A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Czernobog]

Yeah, you see the problem with tour response is found in the first two words: "I believe". That is a fantastic personal code. However, by what authority do you presume to have the right to codify that view for everyone?

The fact that it's the Moral Code the Founders of this nation believed in as well.

Which they made a point of not codifying when framing the Constitution. One might think that would suggest that they felt the principle of personal moral decision making was more important than codifying a moral code.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Anathema]

You mean like judge not lest ye be judged?

Nope. I believe it IS our job to judge ourselves and others on this side of Eternity, to ensure our Souls on the other side.

 

[kaz]

Going around and respecting the right of others to make their own choices? Yes, there's something pretty funky about my believing that. I see your point.

So does your God care that someone else does the right thing, according to you, when they only do it at the point of your gun?

So long as the Right Thing is done, the Soul is not damaged.... regardless of what it takes for that to happen.

What about your soul for using force to compel others?

 

[Czernobog]

I think you mat be in for an even bigger surprise when you find that there is no "divine".

Then human life has no value and should be extinguished, permanently. By whatever means are necessary to do so.

Wow. It's really sad that you need some outside force to give your life meaning, and purpose. What a horrible opinion of yourself you must have.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Anathema]

I thought it was about morality, now it's about society? Life is gray, you are lying to yourself that it can be made black and white. And wow, you want to give politicians that kind of power. You're insane

Morality is the basis for Society. Without Morals a proper Society cannot exist.

Who ever said I wanted Politicians involved? I'm in favor of an Ironclad, Unchangeable Constitution where these Morals/Ideals/Values are laid out and a political staff whose only job is enforcing those things, not deciding if they agree with them or not.

 

[2aguy]

Sorry...their is an innocent involved that is not the mother...she has the choice to engage in sex or not...the baby is a 3rd party.....not her body...

Of course it's her body. Your trust in politicians and bureaucrats to make these decisions over our bodies is stunning. It's amazing how conservatives correctly say how they don't care about people when they take our money and spend it, but then suddenly they're qualified to make decisions over our bodies.

You don't have to accept abortion, just fight it the right way. By convincing people, not by convincing politicians

I'm for both.....the woman doesn't have to keep the baby, she just can't kill it...she can adopt it out or even leave it at a fire station.......

It's not an appropriate use of government power to use force to compel her to carry the baby in her body to term. She should choose that in my view, but it's not my view to use force on her to accomplish that

Murder is murder...an innocent life is ended regardless of it's physical location at the time of the murder.

It's her body. She isn't attacking the baby in a bar fight, she's taking it out of her body.

All your arguments are reasonable arguments to make to pregnant women considering an abortion to make the choice you think they should make. They are not reasonable to attempt to remove her choice by force

Murder is murder....the baby inside her is a living human being....left alone it will grow into a full size human being. Cut out of the woman it dies.......it is not attacking the woman, it is not attacking anyone else, it is simply a human being that is very small...otherwise it is still a human being...we do not murder other people simply for convenience..that is what the left does.

 

[2aguy]

I think you mat be in for an even bigger surprise when you find that there is no "divine".

Then human life has no value and should be extinguished, permanently. By whatever means are necessary to do so.

Wow. It's really sad that you need some outside force to give your life meaning, and purpose. What a horrible opinion of yourself you must have.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

and what an arrogant position you have....

Death will show us who is right.

 

[Anathema]

Which they made a point of not codifying when framing the Constitution. One might think that would suggest that they felt the principle of personal moral decision making was more important than codifying a moral code.

They naively believed that the People could be trusted to understand those Morals on their own, just as they naively left the Duties of a citizen out of the document.

 

[Anathema]

What about your soul for using force to compel others?

Force, Fear, and Pain are more than reasonable concepts when it comes to enforcing and ensuring a properly Moral Society.

 

[Anathema]

Wow. It's really sad that you need some outside force to give your life meaning, and purpose. What a horrible opinion of yourself you must have.

I believe this world exists solely as a test of our Souls. A test of dedication and perseverance to a Moral Pholosophy that was never intended to be easy, simply or necessarily pleasant. Just Right. I live as I do (and believe others should) with the purpose of proving myself worthy of ascending to a better place at the end of this life.

 

[2aguy]

Wow. It's really sad that you need some outside force to give your life meaning, and purpose. What a horrible opinion of yourself you must have.

I believe this world exists solely as a test of our Souls. A test of dedication and perseverance to a Moral Pholosophy that was never intended to be easy, simply or necessarily pleasant. Just Right. I live as I do (and believe others should) with the purpose of proving myself worthy of ascending to a better place at the end of this life.

I agree....this world is a test.....we are given the rules, the Laws of Noah and the 10 Commandments.....and expected to follow them whatever happens.......we are here to be tested through good and bad, and to see how we come out on the other end....

 

[Czernobog]

Wow. It's really sad that you need some outside force to give your life meaning, and purpose. What a horrible opinion of yourself you must have.

I believe this world exists solely as a test of our Souls. A test of dedication and perseverance to a Moral Pholosophy that was never intended to be easy, simply or necessarily pleasant. Just Right. I live as I do (and believe others should) with the purpose of proving myself worthy of ascending to a better place at the end of this life.

Except what you want to do, even if I we're to agree with you, negates that "test". If I am doing "The Right Thing", not because I believe it is the right thing to do, but only because you have made it illegal to do otherwise, then how have I proven myself "worthy" of this ascension? After all, I made no moral decision. I only behaved in the manner in which you left me no choice but to behave.



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[kaz]

I thought it was about morality, now it's about society? Life is gray, you are lying to yourself that it can be made black and white. And wow, you want to give politicians that kind of power. You're insane

Morality is the basis for Society. Without Morals a proper Society cannot exist.

Who ever said I wanted Politicians involved? I'm in favor of an Ironclad, Unchangeable Constitution where these Morals/Ideals/Values are laid out and a political staff whose only job is enforcing those things, not deciding if they agree with them or not.

That doesn't make any sense. The Constitution lays out how government enforces that morality and what the punishment is for violating that.

Think about that. This country is picking between Locker Room Don and the corrupt, lying establishment politician Hillary to be the most powerful person on earth. And you want them to run a government that decides what morality is and what the punishment will be for violating that. You're a lunatic

 

[Londoner]

If you are against sex with children you too are anti-choice. Anyone can use your stupid rhetoric to try to bolster their case. It isn't the right that's inconsistent here, it's the left. The right tends to want to limit abortion to need and not use it as a form of birth control. State sanctioned killing is reserved for those that earned it. Murder means unjustified, go ahead and look it up since words confuse you.

Also, if a woman wants her baby and is stabbed, let's say, and it's killed, or they both are, the perp is charged with homicide or two counts homicide respectively. Now ponder that and get back to us with an explanation that makes sense if you can.

You're blathering like a crazy person.

If a fetus is a full human being, should not everyone involved in its murder face legal consequences? Including accomplices like the man who knowingly drives / accompanies the women to the execution.

Secondly, shouldn't the fetus, once old enough, be able to sue his/her parents for bodily harm because of things like smoking or drinking?

We're talking about a full human being, not a physical appendage of the mother. Why should it not have the legal rights of a full citizen of this nation?

Lastly, should this little human be allowed to possess a gun in utero? To defend itself.

 

[kaz]

Of course it's her body. Your trust in politicians and bureaucrats to make these decisions over our bodies is stunning. It's amazing how conservatives correctly say how they don't care about people when they take our money and spend it, but then suddenly they're qualified to make decisions over our bodies.

You don't have to accept abortion, just fight it the right way. By convincing people, not by convincing politicians

I'm for both.....the woman doesn't have to keep the baby, she just can't kill it...she can adopt it out or even leave it at a fire station.......

It's not an appropriate use of government power to use force to compel her to carry the baby in her body to term. She should choose that in my view, but it's not my view to use force on her to accomplish that

Murder is murder...an innocent life is ended regardless of it's physical location at the time of the murder.

It's her body. She isn't attacking the baby in a bar fight, she's taking it out of her body.

All your arguments are reasonable arguments to make to pregnant women considering an abortion to make the choice you think they should make. They are not reasonable to attempt to remove her choice by force

Murder is murder....the baby inside her is a living human being....left alone it will grow into a full size human being. Cut out of the woman it dies.......it is not attacking the woman, it is not attacking anyone else, it is simply a human being that is very small...otherwise it is still a human being...we do not murder other people simply for convenience..that is what the left does.

That isn't what we are disagreeing on. What we are disagreeing on is who decides. The woman for her body, or your friendly government representative. Give the woman choices and convince her to use them

 

[kaz]

What about your soul for using force to compel others?

Force, Fear, and Pain are more than reasonable concepts when it comes to enforcing and ensuring a properly Moral Society.

Enforcing morality through immorality, I'm sure God would support that

 

[2aguy]

If you are against sex with children you too are anti-choice. Anyone can use your stupid rhetoric to try to bolster their case. It isn't the right that's inconsistent here, it's the left. The right tends to want to limit abortion to need and not use it as a form of birth control. State sanctioned killing is reserved for those that earned it. Murder means unjustified, go ahead and look it up since words confuse you.

Also, if a woman wants her baby and is stabbed, let's say, and it's killed, or they both are, the perp is charged with homicide or two counts homicide respectively. Now ponder that and get back to us with an explanation that makes sense if you can.

You're blathering like a crazy person.

If a fetus is a full human being, should not everyone involved in its murder face legal consequences? Including accomplices like the man who knowingly drives / accompanies the women to the execution.

Secondly, shouldn't the fetus, once old enough, be able to sue his/her parents for bodily harm because of things like smoking or drinking?

We're talking about a full human being, not a physical appendage of the mother. Why should it not have every legal right of other full human beings?

Lastly, should this little human be allowed to possess a gun in utero? To defend itself.

If the guy who got her pregnant helps commit the murder than yes....he is an accomplice to the crime....but if he has no say in the matter and she decides to kill the baby, he has no responsibility for the murder.

 

[2aguy]

I'm for both.....the woman doesn't have to keep the baby, she just can't kill it...she can adopt it out or even leave it at a fire station.......

It's not an appropriate use of government power to use force to compel her to carry the baby in her body to term. She should choose that in my view, but it's not my view to use force on her to accomplish that

Murder is murder...an innocent life is ended regardless of it's physical location at the time of the murder.

It's her body. She isn't attacking the baby in a bar fight, she's taking it out of her body.

All your arguments are reasonable arguments to make to pregnant women considering an abortion to make the choice you think they should make. They are not reasonable to attempt to remove her choice by force

Murder is murder....the baby inside her is a living human being....left alone it will grow into a full size human being. Cut out of the woman it dies.......it is not attacking the woman, it is not attacking anyone else, it is simply a human being that is very small...otherwise it is still a human being...we do not murder other people simply for convenience..that is what the left does.

That isn't what we are disagreeing on. What we are disagreeing on is who decides. The woman for her body, or your friendly government representative. Give the woman choices and convince her to use them

Nope.......when a woman has a baby inside of her the baby is a human being, no different than you or I walking down the street...the government already protects us from violent attack, and it would be no different for the baby......

 

[Iceweasel]

If you are against sex with children you too are anti-choice. Anyone can use your stupid rhetoric to try to bolster their case. It isn't the right that's inconsistent here, it's the left. The right tends to want to limit abortion to need and not use it as a form of birth control. State sanctioned killing is reserved for those that earned it. Murder means unjustified, go ahead and look it up since words confuse you.

Also, if a woman wants her baby and is stabbed, let's say, and it's killed, or they both are, the perp is charged with homicide or two counts homicide respectively. Now ponder that and get back to us with an explanation that makes sense if you can.

You're blathering like a crazy person.

If a fetus is a full human being, should not everyone involved in its murder face legal consequences? Including accomplices like the man who knowingly drives / accompanies the women to the execution.

Secondly, shouldn't the fetus, once old enough, be able to sue his/her parents for bodily harm because of things like smoking or drinking?

We're talking about a full human being, not a physical appendage of the mother. Why should it not have every legal right of other full human beings?

Lastly, should this little human be allowed to possess a gun in utero? To defend itself.

A fetus is human, it isn't a bean pod. You added the qualifier "fully" human, not me. It is still developing obviously. And yes, killing a baby in the womb is tried as murder! Killing a pregnant woman is a double homicide. So the inconsistency is all yours.

 

[kaz]

It's not an appropriate use of government power to use force to compel her to carry the baby in her body to term. She should choose that in my view, but it's not my view to use force on her to accomplish that

Murder is murder...an innocent life is ended regardless of it's physical location at the time of the murder.

It's her body. She isn't attacking the baby in a bar fight, she's taking it out of her body.

All your arguments are reasonable arguments to make to pregnant women considering an abortion to make the choice you think they should make. They are not reasonable to attempt to remove her choice by force

Murder is murder....the baby inside her is a living human being....left alone it will grow into a full size human being. Cut out of the woman it dies.......it is not attacking the woman, it is not attacking anyone else, it is simply a human being that is very small...otherwise it is still a human being...we do not murder other people simply for convenience..that is what the left does.

That isn't what we are disagreeing on. What we are disagreeing on is who decides. The woman for her body, or your friendly government representative. Give the woman choices and convince her to use them

Nope.......when a woman has a baby inside of her the baby is a human being, no different than you or I walking down the street...the government already protects us from violent attack, and it would be no different for the baby......

Of course it's different than you or me walking down the street. When I walk down the street, my mother is rarely there and when she is I'm not inside her sustaining my body on hers. Once you are born, than sure, the things you are saying are so. But in the meantime, it's her body, not mine.

You really don't want to do the work of convincing women yourself, do you? Far easier to run to government and let them use guns to do it for you. And they sure love doing that. I suppose that's why Democrats do it with our money, huh?