Abortion is evil? WHY?

Why should human rights be respected? Really going to ask that?
And no, you don't have "right" to an education.
And incest may bring about a malformed or mentally ill child. Rape? Would you want to bring a child to term that was a product of a rape. Don't be stupid.

 

Yep. Are you ever going to answer it?

According to the UN, you do.

So you dont actually think life is always worth protecting then. Therefore you dont actually believe human life must be protecting - just those you like.

 

If you don't understand that a person has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You are a lost cause.
And I don't care what the UN thinks or says. Without the US, the UN is a toothless bunch of old bitties.
And its not about liking someone, its about not forcing something on someone else. Rape my wife and get her pregnant, I will wrap that fetus around your neck.

 

Fugazi

A lot of people who are pro-abortion are happy. They are happy that women can kill...you are obviously one of them as your position calls for it.

As for your living space....I can only imagine...but its no ones business and mine is no ones business.

Oh I would love too.

Do you mean like.......an ant is as worthy as a living human being? I think if nature thought the ant more worthy...he would not be living on the ground and so vulnerable. Your children's lives the same as that of a ant hill. That is what you believe? Their lives the same as a mosquito? Bloodsucker? Pig? Crow?

Gee...have we seen an animal species that has gone to the moon? That has constructed a sky scraper? That can built a yacht? That figured out the law of gravity? Are we to crawl on the ground like animals do? Should we live in a barn....sleeping on straw...eating from a bucket?

If we are on the same level as animals..then enjoyment would be to eat, sleep and eat our young. What animals besides the ones in zoo's that are kept hostage...can't do what they please basically? Do you control where the birds fly? Can you control the whereabouts of every animals in the forest or jungle?
The planet is where we live. What is wrong with enjoying our miraculous planet? Why can't we enjoy the seas and the lakes? Why can't we ski down the slopes and climb the mountains?

Arrogance from the religious? And no arrogance or conceit from pagan worship?

Nature right? That which is instilled in every human being ever born...the desire to live and to protect what is his? Why, an atheist could have instincts like that don't you? Nature....the survival of the fittest, right? Innocent life always is shed...whether it be through wars, or acts of nature....lives have been lost. You insinuate that only people who believe in God take lives. You think you can do that logically?

Sure we do...and you would not be here today probably had someone not protected YOUR FREEDOM AND THE RIGHTS YOU ENJOY TODAY. You think that has to do with religion?

Easy, no brainer.....pro-lifers are the main group that helps the child after its born. They are the main ones running all the Crisis Pregnancy Centers. These like it or not are mainly God believers...the ones who sacrifice and love people...who selflessly donate time and money to make a difference. What do atheistic and secular groups do?
This is a main difference between those who believe in God and those who do not....the capability to help humanity, asking for nothing in return...who simply do it from the heart.

Groups like Samaritans Purse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan's_Purse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_pregnancy_center

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Care_Net

http://www.worldvision.org

http://www.christian-alliance.org

I could go on and on....

http://www.compassion.com/child_sponsorship_info_opt/christian_charity_organization.htm

Catholic Charities

The Salvation Army

http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn...368025732500314AF5?openDocument&charset=utf-8

THE LARGEST ADOPTION AGENCY IN THE COUNTRY IS CHRISTIAN.

http://brynmawr.patch.com/announcem...e-valley-to-support-families-in-need-4949c51e

SO DON'T TELL US THAT WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE POOR, ESPECIALLY WOMEN WHO ARE IN NEED OF HELP AFTER THEY HAVE A CHILD.

Now maybe the debate can really start to stand on the truth.

 

Mate, I understand that you are advocating that. I want to know why, specifically why should I agree with this supposed right as being valid and true?

No, I am but a man with a very simple, straight forward question. The fact you cant answer it is extremely revealing.

Ok so you limit human rights to what is in the US constitution is that it?

So you will force that fetus around the others guys neck - also by force. Again you contradict yourself. You just said its ok to force yourself on others; they just need to be a particular kind of 'innocent fetus' or a rapist.

 

Rape of my life will FORCE me to FORCE myself on the perp to the point I will rip their guts out then feed them to him.
Anyone that wouldn't is no man.
And yes, I live by the US constitution. Not some UN edict.
I love you guys that say the questions were not answered when the answers were right in front of you.

 

That makes no sense.

LOL I see where you're at now. I noticed you couldnt justify human rights.

Ok, and the US constitution is based on Natural Rights Theory. Did you know this?

You never said why the rights in the constitution are morally justified. Please state where you did.

 

Obviously you don't read worth a crap. Human rights are a universally held believe of every industrialized nation.
Harm a family member, that's all the justification I need to do what ever I have to. To you.
And if you don't see where taking a living thing out of a woman and killing it, just because you don't want it is not evil. You are lost. You have no redeemable merit as a human.

 

You should use the term "living human" a some (not including you) use the term human being obfuscatively.

A fetus is not a "living human" until it aquire significant brain function. At least according to a coroner.

Second: To be a member of the club Homo sapiens requires the entity have a number of characteristics. The zygote simply does not have enough of these characteristics required for membership in this club and neither does the fetus until late in term.

 

Please try respectful debate instead of back and forth off topic and flame baiting. If you are not interested, you are welcome to leave the thread.

Thanks
Shangrila
Site Moderator

 

Oh dear falling into the same old comments, placing your delusions or fantasies onto others, strange how you can only debate by doing this.

Well knowing how your imagination works it will be so far wrong you wouldn't believe it anyway.

So where did I mention "worthy", and actually nature doesn't think you are more worthy than an ant .. nature doesn't think, it is simply a force, one that doesn't give a fig whether you are an ant, a mosquito, pig, crow or human being .. You problem is that you are placing your human values onto a force that really doesn't care about your values. So point number one you have failed to dispute.

Again you are placing your own values onto what is relevant, all of the things you have listed will only be important for as long as the human race exists and the human race are the only ones that see them as important .. nature doesn't, a thousand years after human kind has gone (assuming we don't destroy this planet) all those things will mean nothing, yet nature will still be here.
So point two you have failed to dispute.

Those three things you listed are not enjoyment they are the basic survival instincts, ones that we also posses and did in past times.
Tell me what other animals besides man, pollute the seas, strip the forests, poison the land .. none .. we seek to control this planet instead of living in harmony with it.
Point three failed to dispute

Is it not your bible that tells you that god placed man above all other things, name a pagan worship that states that .. pagan worship is about living in harmony with nature, not controlling it.
Point four failed to dispute

The concept of ownership is purely a human invention, protecting family, feeding areas is not ownership. Nature is about the strong surviving, but you see that as meaning the one with the greatest strength . .being strong does not have to mean having the greatest strength.
Where do I insinuate that only people who believe in god (which ever one that is) take lives, that is your insinuation not mine.
Point five failed to dispute

LOL, that is an impossible statement to make, you have no idea if I would have been here.
I feel that religion is part of the process, but certainly not the only cause.

Point six failed to dispute

and all for that special ticket into heaven.

What truth, you have failed to dispute all put one of my comments, everything you have put is based upon your human perspective, one rooted in the arrogance that humans are somehow "higher" than other life on this planet.
Tell me where does that come from?

 

Sorry, in English?

That is entirely irrelevant to my point of whether they are valid or not.

Why?

So basically you are clueless and cant prove your ignorant moral presumptions, so all you have is insults. Thanks for conceding defeat.

 

Obfuscatively? I think not.
Obfuscate: 'Obfuscation (or beclouding) is the hiding of intended meaning in communication,
making communication confusing, wilfully ambiguous, and harder to interpret.'

Human being: 'Homo sapiens a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related
to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain.'

Fetuses are BY DEFINITION human beings. You are the one obfuscating.

Nonsense. It is human because it is a homosapien, and alive because it growing.

No, a coroner will say it has brian function when it acquires it. It will not say the fetus is dead unless it is such and he will not deny it is a homosapien, ie a human being.

No, it requires ONE - that they are a member of the species of homosapiens.

There is no definition in the world that can possible justify such imagination. That being said I wouldnt be surprised if modern liberal advocates of abortion have gone to considerable lengths attempting to redefine the already well-defined word of 'human', which simply means member of the homosapien species.

 

You question "why" I would go after someone that hurt a family member and you have the brass to call me ignorant.

 

I didnt ask why you would, I asked why you think that gives you justification to "do what you want"

 

Say I smack you momma in the mouth one day. You going to ask why? Or are you going to want to beat me down?

 

Why is any murder evil? If you subscribe to the popular postmodern concept of moral relativism, there's no such thing as evil. It's all just a difference of opinion.

 

That isn't quite true of moral relativism which concerns itself with the fact that just because a person or group of people consider something to be wrong doesn't make it a universal truth, moral judgement is relative not absolute.

You consider murder to be evil, yet there may be people who do not, the only reason it is considered evil is because it falls into the majority consensus. If murder = evil was a universal absolute then there would be no murders, therefore it is relative.

The problem with moral judgments is that they are made primarily based on our own standards (known as appraiser relativism) with no thought to the person being judged whose moral judgement may not concede with our own but is more relevant to them than yours.

 

My God, could we conservatives ever hope for a better straight-line? Based upon the above "definition", leftists are not "living human" beings. Every intelligent person knows that leftists have NO "significant brain function"! It's OPEN SEASON on leftists! Where are all the leftist-aborters?

 

It's time for a refresher course on why leftists are always wrong. Those with intelligence will understand. Leftists will NEVER understand. The lesson begins.

The poster correctly points out that morality and immorality is judged by individual cultures, and that cultures often view the definitions differently. What the poster fails to comprehend is that the beliefs of some cultures result in prosperous, honorable, and vibrant societies, whereas the beliefs of other cultures result in despair, pain, poverty, and backwardness. Nobody with a brain would claim that cultures based on human despair, pain, and poverty are worthy of existing. One cannot claim and support the contention that all cultures are equal when it comes to the well-being of its citizens. Therefore, one must assess the "quality of life" in different cultures to determine which cultures' definitions of "morality" develop the greatest benefits to the majorities of their citizens.

Let's take this poster's contentions and apply them to a theoretical culture. Would a culture in which murder is considered OK, a society in which the majority of citizens would experience a vibrant and prosperous life? I argue that such a culture would inflict unbearable stress and terror on the majority of its citizens. Such a culture would be nothing but anarchy, with every citizen killing those humans with whom they disagreed. There would be no constraints on human behavior, other than the "law of the jungle". Only an idiot would consider such a culture desireable!

If parents discover that their 4-year-old daughter was gang-raped by a group of 21-year-old males, can we imagine a culture in which they'd accept it as "moral"?? Of course not! A culture may consider such behavior as "moral", but how many human beings would like to live in such a culture? When leftist idiots try to pull this moral-equivalence bs on us, put them in their place with intelligence and logic. Leftists feel they're smart, yet they're wrong 100% of the time!

 

Fairly sure of yourself, so lets see .. interesting assertion - "Those with intelligence will understand. Leftists will NEVER understand." - appeal to emotions as no one would want to admit to not being intelligent enough to understand and then a generalization .. not a good start.

and this is relevant how exactly, please show me where I even enter into the relative measures of different cultures. I'd suggest reading my post again, but of course that won't make any difference to your inability to see how you comment is irrelevant to the actually debate.
Explain to me how my comment stating a fact that in answer to this "If you subscribe to the popular postmodern concept of moral relativism, there's no such thing as evil. It's all just a difference of opinion"
is not factually correct.

and again how is this relevant to my comment, please show me where I advocate acceptability of such a culture .. whether the moral differences is acceptable is not the debate here, just that fact that there are moral differences.

Third time in a row that you have made assertions that have nothing to do with the debate, so again I'll explain that the debate is not about whether some moral differences are acceptable, just the fact that they exist. What rightist extremists try to pull by spewing words never even spoken by someone else as carte blanche truth is nothing short of total dishonesty and when you actually get round to disputing my comments by actually stating something of relevance to the comments then perhaps you may actually be moving towards intelligence and logic.

Now would you like to try again and dispute that moral judgement is relative and not absolute, try to stay on track this time and not just spew out irrelevant comments.

 

Pfft...because the Lord is against it like in Numbers chapter 5:

21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

Aww crap. Wrong verse.

 

IF the only point you were trying to make was that "some" people believe nothing is "moral" or "immoral", I agreed with you in my very first paragraph. In that paragraph, I stated, "The poster correctly points out that morality and immorality is judged by individual cultures, and that cultures often view the definitions differently." I didn't even try to debate that claim, and indeed I accepted your claim as being factual.

The comments that I made after agreeing with you were all relevant to the concept or "moral equivalence". My comments explained why that concept is idiotic, and why it must be unacceptable in our American culture. If you agree that my comments are correct, then there's indeed no need to debate them. Do you agree that a concept which advocates that nothing should be considered "moral" or "immoral" is NOT acceptable in our culture? If that is what you believe, then you and I are in agreement.

 

It has been explained to you a million times but you won't accept the answer. Science tells us when a new human life starts. Oh why would you have been called evil? LMAO

You condone abortion up until natural delivery. Even some of your pro-aborts here on this forum see the inhumanity in this position. They won't admit it however and run when they are pressed on this issue. How barbaric is killing a living human child at nine months in the womb, simply because it resides in the woman body...? To you...snipping the back of the spinal column is nothing bad....for others the action is horrendous, evil, it shows humanity at its worse. And you wonder why people don't embrace your radical call for death? LMAO

- - - Updated - - -

BRAVO....A GOOD HIT....A DARN GOOD HIT.

 

I don't know if thre's any "leftist-aborters" in here but there IS an ultra-conservative aborter.