A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[kaz]

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.

I know enough about morality to know your proposal we have immoral politicians enforce morality isn't morality

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Well, at least you're honest about being no better than Islamic Terrorists.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Anathema]

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?

It may be what they wanted, but it's not what they created or wrote.

A properly written document, void of the ability to be changed and with the power to be enforced will work far better.

 

[Anathema]

I know enough about morality to know your proposal we have immoral politicians enforce morality isn't morality

That's why we effectively remove the politicians by simply turning them into bureaucrats who manage the system instead of determining it's course.

 

[2aguy]

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

How does killing a baby not infringe on the rights of that baby? Jews were not recognized as people either in 1940s Germany......see how that turned out

 

[kaz]

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.

Then address why it doesn't work that way now but it will when we try again. That is EXACTLY what our Constitution says now

 

[Anathema]

Well, at least you're honest about being no better than Islamic Terrorists.

My main issue is their reliance on religion instead of Morality.

 

[kaz]

I know enough about morality to know your proposal we have immoral politicians enforce morality isn't morality

That's why we effectively remove the politicians by simply turning them into bureaucrats who manage the system instead of determining it's course.

Which is an oxymoron. What magic power makes them follow the rules ... this time ...

 

[Czernobog]

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

How does killing a baby not infringe on the rights of that baby? Jews were not recognized as people either in 1940s Germany......see how that turned out

It doesn't. However conflating a fetus and a baby is only an appeal to emotion.



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[kaz]

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.....?

Try reading my post again, that wasn't it

 

[Anathema]

Then address why it doesn't work that way now but it will when we try again. That is EXACTLY what our Constitution says now

No it isn't how yours works. Yours sets out Rights for Citizens but no Duties or Responsibilities for them. It fails to specifically list the Values and Morals. It creates a system to create laws instead of enshrined the Laws themselves. It's also male able and can be changed. Do you see the difference now?

 

[kaz]

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?

It may be what they wanted, but it's not what they created or wrote.

A properly written document, void of the ability to be changed and with the power to be enforced will work far better.

It's exactly what they wrote. Read the ninth and tenth amendments.

Hence my question, how is your Constitution going to be followed when the current one isn't

 

[Anathema]

Which is an oxymoron. What magic power makes them follow the rules ... this time ...

The guns to their heads and the fact that it doesn't require an Act of Congress to use them.

 

[2aguy]

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

How does killing a baby not infringe on the rights of that baby? Jews were not recognized as people either in 1940s Germany......see how that turned out

It doesn't. However conflating a fetus and a baby is only an appeal to emotion.



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No....it is fact....a baby is a baby no matter how small.....do you want to be able to murder dwarfs because they are short and therefore are not full people?

 

[kaz]

Then address why it doesn't work that way now but it will when we try again. That is EXACTLY what our Constitution says now

No it isn't how yours works. Yours sets out Rights for Citizens but no Duties or Responsibilities for them. It fails to specifically list the Values and Morals. It creates a system to create laws instead of enshrined the Laws themselves. It's also male able and can be changed. Do you see the difference now?

It limits the power of government. Then it specifically says government has no powers other than the specific ones specified. Government ignores that. Why are they going to limit themselves to the specified powers in your system when they don't do that now? You're not answering the question

 

[Anathema]

It's exactly what they wrote. Read the ninth and tenth amendments.

Hence my question, how is your Constitution going to be followed when the current one isn't

No it isn't. Not even close.

By force of arms, when necessary. Including public torture and execution.

 

[kaz]

Which is an oxymoron. What magic power makes them follow the rules ... this time ...

The guns to their heads and the fact that it doesn't require an Act of Congress to use them.

Who's gun is to their head?

 

[kaz]

It's exactly what they wrote. Read the ninth and tenth amendments.

Hence my question, how is your Constitution going to be followed when the current one isn't

No it isn't. Not even close.

By force of arms, when necessary. Including public torture and execution.

Who is going to torture and execute government for not following your Constitution? Why don't these people do it now?

 

[Anathema]

It limits the power of government. Then it specifically says government has no powers other than the specific ones specified. Government ignores that. Why are they going to limit themselves to the specified powers in your system when they don't do that now? You're not answering the question

No. You're missing get the point. Under the Constitution I'm discussing, no Government body gets to create, edit or remove Laws. The laws are already set out in the document. The Government then simply to administer those Laws.

 

[Anathema]

Who's gun is to their head?

The Governmebt/Law Enforcement.