Removing pro-birth people from the abortion debate

[weaver2]

So why are you obsessed about my beliefs. Just ignore my posts, go about your life and don't comment. It's called minding your own business.

You picked this battle, not me. What led you to believe that calling people immoral would result in an intelligent discussion of abortion.

 

[Ganondagan]

You picked this battle, not me. What led you to believe that calling people immoral would result in an intelligent discussion of abortion.

The truth hurts, doesn't it. Men as great as MLK Jr. and Dieterich Bonhoeffer have told us that we have a moral responsibility to oppose immoral actions and laws. Where do you think that moral responsibility comes from?

 

[Gordy327]

The truth hurts, doesn't it. Men as great as MLK Jr. and Dieterich Bonhoeffer have told us that we have a moral responsibility to immoral actions and laws. Where do you think that moral responsibility comes from?

From the society at the palrticular time. The same society that determines what these laws are. What was immoral in the past might be moral today, and vice versa.

 

[Ganondagan]

From the society at the palrticular time. The same society that determines what these laws are. What was immoral in the past might be moral today, and vice versa.

It's a good thing we have men like King and Bonhoeffer rather than you as human rights heros.

 

[Gordy327]

It's a good thing we have men like King and Bonhoeffer rather than you as human rights heros.

Are you discussing morality or rights? Pick one! I respect rights, especially women's rights and bodily autonomy. Clearly many, especially anti abortionists, do not as it conflicts with their sense of "morality."

 

[Lursa]

I did not admit any such thing. My response was a direct and specific response to a direct and specfic question. The question was: What part of ".... to secure these rights government are instituted...." do you think means your rights come from God.

My response was: The "endowed by their Creator" part.

Then you went on your usual wild goose chase about how the founding fathers constructed the Constitution, intending to downplay the importance of the phrase used in the Declaration of Independence making it clear our rights come from God, not the government.

I refuted the bold in my post. Your tantrums are getting tedious.

You can't bring yourself to admit the truth of those words "endowed by their creator", about which you demonstrate a remarkable lack of understanding.

And yet that's an admission of religious authority...which they then specifically chose to ensure was NOT included in the actual Constitution, very specific in the 1A.

There's no proof of a creator. It's a belief. They recognized that, not all even believed in any god, however they did recognize Locke's and religious philosophies to inform "rights" for "the people" in the Const. (Legally)

Men are "endowed"...cool, men are "born." There are no unborn "men" inside women. And even that wasnt taken for granted, later we had to go back and reinforce that "men" included blacks and women...remember? You never have answered my question because even tho here you want to discuss "legal aspects", you use it as an excuse to escape this: "why hasnt Congress amended the Const to recognize rights for the unborn? Or personhood?"

 

[weaver2]

The truth hurts, doesn't it. Men as great as MLK Jr. and Dieterich Bonhoeffer have told us that we have a moral responsibility to oppose immoral actions and laws. Where do you think that moral responsibility comes from?

You don't know squat about moral responsibility. If you did you would have understood Lursa's post at 359 and discussed those points instead of being righteously indignant that people don't look at the world through the lens of your conservative Christianity.

Responsibility is calling on government to support contraceptives not lobbying Congress to let corporations deny women insurance coverage for contraceptives they don't like. Spouting ridiculous religious crap that corporations have sincere religious feelings about irresponsible women is just thumbing your nose at the 1st Amendment and responsibility.

Somebody that imports stolen and fake artifacts to stock his Museum of the Bible is not someone that is big on honesty or responsibility or following the law.

 

[Lursa]

You don't know squat about moral responsibility. If you did you would have understood Lursa's post at 359 and discussed those points instead of being righteously indignant that people don't look at the world through the lens of your conservative Christianity.

Responsibility is calling on government to support contraceptives not lobbying Congress to let corporations deny women insurance coverage for contraceptives they don't like. Spouting ridiculous religious crap that corporations have sincere religious feelings about irresponsible women is just thumbing your nose at the 1st Amendment and responsibility.

Somebody that imports stolen and fake artifacts to stock his Museum of the Bible is not someone that is big on honesty or responsibility or following the law.

He completely dismissed my list of how abortion can be a very responsible choice...morally as well. Is it moral to ask other people to pay to help raise your kid if you cant or dont even want to have it (like in some states that deny abortions)? One that you believe you will harm thru drug use or drinking during pregnancy? Or bringing it into a home with violence and abuse? When there are already ~100,000 kids waiting to be adopted and dumping more in there unnecessarily means some of them WONT find homes?

He wont confront the moral aspects of the debate directly. All he has is a religious bumper sticker that requires knee-jerk acceptance and no examination.

 

[Ganondagan]

He completely dismissed my list of how abortion can be a very responsible choice...morally as well. Is it moral to ask other people to pay to help raise your kid if you cant or dont even want to have it (like in some states that deny abortions)? One that you believe you will harm thru drug use or drinking during pregnancy? Or bringing it into a home with violence and abuse? When there are already ~100,000 kids waiting to be adopted and dumping more in there unnecessarily means some of them WONT find homes?

He wont confront the moral aspects of the debate directly. All he has is a religious bumper sticker that requires knee-jerk acceptance and no examination.

None of the moral factors you've brought up compare to the fact that you think it's OK to kill an unborn human being to make live easier for another. Now I know what it was like for John Woolman to spend his life talking one on one with his fellow Quakers trying to convince them that slavery is evil and immoral.

I don't think it would be productive for us to discuss this futher.

 

[Lursa]

None of the moral factors you've brought up compare to the fact that you think it's OK to kill an unborn human being to make live easier for another.

That's not my moral position (and your lying is a sin) and you have been unable to address my moral argument and its points directly. You keep regurgitating the same religious bumper sticker that requires knee-jerk acceptance and no examination.

I don't think it would be productive for us to discuss this futher.

See ya. You shame God by being unable to actually address it and support His Word. And from what you've written, you dont know it.

 

[weaver2]

I don't think it would be productive for us to discuss this futher.

Translation. I don't like it that people are allowed to have different opinions when it is so obvious that my opinion is the right one.

 

[Ganondagan]

From the society at the palrticular time. The same society that determines what these laws are. What was immoral in the past might be moral today, and vice versa.

You stared out right with "The same society that determines what these laws are"

But I think you failed with "What was immoral in the past might be moral today, and vice versa"


Government cannot determine morality. There are some people who, however , believe goverment does determine morality, but they're wrong. These are not people who have not much spent time trying to really understand our world. They've cut the tie between the secular world and the spiritual wolrd, replacing God with themselves.

 

[Gordy327]

You stared out right with "The same society that determines what these laws are"

But I think you failed with "What was immoral in the past might be moral today, and vice versa"


Government cannot determine morality. There are some people who, however , believe goverment does determine morality, but they're wrong. These are not people who have not much spent time trying to really understand our world. They've cut the tie between the secular world and the spiritual wolrd, replacing God with themselves.

I didn't say government determines morality. Moral standards change over time and culture. "Spiritual world" is just more religious nonsense without a shred of evidence. It's certainly irrelevant to morality or legality.

 

[Lursa]

You stared out right with "The same society that determines what these laws are"

But I think you failed with "What was immoral in the past might be moral today, and vice versa"


Government cannot determine morality. There are some people who, however , believe goverment does determine morality, but they're wrong. These are not people who have not much spent time trying to really understand our world. They've cut the tie between the secular world and the spiritual wolrd, replacing God with themselves.

Even the Catholic Church changes doctrine based on society.

"Pope Francis has acknowledged that society’s evolving conditions call for ongoing reflection on moral teachings—including birth control. In a 2022 interview, he emphasized that Catholic doctrine develops over time, but must do so “in the same direction,” referencing the 5th-century theologian St. Vincent of Lérins." link​

Funny...sounds like even Catholic 'morality' isnt objective.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Im so glad that we have the 3 top threads in the abortion forum all dealing with the same moronic question...

"When does life begin?"

Whata forum!

 

[weaver2]

Im so glad that we have the 3 top threads in the abortion forum all dealing with the same moronic question...

"When does life begin?"

Whata forum!

That's not even the real question. What people are actually discussing is personhood. When is a fetus a person upon whom legal, written, enforceable rights are conferred.

 

[Lursa]

Im so glad that we have the 3 top threads in the abortion forum all dealing with the same moronic question...

"When does life begin?"

Whata forum!

It's more that many anti-abortites are desperate for a simple, black and white answer to this debate. Esp. once many realized that their religious beliefs wouldnt work. (Sadly most take the lowest common denominator "simplistic" thought process to accommodate that. Their bias blinds them to even examining the other side openly)

But as often as they try to cling to objective science, it is not their black and white answer to the moral and legal questions around abortion. Biology takes no position on abortion at all.

They do tend to use the semantic churn to avoid the deeper issues.