Morality is personal, and while another person's action may offend your moral sensibilities, unless they are actually violating your human rights somehow (or someone else's if you want to…

I think you're right on the money as far as the legality of their argument goes. It also goes to show how much of a slippery slope the viability question is. We basically set ourselves up for this when we allowed people to talk about ANY unborn as being somehow equal to a living breathing child.

It is 100% bullshit, as are every other restrictive law that's been passed in various states over the last couple decades. waiting periods? bullshit. hallway widths? bullshit. admitting privileges? bullshit.

cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug (my new catchphrase)

As a father of two daughters, he refuses to believe that they will have sex until they are 30

Roid rage? Hopped up on testosterone supplements perhaps? bodyslamming at age 69 isn't easy unless you're using something.

This type of thinking needs to stop being applied to education and start being applied to the military and its contractors. Have too many projects come in overbudget? less money for you next year! Too many civilian casualties? No more spy planes for you! Can't stop all the rape? No promotions for anyone!