The Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act passed a couple days ago

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Your position is completely insane.

This kind of logic is kind of a running theme with this user. I'm sorry I even thought he was a liberal at one point honestly. He just kind of says shit that happens to coincide with the far left on a lot of points.

 

[daws101]

Evil used as a synonym for immoral, which you judge it to be by your own admission. However, you also admit to viewing morality as subjective. By that reasoning our view that it's moral would be just as valid. You can't really argue both that your subjective opinion is objectively true and that being objectively true or false is impossible.

Except through the majority of human history, slavery was considered "moral".

Burning people for witchcraft was considered "Moral".

Killing people for being gay was considered "Moral".

Spare me the "morality" bullshit.

The reality is, morality is based on what is practical. Abortion is legal because women who don't want to be pregnant WILL find a way to not be pregnant.

Humans aren't property. That applies to all humans, including the ones you think you own.
Humans have an inherent right not to be deprived of their life. This applies to all humans, including the ones you want to murder.
Women are not pregnant by default, including the ones you got pregnant.

You don't get to speak to me about morality when you argue against human rights. You don't get to tell me what's right and what's wrong when you oppose feeding the poor and giving medical aid to the needy. You had your chance at being a decent human being. You blew it. Now get the fuck out of my and Daws' dialogue, sergeant.

Math is also separate from moral philosophy. Humor me. How can something be objectively immoral if the morality of a thing cannot be objective? How can something be either good or evil if they're interchangeable? Specifically our view that infanticide is immoral. You consider that view wrong because morality is subjective, but you also consider it immoral. I'm simply asking how you can hold two mutually contradictory viewpoints at the same time.

It's not hard most mature and intelligent people can do it with ease.
As far back as I can remember it's never been a problem for me.
If you were looking for a more detailed answer , you've got the wrong guy .
I learned a very long time ago some things just are and no explanation or there is not an accurate one.

So basically what you're saying is that you've never had a problem holding two incompatible views at the same time? It's a shame you can't explain to me how that works. I'd love to see a coherent explanation for how this is reasonable.

What's reasonable is relative and cultural.
Until you understand and accept that , no explanation will satisfy.

 

[JoeB131]

Humans aren't property. That applies to all humans, including the ones you think you own.
Humans have an inherent right not to be deprived of their life. This applies to all humans, including the ones you want to murder.
Women are not pregnant by default, including the ones you got pregnant.

You don't get to speak to me about morality when you argue against human rights. You don't get to tell me what's right and what's wrong when you oppose feeding the poor and giving medical aid to the needy. You had your chance at being a decent human being. You blew it. Now get the fuck out of my and Daws' dialogue, sergeant.

Quite the contrary, mutant, fetuses are property because they can't exist outside a woman's body.

Her body. Her choice.

False... that reality in the pretense of the subjective individual, OKA: The lowly Relativist.

In reality morality is merely the empirical understanding of laws of nature that govern human behavior; informing the individual and, by extension, the cultural whole... of behavior which is sound and behavior which is unsound.

Quite the contrary, morals are relevant to the period they exist in.

At the time Slavery existed, it was probably necessary because it was the only way to organize human labor in such a way to assure civilization would keep going.

Contrarywise, through most of history, Abortion happened, but it probably didn't happen that often when women were property, they were threatened with death if they took the wrong dick, and when 50%+ of babies born died and you really didn't waste them.

so really, abortion makes up for the fact that the things that kept the population down- war, famine, pestilence - have been controlled. You have a baby when you want one, not a bunch of babies hoping one survives to take care of you when you are old.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

n what context? From what perspective was Slavery considered moral?

From God's perspective? Yes... in some cases. And in that perspective slavery was moral.

But from the perspective of the individual, slavery is immoral, as unlimited power over another, is destructive to one's own soul.

a God who calls slavery moral isn't worthy of anyone's worship.

HUH... Then, don't worship God. It's not God's loss. The fact is that some children can't be saved.

The simple truth is that you're in no position to judge God. As your perspective is so pitiful as to be laughable... made HYSTERICAL by your implication that YOU FEEL YOU ARE EQUAL TO GOD.

LOL!... Sweet mother that's funny.

 

[daws101]

All tub thumping aside it will not pass the Senate.

 

[daws101]

n what context? From what perspective was Slavery considered moral?

From God's perspective? Yes... in some cases. And in that perspective slavery was moral.

But from the perspective of the individual, slavery is immoral, as unlimited power over another, is destructive to one's own soul.

a God who calls slavery moral isn't worthy of anyone's worship.

HUH... Then, don't worship God. It's not God's loss. The fact is that some children can't be saved.

The simple truth is that you're in no position to judge God. As your perspective is so pitiful as to be laughable... made HYSTERICAL by your implication that YOU FEEL YOU ARE EQUAL TO GOD.

LOL!... Sweet mother that's funny.

What God? The one you made up or the one there's no evidence for?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Quite the contrary, morals are relevant to the period they exist in.

False... you're speaking of popular morality.

That is a subjective application of popular NEED. And has little to no bearing on The Laws of nature that govern human behavior.

As close as humanity has ever come to such is the Judea Christian Morality of the Colonies and early United States, up to and through the mid-late 19th century.

The evidence of such is the general success, happiness and prosperity of that people.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Quite the contrary, mutant, fetuses are property because they can't exist outside a woman's body.

LOL! What you have constructed there is a beautiful example of a 'Non Sequitur'.

That the distinct life developing in her body cannot survive outside her body, in no way establishes the life as her property.

It is her SOLE R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y .

There's a distinction... take a few years to ponder what the distinction is and get back to us, if ya ever figure it out.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Evil used as a synonym for immoral, which you judge it to be by your own admission. However, you also admit to viewing morality as subjective. By that reasoning our view that it's moral would be just as valid. You can't really argue both that your subjective opinion is objectively true and that being objectively true or false is impossible.

Except through the majority of human history, slavery was considered "moral".

Burning people for witchcraft was considered "Moral".

Killing people for being gay was considered "Moral".

Spare me the "morality" bullshit.

The reality is, morality is based on what is practical. Abortion is legal because women who don't want to be pregnant WILL find a way to not be pregnant.

Humans aren't property. That applies to all humans, including the ones you think you own.
Humans have an inherent right not to be deprived of their life. This applies to all humans, including the ones you want to murder.
Women are not pregnant by default, including the ones you got pregnant.

You don't get to speak to me about morality when you argue against human rights. You don't get to tell me what's right and what's wrong when you oppose feeding the poor and giving medical aid to the needy. You had your chance at being a decent human being. You blew it. Now get the fuck out of my and Daws' dialogue, sergeant.

Math is also separate from moral philosophy. Humor me. How can something be objectively immoral if the morality of a thing cannot be objective? How can something be either good or evil if they're interchangeable? Specifically our view that infanticide is immoral. You consider that view wrong because morality is subjective, but you also consider it immoral. I'm simply asking how you can hold two mutually contradictory viewpoints at the same time.

It's not hard most mature and intelligent people can do it with ease.
As far back as I can remember it's never been a problem for me.
If you were looking for a more detailed answer , you've got the wrong guy .
I learned a very long time ago some things just are and no explanation or there is not an accurate one.

So basically what you're saying is that you've never had a problem holding two incompatible views at the same time? It's a shame you can't explain to me how that works. I'd love to see a coherent explanation for how this is reasonable.

What's reasonable is relative and cultural.
Until you understand and accept that , no explanation will satisfy.

I understand the concept of two different cultures holding incompatible views. For instance, we (as in many Americans) consider stoning rape victims horrid. In Afghanistan it's simply justice for her adultery, however unwilling it may have been, against her future spouse. That doesn't mean that their view is correct in any eyes but their own. I don't accept the possibility that it could be.

Humans aren't property. That applies to all humans, including the ones you think you own.
Humans have an inherent right not to be deprived of their life. This applies to all humans, including the ones you want to murder.
Women are not pregnant by default, including the ones you got pregnant.

You don't get to speak to me about morality when you argue against human rights. You don't get to tell me what's right and what's wrong when you oppose feeding the poor and giving medical aid to the needy. You had your chance at being a decent human being. You blew it. Now get the fuck out of my and Daws' dialogue, sergeant.

Quite the contrary, mutant, fetuses are property because they can't exist outside a woman's body.

Her body. Her choice.

For the last time, you illiterate, dishonest little weasel, we aren't talking about a fetus inside her mother's body. We're talking about infanticide after birth has occurred. The newborn (whom you consider to be medical waste) is existing entirely outside of her mother's body at the moment the doctor kills her.

Fetus still doesn't mean what you're trying to make it mean by the way.

so really, abortion makes up for the fact that the things that kept the population down- war, famine, pestilence - have been controlled. You have a baby when you want one, not a bunch of babies hoping one survives to take care of you when you are old.

And there we go. He finally tells us his actual motivation for denying medical care to those he considers expendable: population control.

LOL! What you have constructed there is a beautiful example of a 'Non Sequitur'.

That the distinct life developing in her body cannot survive outside her body, in no way establishes the life as her property.

It is her SOLE R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y .

There's a distinction... take a few years to ponder what the distinction is and get back to us, if ya ever figure it out.

It's not her sole responsibility. It takes two to make a baby. She's responsible for stepping up and taking responsibility as a parent, but so is he. They both contributed. They both share it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What God?

That would be Nature's God, OKA: The Creator of the Universe, as evidenced by the existence of The Creation. AKA: God.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

bullshit

You know what? This is stupid. Here's a peace offering for you to masturbate to:

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

so really, abortion makes up for the fact that the things that kept the population down- war, famine, pestilence - have been controlled. You have a baby when you want one, not a bunch of babies hoping one survives to take care of you when you are old.

ROFLMNAO!

Now how precious is THAT?

Abortion is not a function of nature. Natural failure of the prenatal biological processes are a function of nature.

Abortion is a function of evil; wherein one individuals uses the power it possesses to strip another of the life it possesses, because the life taken was seen as an inconvenience to the life possessing more power.

As such the process is destructive to the individual bearing superior power, which uses it unjustly, failing to bear the sacred responsibility it had to defend that life... and the life lost.

In terms of what legalized abortion means on the grand scale... it is merely a irrefutable sign of a rapidly declining culture.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Her body. Her choice.

That is again, what is known as a "Non Sequitur'. That her body exists, does justify her taking a distinct life, which she conceived through her own willful and wanton behavior, having MADE HER CHOICE to ENGAGE IN THE BEHAVIOR WHICH NATURE DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY to induce the life she has conceived.

Thus there is no actual connection between her body and a choice which she does not have.

 

[daws101]

Quite the contrary, morals are relevant to the period they exist in.

False... you're speaking of popular morality.

That is a subjective application of popular NEED. And has little to no bearing on The Laws of nature that govern human behavior.

As close as humanity has ever come to such is the Judea Christian Morality of the Colonies and early United States, up to and through the mid-late 19th century.

The evidence of such is the general success, happiness and prosperity of that people.

The laws of nature are not the ones you are yammering about
The "laws" that you speak of are a work of fiction.

 

[daws101]

What God?

That would be Nature's God, OKA: The Creator of the Universe, as evidenced by the existence of The Creation. AKA: God.

Like said the one there's no evidence for.

 

[daws101]

Evil used as a synonym for immoral, which you judge it to be by your own admission. However, you also admit to viewing morality as subjective. By that reasoning our view that it's moral would be just as valid. You can't really argue both that your subjective opinion is objectively true and that being objectively true or false is impossible.

Except through the majority of human history, slavery was considered "moral".

Burning people for witchcraft was considered "Moral".

Killing people for being gay was considered "Moral".

Spare me the "morality" bullshit.

The reality is, morality is based on what is practical. Abortion is legal because women who don't want to be pregnant WILL find a way to not be pregnant.

Humans aren't property. That applies to all humans, including the ones you think you own.
Humans have an inherent right not to be deprived of their life. This applies to all humans, including the ones you want to murder.
Women are not pregnant by default, including the ones you got pregnant.

You don't get to speak to me about morality when you argue against human rights. You don't get to tell me what's right and what's wrong when you oppose feeding the poor and giving medical aid to the needy. You had your chance at being a decent human being. You blew it. Now get the fuck out of my and Daws' dialogue, sergeant.

Math is also separate from moral philosophy. Humor me. How can something be objectively immoral if the morality of a thing cannot be objective? How can something be either good or evil if they're interchangeable? Specifically our view that infanticide is immoral. You consider that view wrong because morality is subjective, but you also consider it immoral. I'm simply asking how you can hold two mutually contradictory viewpoints at the same time.

It's not hard most mature and intelligent people can do it with ease.
As far back as I can remember it's never been a problem for me.
If you were looking for a more detailed answer , you've got the wrong guy .
I learned a very long time ago some things just are and no explanation or there is not an accurate one.

So basically what you're saying is that you've never had a problem holding two incompatible views at the same time? It's a shame you can't explain to me how that works. I'd love to see a coherent explanation for how this is reasonable.

What's reasonable is relative and cultural.
Until you understand and accept that , no explanation will satisfy.

I understand the concept of two different cultures holding incompatible views. For instance, we (as in many Americans) consider stoning rape victims horrid. In Afghanistan it's simply justice for her adultery, however unwilling it may have been, against her future spouse. That doesn't mean that their view is correct in any eyes but their own. I don't accept the possibility that it could be.

Humans aren't property. That applies to all humans, including the ones you think you own.
Humans have an inherent right not to be deprived of their life. This applies to all humans, including the ones you want to murder.
Women are not pregnant by default, including the ones you got pregnant.

You don't get to speak to me about morality when you argue against human rights. You don't get to tell me what's right and what's wrong when you oppose feeding the poor and giving medical aid to the needy. You had your chance at being a decent human being. You blew it. Now get the fuck out of my and Daws' dialogue, sergeant.

Quite the contrary, mutant, fetuses are property because they can't exist outside a woman's body.

Her body. Her choice.

For the last time, you illiterate, dishonest little weasel, we aren't talking about a fetus inside her mother's body. We're talking about infanticide after birth has occurred. The newborn (whom you consider to be medical waste) is existing entirely outside of her mother's body at the moment the doctor kills her.

Fetus still doesn't mean what you're trying to make it mean by the way.

so really, abortion makes up for the fact that the things that kept the population down- war, famine, pestilence - have been controlled. You have a baby when you want one, not a bunch of babies hoping one survives to take care of you when you are old.

And there we go. He finally tells us his actual motivation for denying medical care to those he considers expendable: population control.

LOL! What you have constructed there is a beautiful example of a 'Non Sequitur'.

That the distinct life developing in her body cannot survive outside her body, in no way establishes the life as her property.

It is her SOLE R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y .

There's a distinction... take a few years to ponder what the distinction is and get back to us, if ya ever figure it out.

It's not her sole responsibility. It takes two to make a baby. She's responsible for stepping up and taking responsibility as a parent, but so is he. They both contributed. They both share it.

Your acceptance is irrelevant.

 

[daws101]

so really, abortion makes up for the fact that the things that kept the population down- war, famine, pestilence - have been controlled. You have a baby when you want one, not a bunch of babies hoping one survives to take care of you when you are old.

ROFLMNAO!

Now how precious is THAT?

Abortion is not a function of nature. Natural failure of the prenatal biological processes are a function of nature.

Abortion is a function of evil; wherein one individuals uses the power it possesses to strip another of the life it possesses, because the life taken was seen as an inconvenience to the life possessing more power.

As such the process is destructive to the individual bearing superior power, which uses it unjustly, failing to bear the sacred responsibility it had to defend that life... and the life lost.

In terms of what legalized abortion means on the grand scale... it is merely a irrefutable sign of a rapidly declining culture.

It's EASILY REFUTEBLE as it's one of your countless delusions.

 

[JoeB131]

HUH... Then, don't worship God. It's not God's loss. The fact is that some children can't be saved.

The simple truth is that you're in no position to judge God. As your perspective is so pitiful as to be laughable... made HYSTERICAL by your implication that YOU FEEL YOU ARE EQUAL TO GOD.

LOL!... Sweet mother that's funny.

No, dude, what's funny is how you guys want to impose the will of your imaginary sky pixie on the rest of us.

I'm not equal to God. I'm greater. I exist. God doesn't.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL! What you have constructed there is a beautiful example of a 'Non Sequitur'.

That the distinct life developing in her body cannot survive outside her body, in no way establishes the life as her property.

It is her SOLE R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y .

There's a distinction... take a few years to ponder what the distinction is and get back to us, if ya ever figure it out.

I agree, it's her responsibility to decide whether or not to carry that fetus to term. And is she chooses not to, that's her choice.

Because Fetuses aren't people, no matter how much you wish them to be.

 

[JoeB131]

For the last time, you illiterate, dishonest little weasel, we aren't talking about a fetus inside her mother's body. We're talking about infanticide after birth has occurred. The newborn (whom you consider to be medical waste) is existing entirely outside of her mother's body at the moment the doctor kills her.

Fetus still doesn't mean what you're trying to make it mean by the way.

That fetus was dead the minute she decided to walk into the clinic. The fact it is still flopping around in the medical waste container is irrelevent.

And there we go. He finally tells us his actual motivation for denying medical care to those he considers expendable: population control.

My motivation is to stick it in the face of religious assholes. Same reason I want them to bake gay-ass wedding cakes. You don't get to impose your morals on the rest of us.

"But, but, but, I'm an atheist who wants to impose christian morals on people."

Yeah, that makes it better, dude.