'Abortion' and religious strawmen

in china the accepted morality is different..as are the civil rights..in Americas past the prevailing morality
was different and it was reflected in our civil rights...all rights are based on morality as are the rights of the unborn
 
Let me say this, JButtemia, it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with legislating someone else's morals...even a twitty atheist OPINION like your OPINION is still forcing your moralist beliefs on the rest of the country.

Move to Saudi Arabia.

lol....civil rights are someones moral beliefs
How so?


You're a fucking idiot. 'Civil rights' are protected for two reasons

1) it is considered to be moral or good to grant and protect them. Slavery? Ended due to moral objections. Women's suffrage? A moral issue regarding sexual equality. 'Gay marriage' a moral issue regarding discrimination and perceived sexual immorality. Child labor laws and child sex laws? Put in place due to moral objections regarding the exploitation of children...

2)social contract that arise to protect the individual and/or see one's morality adhered to
 
Let me say this, JButtemia, it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with legislating someone else's morals...even a twitty atheist OPINION like your OPINION is still forcing your moralist beliefs on the rest of the country.

Move to Saudi Arabia.

lol....civil rights are someones moral beliefs
How so?


You're a fucking idiot. 'Civil rights' are protected for two reasons

1) it is considered to be moral or good to grant and protect them. Slavery? Ended due to moral objections. Women's suffrage? A moral issue regarding sexual equality. 'Gay marriage' a moral issue regarding discrimination and perceived sexual immorality. Child labor laws and child sex laws? Put in place due to moral objections regarding the exploitation of children...

2)social contract that arise to protect the individual and/or see one's morality adhered to

HOLY FUCKING SHIT! Add morality to the list of words JBitchema doesn't understand. :eek:
 
I think Ravi's gotten more stupid as of late

She has always been immensely stupid. You guys just agreed with her ignorant positions. Like I said if she had 2 brain cells in her head where ever she lived would be in danger of a massive methane explosion if those 2 brain cells ever collided in her methane filled head.
 
...there is another group that has entered the scene that, while smaller than the others, poses a huge danger to both of the aforementioned. These are those pro-life atheists and other non-religious persons who object to the slaughter of the unborn.

Still probably a lot smaller than the already entrenched group of religious and faithful that are pro-choice because they don't believe in forcing others to abide by their personal moral code of conduct.
 
morality

concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct



moral - concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles; "moral sense"; "a ...
 
morality

concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct



moral - concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles; "moral sense"; "a ...


Thanks. :rolleyes:

Now you're going to give me the line about murder and theft being outlawed because they are immoral. :rofl:
 
morality

concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct



moral - concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles; "moral sense"; "a ...


Thanks. :rolleyes:

Now you're going to give me the line about murder and theft being outlawed because they are immoral. :rofl:

to the prevaling ..some ...they are ...for others the law has to force this morality upon them
 
Last edited:
Now you're going to give me the line about murder and theft being outlawed because they are immoral. :rofl:

As I explained to your stupid ass...

1)deemed immoral
2)social contract..
-a) to protect the individual from theft
-b) to see the morality in 1 adhered to

All laws arise from social contract for the individual's benefit and/or see a moral standard adhered to (in turn ultimately because it is for the individual's benefit)

Many laws are put into effects because an action is deemed immoral or wrong- such as child pornography laws and abolition
 
I love the way the so called pro choicers takes the liberty of removing choice not only from the father of the baby many times, but always from the baby, and using sematics to claim the baby has no rights because it is not a human.

That is illogical and ignorant, but mostly a selfish self absorbed excuse to do what is convenient.
 
Now you're going to give me the line about murder and theft being outlawed because they are immoral. :rofl:

As I explained to your stupid ass...

1)deemed immoral
2)social contract..
-a) to protect the individual from theft
-b) to see the morality in 1 adhered to

All laws arise from social contract for the individual's benefit and/or see a moral standard adhered to (in turn ultimately because it is for the individual's benefit)

Many laws are put into effects because an action is deemed immoral or wrong- such as child pornography laws and abolition

You're a fucking retard. No offense.

Abolition and child pornography involve protecting would be victims. The unborn simply do not share the same deference as the born. You may have convinced yourself that they should, but that would require complete ignorance of pragmatic reality. Oh, wait...
 
What ravi doesn't realize is that anti-lifers, too, wish to legislate their morality. They simply value convenience over human life and deem it immoral to 'burden' someone with their own child or even pregnancy prior to adoption.

I've explained this before


Oddly, they think it's fine to burden a man w/ 18+ years of financial burden if he doesn't want the child and the woman does but women who give their children up for adoption have no such burden :rolleyes:
 
What ravi doesn't realize is that anti-lifers, too, wish to legislate their morality. They simply value convenience over human life and deem it immoral to 'burden' someone with their own child or even pregnancy prior to adoption.

I've explained this before


Oddly, they think it's fine to burden a man w/ 18+ years of financial burden if he doesn't want the child and the woman does but women who give their children up for adoption have no such burden :rolleyes:

:clap2:

Libs and anti lifers are very illogical, it is sick at all the excuses they use. They are never fair to the child. Abortion has been the cause of much more than a baby's death, but has made the family unit obsolete, our society cannot continue having less than 1 child per family
 
Last edited:
Now you're going to give me the line about murder and theft being outlawed because they are immoral. :rofl:

As I explained to your stupid ass...

1)deemed immoral
2)social contract..
-a) to protect the individual from theft
-b) to see the morality in 1 adhered to

All laws arise from social contract for the individual's benefit and/or see a moral standard adhered to (in turn ultimately because it is for the individual's benefit)

Many laws are put into effects because an action is deemed immoral or wrong- such as child pornography laws and abolition

You're a fucking retard. No offense.

Abolition and child pornography involve protecting would be victims. The unborn simply do not share the same deference as the born. You may have convinced yourself that they should, but that would require complete ignorance of pragmatic reality. Oh, wait...

Pragmatic reality? Please. Pragmatism starts with facts not imaginary set standards for one group and not the other
 
Why? Why is it good to 'protect' 'would be "victims"'?

Because anarchy doesn't work.

You're making a moral judgement as to who has greater 'value' and whose 'rights' are more important

Yes, I think it's impractical, if not impossible to extend "rights" to the unborn.

But I'm not advocating forcing my morality on anyone else am I? :eusa_whistle:


The so called moral decision of RvW, was forcing a whole generation to accept that killing a baby is alright and legal. Just because it is legal does not make it right. And now a whole ignorant generation of foolish indoctrinated people are running our country, and making new laws, and pushing us into a place of no return once again
 

Forum List

Back
Top