A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Anathema]

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....

We just disagree on the particular form of the test. I'm not a believer in organized religion, Abrahamic or otherwise.

 

[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.

And when you end up in a system of morality run by people like Hillary and Trump, you just remember you brought it on yourself

 

[Anathema]

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.

Not really. As our legal system proves, even with potential physical consequences, many are not deterred from a life of crime or impropriety.

 

[2aguy]

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?

No...you do both. But murder is a crime....you need to make sure people know that...you also educate women to know that they don't have to keep the baby, they can give the baby up for adoption or even leave it at a fire station......no crime needs to be committed against the baby. And has been pointed out...if the baby is a wanted baby and is murdered by a stranger, the stranger faces murder charges...even if the mother is not killed in the attack......choosing that murder is only murder if a stranger does it makes no sense.

The primary duty of the government is to protect citizens......this is simply part of what we pay the government to do....

 

[Anathema]

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

I think you missed the implied concept that we need a new Constitution. A Moral Constitution with no means to change its clauses. The role of Government should simply be to enforce that Moral Constitution, not debate it's validity or alter it in any way.

 

[Rambunctious]

Jeremiah 1:5

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

 

[Anathema]

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

A. I don't think you understand what Morality truly is.

B. I think you've failed to realize I'm not talking about an Abrahamic type of Divinity.

 

[Anathema]

And when you end up in a system of morality run by people like Hillary and Trump, you just remember you brought it on yourself

Again, they would not have the option to change the definition of Morality. Nor would either have been allowed as candidates in a Morality based system.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Not really. As our legal system proves, even with potential physical consequences, many are not deterred from a life of crime or impropriety.

You realize that doesn't make your case, right? You want to....you know what? We're getting into the weeds here. Let's get back to my original question. Since even the "Founding Fathers" saw fit to leave the questions of moral choice out of the Constitution, and federal law, by what authority do you believe you have the right to dictate your personal morality on the entire country by force of law?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[2aguy]

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.

Not really. As our legal system proves, even with potential physical consequences, many are not deterred from a life of crime or impropriety.

You realize that doesn't make your case, right? You want to....you know what? We're getting into the weeds here. Let's get back to my original question. Since even the "Founding Fathers" saw fit to leave the questions of moral choice out of the Constitution, and federal law, by what authority do you believe you have the right to dictate your personal morality on the entire country by force of law?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

why do you have the right to dictate your personal morality on the entire country?

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Not really. As our legal system proves, even with potential physical consequences, many are not deterred from a life of crime or impropriety.

You realize that doesn't make your case, right? You want to....you know what? We're getting into the weeds here. Let's get back to my original question. Since even the "Founding Fathers" saw fit to leave the questions of moral choice out of the Constitution, and federal law, by what authority do you believe you have the right to dictate your personal morality on the entire country by force of law?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

why do you have the right to dictate your personal morality on the entire country?

Are you suggesting that allowing a person to reach their own moral decision is, somehow, dictating a moral code? If so, how?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Anathema]

Let's get back to my original question. Since even the "Founding Fathers" saw fit to leave the questions of moral choice out of the Constitution, and federal law, by what authority do you believe you have the right to dictate your personal morality on the entire country by force of law?

Again, it's not MY Morality. I had nothing to do with it.

As to your question - by the command of The Divine to ensure that all know the Truth of the proper way of Life, that no Man or woman shall be able to claim ignorance as a defense when their Soul is judged.

 

[Czernobog]

Let's get back to my original question. Since even the "Founding Fathers" saw fit to leave the questions of moral choice out of the Constitution, and federal law, by what authority do you believe you have the right to dictate your personal morality on the entire country by force of law?

Again, it's not MY Morality. I had nothing to do with it.

As to your question - by the command of The Divine to ensure that all know the Truth of the proper way of Life, that no Man or woman shall be able to claim ignorance as a defense when their Soul is judged.

Sorry. You "Divine" has no more legal authority in this nation than does the Christian "God", or the "Muslim "Allah", and I do not recognise that legal authority. Come back when you can find a legal, constitutional authority to dictate morality.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[2aguy]

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.

Not really. As our legal system proves, even with potential physical consequences, many are not deterred from a life of crime or impropriety.

You realize that doesn't make your case, right? You want to....you know what? We're getting into the weeds here. Let's get back to my original question. Since even the "Founding Fathers" saw fit to leave the questions of moral choice out of the Constitution, and federal law, by what authority do you believe you have the right to dictate your personal morality on the entire country by force of law?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

why do you have the right to dictate your personal morality on the entire country?

Are you suggesting that allowing a person to reach their own moral decision is, somehow, dictating a moral code? If so, how?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

We need to have laws in order to live together....your moral decision might include murdering a business rival....we need a law to cover that...since my moral code says that is wrong....so nowhere in society do we allow everyone to just reach their own moral decisions......

 

[2aguy]

Let's get back to my original question. Since even the "Founding Fathers" saw fit to leave the questions of moral choice out of the Constitution, and federal law, by what authority do you believe you have the right to dictate your personal morality on the entire country by force of law?

Again, it's not MY Morality. I had nothing to do with it.

As to your question - by the command of The Divine to ensure that all know the Truth of the proper way of Life, that no Man or woman shall be able to claim ignorance as a defense when their Soul is judged.

Sorry. You "Divine" has no more legal authority in this nation than does the Christian "God", or the "Muslim "Allah", and I do not recognise that legal authority. Come back when you can find a legal, constitutional authority to dictate morality.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And your moral beliefs also have no basis in anything other than your opinion.....so there we are.....at least ours..the 10 commandments work pretty well......

 

[kaz]

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?

No...you do both. But murder is a crime....you need to make sure people know that...you also educate women to know that they don't have to keep the baby, they can give the baby up for adoption or even leave it at a fire station......no crime needs to be committed against the baby. And has been pointed out...if the baby is a wanted baby and is murdered by a stranger, the stranger faces murder charges...even if the mother is not killed in the attack......choosing that murder is only murder if a stranger does it makes no sense.

The primary duty of the government is to protect citizens......this is simply part of what we pay the government to do....

Putting people in jail for our own good, thanks!

 

[2aguy]

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?

No...you do both. But murder is a crime....you need to make sure people know that...you also educate women to know that they don't have to keep the baby, they can give the baby up for adoption or even leave it at a fire station......no crime needs to be committed against the baby. And has been pointed out...if the baby is a wanted baby and is murdered by a stranger, the stranger faces murder charges...even if the mother is not killed in the attack......choosing that murder is only murder if a stranger does it makes no sense.

The primary duty of the government is to protect citizens......this is simply part of what we pay the government to do....

Putting people in jail for our own good, thanks!

Really? We don't put killers, robbers and rapists in jail.....?

 

[Anathema]

Sorry. You "Divine" has no more legal authority in this nation than does the Christian "God", or the "Muslim "Allah", and I do not recognise that legal authority. Come back when you can find a legal, constitutional authority to dictate morality.

Who cares about Legality when Violence will do more than well enough to put a proper Government in place?

Your country is in its death throes. Soon. It will be gone and something must take its place in the vacuum of power.

 

[kaz]

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

I think you missed the implied concept that we need a new Constitution. A Moral Constitution with no means to change its clauses. The role of Government should simply be to enforce that Moral Constitution, not debate it's validity or alter it in any way.

That's what our Constitution supposedly is. How's that working out for you?

Or even more to your insanity, what makes you think it will work this time?

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Not really. As our legal system proves, even with potential physical consequences, many are not deterred from a life of crime or impropriety.

You realize that doesn't make your case, right? You want to....you know what? We're getting into the weeds here. Let's get back to my original question. Since even the "Founding Fathers" saw fit to leave the questions of moral choice out of the Constitution, and federal law, by what authority do you believe you have the right to dictate your personal morality on the entire country by force of law?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

why do you have the right to dictate your personal morality on the entire country?

Are you suggesting that allowing a person to reach their own moral decision is, somehow, dictating a moral code? If so, how?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

We need to have laws in order to live together....your moral decision might include murdering a business rival....we need a law to cover that...since my moral code says that is wrong....so nowhere in society do we allow everyone to just reach their own moral decisions......

You're right. We do need laws to live together. However, that does not extend to personal moral decisions that do not I fringe on the rights of others. A fetus is not recognised as a person, beyond the badly written fetal homicide laws which specifically excluded abortion.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk