Each person may present his or her reasons to others to convince them or present them directly to a legislator. If your reasons convince the legislator or someone you have convinced convinces the legislator, you have affected the law and exercised your personal freedom.

Pro-Choice Advocate D:

Um, no all you've done is probably made life miserable for any number of other people. For example, you "convince" a Christian legislator to ban gay marriage, and you've basically screwed a couple thousand people out of their personal freedom.

Nate:

It's legal to do so. Do we need a law that prohibits citizens from voicing their opinions to protect their freedom?

Pro-Choice Advocate D:

At this point, abortion is still legal too. Is that "right" in your eyes jus because it's "legal to do so?"

Nate:

You dodged my question. I can say I honestly think there should be a law against abortion, but can you say you honestly think there should be a law against the citizens voicing their opinions? And if you do think so, how could you justify your giving of that opinion as a citizen since you think the very thing you'd be doing should be illegal?

Pro-Choice Advocate D:

No there shouldn't be a law against voicing your opinion, but there @#$% well should be a law against inhibiting the rights of others. I'm pretty sure you can figure out why.

Nate:

Sounds fair enough. "Your rights go as far as they don't inhibit the rights of others"? I think US was founded on such a law. Course we had slavery and some inequalities to get rid of still, but the basic idea was there.

Pro-Choice Advocate D:

Yeah, so what stop that from applying here?

Nate:

I think that a right to an abortion is the result of faulty logic.