It is "bad" because they are not yours to take. I have told you why it is immoral. Now tell me why it is moral.
Correct - in the case of abortion, it is purely the mother's. See here: http://www.politicalforum.com/debat...ortion-morally-acceptable.html#post1060878502
You know how old are you? Seriously you act so immature you call names, make pot shots you continually swear. Have you EVER DEBATED BEFORE? Because in a real moderated debate there is no room for your behavior.
So how about 3 days after birth? Still the mothers? Still a moral act? Interest in living? Seriously? Is not the act of being born showing an "interest in living?" When an egg hatches and the baby bird forces its way out of the shell is it not showing an "interest in living?" Your "logic" says you "know" what a fetus is thinking and when it start thinking it. Where is your proof of this claim?
Having seen childbirth, I can assure you the work is entirely on the mother's part. As for confirming the interest of living? Well, if you pinch a baby it withdraws and cries. Kinda confirms that. Of course when you tear it to pieces inside the womb is does the same thing. Something most people never think about. Hence the barbarism of the act, finding those videos is a very difficult thing to achieve though.
Why? If that child is small enough and does not know anything and is not aware of the surroundings then what is wrong about it? LOL You said abortion was ok even killing a newly born child because they are not aware. So rape of a child this small is ok....right? Lets watch you squirm now. What does your sicko source Peter Singer say about that? Logic tells you what is right and wrong. Hitler also operated from logic. Do you agree with what Hitler did? Were the people who did 9-11 thinking logically, did they operate with morals? Were their actions right or wrong? Millions cheered in the Middle East....they thought it all was good....we thought it was bad.. So bad logic on which side? AGain your juvenile style of interacting with people. You would stop someone from raping someone...because its the logical thing to do. So would it be ok if I killed you for trying to stop a rape...if I thought that was logical? REmember you make up your morals...and you respect others positions. So would I be moral and just for killing you. What does the moral relativist say now? No right, no wrong....what is right for you isnt right for me....no one is wrong. You are a moral relativist...you have to be. You are an agnostic...you dont beleive in God....so where do your morals come from? You make them up. And if your tolerant then you must respect someone who does not see things the way you do. LMAO......Order? Order? And what do you mean by this? Honey killing is just morally acceptable for you
Yes and what do you mean by wrong? Wrong is subjective as is morals. I know abortion is murder and wrong by my morals. However by your (lack of) morals or knowing what is right or wrong sucking a late trimester baby from a mothers body is hunkey' dorie' fine~ Reva
"Killing a fetus is fine because the baby has no interest in its own existence. This is because it has no a consciousness or mental function that allows it to think and comprehend its existence and its life. A fetus has no interests as it has no mind - no conception of space or time, rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness or awareness of itself or of anything within the confines of reality. In fact a fish has greater conscious capacity than a fetus under three months of growth. This is why killing a tree amongst other things is fine because it has no self-conscious interest in its existence. This is why when we bleed, we need not mourn for the loss of blood cells or skin cells because none of these organisms, like the fetus, function on a level that allows them to comprehend any notion of life and existence. A fetus has feelings in the most primitive sense of physical sensations sure, but that does not constitute an interest or evidence that the mind has developed to keep an interest in living." That you consider something that has no capability to evade your desire to kill it "uninterested in living" speaks not to morality but to an utter lack of morality. Under your theory it was OK to slaughter the native peoples of the Americas because their inability to resist showed a "lack of interest in living." Under your theory if I shoot a sleeping man to death is a moral act because he does not resist. To the contrary; Do we not as moral beings owe a duty to protect those who are less evolved or less powerful?
You are pro-abortion. I work in this field and go to conventions etc .and if you stood up at an event and announced you were pro-life but wanted abortion legal you would be laughed out of the event. You oppose legal protection for the unborn that is not a pro-life stance whether you would not get an abortion or you would. Do you think it matters to the unborn whether you stand with those who say its ok for them to die or stand with those who protect their lives. You do not do the later. And there is nothing gray about his issue. You are either for protecting the unborn or you are not. You are not. You are pro abortion. What is sad is that you recognize its a hit and still want abortion to be legal. You pro-life? Not on your life you are. You want to deny protection for the human life in the womb. Again you are NOT PRO-LIFE. THE THING IS you don't want to think bad of yourself that is why you buck the label pro-abortion. You have tried to convince yourself that your position is moral and just. But what is moral and just about an abortionist killing a living human being? It boggles my mind the way you people think. You know you are right in a way. My brain hurts trying to figure out people like you. It hurts it aches and sometimes you people are just to much to take. The hypocrisy, the lack of any moral standards of your position yea .it gets me furious thats for sure. It does for an obvious reason. I AM THE ONE WITH THE HEART. It pains me to think as we speak that thousands upon thousands of unborns are being killed murdered in my opinion. It hurts and its emotional for me because it hits home. I use to be a pro-abort like you I was a feminist in every sense of the word. Then things happened to me won't go into it now maybe another thread soon. So let me turn around your own statement and aim it directly at you. I think your zealous fury about this topic is shutting down your heart every part of it. Because your position is heartless and immoral .and I think you know it. No you don;t not at all. You make pot shots just not as filthy as Megadeath does. One needs life .to even receive liberty and YOU WANT TO DENY THAT TO UNBORN LIVING HUMAN BEINGS The point I made is relevant to abortion. Talking down to me? Answering in a way I will understand? lmao Your something something else. Wow the hatred is showing ..man oh man. The foam? The froth? You are like Megadeath no difference. Cant debate or share a thought without swearing and making juvenile pot shots at people .can you? Assumptions .lmao Ok skippy let me tell you about assumptions. Many of your pro-abort friends here say its better to kill that which is in the womb to save it from all sorts of things .poverty etc. THEY ARE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS THAT SOMETHING MIGHT HAPPEN THAT MIGHT NOT HAPPEN AT ALL. "Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them little Hitler Juniors. Calm down, eat a sandwich, come back when you have found your logic and reason." YOU ARE NOT HITLER ..YOUR POSITION IS HITLERESQUE.
My theory? Back the truck up. Slaughtering native americans was in no way a cool thing to do, I don't know how you drew that conclusion. And they did fight back, it just happens they did it later, and with inferior weaponry. Also off topic. Shooting a sleeping man? I don't think you need to be a genius to figure out that this is wrong, so why ask me? Duty to protect those less evolved or less powerful? Depends, if you are asking if I feel drawn to protect primates the answer is now. People? Depends on the morality really and whose set of instructions you operate under. If one operates under Christianity, then yes. Keep in mind I approach this from a strictly monetary point of view because as I stated on another similar thread- asking people to agree on religion is like trying to unscramble an egg, it doesn't happen.
"Killing a fetus is fine because the baby has no interest in its own existence. This is because it has no a consciousness or mental function that allows it to think and comprehend its existence and its life. A fetus has no interests as it has no mind - no conception of space or time, rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness or awareness of itself or of anything within the confines of reality. In fact a fish has greater conscious capacity than a fetus under three months of growth. This is why killing a tree amongst other things is fine because it has no self-conscious interest in its existence. This is why when we bleed, we need not mourn for the loss of blood cells or skin cells because none of these organisms, like the fetus, function on a level that allows them to comprehend any notion of life and existence. A fetus has feelings in the most primitive sense of physical sensations sure, but that does not constitute an interest or evidence that the mind has developed to keep an interest in living." That you consider something that has no capability to evade your desire to kill it "uninterested in living" speaks not to morality but to an utter lack of morality. Under your theory it was OK to slaughter the native peoples of the Americas because their inability to resist showed a "lack of interest in living." Under your theory if I shoot a sleeping man to death is a moral act because he does not resist. To the contrary; Do we not as moral beings owe a duty to protect those who are less evolved or less powerful?
They were just human weeds .like Sanger called minorities like them. You say shooting a sleeping man ..sorta like killing a sleeping growing baby in the womb isn't it?
I can see your circuits have not yet cooled. Really, this may surprise you, I don't care what a crowd thinks. The only thing that matters to me is what God thinks, second is my family, everybody else is a distant third. And allow me to attempt to clarify this for you, I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-freedom. I share your belief that human life is sacred. There are things that are more sacred though, such as freedom. By pushing legislation(which I am guessing your organization does, but I could be wrong) to ban abortion(where mother's life isn't in danger) you force your morality onto another human, thus stripping them of their liberty to choose. That is altruistic in the means of saving lives, but horrid in the way that it removes freedom. You seem awfully bent on trying to convince me that I am not pro-life and that I am pro-abortion. It is tough to convey this over a forum but I think you and I would be great friends if you got to know me. Just understand that I approach this from a monetary standpoint and my way of thinking will be much clearer to you. Lack of moral standards? You really don't know who I am, can you really base such a thing off of only a single forum thread having never met a seen a person, or spoken with them over the phone? Truly you must possess some psychic powers the CIA would covet. Admire the work you are trying to do, saving lives that is. Like I said before, I am a big fan of people making more people. I simply value freedom more. Simply because I don't have a dark past doesn't mean I have no heart. Incase you are wondering about the morality I personally hold, I would refer you here- http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=63c139b439c98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD I agree wholeheartedly with the contents of this link, read all of it, particularly the additional information section. However, I cannot realistically expect everybody to adhere to my religious beliefs. Neither would I dare force somebody to adhere to it. So I do not debate from that pedestal. Shutting down the heart? Well, I have always been considered a block of ice. But beneath that cold granite exterior lies an even colder interior, but beneath that there is in fact a fully functioning heart with emotions and feelings. I simply do not let them govern every aspect of life. Granted, pot shots are the necessary vent for humor given the situation. You aren't the only one who suffers from cranial fatigue when trying to reason with those who seem unreasonable. I think all who are conceived deserve life indeed, despite what you may think. And again, stop the ventriloquism, I never stated that I want to deny unborn children the right to life. Yes, I'll admit, I am a strange one. I wasn't talking down to you, I could see how you interpreted that way though. But taking offense when none is intended is kind of foolish. However it is even more so to take offense when it is intended. Again, I jest with humor, largely out of frustration. But I can say that if you come to the table charged with emotional zeal that not everyone agrees with, it will be extremely difficult for others to take you seriously. You can be passionate about something without being eccentric. I do not make this argument, people suffer in life. Those who try to guard against all pain in life are slightly deluded in my opinion. No not really, I suggest you take a look at the link I posted. That really ought to clear things up for you. Atleast in regards to me. I cannot speak for anybody else. Only myself.
Ya think? I am not even got started. Do you think I care what the group thinks? As a personal who claims Christ as my SAvior .I do care. He wants me to care, that is why I stand up for His Creation in the womb. I care ..I care that people don't care. I care so much that it does not matter or hurt me personally when people mock or make fun of me. Christ said this would happen to His own. I put God first my husband and then children and family .following. A distance third .Christ said love even your enemy I don't hate anyone even though I find their worldview, lifestyle, views, positions immoral. I am not perfect either .and if God can love and forgive me then at least I can extend that to others. I do not however debate abortion from the God perspective simply because as you see here most who champion abortion don't believe in God. You're pro-freedom .which allows that women kill babies. God created those babies and you or me or anyone else does not have the right to presume guess any one of them would be better off dead. This is against Gods nature and what the scriptures say. You do not want to protect the unborn this is not pro-life .it is pro-choice and is pro-abortion. You are willing to just let it happen in the name of what you think freedom is all about. I do not mean to be rude here but I have to speak honestly. You and my beliefs on lives as sacred are not the same at all. You don't care enough about the unborn to say or to do anything to protect them. How can you believe that that position is pro-life? All lives are sacred in Gods eyes. Our bodies are our temples and that goes for the unborn as well. We live in a nation of laws that decides for us what morals will be for the most part. WE can't even decide if we want to wear a seat belt or not .in most states it is the law. So our government tells us what is permitted and what is not. Is that against the Constitution .dictating what people can and can't do? ARe you against laws that protect us? Abortion was once illegal and thought to be immoral.Today it is still thought by most people to be immoral but they want the killing to continue .to give the woman options. You think God sees things that way? Come on . I have no doubt that we might be good friends. I also have friends who are pro-abortion. I don't hate you even though I find your views on this immoral. I think your position is on sandy and shaky ground especially religiously. Monetary as in money? It does not really matter why you think abortion is legal YOU WANT IT LEGAL. I think anyone who believes that tiny little humans in the womb should be fair game for any woman to kill is lacking in something morally yes. I think the way we view life issues affect all other positions we have in life. Since we believe in God these issues should reflect what God wants us to believe not what makes sense to us. God would never condone abortion like you do, never. I do not know who you are personally all I judge you by are words and actions would never attempt to judge your heart only God can do that. I have no psychic power think that is something not given by God. I can tell how someone is just by their belief on abortion. I never said you had a dark past. Your position is dark very dark. What will you tell God when He asks you why you threw the unborn under the bus? What excuse will you give? This is not about religion. You brought it up I did not and don't want to get into religion or God because I can't expect the people who are not believers to get it. We can stand on what science says about life. I have worked with atheists before who are pro-life. Don't see it not when you condone unborns to death .by being pro-choice freedom or however you classify it. It is a cold, unfeeling, callous position of life. Obviously the vision of the actual abortion does not upset you in the least. Maybe You could have been an abortionist . since you can keep it together so well and don't let your emotions interfere. Humor? I do not find this topic humorous do you? Do I seem unreasonable? If so thank you because my position will never change, I am pro-life and against abortion and if you find it unreasonable then ..that says more about you then me .as you condone it. Your views are all over the place. Now this is comical. You say you are pro-life ..and think all who are conceived deserve life .THEN YOU SAY ..I value freedom above all else. Your freedom and what you stand on takes protection away from the unborn and you help place a bullseye on every unborn in the womb. That is what is important you say ..FREEDOM. The freedom you stand on comes from the unborn by being pro-abortion . Your position is strange and does not hang together logically. Well I don't think abortion is funny. I don't care if people don't get it, I really don't. It breaks my heart every time I think of a little one being killed. If people don't feel that pain ..then again that says more about what they lack then what I do. "No not really, I suggest you take a look at the link I posted. That really ought to clear things up for you. Atleast in regards to me. I cannot speak for anybody else. Only myself." I will take a look at it but really what you said here is enough. You want abortion legal .that is pro-abortion for me. I appreciate you being candid about your position however thanks.
I live near Mesa Arizona so I know a lot of Mormons. Your views obviously are not square with that of your temple. ARe you temple worthy believing that abortion should be legal? WE are not of the same faith .so I have no clue what Smith dictated you believe on this.
So why do you follow the morals of the Christian tradition then? Just a fashion thing is it? But by what you just said all morals are subjective, therefore none are correct therefore they are all equal. So why should we even bother listening to your position is this true? Why do you bother having one yourself?
How so? You have to justify your claims, you realize? No. They already had an interest in living by the fact they were alive when the Europeans arrived. You just used a total non sequitur. What you describe as "inability to resist" IS NOT the same as "lack of interest in living." No. Resistance has NOTHING to do with that I said. Read it again. Dont attack strawmen. No. If you think we do, explain and justify to me why this is the case.
How does science see life? Lets keep God out of this for a moment. Science has clearly and decidedly proven that human life begins at conception... fertilization or the moment sperm and ovum meet and form an entirely new, self-directing living organism of the human species with its own individual DNA distinct from both mother and father. That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persauds The Developing Human, Larsens Human Embryology, Carlsons Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and ORahilly and Muellers Human Embryology & Teratology. Dr. Robert George Human embryos, whether they are formed by fertilization (natural or in vitro) or by successful somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT i.e., cloning), do have the internal resources and active disposition to develop themselves to the mature stage of a human organism, requiring only a suitable environment and nutrition. In fact, scientists distinguish embryos from other cells or clusters of cells precisely by their self-directed, integral functioning their organismal behavior. Thus, human embryos are what the embryology textbooks say they are, namely, human organisms living individuals of the human species at the earliest developmental stage. Dr. Robert George Here is an academic website that also concurs that life begins at conception. And here one that specifically states that the unborn is NOT A PART OF THE MOTHER. http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/separate.htm http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/life.htm http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/national-geographic-in-the-womb/ This is what they teach in medical schools around the world. So I believe science agrees as to when life begins.
A child has such comprehension, so no, nice try. Potentially. I'm assuming such sexual assault would be physically painful which would make it immoral. If it wasnt painful, then it would be ok yes. Of course at that point, however, the child is still its mother's property so its up to her. You're the only one squirming mate. No it tells me he was wrong. No. No. They were wrong because they were acting with a lack of logical thought. No, because it isnt logical. So you are a moral relativist? FOR THE TRILLIONTH TIME MORALITY COMES FROM LOGIC. GOD IS USELESS FOR DETERMINING MORALITY. You have a problem with that? ps Why do you think God's morality is correct?
