Political Crossfire Forums

beachbum bob · Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:13 pm Post subject:

why is the compulsion raging in people who think their moral doctrine is THE MORAL DOCTRINE????

what makes the US so fricking special is the fact that having different beliefs and principles are tolerated thru the constitution and those right-leaning/ holy roller believers wish to super-impose their value system on the whole country....which is why we the constitution written the way it was

I don't what some damn religion telling me that using a condom is evil or eating meat on friday is evil or buying beer 10:00am on sunday morning is evil or I gotta fast from sunrise to sunset or eating pork is evil or not having my food blessed is evil....or any other NONSENSE I DON"T BELIEVE IN, since IT ONLY AFFECTS ME AND MINE.....if you don't like it, I promise I won't force it on you because I don't stay awake at night worrying that some wacko is all bent out shape because I want to buy a beer on Sunday morning......I don't need shepherding

I can judge what evil is for myself, not some wacko religious crazies, they can decided the evil for THEMSELVES....and what they have to do stop THEMSELVES from doing their evil......

Trajan · Joined: 16 Jul 2005 Posts: 6584 Location: SE PA

ikari wrote: mwm1331 wrote:
Both legal, as the US declared war, and moral, as we freed millions from an oopressive dicatator.

There is no formal declaration of war from Congress, we did not declare war.

mwm1331 wrote: Yes he does, thats why hes willing to fight for peoples right to live free.

It's not his fight, the Constitution does not charge the government with the ability to "spread democracy".

And these so called chem weapons were artillery shells from 1990-91. IOW, harmless.

The AntiChrist · Joined: 22 Mar 2005 Posts: 2240 Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Trajan wrote: ikari wrote: mwm1331 wrote:
Both legal, as the US declared war, and moral, as we freed millions from an oopressive dicatator.

There is no formal declaration of war from Congress, we did not declare war.

mwm1331 wrote: Yes he does, thats why hes willing to fight for peoples right to live free.

It's not his fight, the Constitution does not charge the government with the ability to "spread democracy".

And these so called chem weapons were artillery shells from 1990-91. IOW, harmless.

Exactly. What is the shelf life on those anyway? Maybe we can dig up some satellite photos of "WMD" processing plants, and some unidentified chatter to go along with those ancient shells.

mwm1331 · Joined: 31 Mar 2005 Posts: 2629

Joost wrote: mwm1331 wrote: What sets human life apart from animals? Simple only humans have the abillity to ask or answer that question.
The right to life can not be taken away, it can only be given away by ones actions. A fetus is innocent, tookie williams wasn't, to compare the two is facetious.

Fetuses can't ask that question. So can't babies. People in coma can't. Do they have the right to live, and if so, why?

That you even have to ask joost simply shows the moral bankruptcy in Europe.

A fetus will be able to answer the question, has the inherant pontiential to do so, a person in a coma had the abillity and might again.
A dog never will.

Joost · Joined: 25 Jan 2006 Posts: 35

mwm1331 wrote: That you even have to ask joost simply shows the moral bankruptcy in Europe.

ohnos!

Quote: A fetus will be able to answer the question, has the inherant pontiential to do so, a person in a coma had the abillity and might again.
A dog never will.

So it is not about the ability itself, but the possible gaining of that ability, even if that ability is never used. Could you explain me why that's so important?

mwm1331 · Joined: 31 Mar 2005 Posts: 2629

Joost wrote:

So it is not about the ability itself, but the possible gaining of that ability, even if that ability is never used. Could you explain me why that's so important?

Like I said that you ask the question shows your lack of morailty.

Its very simple joost, The fetus is a human life.
To kill a human life for no reson other than you don'
t feel it deserves to live is wrong. If you can't see that, you really need to look in the mirror.

Gnostic · Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:16 am Post subject:

[quote="mwm1331"] Joost wrote:

Its very simple joost, The fetus is a human life.
To kill a human life for no reson other than you don'
t feel it deserves to live is wrong.

That is YOUR opinion and YOUR morality. And it's your opinion based morality you are trying to force upon another's body as well. Rather tyrannical, would'nt you say?

Maybe the whole thing boils down to one issue. Privacy. And your lack of respect for it and other people's right to it. Because if you kept your nose where it belongs, in your business and morals, then you won't know about what Joe Blow is doing down the street and it won't affect you one tiny iota, except to deny you your curious, inexplicable, incessant obsessions with other people's private lives and matters.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:19 am Post subject:

mwm1331 wrote: Joost wrote:

So it is not about the ability itself, but the possible gaining of that ability, even if that ability is never used. Could you explain me why that's so important?

Like I said that you ask the question shows your lack of morailty.

Its very simple joost, The fetus is a human life.
To kill a human life for no reson other than you don'
t feel it deserves to live is wrong. If you can't see that, you really need to look in the mirror.
Define human life, what makes a human alive and both human at the same time?

mwm1331 · Joined: 31 Mar 2005 Posts: 2629

[quote="Gnostic"] mwm1331 wrote: Joost wrote:

Its very simple joost, The fetus is a human life.
To kill a human life for no reson other than you don'
t feel it deserves to live is wrong.

That is YOUR opinion and YOUR morality. And it's your opinion based morality you are trying to force upon another's body as well. Rather tyrannical, would'nt you say?

Maybe the whole thing boils down to one issue. Privacy. And your lack of respect for it and other people's right to it. Because if you kept your nose where it belongs, in your business and morals, then you won't know about what Joe Blow is doing down the street and it won't affect you one tiny iota, except to deny you your curious, inexplicable, incessant obsessions with other people's private lives and matters.

Tyrannical? No I would say that you enforcing your morality on millions of innocent fetus's every year is tyranncial.

A waoman can do anything she want with her body the fetus is not her body though. It is its own body.l
Privacy? No one has a right to murder privately. Stop slaughtering millions of Americans every year, and I'll be happy to leave you alone.

mwm1331 · Joined: 31 Mar 2005 Posts: 2629

thefranzkafkafront wrote: mwm1331 wrote: Joost wrote:

So it is not about the ability itself, but the possible gaining of that ability, even if that ability is never used. Could you explain me why that's so important?

Like I said that you ask the question shows your lack of morailty.

Its very simple joost, The fetus is a human life.
To kill a human life for no reson other than you don'
t feel it deserves to live is wrong. If you can't see that, you really need to look in the mirror.
Define human life, what makes a human alive and both human at the same time?

What make sit human?
Human parents, genetics, orgas etc. Human as in a member of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Alive?
If it was dead it wouldn't need to be aborted, it would have naturally miscarried.

Now either of you, without resorting o theory, or morailty, or ethics, just prove two things to me.
That it isn't either human or alive.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:38 am Post subject:

mwm1331 wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: mwm1331 wrote: Joost wrote:

So it is not about the ability itself, but the possible gaining of that ability, even if that ability is never used. Could you explain me why that's so important?

Like I said that you ask the question shows your lack of morailty.

Its very simple joost, The fetus is a human life.
To kill a human life for no reson other than you don'
t feel it deserves to live is wrong. If you can't see that, you really need to look in the mirror.
Define human life, what makes a human alive and both human at the same time?

What make sit human?
Human parents, genetics, orgas etc. Human as in a member of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Alive?
If it was dead it wouldn't need to be aborted, it would have naturally miscarried.

So is a arm detacted from a person and kept alive a 'live human; , or prehaps a brain dead person kept alive?

What is 'alive' , if its mearly biochemical pathways preforming as normall, both of them would be 'alive'.

Quote:
Now either of you, without resorting o theory, or morailty, or ethics, just prove two things to me.
That it isn't either human or alive.
What are we to resort to then, card tricks?

Also you may want to note that its impossible to prove a negative.

mwm1331 · Joined: 31 Mar 2005 Posts: 2629

thefranzkafkafront wrote:

So is a arm detacted from a person and kept alive a 'live human; , or prehaps a brain dead person kept alive?
A brain dead person is still alive, and arm isn't.
Franz we have debated many topics, and I know you're better than this, this entire question was beneath you.

.

[quote]
What is 'alive' , if its mearly biochemical pathways preforming as normall, both of them would be 'alive'.
No, one is a part, the other is a whole.
Nice try though.

Quote:
What are we to resort to then, card tricks?

Also you may want to note that its impossible to prove a negative.

Then simply show what charcteristics of either Human, or Alive, they don't meet.

The AntiChrist · Joined: 22 Mar 2005 Posts: 2240 Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Gnostic wrote: Maybe the whole thing boils down to one issue. Privacy. And your lack of respect for it and other people's right to it. Because if you kept your nose where it belongs, in your business and morals, then you won't know about what Joe Blow is doing down the street and it won't affect you one tiny iota, except to deny you your curious, inexplicable, incessant obsessions with other people's private lives and matters.

:clap:

Chaos_Leviathan · Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 88 Location: Houma, LA

A fetus is not yet alive because it can not continue living without outside assistance. If removed from the mother's womb a fetus would die within seconds. A fetus cannot preform any of the basic functions of the human body with out assistance from the mother, such as blood circulation/ filtration. Once more you must also think of the life of an unwanted child forced upon a mother/ couple because of a ban on abortions. The child would almost certainly have mental problems, and may suffer abuse/ abandonment. And don't try to foist off that adoption myth on me not every child is adopted that is why there are so many foster homes in the united states.

Also comparing coma patients/retards and fetuses is comparing apples and oranges. Retards/coma patients have or have had the ability to think and may regain that ability. A baby doesn't have this ability till at least six week after birth. A fetus has the ability to have the ability to think.

I think that the real reason behind all of this antiabortion sentiment is an attempt to severely curtail sexual promiscuity and force people to marry at a younger age due to children born out of wedlock.

When will it be enough? Even if abortion is banned and all the mothers who now have abortions start putting their children up for adoption, what happens? A massive child care program for unwanted children. Force the mothers to keep them? And when the religious attempt to legislate sexual promiscuity by banning abortion fails what is next? A ban on birth-control because it prevents life that could be forming? And when that doesn't work, and we have rampant overpopulation problems as seen it third world countries such as china or India?

Oh wait i forgot that is the religious right's economic plan for the future, you know so we can once again be the sweatshop kings of the world.

Joost · Joined: 25 Jan 2006 Posts: 35

mwm1331 wrote: Joost wrote:

So it is not about the ability itself, but the possible gaining of that ability, even if that ability is never used. Could you explain me why that's so important?

Like I said that you ask the question shows your lack of morailty.

Its very simple joost, The fetus is a human life.
To kill a human life for no reson other than you don'
t feel it deserves to live is wrong. If you can't see that, you really need to look in the mirror.

That you don't answer the question shows your lack of debating skills.

Ok, since you obviously don't know what a good discussion is, let me explain the basics:

a) Someone makes a statement
b) That person gives arguments why his statement is true
c) The other person either agrees or disagrees
d) That person gives arguments why he agrees/ disagrees.

mwm1331 · Joined: 31 Mar 2005 Posts: 2629

Joost wrote: mwm1331 wrote: Joost wrote:

So it is not about the ability itself, but the possible gaining of that ability, even if that ability is never used. Could you explain me why that's so important?

Like I said that you ask the question shows your lack of morailty.

Its very simple joost, The fetus is a human life.
To kill a human life for no reson other than you don'
t feel it deserves to live is wrong. If you can't see that, you really need to look in the mirror.

That you don't answer the question shows your lack of debating skills.

Ok, since you obviously don't know what a good discussion is, let me explain the basics:

a) Someone makes a statement
b) That person gives arguments why his statement is true
c) The other person either agrees or disagrees
d) That person gives arguments why he agrees/ disagrees.

Joost, the simple truth is Killing a human because you don't believe it deserves to live is wrong. There is nothing to discuss.

mwm1331 · Joined: 31 Mar 2005 Posts: 2629

Chaos_Leviathan wrote: A fetus is not yet alive because it can not continue living without outside assistance.

Contradictory.
Either a fetus is not alive or it is.
It can not be both "not alive" and need its mother to "continue to live"

Chaos_Leviathan · Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 88 Location: Houma, LA

mwm1331 wrote: Chaos_Leviathan wrote: A fetus is not yet alive because it can not continue living without outside assistance.

Contradictory.
Either a fetus is not alive or it is.
It can not be both "not alive" and need its mother to "continue to live"

Fine then it is a parisite stealing life from the mother.

My meaning there was that it is not its own personal entity with a right to life (a.k.a. alive) untill it can survive without life support from the mother.

mwm1331 · Joined: 31 Mar 2005 Posts: 2629

Chaos_Leviathan wrote: mwm1331 wrote: Chaos_Leviathan wrote: A fetus is not yet alive because it can not continue living without outside assistance.

Contradictory.
Either a fetus is not alive or it is.
It can not be both "not alive" and need its mother to "continue to live"

Fine then it is a parisite stealing life from the mother.

My meaning there was that it is not its own personal entity with a right to life (a.k.a. alive) untill it can survive without life support from the mother.

I see so you feel the right to life is only to be extended to those who do not need external support for life.
So at what point would you say the fetus can support itself without help from its mother? 20, 21?

A new born also can not survive without life support. Food, shetler, etc.
So what?
Neither can those in comas, is it wrong to kill them?

By your logic I should have the right to kill anyone who rents a room from me becuase "its my house"

So tell me, how old were you when your mom told you you were a prarsite?

Chaos_Leviathan · Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 88 Location: Houma, LA

mwm1331 wrote: Chaos_Leviathan wrote: mwm1331 wrote: Chaos_Leviathan wrote: A fetus is not yet alive because it can not continue living without outside assistance.

Contradictory.
Either a fetus is not alive or it is.
It can not be both "not alive" and need its mother to "continue to live"

Fine then it is a parisite stealing life from the mother.

My meaning there was that it is not its own personal entity with a right to life (a.k.a. alive) untill it can survive without life support from the mother.

I see so you feel the right to life is only to be extended to those who do not need external support for life.
So at what point would you say the fetus can support itself without help from its mother? 20, 21?

A new born also can not survive without life support. Food, shetler, etc.
So what?
Neither can those in comas, is it wrong to kill them?

By your logic I should have the right to kill anyone who rents a room from me becuase "its my house"

So tell me, how old were you when your mom told you you were a prarsite?

No a newborn can survive without life support for extended periods of time. Some cultures used to leave their newborns on a hilltop over night to test and see whether it was healthy or not. Most of them survived. Newborns survive without the mechanical functions of life being preformed for them by their mother.

As for people in coma's if they are brain dead and require life support then... yes it is okay to let them die.

If you let me stay in you house you would have the right to evict me at any time you chose. If i died as a result that is not you problem.

As for your final comment I will ask you to refrain from personal attacks. This is a courtesy I have extended to you and would like to receive it in kind.