More ETHICAL Behavior By Abortionists - Page 2

Jefferson · 11-09-2006, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

It is a clear sign of over-emotionality when you make such blatantly untrue sentences.
Look up the word "murder" and figure out for yourself...
Scratch that. You'll never do it on your own. Not only does it require reading, but learning as well.

murder:
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Considering abortion is legal, your statement is just more hot air...

Yeah, that's good.

Murdering somebody is only wrong if there's some sort of civic law saying it's wrong.

Can you say, "Situation ethics", Adolf?

foundit66 · 11-09-2006, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Yeah, that's good.
Murdering somebody is only wrong if there's some sort of civic law saying it's wrong.
Can you say, "Situation ethics", Adolf?

1) Situation ethics is a reality whether you're intelligent enough to recognize it or not. It has nothing to do with "Adolf".
Let's say I kill a man. It could be entirely legal depending upon the situation.
If the man was trying to kill me, it would be self-defense.
If the killing was an unforseeable accident, it could be "manslaughter", if the state even decides to proceed with it.

2) Actually, my point is a little deeper than that.
You anti-abortionists start ranting about "murder" and it's meaningless. Not just because the state says it's legal, but at a much deeper fundamental level.
We disagree as to whether or not it is allowable. All calling me a murderer does is reiterate that you see abortion as unallowable. It doesn't explain why. It doesn't give an argument.
All it does is appeal to emotion, lacking any substantive argument.

3) Calling me "Adolf"?
You just can't separate your emotion from the subject, can you.

11-10-2006, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

1) Situation ethics is a reality whether you're intelligent enough to recognize it or not. It has nothing to do with "Adolf".
Let's say I kill a man. It could be entirely legal depending upon the situation.
If the man was trying to kill me, it would be self-defense.
If the killing was an unforseeable accident, it could be "manslaughter", if the state even decides to proceed with it.

2) Actually, my point is a little deeper than that.
You anti-abortionists start ranting about "murder" and it's meaningless. Not just because the state says it's legal, but at a much deeper fundamental level.
We disagree as to whether or not it is allowable. All calling me a murderer does is reiterate that you see abortion as unallowable. It doesn't explain why. It doesn't give an argument.
All it does is appeal to emotion, lacking any substantive argument.

3) Calling me "Adolf"?
You just can't separate your emotion from the subject, can you.

Do you believe in abortion on demand? regardless of the stage?

Jefferson · 11-10-2006, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

1) Situation ethics is a reality whether you're intelligent enough to recognize it or not. It has nothing to do with "Adolf".
Let's say I kill a man. It could be entirely legal depending upon the situation.
If the man was trying to kill me, it would be self-defense.
If the killing was an unforseeable accident, it could be "manslaughter", if the state even decides to proceed with it.

2) Actually, my point is a little deeper than that.
You anti-abortionists start ranting about "murder" and it's meaningless. Not just because the state says it's legal, but at a much deeper fundamental level.
We disagree as to whether or not it is allowable. All calling me a murderer does is reiterate that you see abortion as unallowable. It doesn't explain why. It doesn't give an argument.
All it does is appeal to emotion, lacking any substantive argument.

3) Calling me "Adolf"?
You just can't separate your emotion from the subject, can you.

1. Let's say you kill a 1-week old baby. Let's say that that baby was born 11 weeks premature. Let's say that it SHOULD have been in its mother's womb for another 10 weeks. And as such, it is still - as people like you say - a non-human fetus. DID YOU MURDER THAT CHILD?

2. Your point has no point. All you're doing is trying to justify ending the life of pre-born babies - a completely innocent, totally defenseless child whose only crime was to be conceived inconveniently by two selfish people. You pro-death abortionists say it's not a child simply because you do not WANT it to be a child. You do NOT want to begin staring in the face the fact that you are murderers.

3. I will continue to call you "Adolf" when write do Adolf Hitler crap. And while you're at it, why not do a little research on Margaret Sanger - the poster child for abortion, and founder of Planned Parenthood. Specifically, look into her connections with Nazi geneticists and doctors. Then ask yourself if you really want to be counted among bastards like her.

sgtdmski · 11-27-2006, 02:00 AM

There are no simple answers to this debate. At some point we must decide whether what we do is morally right. Whether we get our morals from religion or through humanistic design, in the end we have to decide if abortion meets our beliefs.

Arguing whether a fetus is a life or not, whether it can survive without assistance or not, or whether the rights of one individual outweighs the rights of another will not suffice. It is easy to consider a fetus as nothing more than a lump of tissue, and to say that a woman's reproductive rights should be weighed higher. However, problems continue to arrise in this discussion. In the Terry Schiavo case, a point was made that an individual should have the right to die with dignity. Time and again people asked what kind of existence would she have had? Does this truly matter.

Seriously, consider the precedence we are setting. The courts allowed Terri to die because of the existence she would have had, who is to say in the future this will not be expanded. A child is born with Downs Syndrome, what poor existence they will have, let us put them out their misery now. A person is born into poverty, what a wretched existence they will have, let us end their agony now.

President Bush made a great rhetorical contribution to this debate. Do we wish to have a culture of life or a culture of death. More and more we are slipping toward that culture of death.

dmk

Observer · 12-03-2006, 10:22 AM

foundit66!

Quote:

It is a clear sign of over-emotionality when you make such blatantly untrue sentences.
Look up the word "murder" and figure out for yourself...
Scratch that. You'll never do it on your own. Not only does it require reading, but learning as well.

murder:
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Considering abortion is legal, your statement is just more hot air...

So, because a law was passed it somehow makes it right? Homosexuality is STILL against the law in some states...used to be in ALL the states. How does that law set with you, foundit? Is it a good law? Should it still be enforced? It all depends on which end of the law you're on, doesn't it? I take it you're against capital punishment, too? That, too, is LEGAL. In case you're not able to distinguish the difference, capital punishment is for a wrong committed.

An unborn child has committed no wrong. Therefore, there are no grounds for capital punishment for an unborn baby. NOW it is the shedding of innocent blood.
Joe 3:19 -
Egypt shall be a desolation, and Edom shall be a desolate wilderness, for the violence against the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land.

More scriptures on "innocent blood".

America, too, will become a desolation.

Proverbs 6:16 There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: 17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, 18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, 19 a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers. (NIV)

foundit66 · 12-03-2006, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Observer

foundit66!
So, because a law was passed it somehow makes it right?

That's not what I said at all.
I said it wasn't "murder", and murder is classified by the LEGALITIES of the situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Observer

Homosexuality is STILL against the law in some states...used to be in ALL the states. How does that law set with you, foundit?

You are woefully ignorant on issues you pretend knowledge on.
Lawrence v Texas struck down ALL homosexuality laws. It is not illegal to be gay, or to have gay sex, ANYWHERE in the U.S.

The law is a non-existent one, so it sets fine with me Observer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Observer

It all depends on which end of the law you're on, doesn't it?

Actually, that would be more along the lines of FURTHERING the discussion.
The over-emotionality I was talking about often involves somebody accusing another person of being a "murderer", and THAT'S IT. No real discussion or presentation of position takes place. Just accusations of "murderer" and little more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Observer

I take it you're against capital punishment, too? That, too, is LEGAL. In case you're not able to distinguish the difference, capital punishment is for a wrong committed.

Actually, I'm for some forms of capital punishment. I just think it is overused in our society.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Observer

An unborn child has committed no wrong. Therefore, there are no grounds for capital punishment for an unborn baby. NOW it is the shedding of innocent blood.

Terry Schiavo's blood was "innocent" as well. She did nothing to deserve to die.
You keep referring to this in simplistic and one-dimensional views. Women who have abortions are not doing it because of "capital punishment", and your attempt to throw that skewed perspective into the mix is most bizarre.

Nobody is saying that the abortions are occurring because of a known "guilt", so this whole line of arguing is inane and pointless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Observer

America, too, will become a desolation.

Sing it from the rafters Reverend Phelps!
< end sarcasm >

But seriously, do you revel in the thoughts of such a desolation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Observer

Proverbs 6:16 There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: 17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, 18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, 19 a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers. (NIV)

Gee. And homosexuality is nowhere on that list.
Thanks for the verse. I'll keep it in mind for those who can't seem to get their prejudice for that issue out of their minds.

Observer · 12-03-2006, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

That's not what I said at all.
I said it wasn't "murder", and murder is classified by the LEGALITIES of the situation.

You are woefully ignorant on issues you pretend knowledge on.
Lawrence v Texas struck down ALL homosexuality laws. It is not illegal to be gay, or to have gay sex, ANYWHERE in the U.S.

The law is a non-existent one, so it sets fine with me Observer.

Actually, that would be more along the lines of FURTHERING the discussion.
The over-emotionality I was talking about often involves somebody accusing another person of being a "murderer", and THAT'S IT. No real discussion or presentation of position takes place. Just accusations of "murderer" and little more.

Actually, I'm for some forms of capital punishment. I just think it is overused in our society.

Terry Schiavo's blood was "innocent" as well. She did nothing to deserve to die.
You keep referring to this in simplistic and one-dimensional views. Women who have abortions are not doing it because of "capital punishment", and your attempt to throw that skewed perspective into the mix is most bizarre.

Nobody is saying that the abortions are occurring because of a known "guilt", so this whole line of arguing is inane and pointless.

Sing it from the rafters Reverend Phelps!
< end sarcasm >

But seriously, do you revel in the thoughts of such a desolation?

Gee. And homosexuality is nowhere on that list.
Thanks for the verse. I'll keep it in mind for those who can't seem to get their prejudice for that issue out of their minds.

Hmmm....why did you feel the need to defend homosexuality? We are debating abortion, remember

But, since you seem to want to adhere to those verses, here are a few more for you:

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

And you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

But since you're not a Christian and don't believe there is a God, you don't have to justify your actions, much less use the Bible in an attempt to justify your behavior. You can live any way you want, but there will be a day of reckoning. Just remember that.

foundit66 · 12-03-2006, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Observer

Hmmm....why are you defending homosexuality?

Because it is attacked.
Martin Luther King Jr defended blacks. Why? Because they were unjustly attacked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Observer

Since you seem to want to adhere to those verses...

Actually, that's a false statement.
I could care less about "adhering" to your mythology. There is no point in it.

I just find irony in what people "claim" to believe in, and what the book they claim to believe in actually says...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Observer

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Oh yes. My FAVORITE argument of all time...
The bible is true, because it SAYS it is...
What more proof do you need???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Observer

But since you're not a Christian and don't believe there is a God, you don't have to justify your actions...

Actually, my "actions" need a reason for why they should be condemned in the first place...
Why should I "justify" my "actions" when there is no real reason for them to be questioned in the first place...
(And no. Your "religion" does not count as a valid reason because of freedom of religion...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Observer

... much less use the Bible in an attempt to justify your behavior.

I don't believe in the Bible, so why would I use it to justify my "behavior"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Observer

You can live any way you want, but there will be a day of reckoning. Just remember that.

Rrrriiiggghhhttttt...
I should "remember" another myth promulgated by your religion, and be afraid of that.
Are you capable of arguing on OBJECTIVE facts?

Nichole · 01-12-2007, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Yes, that's right. Just throw the babies in the garbage and burn them with the rest of the trash.

These abortion providers are some real gems, aren't they?

Hospital admits to burning aborted babies in waste incinerator | the Daily Mail

What else can the hospital do with these aborted fetus's? The mother doesn't want it, should the hospital, or Government pay for a funeral?

Should it be expected that the taxpayer fork out millions of dollars each year, just so the 1.5 million aborted babies can be buried, instead of incinerated? When should we start holding funerals? When a fetus is aborted at 5 months, or should we hold funerals for fetus's still the size of a grain of rice?

All aborted babies would be handled with dignity. No one is just going to throw the baby away, like he or she is worthless. They are treated with respect, just like the deceased or dying. They are incinerated much like people are when we choose to be cremated. What is so bad about aborted babies being incinerated?

What do you propose we do?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode