It is certainly true that those who support abortion are monsters...

[Penelope]

t I want to know from these people who think they have a right to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies is this: How is your personal life affected by a woman, who you don't know and never will, decides to have an abortion? Why do you think you have the right to dictate to her what kind of medical decisions she should be allowed to make? And finally, would you be okay with the government dictating what kind of medical decisions you are allowed to make?
It seems that everyone wants smaller government unless it's governing women's' uteruses.

we're a moral society who don't kill children. period end of story.

Sure we do, and we also use them for sex, slave labor, and all kinds of abuse.

 

[buttercup]

Because i don't recognize a moral that is predicated on magical hoo-ha as being a "moral". It's a logic thing.

It's actually very illogical. You have no objective basis for morality. As a fallible human being, your personal opinion does not make something objectively true. And here's where the confusion typically comes in… So to make this crystal clear, I'm not saying that you don't have morals. I'm sure you do. But as an atheist, you don't have an external, objective basis that your morals are rooted in. But this is an entirely different topic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You have no objective basis for morality.

Of course I do. I can easily point out things that objectively represent better well being for humans than do other things. You simply couldn't be more wrong. Maybe you can't eke out anything like this from your brain, but don't make the mistake of thinking everyone else is so limited in their capability as you are.

 

[buttercup]

Of course I do. I can easily point out things that objectively represent better well being for humans than do other things. You simply couldn't be more wrong. Maybe you can't eke out anything like this from your brain, but don't make the mistake of thinking everyone else is so limited in their capability as you are.

Do you believe morality is man-made? Yes or no.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course I do. I can easily point out things that objectively represent better well being for humans than do other things. You simply couldn't be more wrong. Maybe you can't eke out anything like this from your brain, but don't make the mistake of thinking everyone else is so limited in their capability as you are.

Do you believe morality is man-made? Yes or no.

Yes, absolutely. But your predictable next line (just make your point and don't waste my time) is a tired old red herring that is fodder for College freshmen in intro ethics courses.

We can agree that not taking a baseball bat to the head os objectively better than taking a baseball bat to the head. And if you won't agree, we will laugh you out of the room. And sure, maybe this sort of consensus does not satisfy a strict definition of objective, but such a tiny disparity can be overlooked, for the purpose of argument.


So, yes, I can use logic and evidence to arrive at the moral that "murder is immoral" without any need for any magical hoo-ha.

But, bring magical religious bullshit into the picture, and suddenly the path to calling murder "moral" can become very clear. That is what faith does to the faculties of reason.

 

[captkaos]

...I said a dead baby is a dead baby, and your justifications and excuses won't wash the blood away.

A pro-abortion person marked my post as "funny."

So, pro-abortion people think dead babies are "funny."

Anyone who thinks a dead baby is funny is damned.

 

[captkaos]

So a 13 yr old rape victim or Victim of incest would be forced to carry an unwanted fetus to term because you think your opinion actually matters to them, how about crack addicts or heroin addicts who would be forced by our govt to have children they neither planned for nor want. Oh that's right they could get welfare ADC free healthcare etc which would make every Dumbocrat ecstatic

 

[buttercup]

Of course I do. I can easily point out things that objectively represent better well being for humans than do other things. You simply couldn't be more wrong. Maybe you can't eke out anything like this from your brain, but don't make the mistake of thinking everyone else is so limited in their capability as you are.

Do you believe morality is man-made? Yes or no.

Yes, absolutely. But your predictable next line (just make your point and don't waste my time) is a tired old red herring that is fodder for College freshmen in intro ethics courses.

We can agree that not taking a baseball bat to the head os objectively better than taking a baseball bat to the head. And if you won't agree, we will laugh you out of the room. And sure, maybe this sort of consensus does not satisfy a strict definition of objective, but such a tiny disparity can be overlooked, for the purpose of argument.


So, yes, I can use logic and evidence to arrive at the moral that "murder is immoral" without any need for any magical hoo-ha.

But, bring magical religious bullshit into the picture, and suddenly the path to calling murder "moral" can become very clear. That is what faith does to the faculties of reason.

By your own definition, morality is subjective. You have to borrow from another belief system in order to make the statement you just did, that one act is "objectively better" than another. If morality is subjective, then ultimately it doesn't even exist. It only exists as an ever-changing personal opinion, but one opinion can never be better than any other...that is what people like you do not seem to understand.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

y your own definition, morality is subjective.

By any definition, it is subjective. As evidenced by the ever-changing interpretation of the morality dictated by every single code and every single religion ... all ALSO invented by humans, by the way. So you have not advanced your position one iota.


This is the fatal flaw in all of this "absolute religious morality" horseshit: all religions were invented by humans. To be clear, they were invented by ignorant, superstitious humans.

the choice of which argument you prefer is ALWAYS subjective. the premises, however can be deemed objectively true. Such as, "Not taking a baseball bat to the head is better than taking a baseball bat to the head"

I subjectively prefer a path to morals based on fact, reason, and evidence, as they are far superior to any religious hooha.

 

[buttercup]

By any definition, it is subjective.

There are so many problems with that, that I don't even know where to begin. This is a huge topic and there's much to be said, but since it is not the topic of this thread (and since my keyboard isn't working right now and I have to use the dictation thing) I'm not going to get into a big debate on it right now. The bottom line is, you have no leg to stand on. You will see, eventually. Mark my words.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

By any definition, it is subjective.

There are so many problems with that, that I don't even know where to begin. This is a huge topic and there's much to be said, but since it is not the topic of this thread (and since my keyboard isn't working right now and I have to use the dictation thing) I'm not going to get into a big debate on it right now. The bottom line is, you have no leg to stand on. You will see, eventually. Mark my words.

All morality is "subjective", in that it all invloves and is born of subjective, human choices. You can make a compelling argument for a moral, but a compelling argument will not be based on magical hoo-ha. Well, not for me, anyway.

We "know" murder is immoral (except for when we know it is not, such as accepting civilian casualties in a market to kill an enemy), because we have empathy and introspective self awarenesss. These are physical phenomena. We, of course, get more upset when someone close to us is harmed, than some stranger across the world we never knew of. Only through intellectual effort can we agree both equal harms are equally "immoral".

 

[captkaos]

y your own definition, morality is subjective.

By any definition, it is subjective. As evidenced by the ever-changing interpretation of the morality dictated by every single code and every single religion ... all ALSO invented by humans, by the way. So you have not advanced your position one iota.


This is the fatal flaw in all of this "absolute religious morality" horseshit: all religions were invented by humans. To be clear, they were invented by ignorant, superstitious humans.

the choice of which argument you prefer is ALWAYS subjective. the premises, however can be deemed objectively true. Such as, "Not taking a baseball bat to the head is better than taking a baseball bat to the head"

I subjectively prefer a path to morals based on fact, reason, and evidence, as they are far superior to any religious hooha.

 

[captkaos]

I asked the most Religious zealot I know This Question "Do you believe in Ghosts" He was shocked and stated absolutely not "Ghosts don't Exist" I asked so you've never seen a ghost right. So since you've never seen one they don't exist right!!! "So how can justify your religious beliefs, have you ever seen your god. So it obviously doesn't exist either . Need less to say he went away mad as hell because I questioned his unwavering belief in something created by men to control the thoughts and actions of other men, so funny try it on your religious friends they'll make every excuse to try and ridicule. How about this? you are born you live a life then you die and life continues without you just like it has for millions of years. What about the untold millions maybe billions of humans who existed before modern religion where did they go since God didn't exist then they must have just returned to the earth like every other creature on earth does. DUH!!!!!

 

[captkaos]

t I want to know from these people who think they have a right to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies is this: How is your personal life affected by a woman, who you don't know and never will, decides to have an abortion? Why do you think you have the right to dictate to her what kind of medical decisions she should be allowed to make? And finally, would you be okay with the government dictating what kind of medical decisions you are allowed to make?
It seems that everyone wants smaller government unless it's governing women's' uteruses.

we're a moral society who don't kill children. period end of story.

Sure we do, and we also use them for sex, slave labor, and all kinds of abuse.

 

[captkaos]

we outlawed murder it still happens everyday think about that

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I asked the most Religious zealot I know This Question "Do you believe in Ghosts" He was shocked and stated absolutely not "Ghosts don't Exist" I asked so you've never seen a ghost right. So since you've never seen one they don't exist right!!! "So how can justify your religious beliefs, have you ever seen your god. So it obviously doesn't exist either . Need less to say he went away mad as hell because I questioned his unwavering belief in something created by men to control the thoughts and actions of other men, so funny try it on your religious friends they'll make every excuse to try and ridicule. How about this? you are born you live a life then you die and life continues without you just like it has for millions of years. What about the untold millions maybe billions of humans who existed before modern religion where did they go since God didn't exist then they must have just returned to the earth like every other creature on earth does. DUH!!!!!

limbo of the fathers is where the souls of the righteous went before Christ lived and died, in His death he opened Heaven's gates for the just who had gone before Him.

 

[jc456]

t I want to know from these people who think they have a right to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies is this: How is your personal life affected by a woman, who you don't know and never will, decides to have an abortion? Why do you think you have the right to dictate to her what kind of medical decisions she should be allowed to make? And finally, would you be okay with the government dictating what kind of medical decisions you are allowed to make?
It seems that everyone wants smaller government unless it's governing women's' uteruses.

we're a moral society who don't kill children. period end of story.

Sure we do, and we also use them for sex, slave labor, and all kinds of abuse.

Those Hollywood liberals are nasty fks for sure

 

[bodecea]

I asked the most Religious zealot I know This Question "Do you believe in Ghosts" He was shocked and stated absolutely not "Ghosts don't Exist" I asked so you've never seen a ghost right. So since you've never seen one they don't exist right!!! "So how can justify your religious beliefs, have you ever seen your god. So it obviously doesn't exist either . Need less to say he went away mad as hell because I questioned his unwavering belief in something created by men to control the thoughts and actions of other men, so funny try it on your religious friends they'll make every excuse to try and ridicule. How about this? you are born you live a life then you die and life continues without you just like it has for millions of years. What about the untold millions maybe billions of humans who existed before modern religion where did they go since God didn't exist then they must have just returned to the earth like every other creature on earth does. DUH!!!!!

limbo of the fathers is where the souls of the righteous went before Christ lived and died, in His death he opened Heaven's gates for the just who had gone before Him.

Nope...dust to dust.

 

[sakinago]

Well shit, didn’t know that IQ levels relied on whether or not the child was wanted, that’s some pretty interesting science. Almost said something way too mean, I’ll abstain. Is that some new epigenetics stuff coming fresh out of the world of science that you so clearly inhabit?

And no that is not even close to the definition of the beginning of life, not by law, not even by science.

And handmaidens tale, wow...Amazon comes out with one show and all of a sudden, people like me who believe in the importance of using birth control so they don’t pregnant, is the exact same as justifying raping women because that’s all their good for. Forgive me if I think birth control is vastly more important and vastly less morally wrong (birth control isn’t morally wrong) than killing you’re own offspring.

So if life begins at birth, why is it we have time limits on abortion? That doesn’t make a whole lotta sense. Why is it it’s a double homicide when a pregnant women is murdered, even if she’s on her way to get an abortion? That’s also weird. Why is it a fetus meets all the requirements of life as defined by science? I’m not understanding any of this, please explain. How is it life all of a sudden just happens once a fully formed friggen baby passes through the birth canal, in the words of Ron Burgendy makes me think “boy that escalated quickly.”

Why is a double homicide when a pg woman is killed, because she apparently has not had an abortion and maybe didn't want one, that is why. Its a well know fact you GOP are pro birth , not pro life.

It's still a somewhat hypocritical stance, legally speaking. If the fetus is not a person and can be aborted at any time without repercussion, how can it be murdered? If it is a person; or if any human being, whether a person or not, has a legal right to life; how can abortion on demand be legal? Or how can abortion be about simply a woman's control over her own body, if legally she is making the decision to kill another protected human life?

Are there any other situations in which a person might be killed on demand, yet killing that person is still murder? The closest examples that come to mind would be someone on life support or on death row, and neither of those examples quite fits. Someone who is being kept alive through mechanical ventilation, who is in a vegetative state, still would not be killed. Instead, such a person might be removed from life support; a fine distinction, perhaps, but an important one. The death row inmate will be killed, true, but as a punishment by the state.

The idea that it's just a woman's body, that the fetus is merely 'a clump of cells', does not make a lot of sense alongside the idea that killing a pregnant woman's fetus (before a viable stage) constitutes murder.

Because she did not want an abortion and probably would of carried to term. Murder is killing the women and so the fetus has no chance of becoming a viable infant.

Your suppositions have no basis in reality. Women don’t carry a child for six or seven months and then “change their minds” about carrying it to term. It is pointless to base responses on idiot scenarios that have no basis in reality.

You attribute a level of casualness and inhumanity to these decisions that has no basis in reality, while ignoring the very real issues of poverty and lack of worker protections that drive the abortion rate in the US.

You ignore the poverty and the lack of health care or job protections for low income workers and instead paint these women as selfish who have no morals.

You go with these ridiculous conservative anti-abortion talking points that don’t address any of the real issues driving the reasons for abortions.

oh my god, just answer the question. I pretty much cited the reasons you gave about your friend getting her abortion. And so far your only answer has been, “well that’ll never happen.” Uh, yes that absolutely could happen. And stop avoiding the question. Trump is president, any ******* thing can happen at this point.

No it absolutely couldn’t. And you can’t find a single example where it did. No doctor would perform such a procedure and no woman would ask for an abortion at such a late date. These are just campfire tales to rile up stupid conservatives against abortion.

Even the late term babies born without brains are delivered normally so that their organs can be harvested for transplants. So that the parents have at comfort of knowing that other families will have a happy ending from their loss.

But not one of you anti-abortion types have given a single reason why women should be stripped of their rights to make decisions about whether or not to have a baby.

Only 9.4% of late term abortions are due to medical reasons, such as danger to mother or malformation. Everything else is elective, the most commonly cited reason for late term, is that they didn’t know they were pregnant. Another is girls who are in denial about being pregnant up until the baby starts kicking. So yes it does happen.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I asked the most Religious zealot I know This Question "Do you believe in Ghosts" He was shocked and stated absolutely not "Ghosts don't Exist" I asked so you've never seen a ghost right. So since you've never seen one they don't exist right!!! "So how can justify your religious beliefs, have you ever seen your god. So it obviously doesn't exist either . Need less to say he went away mad as hell because I questioned his unwavering belief in something created by men to control the thoughts and actions of other men, so funny try it on your religious friends they'll make every excuse to try and ridicule. How about this? you are born you live a life then you die and life continues without you just like it has for millions of years. What about the untold millions maybe billions of humans who existed before modern religion where did they go since God didn't exist then they must have just returned to the earth like every other creature on earth does. DUH!!!!!

limbo of the fathers is where the souls of the righteous went before Christ lived and died, in His death he opened Heaven's gates for the just who had gone before Him.

Nope...dust to dust.

Your opinion, Plywood just your opinion.

Well unless you could actually prove something for once. Your track record leaves much to be desired in that area.