1: Yes, Catfish. And we shouldn't be. How are you not getting this?

2: Even if we were to recognize it, you do realize that it wouldn't change our stance, right? I mean... we're still in favor of abortion rights, even if we find the morality of it less than appealing. You aren't... you aren't actually making an argument at all...

(March 14, 2013 at 6:44 am)catfish Wrote: 1. Bullshit. We already legislate the matter.

An error on part of society - one hopefully soon to be corrected.

(March 14, 2013 at 6:44 am)catfish Wrote: 2. "Life" applies at a higher morality than "sexism". If you can recognise sexism against a "future person", you should recognise murder too.

a) Why would "life" apply at a higher morality? What is a higher morality?
b) Even if it is a future person, it's still not murder.
and c) As with sexism, even if I do recognize it, I still shouldn't have the authority to stop it.

Catfish doesn't do a very good job of making arguments. He makes random flailings and gurgling sounds.

Given that there are government officials who believe like catfish, he is correct in that it is legislated. And like those who would not permit abortion even in the case of the death of the mother, they too will disappear - hopefully in our lifetimes.

Life has always been a secondary issue. The primary issue has always been control and forcing others to obey a fictional world view, and the religious view of controlling women because God loves their vaginas more than anything else (based on bible laws), catfish is right - that control is still being legislated.

But we are evolving!

(March 14, 2013 at 8:32 am)EGross Wrote: .......the religious view of controlling women because God loves their vaginas more than anything else (based on bible laws), catfish is right - that control is still being legislated.....

Surely you meant to say "hates"? Or he wouldn't have designed them to tear all the way through to the arsehole during childbirth.

(March 14, 2013 at 2:03 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote:

(March 14, 2013 at 8:32 am)EGross Wrote: .......the religious view of controlling women because God loves their vaginas more than anything else (based on bible laws), catfish is right - that control is still being legislated.....

Surely you meant to say "hates"? Or he wouldn't have designed them to tear all the way through to the arsehole during childbirth.

Except that the bible paints a very clear picture of just how badly god treats the things he loves. Eviscerating vaginas (this has to be the name of a thrash metal band, by the way) seems pretty par for the course, on that score.

Love your avatar, btw.

Oi vey.

So, the "people" here wish to prove themselves more fucked up than they claim the God of the Bible is? - Check!
Do the "people" deny basic biology to support their views? - Check!
Legislating the value (and the start?) of individual life by the "people"? - Check!
Are "people" more offended by sexism than murder? - Check!

I'm all for raising the standards of what is legally considered a "person", I say we make part of the standard a minimum intelligence level. After all, there are some dumbfucks who aren't True Humans™ with any capacity for intelligence worth noting.

The dumbasses have a double standard if you haven't noticed. If any dumbass would kill or maim another "legal" person (even a fetus), their dumbasses would be responsible for their actions. However, let 2 dumbasses create a new life and one of them is allowed to kill and maim that new life? You either value life or you don't, and if you don't, you have no right making moral judgements on a person's reason (genkaus).

Murder = Unlawful killing, you total peasant.