Abortion dialogue I've been having...

[fr0d0]

You continually confuse morality with law tav. Your moral choice can never be removed. If the law says it's legal to keep animals in cruel conditions I still can make a moral decision as to whether that's right or not.

FUCKING EXACTLY.

Although your analogy misses the mark a bit, that's what pro-choice is about - giving the person every choice available to them, including the choice of whether to terminate the pregnancy. Your morality remains intact, and you don't have to do anything if you don't want to. Easy, huh?

Sorry I missed out this other diversion: secular morality.

The point is... you still have an actual moral choice despite what the law says. Secular morality should be pretty much in line with secular law don't you think?

Pro choice then would be the right to disregard the law as well? Surely we should all have the right to act on our own morality based on our own history that could conceivably include every option... after all who are you to limit what someone else thinks?

Pro choice means ignore morality, in your definition.

If the law forbids you from being an atheist you still have a moral stance which cannot be denied.

And?

And you still have the choice on what you consider to be moral. No one can take that away from you.

You continually appeal to emotion. "Ban abortion" ...really?

Emotion? Read what he fucking wrote.

"Consider a far more effective method: ban all abortions except for those related to rape, incest, the health of the mother or that of her unborn;"

Yes, ban abortions is what he said.

His context was level headed discussion. Yours is hate fuelled idiocy.

As is every other person in history.

Your personal opinion. Irrelevant.

People don't have varying moral values? Do we, as a society have the same morals as one founded 3 thousand years ago?

1. it's an appeal to popularity.
2. It's factually incorrect: "every other person"
3. It addresses Secular Morality - not the subject here

You're widening the field to confuse the issue. From a specifically Christian viewpoint:
1. no
2. no
3. God is taking the moral choice
4. no

You said "the religious", not some subset of an interpretation of a doctrine of a denomination you particularly belong to.

Words mean things.

The subject here is Christian morality. Did you forget that?

Typical obfuscation from you there as usual.

Morality = balls. So is a ballsy action a moral one? Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? Proofread for context, then hit "reply".

Yeah. Real morality is about declaring a position. Your vague bullshit is pitiful.

"I know this is wrong but I don't know what you think or your history dictates your actions to be so anything goes".

Actually, it's more like "I consider this unfavorable based on my experience, but as I'm not in a situation for it to directly affect me in any tangible or practical way, I'm in no position to prohibit others from doing it based on my particular ideology, no matter how strongly I may feel about it."

Quite right. I wouldn't want your twisted view of morality imposed on anyone either. If that's how you concoct this, I'm in total agreement.

Confusion : Secular Morality isn't the subject

We can make this moral observation and you don't have to be too scared to face it. Be reasonable and don't assume anyone is trying to force feed you dogma like you try to feed it to them.

Here's a distinction.

1. Banning abortion based on religious doctrine is force-feeding dogma.
2. Making propagandizing shock videos that appeal to emotion, based on religious doctrine is force-feeding dogma.
3. Telling someone that their morals are inferior and their arguments are "without balls" because they don't agree with you, then advocating that everyone must conform to your standards is force-feeding dogma.
4. Providing choices in a matter that is multifaceted and allowing people to come to their own conclusions is not force feeding dogma.
5. Approaching the abortion issue with the realistic and demonstrably true notion that education trumps prohibition is not force feeding dogma.

1. If it's universally true that killing is immoral, how is this anything to do with religion? Your shifting fashionable view agrees with it, but you want to leave open everything to make it above the law, so that there can still be a choice, as you see it.
2. Making propagandizing statements that appeal to emotion, based upon a declared non stance is force feeding dogma.
3. If it's a universally accepted position, why not face up and state the position?
4. You think making a statement lessens anybody's choice and the compassion towards those making them?
5. Promoting anarchy is irresponsible. You actually are force feeding the notion that no one has any responsibility.

Your constant jibberish is both childish and sensationalist.