Why do you hate

[ding]

That's progress.

But who is it the lesser of two evils for?

That's always been my position.

Everyone involved to some degree.

No. Not the healthy life that was ended.

You think a baby with Achondrogenesis is healthy? Now that is sick.

I'm not the one using achondrogenesis to justify their support of abortion. You are.

You do realize the vast majority of abortions are abortions of healthy babies, right? As in babies that don't have achondrogenesis.

 

[dblack]

Slaves weren't silently growing in a womb. There were fully realized people. Keep trying.

Doesn't matter. At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. This in not a matter of conjecture. This is a scientific fact based on empirical evidence.

So it is not just any human life, it is a very specific human life. One that should be afforded legal rights. Specifically the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Which are our country's founding values.

Doesn't matter. Until the mother cuts it loose, a fetus isn't a separate person, and it's none of your business. Claiming that it is, and having government intervene, is laying claim to the mother's uterus as state property. That is unacceptable and far more dangerous than the abortion problem.

Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to regulate reproduction might do things you don't like? Like force women to abortions, for example?

 

[alang1216]

And it is still a fringe argument being used to justify the ending of millions of healthy lives.

It is a valid example that shows abortion is sometimes the lesser of two evils.

Used to rationalize the ending of healthy human lives.

Seems dishonest to me.

I was talking about babies with Achondrogenesis. You changed that to "healthy human lives".

Seems dishonest to me.

No. I highlighted that you were using a miniscule number of unhealthy babies to rationalize the killing of millions of healthy babies. It's that whole defining the rule through exception thingee I was telling you about.

Apples and oranges. There should be, and there are, different rules for different situations. Much as you'd like it to be, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Sorry but this is the real word.

 

[ding]

Slaves weren't silently growing in a womb. There were fully realized people. Keep trying.

Doesn't matter. At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. This in not a matter of conjecture. This is a scientific fact based on empirical evidence.

So it is not just any human life, it is a very specific human life. One that should be afforded legal rights. Specifically the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Which are our country's founding values.

Doesn't matter. Until the mother cuts it it loose, a fetus isn't a separate person, and it's none of your business. Claiming that it is, and having government intervene, is laying claim to the mother's uterus as state property. That is unacceptable and far more dangerous than the abortion problem.

Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to regulate reproduction might do things you don't like? Like force women to abortions, for example?

So it's like her property, right?

She can do with it as she likes, right?

 

[ding]

And it is still a fringe argument being used to justify the ending of millions of healthy lives.

It is a valid example that shows abortion is sometimes the lesser of two evils.

Used to rationalize the ending of healthy human lives.

Seems dishonest to me.

I was talking about babies with Achondrogenesis. You changed that to "healthy human lives".

Seems dishonest to me.

No. I highlighted that you were using a miniscule number of unhealthy babies to rationalize the killing of millions of healthy babies. It's that whole defining the rule through exception thingee I was telling you about.

Apples and oranges. There should be, and there are, different rules for different situations. Much as you'd like it to be, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Sorry but this is the real word.

Except you have been using it to justify all abortions.

 

[alang1216]

I'm not the one using achondrogenesis to justify their support of abortion. You are.

You do realize the vast majority of abortions are abortions of healthy babies, right? As in babies that don't have achondrogenesis.

I think achondrogenesis is a powerful justification for abortion. I have yet to hear what you'd say to a mother that just found out her baby has achondrogenesis. Would you allow her to make the choice or will you make it for her?

 

[alang1216]

Apples and oranges. There should be, and there are, different rules for different situations. Much as you'd like it to be, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Sorry but this is the real word.

Except you have been using it to justify all abortions.

Untrue, I never said ALL abortions are justified, just like you have never said ANY abortion is justified.

 

[dblack]

Slaves weren't silently growing in a womb. There were fully realized people. Keep trying.

Doesn't matter. At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. This in not a matter of conjecture. This is a scientific fact based on empirical evidence.

So it is not just any human life, it is a very specific human life. One that should be afforded legal rights. Specifically the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Which are our country's founding values.

Doesn't matter. Until the mother cuts it it loose, a fetus isn't a separate person, and it's none of your business. Claiming that it is, and having government intervene, is laying claim to the mother's uterus as state property. That is unacceptable and far more dangerous than the abortion problem.

Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to regulate reproduction might do things you don't like? Like force women to abortions, for example?

So it's like her property, right?

She can do with it as she likes, right?

Exactly, yeah. That might be upsetting to those of you who believe the fetus is a fully formed person, waiting to emerge - but it's the only way it can really work. What you're proposing creates a nightmare scenario where government is in control of our inner bodily processes. No thanks.

Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to regulate reproduction might do things you don't like? Like force women to abortions, for example?

 

[ding]

I'm not the one using achondrogenesis to justify their support of abortion. You are.

You do realize the vast majority of abortions are abortions of healthy babies, right? As in babies that don't have achondrogenesis.

I think achondrogenesis is a powerful justification for abortion. I have yet to hear what you'd say to a mother that just found out her baby has achondrogenesis. Would you allow her to make the choice or will you make it for her?

I don't make that choice. Never have. It should be up to each state to decide.

Now let me flip that around on you, a mother found out her baby doesn't have achondrogenesis, would you allow her to abort it?

 

[ding]

Slaves weren't silently growing in a womb. There were fully realized people. Keep trying.

Doesn't matter. At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. This in not a matter of conjecture. This is a scientific fact based on empirical evidence.

So it is not just any human life, it is a very specific human life. One that should be afforded legal rights. Specifically the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Which are our country's founding values.

Doesn't matter. Until the mother cuts it it loose, a fetus isn't a separate person, and it's none of your business. Claiming that it is, and having government intervene, is laying claim to the mother's uterus as state property. That is unacceptable and far more dangerous than the abortion problem.

Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to regulate reproduction might do things you don't like? Like force women to abortions, for example?

So it's like her property, right?

She can do with it as she likes, right?

Exactly, yeah. That might be upsetting to those of you who believe the fetus is a fully formed person, waiting to emerge - but it's the only way it can really work. What you're proposing creates a nightmare scenario where government is in control of our inner bodily processes. No thanks.

Thank you for your honesty.

You believe babies in the womb are property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

You do realize that was exactly how slaves were treated, right?

 

[ding]

Apples and oranges. There should be, and there are, different rules for different situations. Much as you'd like it to be, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Sorry but this is the real word.

Except you have been using it to justify all abortions.

Untrue, I never said ALL abortions are justified, just like you have never said ANY abortion is justified.

But you still support all abortions, right? Even the ones of healthy babies, right?

 

[dblack]

Slaves weren't silently growing in a womb. There were fully realized people. Keep trying.

Doesn't matter. At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. This in not a matter of conjecture. This is a scientific fact based on empirical evidence.

So it is not just any human life, it is a very specific human life. One that should be afforded legal rights. Specifically the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Which are our country's founding values.

Doesn't matter. Until the mother cuts it it loose, a fetus isn't a separate person, and it's none of your business. Claiming that it is, and having government intervene, is laying claim to the mother's uterus as state property. That is unacceptable and far more dangerous than the abortion problem.

Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to regulate reproduction might do things you don't like? Like force women to abortions, for example?

So it's like her property, right?

She can do with it as she likes, right?

Exactly, yeah. That might be upsetting to those of you who believe the fetus is a fully formed person, waiting to emerge - but it's the only way it can really work. What you're proposing creates a nightmare scenario where government is in control of our inner bodily processes. No thanks.

Thank you for your honesty.

You believe babies in the womb are property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

You do realize that was exactly how slaves were treated, right?

Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to regulate reproduction might do things you don't like? Like force women to abortions, for example?

 

[ding]

Doesn't matter. At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. This in not a matter of conjecture. This is a scientific fact based on empirical evidence.

So it is not just any human life, it is a very specific human life. One that should be afforded legal rights. Specifically the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Which are our country's founding values.

Doesn't matter. Until the mother cuts it it loose, a fetus isn't a separate person, and it's none of your business. Claiming that it is, and having government intervene, is laying claim to the mother's uterus as state property. That is unacceptable and far more dangerous than the abortion problem.

Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to regulate reproduction might do things you don't like? Like force women to abortions, for example?

So it's like her property, right?

She can do with it as she likes, right?

Exactly, yeah. That might be upsetting to those of you who believe the fetus is a fully formed person, waiting to emerge - but it's the only way it can really work. What you're proposing creates a nightmare scenario where government is in control of our inner bodily processes. No thanks.

Thank you for your honesty.

You believe babies in the womb are property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

You do realize that was exactly how slaves were treated, right?

Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to regulate reproduction might do things you don't like? Like force women to abortions, for example?

Actually they aren't regulating it. No one is forcing her to get pregnant.

In fact a far greater risk of forced abortion exists because we have legal abortions that have been justified as moral. Now that is government regulating it.

 

[dblack]

Actually they aren't regulating it.

Actually, that's a ridiculous lie.

Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to regulate reproduction might do things you don't like? Like force women to abortions, for example?

 

[ding]

Actually they aren't regulating it.

Actually, that's a ridiculous lie.

Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to regulate reproduction might do things you don't like? Like force women to abortions, for example?

Government regulating reproductive rights would look like a permit to have a child. No permit. No child. Opps, you got pregnant with a non-permitted child, sorry, we are giving you an abortion. That's what government regulation looks like of reproductive rights.

What this is today is protecting the rights of someone who cannot speak for themselves.

 

[dblack]

Government regulating reproductive rights would look like a permit to have a child. No permit. No child. Opps, you got pregnant with a non-permitted child, sorry, we are giving you an abortion. That's what government regulation looks like of reproductive rights.

Ok, you want to equivocate on the meaning of "regulate" - tiresome, but we'll skip that.

Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to overrule a woman's decisions concerning her pregnancy might do things you don't like? Like force women to have abortions, for example?

 

[ding]

Government regulating reproductive rights would look like a permit to have a child. No permit. No child. Opps, you got pregnant with a non-permitted child, sorry, we are giving you an abortion. That's what government regulation looks like of reproductive rights.

Ok, you want to equivocate on the meaning of "regulate" - tiresome, but we'll skip that.

Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to overrule a woman's decisions concerning her pregnancy might do things you don't like? Like force women to have abortions, for example?

The opposition to abortion has to do with providing a voice for an innocent defenseless human being who cannot defend himself.

The woman who got pregnant had a say in getting pregnant. The resultant child did not. That child will never exist again. It's a one shot deal. Who is going to speak for him?

 

[dblack]

Government regulating reproductive rights would look like a permit to have a child. No permit. No child. Opps, you got pregnant with a non-permitted child, sorry, we are giving you an abortion. That's what government regulation looks like of reproductive rights.

Ok, you want to equivocate on the meaning of "regulate" - tiresome, but we'll skip that.

Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to overrule a woman's decisions concerning her pregnancy might do things you don't like? Like force women to have abortions, for example?

The opposition to abortion has to do with providing a voice for an innocent defenseless human being who cannot defend himself.

The woman who got pregnant had a say in getting pregnant. The resultant child did not. That child will never exist again. It's a one shot deal. Who is going to speak for him?

Has it ever occurred to you that a government empowered to overrule a woman's decisions concerning her pregnancy might do things you don't like? Like force women to have abortions, for example?

I guess not. But it should. Statists tend to convince themselves that only people who agree with them will ever be in charge of government. So they're happy to give government whatever power is necessary to achieve their ends, without really giving any thought to what other people - people they don't agree with - will do with that power.

 

[Flopper]

So the only question that needs to be answered to close this circle is why would an atheist even care about the law of right and wrong unless it was hardwired into him?

And I supposed ding to ask a related question from the opposite approach,
if God's will is supreme, and God created atheists who think in secular terms following natural laws without personified representations of these forces and authorities as "humanized" deity "figures" -- then why would we judge people for thinking in nontheistic terms? Wouldn't God have a reason for creating "sheep in a separate fold of the one flock"? What is wrong with natural laws being a distinct expression of universal laws, if God created ALL authorities governed under Universal Laws of Justice (personified as the Lordship of Jesus).

Given that the SAME God created the "natural laws of justice/right and wrong" hardwired into Jews and Gentiles alike, why would we judge or approach people as if they are in conflict. Why wouldn't we embrace them as neighbors, with the understanding we both speak in different tongues.

Simply because the world is full of hate filled people with plenty of time on their hands to express that hate. They need scapegoats be them Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, or whoever.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Americas version of Christianity seems to be based on self righteous humbug. You just have to study this thread for the evidence.
All of their usual obsessions are on view and combined with their elastic morality it is an unedifying sight.