Is abortion ok

[fpgt72]

The most overlooked reality with the abortion debate is population growth or collapse.

We’ve seen what has happened to Europe and Asia with demographic winter. China made it worse with ONE CHILD policy by enacting forced abortions and infanticide, so that at least 100,000 million baby girls never made it past the delivery room, but were counted in their population records.

Had America not embraced the murderous policies of abortion since Roe v Wade, we would not need as many immigrants to come fill the labor force, and they would all speak English, having been raised in US homes with common experiences to their countrymen.

Instead, schools, academics, and media pushed hard with 2nd-wave feminism and right-to-murder policies that wiped out millions of Americans before they ever had a chance at life the rest of us had.

This has also contributed to the aging of the population with fewer new births being allowed life, in exchange for illegal immigrants who are then expected to do the work in their place, many of whom come with criminal records, disease, and no sense of kinship with US citizens.

What an epic disaster it has been.

You can make a moral argument that shows the blatantly-evil act of infanticide, but you can also look at the population and demographic math. Regardless of how you feel about the ethics or morality of murdering the innocent, you can’t make a sound argument about the math.

If you abort, you must import.

You GREATLY over simplify.

Your argument takes a very complex issue and ties it up in a nice little bow, too bad complex issues are never that easy.

You need to ask why.....and keep asking why until you get back to a base line and start fixing that. And realize that some things just can't be fixed.

NEVER EVER underestimate the power of your .gov in its ability to do pure evil.

Did you know that as late as 1972, we would let americans that had syphilis just let it run its course. Do nothing, just watch them and put down on paper just when this or that started to happen. The ability to cure it long in the past, but our .gov and all the people that cared so much about them just let it run and run from 1932 to 72. Quite a few different people in power during that time. Some of the Pres. knew of the program, some "did not". And some thought it was just fine.

I will link this one as the "official" .gov site is a little like reading the "official" .gov site on the MLK lawsuits by the King family.

about the USPHS syphilis study | Tuskegee University

about the USPHS syphilis study

www.tuskegee.edu

Now your .gov did this, zero shadow of a doubt. Let your mind wonder on abortion, and COULD there be a dark reason behind it.

 

[doubloon]

Who got to decide what southerners did with their property aka slaves?

Everything you have posted and every question you have asked is just more and more evidence that morality is fluid and subjective.

Every point you try to make and every "clever" question you attempt to ask is at odds with what you claim to be true.

 

[doubloon]

NEVER EVER underestimate the power of your .gov in its ability to do pure evil.

QFT

 

[quietmike]

Everything you have posted and every question you have asked is just more and more evidence that morality is fluid and subjective.

Every point you try to make and every "clever" question you attempt to ask is at odds with what you claim to be true.

What i claim to be true is democrats haven't changed a bit.

Past democrats used the power of government to force people to pick their crops and perform other menial tasks. They said slaves and native Americans didn't really count as people and could be killed w/o consequence.


Modern democrats use the power of government to force others to pay for their healthcare, welfare and all the other freebies. They say the unborn don't really count as people and can be killed w/o consequence.


Nothing has changed, dems have ALWAYS lived at the expense of others.

 

[A.sosa]

Trump make a very smart move putting it out that it's babes to be a state thing.
You get the government you vote for hence the life.

 

[doubloon]

Nothing has changed, politicians have ALWAYS lived at the expense of others.

So close and yet still do dumb.

 

[doubloon]

Trump make a very smart move putting it out that it's babes to be a state thing.
You get the government you vote for hence the life.

If I understand this correctly I do tend to agree abortion is a State issue and not a Fed issue.

I think the dice are still rolling on whether or not that move will be a good thing (freedom loving fiscally conservative perspective), long term for national results. National elections have turned into bipolar contests between two freedom hating groups that just want everybody else to obey their rules.

While the People are being polarized against each other with national distractions, States are already ripping apart 1A, 2A and 4A. The 5th, 6th and 7th are comfortably nestled in hell's handbasket. And we are one, maybe two, "conservative" riots away from gutting the 3rd.

 

[LRRPF52]

You GREATLY over simplify.

Your argument takes a very complex issue and ties it up in a nice little bow, too bad complex issues are never that easy.

You need to ask why.....and keep asking why until you get back to a base line and start fixing that. And realize that some things just can't be fixed.

NEVER EVER underestimate the power of your .gov in its ability to do pure evil.

Did you know that as late as 1972, we would let americans that had syphilis just let it run its course. Do nothing, just watch them and put down on paper just when this or that started to happen. The ability to cure it long in the past, but our .gov and all the people that cared so much about them just let it run and run from 1932 to 72. Quite a few different people in power during that time. Some of the Pres. knew of the program, some "did not". And some thought it was just fine.

I will link this one as the "official" .gov site is a little like reading the "official" .gov site on the MLK lawsuits by the King family.

about the USPHS syphilis study | Tuskegee University

about the USPHS syphilis study

www.tuskegee.edu

Now your .gov did this, zero shadow of a doubt. Let your mind wonder on abortion, and COULD there be a dark reason behind it.

I have gone down that road.

If you have mistaken me for someone who believes in the benevolence of government, then you haven’t ever heard a thing I’ve had to say about that subject, so I can let that pass.

Given the incentives for non-producers to crank out babies with no fathers in the inner cities, and incentives for college girls or late teen-early 20s girls to exterminate their babies, what would that imply about a governing body who wants more of each?

 

[quietmike]

So close and yet still do dumb.

A nice admission.
Is that why you can't refute any of my posts?

 

[fpgt72]

I have gone down that road.

If you have mistaken me for someone who believes in the benevolence of government, then you haven’t ever heard a thing I’ve had to say about that subject, so I can let that pass.

Given the incentives for non-producers to crank out babies with no fathers in the inner cities, and incentives for college girls or late teen-early 20s girls to exterminate their babies, what would that imply about a governing body who wants more of each?

Our .gov went down the forced sterilization road before, it would be foolish to think they would/are not doing it again, we had a good video on it a little bit ago.

 

[doubloon]

A nice admission.
Is that why you can't refute any of my posts?

Post something on topic and ask an intelligent question and I'll think about it.

 

[quietmike]

Post something on topic and ask an intelligent question and I'll think about it.

I've posted several and you dodged them all.
Once more, if you believe so fervently in an ideology, why can't you defend it?

 

[Rthur]

Post something on topic and ask an intelligent question and I'll think about it.

If a zygote was found on Mars would it be considered life?

R

 

[quietmike]

If a zygote was found on Mars would it be considered life?

R

Logic is so hard for some people. But a lifetime of experience tells them not to trust their own judgment.

 

[doubloon]

If a zygote was found on Mars would it be considered life?

R

Yes.

But not a baby or a person.

Would it be considered Martian life?

Not until it grows crops.

 

[quietmike]

Yes.

But not a baby or a person.

Would it be considered Martian life?

Not until it grows crops.

QED

I've posted several and you dodged them all.
Once more, if you believe so fervently in an ideology, why can't you defend it?

 

[theLBC]

 

[CaptArab]

I'll tell you this about abortion.

Someone I know well and his wife lost a baby at 14 weeks.

The wife delivered it at home and they buried it in a sacred undisclosed location on their farm.

Seeing little hands and arms on that 3 inch tall body and hearing the mother speak of the precious loving connection with the child made it 100% undeniably obvious that 14 week old child was every bit as image-of-god human as you and I.

If you do your research and confront the actual facts, look at pictures, and know what's in the womb and you still deny the humanity of the unborn, I truly pray for your soul because your conscience is so fully seared by sin you're almost irreconcilably damned.

 

[Rthur]

Yes.

But not a baby or a person.

Would it be considered Martian life?

Not until it grows crops.

Why stop at birth for inconveniences?
If alive and it will be born as a baby what is the disconnect?
Destruction of an Eagle egg is a crime punishable by a fine of 100k and up to a year in jail.
It's not an Eagle, what's the difference?

R

 

[quietmike]

Why stop at birth for inconveniences?
If alive and it will be born as a baby what is the disconnect?
Destruction of an Eagle egg is a crime punishable by a fine of 100k and up to a year in jail.
It's not an Eagle, what's the difference?

R

Logic is so hard for some people. But a lifetime of experience tells them not to trust their own judgment.

 

[doubloon]

Why stop at birth for inconveniences?
If alive and it will be born as a baby what is the disconnect?R

Your previous and ambiguous question upon which this series is building is based on only a zygote being found on Mars, presumed frozen otherwise it's dead and no life. It was an assumption on my part that you meant it was alive. If it's a dead zygote I'll have to change the first part of my answer to "No.".

Being only a frozen zygote it will not be born. It's "life" but it's not a baby or a person. No disconnect on my part.

The definition of "life" is a living organism as opposed to inanimate matter. The definition of life is not "baby" or "person". The disconnect is yours. Redefining words to suit your needs and support untenable positions in order to sway the gullible masses like @quietmike is a cheap tactic employed by politicians and con men.

Destruction of an Eagle egg is a crime punishable by a fine of 100k and up to a year in jail.
It's not an Eagle, what's the difference?R

The difference is simple.

The illegal destruction of an eagle egg by a person (not by a "life" or organism) is a crime, people commit crimes.

The destruction of an eagle egg by the eagle that laid it is an abortion and not a crime.

The destruction of an eagle egg by a non-person predator or disease is just the cycle of "life" and also not a crime.

This is not an exhaustive list of what is or is not a crime wrt eagle eggs.

The "morality" of destroying eagle eggs is different from the legality of destroying eagle eggs. But both are fluid and subjective.

 

[quietmike]

Your previous and ambiguous question upon which this series is building is based on only a zygote being found on Mars, presumed frozen otherwise it's dead and no life. It was an assumption on my part that you meant it was alive. If it's a dead zygote I'll have to change the first part of my answer to "No.".

Being only a frozen zygote it will not be born. It's "life" but it's not a baby or a person. No disconnect on my part.

The definition of "life" is a living organism as opposed to inanimate matter. The definition of life is not "baby" or "person". The disconnect is yours. Redefining words to suit your needs and support untenable positions in order to sway the gullible masses like @quietmike is a cheap tactic employed by politicians and con men.



The difference is simple.

The illegal destruction of an eagle egg by a person (not by a "life" or organism) is a crime, people commit crimes.

The destruction of an eagle egg by the eagle that laid it is an abortion and not a crime.

The destruction of an eagle egg by a non-person predator or disease is just the cycle of "life" and also not a crime.

This is not an exhaustive list of what is or is not a crime wrt eagle eggs.

The "morality" of destroying eagle eggs is different from the legality of destroying eagle eggs. But both are fluid and subjective.

QED

Logic is so hard for some people. But a lifetime of experience tells them not to trust their own judgment.

 

[Rthur]

Your previous and ambiguous question upon which this series is building is based on only a zygote being found on Mars, presumed frozen otherwise it's dead and no life. It was an assumption on my part that you meant it was alive. If it's a dead zygote I'll have to change the first part of my answer to "No.".

Being only a frozen zygote it will not be born. It's "life" but it's not a baby or a person. No disconnect on my part.

The definition of "life" is a living organism as opposed to inanimate matter. The definition of life is not "baby" or "person". The disconnect is yours. Redefining words to suit your needs and support untenable positions in order to sway the gullible masses like @quietmike is a cheap tactic employed by politicians and con men.



The difference is simple.

The illegal destruction of an eagle egg by a person (not by a "life" or organism) is a crime, people commit crimes.

The destruction of an eagle egg by the eagle that laid it is an abortion and not a crime.

The destruction of an eagle egg by a non-person predator or disease is just the cycle of "life" and also not a crime.

This is not an exhaustive list of what is or is not a crime wrt eagle eggs.

The "morality" of destroying eagle eggs is different from the legality of destroying eagle eggs. But both are fluid and subjective.

My intent was clear on first quote.

As an eagle can not reason as it can not decide an egg is an inconvenience.
As an accident, another point/action/result of actions.

What is the basis of "morality"?
Removal of life/willingly removing life isn't subjective or fluid.

As you placate the action of termination of life, why does the act of birth change the rules?
They are just as helpless as while in gestation.

Why not allow removal of burdensome/inconvenient children after birth?

How many children do you have?


R

 

[LuckyDuck]

Arizona’s Supreme Court ruled that a 160-year-old abortion ban can be enforced. Here's what the ruling means.

The Arizona Supreme Court has upheld a Civil War-era law banning abortions with one exception. Here's what that means for women in the state.

www.yahoo.com

Just saw this story- I know, I know- yahoo right.. well this is one network covering it that isn't behind a paywall. I don't have a dog in this fight either way but I'm sure tomorrow will be interesting while this is being... discussed.

I'm sure that there'll be a lot of media attention dedicated to this one state decision while other... news goes under the radar but figured it fit into this thread.

To everyone participating here- may the odds be ever in your favor & Happy Wednesday.

-LD

 

[Haney]

Why not allow removal of burdensome/inconvenient children after birth?

Removal ?

 

[Haney]

As an eagle can not reason as it can not decide an egg is an inconvenience.

You are looking like a fucking idiot .

 

[quietmike]

You are looking like a fucking idiot .

Looking as oppposed to being?
Thinking is hard for you, no?

 

[Fx51LP308]

Arizona’s Supreme Court ruled that a 160-year-old abortion ban can be enforced. Here's what the ruling means.

The Arizona Supreme Court has upheld a Civil War-era law banning abortions with one exception. Here's what that means for women in the state.

www.yahoo.com

Just saw this story- I know, I know- yahoo right.. well this is one network covering it that isn't behind a paywall. I don't have a dog in this fight either way but I'm sure tomorrow will be interesting while this is being... discussed.

I'm sure that there'll be a lot of media attention dedicated to this one state decision while other... news goes under the radar but figured it fit into this thread.

To everyone participating here- may the odds be ever in your favor & Happy Wednesday.

-LD

TBH, I am a little concerned about what this might do to Kari Lake. First, I don't know if she has the general numbers anyway (i.e. if all Republicans voted, could she win, or is the State too democratic)? Now, we have this complication, over which I'm sure the dems are salivating as it will truly boost democratic turnout. We have to hope the legislature acts quickly to pass something to overturn it. But with the current Gov,, I'm sure she'd veto it anyway just to stir the pot and stir up democratic turnout.

As for Kari, I'm sure that, no matter what happens, she'll continue to fight and run. And if DJT is elected President again, I'm sure he'll find a place for her in his cabinet if she doesn't win the Senate seat. I really hope she does, though. We need all the conservative Senators we can get.

 

[doubloon]

As an eagle can not reason as it can not decide an egg is an inconvenience.

The eagle metaphor was yours. I have no idea why you want to compare the habits of birds to humans but birds certainly do decide some eggs are an "inconvenience" and will cull eggs out of the nest they consider to be in excess or nonviable. Even after all the eggs are hatched ("born") birds will cull live chicks out of the nest for various reasons.

What is the basis of "morality"?

The basis of morality varies by locale and culture, it is fluid and subjective.

Morality where law of man is concerned is acting within the accepted standards of right and wrong as codified in the laws of man. The standards of right and wrong are set by the political machine driven by votes of the population or an oligarchy or a dictator. Granted, this is simplified.

Morality where religion is concerned is acting within the accepted standards of right and wrong as codified in the laws of "god" or "gods". The standards of right and wrong are set by various interpretations of the "word of god" transcripted by the hands of man or men. Again, simplified. Every religion pushes its own moral agenda which differs from religion to religion and sometimes from church to church within the umbrella of a particular religion. Not a single person who believes their particular brand of religious morality can prove its the correct morality. The morality of religion is only "truly" enforceable by the judgement of the "god" or "gods" who dictate them. Churches can kick people out who do not conform to the transcripted morality and I believe they should. Too many churches these days water down the enforcement of their own morality in the interest of attracting more "worshippers". Very few religions these days seem to take a hard line in protecting the beliefs of their churches. Religion is being undermined just as quickly as politics.

Individual concepts of right and wrong vary greatly and their actions on earth are subject to enforceable judgement by the laws of man within the jurisdiction of their locale or voluntarily accepting those locales where the laws of "god" or "gods" have been adopted by those in power as the laws of man.

Even within the earthly and divine constructs of morality there are people who hold themselves to a higher "standard" of personal morality and this is a generally accepted and often respected practice within both the laws of man and the laws of "god" or "gods".

Morality is a concept based on accepted standards of behavior.

As you placate the action of termination of life, why does the act of birth change the rules?

The act of birth doesn't "change the rules". The rules establish the context of morality. One religion may dictate certain acts are "moral" where another religion may dictate that same acts are "immoral". Just like one local jurisdiction may dictate certain acts are "moral" but "immoral" in another.

Why not allow removal of burdensome/inconvenient children after birth?

AFAIK, this may be allowed within some jurisdictions and religions.

How many children do you have?

Pointless question, but 5.

 

[doubloon]

I'm sure that there'll be a lot of media attention dedicated to this one state decision while other... news goes under the radar but figured it fit into this thread.

I don't watch national news, the wife does so I am exposed bits and pieces when walking through the TV room but haven't noticed this so thanks for linking it.

Skimming over the drammentary sprinkled throughout the article I will say I consider the soon to be overturned 15 week rule to be better than the generally accepted 22 week rule from a fetal development point of view. even if not "morally" better. I believe excepting the case where the choice might save the mother's life is a good compromise from a political point of view. It is, afterall, a choice and no one is being forced to have an abortion and to suffer the wrath of their "god" or "gods".

None of these laws will impact my personal voting habits but I do have concerns about impacting the votes of people who might otherwise be "conservative" minded. I know quite a few "conservative" people who voted against Bush over stem cell research. The polarization on this one issue may be the straw that drives enough votes to teeter the totter in favor of libtard policies and everything that goes with it. The last four years being any example of what to expect I can't imagine how bad things could get with four or more years of the same and worse.

TBH, I am a little concerned about what this might do to Kari Lake.

Rightfully so, in my useless opinion.

Removal ?

Abort, "kill", "murder" ...

People tend to use "soft" words to make their points more palatable even if more vague.

 

[LuckyDuck]

I don't watch national news, the wife does so I am exposed bits and pieces when walking through the TV room but haven't noticed this so thanks for linking it.

Skimming over the drammentary sprinkled throughout the article I will say I consider the soon to be overturned 15 week rule to be better than the generally accepted 22 week rule from a fetal development point of view. even if not "morally" better. I believe excepting the case where the choice might save the mother's life is a good compromise from a political point of view. It is, afterall, a choice and no one is being forced to have an abortion and to suffer the wrath of their "god" or "gods".

None of these laws will impact my personal voting habits but I do have concerns about impacting the votes of people who might otherwise be "conservative" minded. I know quite a few "conservative" people who voted against Bush over stem cell research. The polarization on this one issue may be the straw that drives enough votes to teeter the totter in favor of libtard policies and everything that goes with it. The last four years being any example of what to expect I can't imagine how bad things could get with four or more years of the same and worse.


Rightfully so, in my useless opinion.


Abort, "kill", "murder" ...

People tend to use "soft" words to make their points more palatable even if more vague.

You do you (sincerely)- frankly I have no interest in being dragged into this argument that will lead to nowhere. There isn't going to be a single mind changed as a result of this thread- so I don't see the point in bothering. I've previously shared that I find it baffling that the alphabet people are amongst the staunchest "pro-choice" people you'll ever meet despite the 'uglies' that they bump have their own risks but pregnancy isn't one of them. You pointed out that they have hetero friends that are worried- I don't exactly buy into that but ok- I'll accept it.

I also take issue with the hypocrisy on a philosophical level that if a pregnant woman is murdered that the defendant is charged with two murders (the woman and their fetus). Because in this instance it's two lives but when it becomes "my body, my choice" it for some reason isn't a death but female empowerment. I'm neither on either side of this but just calling out the hypocrisy is all in the courts.

On that thread- the woman holds 50% of the "ingredients" but has "100%" of the legal determination of whether to bring that fetus/baby comes to term and the man (I know these terms are apparently getting muddied due to hurt feelings) is also 50% responsible but has 0% say in this 'decision' but is '100%' on the hook financially should the 'empowered' woman decide to 'keep' the baby.

None of these points is what you're trying to argue and I get that but that's the reality of the whole abortion argument. It's a life when convenient in the courts and "just a cluster of cells" when we shift from a criminal perspective to a civil outlook and have been subjected to decades of conditioning to believe that somehow legalized infanticide is "female empowerment".



-LD

 

[doubloon]

You do you (sincerely)

Agreed and that's pretty much my whole point.

None of these points is what you're trying to argue and I get that but that's the reality of the whole abortion argument.

Can't even get that far and I agree the inequities in the decision process should be addressed. The law is imperfect which is why we have trials and juries and judges but even then a perfect outcome is not guaranteed.

Argue it if you want to but there's a strong amount of evidence suggesting that we're in late stage capitalism and instead of trying to fix it we're arguing about ...

100% and, it seems to me, even if some "win" the arguments/battles they're focused on at the polls they may lose the "war". As a society we are on tilt.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Agreed and that's pretty much my whole point.



Can't even get that far and I agree the inequities in the decision process should be addressed. The law is imperfect which is why we have trials and juries and judges but even then a perfect outcome is not guaranteed.


100% and, it seems to me, even if some "win" the arguments/battles they're focused on at the polls they may lose the "war". As a society we are on tilt.

Like I said previously- not trying to throw stones at you but at the end of the day- abortion is quite literally killing a fetus (a developing baby) and justified for a number of reasons and the #1 argument of which is inconvenience to the "mother" that others (not you particularly sir) would sell as "female empowerment". Sex without consequences! Even I can appreciate that much.

However to put it another way- they do what they want, how they want and if they get pregnant, they've got an option for that too. But that's all 'cool' because they're a 21st century women and will get that baby sucked right out of their uterus as if it was just a Dyson Vacuum.

No accountability here because that was like early 1900's problems are just- "girl power!" now.

And this is supposed to be progress as a society right?

-LD

 

[LRRPF52]

Our .gov went down the forced sterilization road before, it would be foolish to think they would/are not doing it again, we had a good video on it a little bit ago.

Yup. California pioneered the modern Eugenics movement in the early 1900s, which "some guy in Germany" really admired and incorporated into his "New Man” genetic selection and cleansing program for a model society.

The problem is, the people that normally would have been sterilized are being rewarded for cranking out babies so that we have some instances where 6 generations can all appear in the courtroom, with the top 3 oldest being there for the same charges, and the great-great-great grandma is only 57 years old, and the youngest daughter (11) is pregnant with her 2nd child.

Meanwhile, more affluent people from productive families are encouraged to exterminate the negligent inconvenience of their promiscuity decisions so their school or work will not be affected.

Seems like a great way to destroy the future of a society, especially as illegals are then flooded into it on top of all that.

Even the organized crime scumbags who took over the US Government in the 1920s don’t benefit from that, because illegals and inner city welfare rats aren’t going to pay into the rackets.

The top 10 industries of the US don’t get their full pound of flesh (auto insurance, home insurance, retirement funds, real estate, etc.) as there is very limited participation in the finance sector from these demographics, and consumption of groceries and dairy isn’t substantial compared to employed households.

So who benefits? The top 10 industries control who gets elected or is allowed to run for office into the primaries.

Who are the main promoters of abortion? Radical leftists emotionally-driven and led by the feminazis, followed by academics in the institutions who lean heavily into the Marxist/Socialist ideology, anti-traditional religion, anti-family zealots.

We’re looking at Soviet Agitprop prime "social justice warriors".

 

[Limedust]

Yup.

 

[quietmike]

The eagle metaphor was yours. I have no idea why you want to compare the habits of birds to humans

Why do you lie like this?
Killing a human embryo is perfectly legal in some areas. Killing a (bald or golden) eagle embryo is illegal in every jurisdiction in the US.
Shouldn't humans rate a bit higher than birds?

 

[rtB]

The eagle laid the egg, so the embryo is outside the eagle, so killing it is murder. If the eagle still had the egg inside it, then killing the egg is ok, as long as you don't kill the eagle. I think female eagles should have the right to choose eggs. And we should give free housing to eagles. Well not all eagles, just eagles that choose to, hmmm eagles that abort eggs or eagles that hatch baby daddy eggs. Both! Free eagle eggs!

Do eagle eggs fry up with bacon like super tasty, or do you go to hell?

 

[Rthur]

You are looking like a fucking idiot .

Do you know why this ^^^ is funny?

R

 

[Rthur]

The eagle metaphor was yours. I have no idea why you want to compare the habits of birds to humans but birds certainly do decide some eggs are an "inconvenience" and will cull eggs out of the nest they consider to be in excess or nonviable. Even after all the eggs are hatched ("born") birds will cull live chicks out of the nest for various reasons.


The basis of morality varies by locale and culture, it is fluid and subjective.

Morality where law of man is concerned is acting within the accepted standards of right and wrong as codified in the laws of man. The standards of right and wrong are set by the political machine driven by votes of the population or an oligarchy or a dictator. Granted, this is simplified.

Morality where religion is concerned is acting within the accepted standards of right and wrong as codified in the laws of "god" or "gods". The standards of right and wrong are set by various interpretations of the "word of god" transcripted by the hands of man or men. Again, simplified. Every religion pushes its own moral agenda which differs from religion to religion and sometimes from church to church within the umbrella of a particular religion. Not a single person who believes their particular brand of religious morality can prove its the correct morality. The morality of religion is only "truly" enforceable by the judgement of the "god" or "gods" who dictate them. Churches can kick people out who do not conform to the transcripted morality and I believe they should. Too many churches these days water down the enforcement of their own morality in the interest of attracting more "worshippers". Very few religions these days seem to take a hard line in protecting the beliefs of their churches. Religion is being undermined just as quickly as politics.

Individual concepts of right and wrong vary greatly and their actions on earth are subject to enforceable judgement by the laws of man within the jurisdiction of their locale or voluntarily accepting those locales where the laws of "god" or "gods" have been adopted by those in power as the laws of man.

Even within the earthly and divine constructs of morality there are people who hold themselves to a higher "standard" of personal morality and this is a generally accepted and often respected practice within both the laws of man and the laws of "god" or "gods".

Morality is a concept based on accepted standards of behavior.


The act of birth doesn't "change the rules". The rules establish the context of morality. One religion may dictate certain acts are "moral" where another religion may dictate that same acts are "immoral". Just like one local jurisdiction may dictate certain acts are "moral" but "immoral" in another.


AFAIK, this may be allowed within some jurisdictions and religions.


Pointless question, but 5.

Nothing to do with bird habits, sorry you missed the point.

If morality is fluid you will always get the same result when the right "leader" comes along. Perhaps a short Austrian.

Of course right and wrong vary, there is always someone who desires to rub/break the rules at their convenience.

As you've copied and pasted morality definition totally missed the point. Wasn't looking for an academic definition.

Morality doesn't have adjustable context in the core standing, it only has been forced to be flexible at the desires of those with nefarious intent.

You've been given examples of protections given to embryonic animals. These are perfect examples of cellular life prehatch/birth.

Congrats, you've repeated the modernistic vision of life value.

Lastly, the reason you were asked about having children is most pertinent to this discussion.

Telling to see it alluded you.

Margaret and you have much more in common than I thought.

Perhaps a review of Pascal's wager is in order.

R

 

[doubloon]

Of course right and wrong vary, there is always someone who desires to rub/break the rules at their convenience.

...

Morality doesn't have adjustable context in the core standing, it only has been forced to be flexible at the desires of those with nefarious intent.

Your "core standing" is different from the "core standing" of others and you concede morality is flexible (fluid and subjective) in the same sentence where you state it is not. I agree "right and wrong vary" just as the rules of right and wrong vary.

Perhaps a review of Pascal's wager is in order.

I'm aware of it, I don't subscribe to it but in many of those who do it seems to produce desirable results without actual "moral" conviction. Not really any different than people following laws they don't believe to be valid for fear of "punishment" rather than it being the "right" thing to do.

You've been given examples of protections given to embryonic animals.

IIRC you gave that example and I responded to it. The majority of protections given to embryonic or other stages of animal development are not based on "morals", they are based on conservation or national/State mascot status. There are some laws/protections given to animals we could claim are based on "morals" but many of these laws vary by jurisdiction. If the laws/protections "based on morals" are fluid and subjective then so must be the morals.

Margaret and I may have a few things in common. I haven't researched her life or her habits to any depth but I do like her sentiment on at least one topic.

Margaret:

It is high time we stopped thinking politically as Republicans and Democrats about elections and started thinking patriotically as Americans about national security based on individual freedom

 

[Rthur]

Margaret and I may have a few things in common. I haven't researched her life or her habits to any depth but I do like her sentiment on at least one topic.

I agree, you do.

R

 

[quietmike]

I agree, you do.

R

 

[quietmike]

@Haney

 

[doubloon]

Who the fuck is Margaret Sanger?

 

[doubloon]

I agree, you do.

R

e-l-u-d-e-d

Buy a dictionary and read more.

 

[david walter]

Only people who were not aborted themselves think it’s ok to abort others.

Or is that oversimplified?

 

[quietmike]

Who the fuck is Margaret Sanger?

The woman who created Planned Parenthood to exterminate "human weeds".

 

[theLBC]

i just don't think we should be paying for people to butcher babies, much like i am not in favoring of paying for a slaughter in other countries.
and indeed we are paying for them, because money is fungible.
i wouldn't tell a girl she cannot do it, but fuck if i should be paying for it, even a tiny bit.

there are rationalizations for this, like almost everything.
wandering tribes in africa carried out infanticide at times, when another mouth to feed can endanger the entire tribe.
is that morally wrong? i cannot go along with that. it's survival.

 

[Rthur]

e-l-u-d-e-d

Buy a dictionary and read more.

You know why authors are paid greatly and editors aren't?

R

 

[Rthur]

Who the fuck is Margaret Sanger?

Read more.

R