[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Luminesa]

What is acceptable by the population isn't morality, and the two have little to do with each other. What if I define morality as an objective standard of conduct? Then will you admit that you are amoral, under that definition?

Nope.

I find amoral the people who say "Oh, I'll pray for you" when someone is in desperate need because they've lost their job. The atheist who pays the rent for them with no expectation of anything in return and certainly no precious little sayings about God's plan is FAR more moral.

But this thread is NOT about God, so move on.

A Christian could do that too, you know. But whatever, gotta get that last petty statement in before moving on, I guess.

[Luminesa]

This is still not a convo for the abortion thread, but more for the Christian thread. Also I was only pointing out that either on this version or another, all three of those points have already been answered. For a short answer, however, a painter has the freedom to take back or hide whatever they themselves have made. God made us. Therefore God can take us back or do what He wants. Kinda like how a parent might say, “I put you in this world, and I can take you out of it!” But literally. Especially since Christians believe He created everything. But again, Christian thread. Thanks.

So, you just said you can take a child out of this world, because you made it.

I can’t. I was saying God takes the idiom (or popular saying) literally, because He made the world. But again. Christian thread. Thank you.

[Thepeopl]

You're missing the point. Popular opinion doesn't change anything, no matter how popular.

Poppycock. The Betamax was the superior video tape technology of the day, but because more people bought the lower priced VHS machines, VHS became the video technology of the 70s-80s.

VHS became the video technology of 70/80 because of porn being made on VHS format. Betamax really didn't allow porn.

[Katganistan]

Outright ban, without exception. If it’s rape, punish the rapist, don’t slaghter the innocent. If the mother dies, the rapist is the murderer, not the child. Murdering children is never justifiable, and especially not because people wanna do whatever they wanna do without consequences coming back to bite. Time to end irresponsibility.

Like this irresponsible policy of punishing or killing women?

Cite both of those claims.

Cite yours. It's common sense that if something is illegal, than less people will do it, especially less people who are just getting an abortion because they don't want a child at the time.

You made the assertions: the responsibility for backing it up is yours.
Of course, you can't, and we both know it, because it's simply appeal to emotion and woman-bashing, again.

Soc libs are of course nonsense believers.

However I do also want to remind non-libs that in the Middle Ages exposure of infants to cause them to die was a widely practiced method to control population.

In human history kids were often deliberately killed when there were too many of them. Without killing kids a society would have to cull adults especially young women instead.

Wrong. You kill women, and you basically kill your ability to maintain population.

https://www.britannica.com/story/the-ef ... ild-policy

"As sons were generally preferred over daughters, the overall sex ratio in China became skewed toward males. In 2016 there were 33.59 million more men than women.

Because of the preference for sons, there was a rise in the number of abortions of female fetuses.
The number of female babies killed, abandoned, or placed in orphanages increased as a result of the policy....

Even after the one-child policy was rescinded, China’s birth and fertility rates remained low, leaving the country with a population that was aging too rapidly as well as a shrinking workforce."

I'm an eugenicist so yes I agree with you but for a very different reason. I simply recognize that we can't afford to do away with culling altogether yet. We need better tech to afford that. Give us another 40 years.

Make pro-choice supporters go under sterilization treatments and hysterectomies. Abortion is just a branch of antinatalist philosophy, therefore if you support it, be part of it.

Cut your balls off first.

The same could be said of yours, and correctly so. Morality. Is. Subjective. It changes from person to person. There is no objective morality. You rail against the status quo because the morality presented by it is counter to your own morality. You try to claim that your morality is 'objective' in an attempt to give it additional standing compared to your opposition, but in reality doing so only demonstrates that no such thing can truly exist.

The fundamental difference between your "morality" and mine is that I claim that mine is objective. If I'm wrong, than everything I've said is more or less crap. If I'm right, then you'd have been better off following my morality than yours, because it would be correct.

You're wrong.
That was easy.

While we're talking about prevention of pregnancy, I'll point out that abstinence-only sex-education is linked with higher rates of teen pregnancy.

Gee, funny how that happens.

But why is it, though? That's the thing I don't understand.

Have you ever told a teen "don't"?

[Neanderthaland]

Gee, funny how that happens.

But why is it, though? That's the thing I don't understand.

Have you ever told a teen "don't"?

Well, there's that.

Plus, I mean, "we'd really like you to just ignore a billion years of evolution-honed instinct."

[Galloism]

Have you ever told a teen "don't"?

Well, there's that.

Plus, I mean, "we'd really like you to just ignore a billion years of evolution-honed instinct."

We could use Fortnite-based sex Ed.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Seriously, Kat, is it really necessary to make six posts in a row instead of making one long post?

[Grenartia]

Well, there's that.

Plus, I mean, "we'd really like you to just ignore a billion years of evolution-honed instinct."

We could use Fortnite-based sex Ed.

I just fucking cringed.

Seriously, Kat, is it really necessary to make six posts in a row instead of making one long post?

I mean, I've done both on various occasions, and gotten shit for both.

[Katganistan]

2) The unborn aren't people.

/quote]

This kinda urked me, the unborn are still in fact people, they are fetuses which is a person developing inside the womb, even if at the stage they are they cannot comprehend what is happening or remember anything. They are still a living human being.

Then science and language irk you.
They are human, but not people.

People have to be born live.

[Neanderthaland]

Well, there's that.

Plus, I mean, "we'd really like you to just ignore a billion years of evolution-honed instinct."

We could use Fortnite-based sex Ed.

[Katganistan]

I do also recall UK law mentioning people having to be born, but legal definitions aren't 100% perfect (as the 'corporations are people' thing shows).

the lay definition also isn't perfect, as 'theory' in the common definition of the word and a scientific 'theory' aren't the same. This could be one of the scenarios where the common use of a word and its meaning (or one of its meanings) aren't the same, so the case could be made that the common definition is incorrect.

Some dictionaries define human as a synonym of person, some have person and human being share each other in their definitions (i.e Human being = a person, person = a human being), which creates a loop of definitions.

It's a bit complex, to say the least.

Dictionary:
Human being

a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
Though granted, by this definition a parrot is also a human.

No. A parrot is a member of the family Psittaciformes. A human is a homo sapiens. They are completely different as the definition you quoted already points out.

[The Free Joy State]

Have you ever told a teen "don't"?

Well, there's that.

Plus, I mean, "we'd really like you to just ignore a billion years of evolution-honed instinct."

Oh, Neanderthaland, we all know abstinence-only education is as easy as ABC -- Abstinence, Babies, Chlamydia, Deprivation.

[Katganistan]

Kat, can you not Octuple post?

I post as I read, sorry.

[Katganistan]

Don't go there, really. God is a murderer. He drowned the world save Noah and his family and some animals. He sent the angel of death to murder every firstborn son of Egypt. And in Psalm 137:9 this is said of Babylon: "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"

You might not want to use your god as the arbiter of what is and is not murder.

That’s...not why He drowned the world, also we don’t even know how or why the flood specifically happened. Remember that Genesis is a theological book as much as it is a historical event. Also, possibly, a scientific event which may have happened naturally across the world. Also, the angel of death went because of the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart, not because He enjoyed taking back His own creations. Psalm 137 has been discussed before, it is speaking of the Israelites’ enemies saying this to the Israelites. These have all been discussed before. It’s almost like you don’t actually care what the Bible says, you just lash against it because otherwise you’d have to have a valid conversation with a Christian.

So every firstborn infant in Egypt was evil? Seriously? He murdered every infant, caused all their families grief, because of one man?

Yeah, that's definitely moral.

And I noticed you simply said "that's not why he drowned the world" when I gave no explanation, nor did you give a reason.

Again, do not tell us about God's morality and how he loves all the little children when clearly there are multiple examples where murdering children are A-Ok.

[Luminesa]

That’s...not why He drowned the world, also we don’t even know how or why the flood specifically happened. Remember that Genesis is a theological book as much as it is a historical event. Also, possibly, a scientific event which may have happened naturally across the world. Also, the angel of death went because of the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart, not because He enjoyed taking back His own creations. Psalm 137 has been discussed before, it is speaking of the Israelites’ enemies saying this to the Israelites. These have all been discussed before. It’s almost like you don’t actually care what the Bible says, you just lash against it because otherwise you’d have to have a valid conversation with a Christian.

So every firstborn infant in Egypt was evil? Seriously? He murdered every infant, caused all their families grief, because of one man?

Yeah, that's definitely moral.

And I noticed you simply said "that's not why he drowned the world" when I gave no explanation, nor did you give a reason.

Again, do not tell us about God's morality and how he loves all the little children when clearly there are multiple examples where murdering children are A-Ok.

No, and you’re just responding from emotion. Go to the Christian thread, like you said. You don’t want to talk about Christianity since you clearly seem to know it well enough to screech about how God is a murderer.

[Luminesa]

We could use Fortnite-based sex Ed.

I saw Fortnite in that post and it made my skin crawl. >.>

[Luminesa]

We could use Fortnite-based sex Ed.

I just fucking cringed.

Seriously, Kat, is it really necessary to make six posts in a row instead of making one long post?

I mean, I've done both on various occasions, and gotten shit for both.

I think everyone who ever reads that line would cringe. GALLO WISHES TO TORTURE US.

[Katganistan]

Don't go there, really. God is a murderer. He drowned the world save Noah and his family and some animals. He sent the angel of death to murder every firstborn son of Egypt. And in Psalm 137:9 this is said of Babylon: "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"

You might not want to use your god as the arbiter of what is and is not murder.

It is always funny when atheists attempt to quote the Bible in order to "prove" their point.

The Psalm quote is entirely misread, "murder" has already been defined, thus it cannot be murder, according to your own arguments at that...

It's funny you assume I'm an atheist.

[Galloism]

That’s...not why He drowned the world, also we don’t even know how or why the flood specifically happened. Remember that Genesis is a theological book as much as it is a historical event. Also, possibly, a scientific event which may have happened naturally across the world. Also, the angel of death went because of the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart, not because He enjoyed taking back His own creations. Psalm 137 has been discussed before, it is speaking of the Israelites’ enemies saying this to the Israelites. These have all been discussed before. It’s almost like you don’t actually care what the Bible says, you just lash against it because otherwise you’d have to have a valid conversation with a Christian.

So every firstborn infant in Egypt was evil? Seriously? He murdered every infant, caused all their families grief, because of one man?

Yeah, that's definitely moral.

And I noticed you simply said "that's not why he drowned the world" when I gave no explanation, nor did you give a reason.

Again, do not tell us about God's morality and how he loves all the little children when clearly there are multiple examples where murdering children are A-Ok.

Notably Kat:

Words have meanings, and not just the ones you make up for yourself.

Murder is unlawful killing.
Legal things are lawful.
Abortion is legal.
Abortion is not murder.

Notably, acts of God are not considered murder under law presently, and likely weren’t in ancient Egypt either. Words have meanings, and not just the ones you make up for yourself.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Don't apologize. If the dictionary says that murder requires illegality, the dictionary is dead wrong. Whether or not something is murder is determined by the same who gave everyone the right to life, God Himself.

Don't go there, really. God is a murderer. He drowned the world save Noah and his family and some animals. He sent the angel of death to murder every firstborn son of Egypt. And in Psalm 137:9 this is said of Babylon: "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"

You might not want to use your god as the arbiter of what is and is not murder.

Psalm 137:9 is not a reference to God. I've told you this before.

[Katganistan]

So every firstborn infant in Egypt was evil? Seriously? He murdered every infant, caused all their families grief, because of one man?

Yeah, that's definitely moral.

And I noticed you simply said "that's not why he drowned the world" when I gave no explanation, nor did you give a reason.

Again, do not tell us about God's morality and how he loves all the little children when clearly there are multiple examples where murdering children are A-Ok.

No, and you’re just responding from emotion. Go to the Christian thread, like you said. You don’t want to talk about Christianity since you clearly seem to know it well enough to screech about how God is a murderer.

I'm not responding from emotion. It's this thing called logic. And feel free to go to the Christian thread yourself, since it appears your reason to be here is to make me the topic.

[Katganistan]

So every firstborn infant in Egypt was evil? Seriously? He murdered every infant, caused all their families grief, because of one man?

Yeah, that's definitely moral.

And I noticed you simply said "that's not why he drowned the world" when I gave no explanation, nor did you give a reason.

Again, do not tell us about God's morality and how he loves all the little children when clearly there are multiple examples where murdering children are A-Ok.

Notably Kat:

Words have meanings, and not just the ones you make up for yourself.

Murder is unlawful killing.
Legal things are lawful.
Abortion is legal.
Abortion is not murder.

Notably, acts of God are not considered murder under law presently, and likely weren’t in ancient Egypt either. Words have meanings, and not just the ones you make up for yourself.

Killing fetuses is murder.
Killing children is fine, when God does it.

Hypocrisy abounds.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It is always funny when atheists attempt to quote the Bible in order to "prove" their point.

The Psalm quote is entirely misread, "murder" has already been defined, thus it cannot be murder, according to your own arguments at that...

It's funny you assume I'm an atheist.

I don't know what else you could possibly be given how much you hate religion.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Notably Kat:



Notably, acts of God are not considered murder under law presently, and likely weren’t in ancient Egypt either. Words have meanings, and not just the ones you make up for yourself.

Killing fetuses is murder.
Killing children is fine, when God does it.

Hypocrisy abounds.

It's not killing. Life is sustained only by God's continual presence, so God merely withdraws his presence. Life belongs to God, not to people or animals. We are but dust given life by God.

[New haven america]

So every firstborn infant in Egypt was evil? Seriously? He murdered every infant, caused all their families grief, because of one man?

Yeah, that's definitely moral.

And I noticed you simply said "that's not why he drowned the world" when I gave no explanation, nor did you give a reason.

Again, do not tell us about God's morality and how he loves all the little children when clearly there are multiple examples where murdering children are A-Ok.

No, and you’re just responding from emotion. Go to the Christian thread, like you said. You don’t want to talk about Christianity since you clearly seem to know it well enough to screech about how God is a murderer.

I mean, he also genocided most of the human race and other animal life, burned down 2 cities killing the majority of their population, kill all the non-Jewish firstborns of Egypt, let Satan run loose and kill Job's entire family, etc...

Yeah, no, that sounds like murder to me.