Can Atheists be Moral?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I am against abortion on legal grounds.

...and then proceeded to make a moral argument.

 

[forkup]

Ding in my opinion, having faith does not make you happier, in fact losing faith made me a happier and better person. Unlike religion, I am compelled to try to be a decent person, after all it's not like I can ask forgiveness and be done with it when I hurt the people around me.

Apparently Taz agrees with you. I guess the only question I have for you is do you agree with Taz?

I don't agree that you are a sick fuck. What I do agree with is, that making ANYBODY suffer because of religious beliefs is morally wrong. I also agree that when that person can not make such a decision next of kin have the right to do so. I also have the view that a person has the right himself to define suffering, if he's able to do so.

Which religious belief would that be in my case? I haven’t made a religious argument?

You are against euthanasia and abortion on religious grounds are you not?

No. I am against abortion on legal grounds.

At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

And since it is a human being- albeit one in its earliest stage of the human life cycle - he or she is not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

I disagree. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition. Even if I accept that a fetus has the same rights a full grown human does (I don't), you are still demanding that one person takes a potentially fatal risk for another.

 

[ding]

You aren’t getting that having faith in God changes you for the better and makes you happier about life. And it is happiness which leads to success.

Ding in my opinion, having faith does not make you happier, in fact losing faith made me a happier and better person. Unlike religion, I am compelled to try to be a decent person, after all it's not like I can ask forgiveness and be done with it when I hurt the people around me.

Apparently Taz agrees with you. I guess the only question I have for you is do you agree with Taz?

I don't agree that you are a sick fuck. What I do agree with is, that making ANYBODY suffer because of religious beliefs is morally wrong. I also agree that when that person can not make such a decision next of kin have the right to do so. I also have the view that a person has the right himself to define suffering, if he's able to do so.

Which religious belief would that be in my case? I haven’t made a religious argument?

I also assume you find same sex attraction morally wrong, although that's an assumption on my end.

Morally wrong? No. In the best interest of society to define the rule through exception? No.

I think it is a slippery slope.

 

[ding]

Apparently Taz agrees with you. I guess the only question I have for you is do you agree with Taz?

I don't agree that you are a sick fuck. What I do agree with is, that making ANYBODY suffer because of religious beliefs is morally wrong. I also agree that when that person can not make such a decision next of kin have the right to do so. I also have the view that a person has the right himself to define suffering, if he's able to do so.

Which religious belief would that be in my case? I haven’t made a religious argument?

You are against euthanasia and abortion on religious grounds are you not?

No. I am against abortion on legal grounds.

At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

And since it is a human being- albeit one in its earliest stage of the human life cycle - he or she is not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

I disagree. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition. Even if I accept that a fetus has the same rights a full grown human does (I don't), you are still demanding that one person takes a potentially fatal risk for another.

That’s not why the vast majority of abortions are performed, right? For fear of death by the mother?

 

[ding]

I am against abortion on legal grounds.

...and then proceeded to make a moral argument.

Because it is wrong to end a human life?

So are laws against murder religious laws? Or moral laws?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because it is wrong to end a human life?

No, I said that because it is wrong to be a dishonest quack. It makes you unethical for sure and, at times, immoral.

 

[forkup]

Ding in my opinion, having faith does not make you happier, in fact losing faith made me a happier and better person. Unlike religion, I am compelled to try to be a decent person, after all it's not like I can ask forgiveness and be done with it when I hurt the people around me.

Apparently Taz agrees with you. I guess the only question I have for you is do you agree with Taz?

I don't agree that you are a sick fuck. What I do agree with is, that making ANYBODY suffer because of religious beliefs is morally wrong. I also agree that when that person can not make such a decision next of kin have the right to do so. I also have the view that a person has the right himself to define suffering, if he's able to do so.

Which religious belief would that be in my case? I haven’t made a religious argument?

I also assume you find same sex attraction morally wrong, although that's an assumption on my end.

Morally wrong? No. In the best interest of society to define the rule through exception? No.

I think it is a slippery slope.

Then you are already at odds with your professed religion. Something by the way that would fit in nicely with my contention that morals are relative, since you are obviously choosing to fill in your own moral code even when the rules you should follow as a catholic say otherwise.

 

[forkup]

I don't agree that you are a sick fuck. What I do agree with is, that making ANYBODY suffer because of religious beliefs is morally wrong. I also agree that when that person can not make such a decision next of kin have the right to do so. I also have the view that a person has the right himself to define suffering, if he's able to do so.

Which religious belief would that be in my case? I haven’t made a religious argument?

You are against euthanasia and abortion on religious grounds are you not?

No. I am against abortion on legal grounds.

At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

And since it is a human being- albeit one in its earliest stage of the human life cycle - he or she is not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

I disagree. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition. Even if I accept that a fetus has the same rights a full grown human does (I don't), you are still demanding that one person takes a potentially fatal risk for another.

That’s not why the vast majority of abortions are performed, right? For fear of death by the mother?

Of course not. Doesn't mean the point isn't valid. You can't demand of anybody to take an actual risk.

 

[ding]

Apparently Taz agrees with you. I guess the only question I have for you is do you agree with Taz?

I don't agree that you are a sick fuck. What I do agree with is, that making ANYBODY suffer because of religious beliefs is morally wrong. I also agree that when that person can not make such a decision next of kin have the right to do so. I also have the view that a person has the right himself to define suffering, if he's able to do so.

Which religious belief would that be in my case? I haven’t made a religious argument?

I also assume you find same sex attraction morally wrong, although that's an assumption on my end.

Morally wrong? No. In the best interest of society to define the rule through exception? No.

I think it is a slippery slope.

Then you are already at odds with your professed religion. Something by the way that would fit in nicely with my contention that morals are relative, since you are obviously choosing to fill in your own moral code even when the rules you should follow as a catholic say otherwise.

One argument at a time.

But I don’t blindly follow dogma. Catholics are allowed some latitude. We like healthy debate.

I disagree that it proves morals are relative because truth is discovered. Your confusion is in assuming truth changes rather than perception of truth changes.

But let’s try to stay focused on the discussion on abortion. Fair enough?

 

[ding]

Which religious belief would that be in my case? I haven’t made a religious argument?

You are against euthanasia and abortion on religious grounds are you not?

No. I am against abortion on legal grounds.

At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

And since it is a human being- albeit one in its earliest stage of the human life cycle - he or she is not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

I disagree. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition. Even if I accept that a fetus has the same rights a full grown human does (I don't), you are still demanding that one person takes a potentially fatal risk for another.

That’s not why the vast majority of abortions are performed, right? For fear of death by the mother?

Of course not. Doesn't mean the point isn't valid. You can't demand of anybody to take an actual risk.

I can if the risk was created by that person. It’s called personal accountability.

But you do agree that you are trying to use an exception to justify all abortions, right?

 

[forkup]

I don't agree that you are a sick fuck. What I do agree with is, that making ANYBODY suffer because of religious beliefs is morally wrong. I also agree that when that person can not make such a decision next of kin have the right to do so. I also have the view that a person has the right himself to define suffering, if he's able to do so.

Which religious belief would that be in my case? I haven’t made a religious argument?

I also assume you find same sex attraction morally wrong, although that's an assumption on my end.

Morally wrong? No. In the best interest of society to define the rule through exception? No.

I think it is a slippery slope.

Then you are already at odds with your professed religion. Something by the way that would fit in nicely with my contention that morals are relative, since you are obviously choosing to fill in your own moral code even when the rules you should follow as a catholic say otherwise.

One argument at a time.

But I don’t blindly follow dogma. Catholics are allowed some latitude. We like healthy debate.

I disagree that it proves morals are relative because truth is discovered. Your confusion is in assuming truth changes rather than perception of truth changes.

But let’s try to stay focused on the discussion on abortion. Fair enough?

Sure I just wanted to point it out.

 

[ding]

Because it is wrong to end a human life?

No, I said that because it is wrong to be a dishonest quack. It makes you unethical for sure and, at times, immoral.

If you had better arguments you wouldn’t need to use insults.

I can see how your disbelief has made you a happier person.

 

[ding]

Which religious belief would that be in my case? I haven’t made a religious argument?

I also assume you find same sex attraction morally wrong, although that's an assumption on my end.

Morally wrong? No. In the best interest of society to define the rule through exception? No.

I think it is a slippery slope.

Then you are already at odds with your professed religion. Something by the way that would fit in nicely with my contention that morals are relative, since you are obviously choosing to fill in your own moral code even when the rules you should follow as a catholic say otherwise.

One argument at a time.

But I don’t blindly follow dogma. Catholics are allowed some latitude. We like healthy debate.

I disagree that it proves morals are relative because truth is discovered. Your confusion is in assuming truth changes rather than perception of truth changes.

But let’s try to stay focused on the discussion on abortion. Fair enough?

Sure I just wanted to point it out.

Right, and I disagreed. Shall we move on?

 

[forkup]

You are against euthanasia and abortion on religious grounds are you not?

No. I am against abortion on legal grounds.

At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

And since it is a human being- albeit one in its earliest stage of the human life cycle - he or she is not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

I disagree. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition. Even if I accept that a fetus has the same rights a full grown human does (I don't), you are still demanding that one person takes a potentially fatal risk for another.

That’s not why the vast majority of abortions are performed, right? For fear of death by the mother?

Of course not. Doesn't mean the point isn't valid. You can't demand of anybody to take an actual risk.

I can if the risk was created by that person. It’s called personal accountability.

But you do agree that you are trying to use an exception to justify all abortions, right?

No, because a pregnancy always carries a risk. The percentage of the risk does not change that fact. I'll try to illustrate. " Say I see someone drowning in my pool. Do you think I am obligated to risk my life to save that person? Would my obligation change if I'm a very good swimmer?" In my view, no. I still would be risking my life. What amount of risk of death is acceptable enough to compel a person to take the risk? As to personal accountability of pregnancy. I assume that a person wanting an abortion did not plan on getting pregnant. They made the choice to have sex, not to create a baby. Yes they might be stupid, or irresponsible, or simply unlucky. None of that tough is sufficient enough reason to demand of someone to risk their lives.

 

[forkup]

I also assume you find same sex attraction morally wrong, although that's an assumption on my end.

Morally wrong? No. In the best interest of society to define the rule through exception? No.

I think it is a slippery slope.

Then you are already at odds with your professed religion. Something by the way that would fit in nicely with my contention that morals are relative, since you are obviously choosing to fill in your own moral code even when the rules you should follow as a catholic say otherwise.

One argument at a time.

But I don’t blindly follow dogma. Catholics are allowed some latitude. We like healthy debate.

I disagree that it proves morals are relative because truth is discovered. Your confusion is in assuming truth changes rather than perception of truth changes.

But let’s try to stay focused on the discussion on abortion. Fair enough?

Sure I just wanted to point it out.

Right, and I disagreed. Shall we move on?

Already did.

 

[ding]

No. I am against abortion on legal grounds.

At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

And since it is a human being- albeit one in its earliest stage of the human life cycle - he or she is not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

I disagree. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition. Even if I accept that a fetus has the same rights a full grown human does (I don't), you are still demanding that one person takes a potentially fatal risk for another.

That’s not why the vast majority of abortions are performed, right? For fear of death by the mother?

Of course not. Doesn't mean the point isn't valid. You can't demand of anybody to take an actual risk.

I can if the risk was created by that person. It’s called personal accountability.

But you do agree that you are trying to use an exception to justify all abortions, right?

No, because a pregnancy always carries a risk. The percentage of the risk does not change that fact. I'll try to illustrate. " Say I see someone drowning in my pool. Do you think I am obligated to risk my life to save that person? Would my obligation change if I'm a very good swimmer?" In my view, no. I still would be risking my life. What amount of risk of death is acceptable enough to compel a person to take the risk? As to personal accountability of pregnancy. I assume that a person wanting an abortion did not plan on getting pregnant. They made the choice to have sex, not to create a baby. Yes they might be stupid, or irresponsible, or simply unlucky. None of that tough is sufficient enough reason to demand of someone to risk their lives.

What are the percentages of death by pregnancy?

 

[ding]

Morally wrong? No. In the best interest of society to define the rule through exception? No.

I think it is a slippery slope.

Then you are already at odds with your professed religion. Something by the way that would fit in nicely with my contention that morals are relative, since you are obviously choosing to fill in your own moral code even when the rules you should follow as a catholic say otherwise.

One argument at a time.

But I don’t blindly follow dogma. Catholics are allowed some latitude. We like healthy debate.

I disagree that it proves morals are relative because truth is discovered. Your confusion is in assuming truth changes rather than perception of truth changes.

But let’s try to stay focused on the discussion on abortion. Fair enough?

Sure I just wanted to point it out.

Right, and I disagreed. Shall we move on?

Already did.

Excellent.

 

[ding]

No. I am against abortion on legal grounds.

At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

And since it is a human being- albeit one in its earliest stage of the human life cycle - he or she is not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.

I disagree. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition. Even if I accept that a fetus has the same rights a full grown human does (I don't), you are still demanding that one person takes a potentially fatal risk for another.

That’s not why the vast majority of abortions are performed, right? For fear of death by the mother?

Of course not. Doesn't mean the point isn't valid. You can't demand of anybody to take an actual risk.

I can if the risk was created by that person. It’s called personal accountability.

But you do agree that you are trying to use an exception to justify all abortions, right?

No, because a pregnancy always carries a risk. The percentage of the risk does not change that fact. I'll try to illustrate. " Say I see someone drowning in my pool. Do you think I am obligated to risk my life to save that person? Would my obligation change if I'm a very good swimmer?" In my view, no. I still would be risking my life. What amount of risk of death is acceptable enough to compel a person to take the risk? As to personal accountability of pregnancy. I assume that a person wanting an abortion did not plan on getting pregnant. They made the choice to have sex, not to create a baby. Yes they might be stupid, or irresponsible, or simply unlucky. None of that tough is sufficient enough reason to demand of someone to risk their lives.

Do you believe in personal accountability?

 

[forkup]

I disagree. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition. Even if I accept that a fetus has the same rights a full grown human does (I don't), you are still demanding that one person takes a potentially fatal risk for another.

That’s not why the vast majority of abortions are performed, right? For fear of death by the mother?

Of course not. Doesn't mean the point isn't valid. You can't demand of anybody to take an actual risk.

I can if the risk was created by that person. It’s called personal accountability.

But you do agree that you are trying to use an exception to justify all abortions, right?

No, because a pregnancy always carries a risk. The percentage of the risk does not change that fact. I'll try to illustrate. " Say I see someone drowning in my pool. Do you think I am obligated to risk my life to save that person? Would my obligation change if I'm a very good swimmer?" In my view, no. I still would be risking my life. What amount of risk of death is acceptable enough to compel a person to take the risk? As to personal accountability of pregnancy. I assume that a person wanting an abortion did not plan on getting pregnant. They made the choice to have sex, not to create a baby. Yes they might be stupid, or irresponsible, or simply unlucky. None of that tough is sufficient enough reason to demand of someone to risk their lives.

What are the percentages of death by pregnancy?

216 per 100000 according to wikipedia. So 0.2 percent.

 

[ding]

Maternal death - Wikipedia

So in the US 26 women out of every 100,000 die in childbirth and 99,9974 out of every 100,000 survive childbirth. Whereas ~1,000,000 unborn babies out of ~1,000,000 unborn babies die each year through abortions and pregnancy risks are a justification for abortion?

Isn’t it really that women just don’t want to have a baby? To suffer the consequences of their own actions?