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

[Pedro de San Patricio]

The law is based on morality and has nothing to do with religion or superstition.

It's not based on morality.

LOL! That's not only false... it is laughably false.

There seems to be absolutely no bottom to your ignorance.

false! it is based on an extremely religiously bias interpretation of morality

Morality is a man-made concept.
Morality is a man-made concept that is defined by the society you live in; it is subjective. There is nothing called morality in nature. You cannot observe morality or test it in a laboratory. There is no absolute "morality."

Many religious fanatics have tried to prove that morality is an absolute, just like God is real. They have even developed philosophies to prove it, e.G., metaphysics, and epistemology, which use meaningless circular propositions to prove their points. They use word games to prove their points. Both assume that knowledge, morality, Good and Evil exist 'a priori'.

What does 'a priori' mean: 'a priori' knowledge, in Western philosophy since the time of Immanuel Kant, knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences, as opposed to a posteriori knowledge, which derives from experience. The Latin phrases a priori (“from what is before”) and a posteriori (“from what is after”) were used in philosophy originally to distinguish between arguments from causes and arguments from effects.

Even murdering or killing humans is not an absolute; it is societal, e.G., killing in war is OK, killing someone attacking you with deadly force where you are in fear of your life is OK.



Is morality subjective?

You literally have to deny the very concept of morality to make your case...

Yes... A "Sky Pixie is a figment of your deluded imagination.

Such is fairly typical of a perverse mind and like everything else about you, your perverse mind is no exception.

NO, guy, Sky Pixies are what you all believe in.

So you're qualified to tell me what I believe in?

LOL! That's HYSTERICAL! Given that you're not even qualified to tell me what you believe in.

Suffice it to say I am not a believer in any Sky Pixie. And you are woefully unqualified to test me on that, as you prove post after post, day in and day out... .

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

He's still insisting that I'm a Christian after being told no less than four times in this one thread, AND admitting that he knows I'm not pages ago. His argument rests on that assumption. He needs to convince himself that it's true for everything else to fall into place.

Looks like I hurt his feelings calling out his stolen valor act btw. He's gonna report me to the mods for that now. :'(

false you've missed the point intentionally or not.

Okay. Tell me. If you really believe that all morality is subjective, then on what grounds do you see our position - that a doctor should be legally obligated to provide medical care for a baby born during a botched abortion attempt - as immoral? On what grounds do you see anything as immoral?

 

[Blackrook]

Well, at what time does a baby get the right to live?

Formerly it was a baby with a right to live at the moment of birth.

But now, liberals want to slide the line away from that position and say the baby still has no right to live, even after it was born.

So how long does it take for a baby to become fully human? Five minutes? An hour? A day?

Where's the lines?

 

[daws101]

Morality is a man-made concept.

Morality is nothing more than the soundly reasoned distinction between that which is sound behavior and that which is not... based upon the empirical study of Natural Law; which is to say God's Law as defined by the laws God set forth to govern human behavior.

both of which are relative.

god is also a speculative concept.

 

[daws101]

It's not based on morality.

LOL! That's not only false... it is laughably false.

There seems to be absolutely no bottom to your ignorance.

false! it is based on an extremely religiously bias interpretation of morality

Morality is a man-made concept.
Morality is a man-made concept that is defined by the society you live in; it is subjective. There is nothing called morality in nature. You cannot observe morality or test it in a laboratory. There is no absolute "morality."

Many religious fanatics have tried to prove that morality is an absolute, just like God is real. They have even developed philosophies to prove it, e.G., metaphysics, and epistemology, which use meaningless circular propositions to prove their points. They use word games to prove their points. Both assume that knowledge, morality, Good and Evil exist 'a priori'.

What does 'a priori' mean: 'a priori' knowledge, in Western philosophy since the time of Immanuel Kant, knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences, as opposed to a posteriori knowledge, which derives from experience. The Latin phrases a priori (“from what is before”) and a posteriori (“from what is after”) were used in philosophy originally to distinguish between arguments from causes and arguments from effects.

Even murdering or killing humans is not an absolute; it is societal, e.G., killing in war is OK, killing someone attacking you with deadly force where you are in fear of your life is OK.



Is morality subjective?

You literally have to deny the very concept of morality to make your case...

Yes... A "Sky Pixie is a figment of your deluded imagination.

Such is fairly typical of a perverse mind and like everything else about you, your perverse mind is no exception.

NO, guy, Sky Pixies are what you all believe in.

So you're qualified to tell me what I believe in?

LOL! That's HYSTERICAL! Given that you're not even qualified to tell me what you believe in.

Suffice it to say I am not a believer in any Sky Pixie. And you are woefully unqualified to test me on that, as you prove post after post, day in and day out... .

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

He's still insisting that I'm a Christian after being told no less than four times in this one thread, AND admitting that he knows I'm not pages ago. His argument rests on that assumption. He needs to convince himself that it's true for everything else to fall into place.

Looks like I hurt his feelings calling out his stolen valor act btw. He's gonna report me to the mods for that now. :'(

false you've missed the point intentionally or not.

Okay. Tell me. If you really believe that all morality is subjective, then on what grounds do you see our position as immoral? On what grounds do you see anything as immoral?

your position is immoral simply because it's bias and blinders on POV.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The law is based on morality and has nothing to do with religion or superstition.

It's not based on morality.

LOL! That's not only false... it is laughably false.

There seems to be absolutely no bottom to your ignorance.

false! it is based on an extremely religiously bias interpretation of morality

Morality is a man-made concept.
Morality is a man-made concept that is defined by the society you live in; it is subjective. There is nothing called morality in nature. You cannot observe morality or test it in a laboratory. There is no absolute "morality."

Many religious fanatics have tried to prove that morality is an absolute, just like God is real. They have even developed philosophies to prove it, e.G., metaphysics, and epistemology, which use meaningless circular propositions to prove their points. They use word games to prove their points. Both assume that knowledge, morality, Good and Evil exist 'a priori'.

What does 'a priori' mean: 'a priori' knowledge, in Western philosophy since the time of Immanuel Kant, knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences, as opposed to a posteriori knowledge, which derives from experience. The Latin phrases a priori (“from what is before”) and a posteriori (“from what is after”) were used in philosophy originally to distinguish between arguments from causes and arguments from effects.

Even murdering or killing humans is not an absolute; it is societal, e.G., killing in war is OK, killing someone attacking you with deadly force where you are in fear of your life is OK.



Is morality subjective?

You literally have to deny the very concept of morality to make your case...

Yes... A "Sky Pixie is a figment of your deluded imagination.

Such is fairly typical of a perverse mind and like everything else about you, your perverse mind is no exception.

NO, guy, Sky Pixies are what you all believe in.

So you're qualified to tell me what I believe in?

LOL! That's HYSTERICAL! Given that you're not even qualified to tell me what you believe in.

Suffice it to say I am not a believer in any Sky Pixie. And you are woefully unqualified to test me on that, as you prove post after post, day in and day out... .

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

He's still insisting that I'm a Christian after being told no less than four times in this one thread, AND admitting that he knows I'm not pages ago. His argument rests on that assumption. He needs to convince himself that it's true for everything else to fall into place.

Looks like I hurt his feelings calling out his stolen valor act btw. He's gonna report me to the mods for that now. :'(

It's a Relativist... therefore it has no kinship with truth.

If you're here testing these creatures for some sense of truth, you're wasting your time.

The point of this exercise is not to convince the demon, but to demonstrate for the reader, that these creatures are manifestly evil and that as such, they exist for no other purpose than to deceive and consequently bring chaos, calamity and catastrophe to whatever they can affect.

Reasonable people need look no farther than their own local paper, their cables news service or their own computer to see infinite volumes of evidence of such... thus such is not even remotely debatable.

 

[daws101]

Well, at what time does a baby get the right to live?

Formerly it was a baby with a right to live at the moment of birth.

But now, liberals want to slide the line away from that position and say the baby still has no right to live, even after it was born.

So how long does it take for a baby to become fully human? Five minutes? An hour? A day?

Where's the lines?

we make up the lines.
A zygote is not a human,

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

LOL! That's not only false... it is laughably false.

There seems to be absolutely no bottom to your ignorance.

false! it is based on an extremely religiously bias interpretation of morality

Morality is a man-made concept.
Morality is a man-made concept that is defined by the society you live in; it is subjective. There is nothing called morality in nature. You cannot observe morality or test it in a laboratory. There is no absolute "morality."

Many religious fanatics have tried to prove that morality is an absolute, just like God is real. They have even developed philosophies to prove it, e.G., metaphysics, and epistemology, which use meaningless circular propositions to prove their points. They use word games to prove their points. Both assume that knowledge, morality, Good and Evil exist 'a priori'.

What does 'a priori' mean: 'a priori' knowledge, in Western philosophy since the time of Immanuel Kant, knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences, as opposed to a posteriori knowledge, which derives from experience. The Latin phrases a priori (“from what is before”) and a posteriori (“from what is after”) were used in philosophy originally to distinguish between arguments from causes and arguments from effects.

Even murdering or killing humans is not an absolute; it is societal, e.G., killing in war is OK, killing someone attacking you with deadly force where you are in fear of your life is OK.



Is morality subjective?

You literally have to deny the very concept of morality to make your case...

NO, guy, Sky Pixies are what you all believe in.

So you're qualified to tell me what I believe in?

LOL! That's HYSTERICAL! Given that you're not even qualified to tell me what you believe in.

Suffice it to say I am not a believer in any Sky Pixie. And you are woefully unqualified to test me on that, as you prove post after post, day in and day out... .

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

He's still insisting that I'm a Christian after being told no less than four times in this one thread, AND admitting that he knows I'm not pages ago. His argument rests on that assumption. He needs to convince himself that it's true for everything else to fall into place.

Looks like I hurt his feelings calling out his stolen valor act btw. He's gonna report me to the mods for that now. :'(

false you've missed the point intentionally or not.

Okay. Tell me. If you really believe that all morality is subjective, then on what grounds do you see our position as immoral? On what grounds do you see anything as immoral?

your position is immoral simply because it's bias and blinders on POV.

Which you're forced to regard as your own subjective, biased opinion by your own reasoning.

 

[daws101]

The law is based on morality and has nothing to do with religion or superstition.

It's not based on morality.

LOL! That's not only false... it is laughably false.

There seems to be absolutely no bottom to your ignorance.

false! it is based on an extremely religiously bias interpretation of morality

Morality is a man-made concept.
Morality is a man-made concept that is defined by the society you live in; it is subjective. There is nothing called morality in nature. You cannot observe morality or test it in a laboratory. There is no absolute "morality."

Many religious fanatics have tried to prove that morality is an absolute, just like God is real. They have even developed philosophies to prove it, e.G., metaphysics, and epistemology, which use meaningless circular propositions to prove their points. They use word games to prove their points. Both assume that knowledge, morality, Good and Evil exist 'a priori'.

What does 'a priori' mean: 'a priori' knowledge, in Western philosophy since the time of Immanuel Kant, knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences, as opposed to a posteriori knowledge, which derives from experience. The Latin phrases a priori (“from what is before”) and a posteriori (“from what is after”) were used in philosophy originally to distinguish between arguments from causes and arguments from effects.

Even murdering or killing humans is not an absolute; it is societal, e.G., killing in war is OK, killing someone attacking you with deadly force where you are in fear of your life is OK.



Is morality subjective?

You literally have to deny the very concept of morality to make your case...

Yes... A "Sky Pixie is a figment of your deluded imagination.

Such is fairly typical of a perverse mind and like everything else about you, your perverse mind is no exception.

NO, guy, Sky Pixies are what you all believe in.

So you're qualified to tell me what I believe in?

LOL! That's HYSTERICAL! Given that you're not even qualified to tell me what you believe in.

Suffice it to say I am not a believer in any Sky Pixie. And you are woefully unqualified to test me on that, as you prove post after post, day in and day out... .

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

He's still insisting that I'm a Christian after being told no less than four times in this one thread, AND admitting that he knows I'm not pages ago. His argument rests on that assumption. He needs to convince himself that it's true for everything else to fall into place.

Looks like I hurt his feelings calling out his stolen valor act btw. He's gonna report me to the mods for that now. :'(

It's a Relativist... therefore it has no kinship with truth.

If you're here testing these creatures for some sense of truth, you're wasting your time.

The point of this exercise is not to convince the demon, but to demonstrate for the reader, that these creatures are manifestly evil and that as such, they exist for no other purpose than to deceive and consequently bring chaos, calamity and catastrophe to whatever they can affect.

Reasonable people need look no farther than their own local paper, their cables news service or their own computer to see infinite volumes of evidence of such... thus such is not even remotely debatable.

more false assumptions the truth is also relative,
you blather the shit you do because it keeps you in your comfort zone.
the "creatures" reference is classic false moral superiority move.
bet David Koresh and Jim jones are your idols.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Well, at what time does a baby get the right to live?

Formerly it was a baby with a right to live at the moment of birth.

But now, liberals want to slide the line away from that position and say the baby still has no right to live, even after it was born.

So how long does it take for a baby to become fully human? Five minutes? An hour? A day?

Where's the lines?

we make up the lines.
A zygote is not a human,

The problem with that reasoning is that never led your philosophical forebears to a good end. First the Romani weren't real humans. Then the Jews weren't real humans. Then the Armenians and Kurds. You'll understand if I'm wary about when you decide that I don't meet the qualifications for personhood. I mean, it's a small step from depriving your children of their right to life and depriving me of my right to mine.

 

[daws101]

false! it is based on an extremely religiously bias interpretation of morality

Morality is a man-made concept.
Morality is a man-made concept that is defined by the society you live in; it is subjective. There is nothing called morality in nature. You cannot observe morality or test it in a laboratory. There is no absolute "morality."

Many religious fanatics have tried to prove that morality is an absolute, just like God is real. They have even developed philosophies to prove it, e.G., metaphysics, and epistemology, which use meaningless circular propositions to prove their points. They use word games to prove their points. Both assume that knowledge, morality, Good and Evil exist 'a priori'.

What does 'a priori' mean: 'a priori' knowledge, in Western philosophy since the time of Immanuel Kant, knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences, as opposed to a posteriori knowledge, which derives from experience. The Latin phrases a priori (“from what is before”) and a posteriori (“from what is after”) were used in philosophy originally to distinguish between arguments from causes and arguments from effects.

Even murdering or killing humans is not an absolute; it is societal, e.G., killing in war is OK, killing someone attacking you with deadly force where you are in fear of your life is OK.



Is morality subjective?

You literally have to deny the very concept of morality to make your case...

So you're qualified to tell me what I believe in?

LOL! That's HYSTERICAL! Given that you're not even qualified to tell me what you believe in.

Suffice it to say I am not a believer in any Sky Pixie. And you are woefully unqualified to test me on that, as you prove post after post, day in and day out... .

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

He's still insisting that I'm a Christian after being told no less than four times in this one thread, AND admitting that he knows I'm not pages ago. His argument rests on that assumption. He needs to convince himself that it's true for everything else to fall into place.

Looks like I hurt his feelings calling out his stolen valor act btw. He's gonna report me to the mods for that now. :'(

false you've missed the point intentionally or not.

Okay. Tell me. If you really believe that all morality is subjective, then on what grounds do you see our position as immoral? On what grounds do you see anything as immoral?

your position is immoral simply because it's bias and blinders on POV.

Which you're forced to regard as your own subjective, biased opinion by your own reasoning.

false! objective evidence.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

You literally have to deny the very concept of morality to make your case...

He's still insisting that I'm a Christian after being told no less than four times in this one thread, AND admitting that he knows I'm not pages ago. His argument rests on that assumption. He needs to convince himself that it's true for everything else to fall into place.

Looks like I hurt his feelings calling out his stolen valor act btw. He's gonna report me to the mods for that now. :'(

false you've missed the point intentionally or not.

Okay. Tell me. If you really believe that all morality is subjective, then on what grounds do you see our position as immoral? On what grounds do you see anything as immoral?

your position is immoral simply because it's bias and blinders on POV.

Which you're forced to regard as your own subjective, biased opinion by your own reasoning.

false! objective evidence.

But objectivity doesn't exist though, right? We're as convinced that our point of view is good as you are that it's evil. How can you say that your perspective is objective when your whole point is that nobody's is?

 

[daws101]

Well, at what time does a baby get the right to live?

Formerly it was a baby with a right to live at the moment of birth.

But now, liberals want to slide the line away from that position and say the baby still has no right to live, even after it was born.

So how long does it take for a baby to become fully human? Five minutes? An hour? A day?

Where's the lines?

we make up the lines.
A zygote is not a human,

The problem with that reasoning is that never led your philosophical forebears to a good end. First the Romani weren't real humans. Then the Jews weren't real humans. Then the Armenians and Kurds. You'll understand if I'm wary about when you decide that I don't meet the qualifications for personhood. I mean, it's a small step from depriving your children of their right to life and depriving me of my right to mine.

oh no not the
it will not end well ploy!
thanks for playing.

 

[daws101]

false you've missed the point intentionally or not.

Okay. Tell me. If you really believe that all morality is subjective, then on what grounds do you see our position as immoral? On what grounds do you see anything as immoral?

your position is immoral simply because it's bias and blinders on POV.

Which you're forced to regard as your own subjective, biased opinion by your own reasoning.

false! objective evidence.

But objectivity doesn't exist though, right?

false.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Morality is a man-made concept.

Morality is nothing more than the soundly reasoned distinction between that which is sound behavior and that which is not... based upon the empirical study of Natural Law; which is to say God's Law as defined by the laws God set forth to govern human behavior.

That doesn't matter though. They need to deny the existence of objective morality and so they do. That doesn't mean they won't use the concept for their own purposes, however. It just means they get to pick and choose when it's allowed to come into play.

Of course it matters, Pedro.

These people are Relativist... they deny all sense of objectivity, therefore they lack the capacity to reason objectively.

Subsequently they reason subjectively... exclusively subjectively. And from that, is where you find them 'using the law to their own benefit; which is to say 'using the law subjectively'.

The problem with that, as I'm sure you realize, is that for law to serve justice, THE LAW must be objective and absent objectivity, the law can NEVER serve justice.

And that is why, wherever the Left finds root, it undermines the means of the citizen to find justice. And that is why the Left deems their constituents "Victims". Because as their subjectivism takes hold, justice become impossible... . And from that comes what? Order, peace and prosperity?

LOL! No no... As I discussed above: The Left... serve only to generate Chaos, Calamity and Catastrophe.

And in that we can KNOW... that the Ideological Left, like its cousin Islam, is manifestly Evil. Islam is merely a more disciplined example of such. Much more in kinship with the Revolutionary Marxists of old.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Well, at what time does a baby get the right to live?

Formerly it was a baby with a right to live at the moment of birth.

But now, liberals want to slide the line away from that position and say the baby still has no right to live, even after it was born.

So how long does it take for a baby to become fully human? Five minutes? An hour? A day?

Where's the lines?

we make up the lines.
A zygote is not a human,

The problem with that reasoning is that never led your philosophical forebears to a good end. First the Romani weren't real humans. Then the Jews weren't real humans. Then the Armenians and Kurds. You'll understand if I'm wary about when you decide that I don't meet the qualifications for personhood. I mean, it's a small step from depriving your children of their right to life and depriving me of my right to mine.

oh no not the
it will not end well ploy!
thanks for playing.

When you decide that you have the right to define who's human and who isn't, and decide that those you judge not to be fully human are disposable, then yes. You do become a danger to me just like every previous person who believed as you do and acted on those beliefs became a danger to everyone around them. I don't know when you're going to determine that I'm not fully human. I don't know when you're going to judge me disposable. I don't know when you're going to try to act on that. All I know is that you grant yourself full authority to do so.

 

[daws101]

false you've missed the point intentionally or not.

Okay. Tell me. If you really believe that all morality is subjective, then on what grounds do you see our position as immoral? On what grounds do you see anything as immoral?

your position is immoral simply because it's bias and blinders on POV.

Which you're forced to regard as your own subjective, biased opinion by your own reasoning.

false! objective evidence.

But objectivity doesn't exist though, right? We're as convinced that our point of view is good as you are that it's evil. How can you say that your perspective is objective when your whole point is that nobody's is?

never said you pov was evil (that';s also a subjective pov)
your need to speak in absolutes is fucking you hard.
( there is no light without darkness and no darkness without light. )

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Okay. Tell me. If you really believe that all morality is subjective, then on what grounds do you see our position as immoral? On what grounds do you see anything as immoral?

your position is immoral simply because it's bias and blinders on POV.

Which you're forced to regard as your own subjective, biased opinion by your own reasoning.

false! objective evidence.

But objectivity doesn't exist though, right?

false.

If objectivity exists, then how is everything subjective?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

your position is immoral simply because it's bias and blinders on POV.

ROFLMNAO!

Based upon what, SPECIFICALLY?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Okay. Tell me. If you really believe that all morality is subjective, then on what grounds do you see our position as immoral? On what grounds do you see anything as immoral?

your position is immoral simply because it's bias and blinders on POV.

Which you're forced to regard as your own subjective, biased opinion by your own reasoning.

false! objective evidence.

But objectivity doesn't exist though, right? We're as convinced that our point of view is good as you are that it's evil. How can you say that your perspective is objective when your whole point is that nobody's is?

never said you pov was evil (that';s also a subjective pov)
your need to speak in absolutes is fucking you hard.
( there is no light without darkness and no darkness without light. )

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.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

never said you pov was evil (that';s also a subjective pov)

So evil is subjective?

Oh now THAT is fascinatin'... take a moment and show me your math on that one. I'm just all a tingle to hear you explain how you've come to that conclusion.