Man's morality

[Darkstar]

In the entire History of Man Might has always made 'right.'

In the sense that the victors can do what they want, but that doesn't really make them moral by default, even if they claim they are.

Did it? Can something go from being moral to immoral? I wouldn't think so, just our perception of it. In the case of a partial birth abortion, we would be dealing with an actual developed baby, as opposed to a fetus. I don't know why anyone ever supported it in the first place.

Seriously? If there wasn't support for PBA who performed these abortions? Who elected to have them? Why did a law have to be enacted in order to stop them in the US?

I said I didn't know why anyone would support it, I am not arguing that no one ever did.

Are we dehumanizing egg cells too? What if I kill an egg cell and a spermatozoa? Then is it murder?

Are babies egg cells?

Nope. I wouldn't argue that a fetus (specifically one that is not yet viable) is a baby. Get one that can survive outside the womb and we'll talk.

Another Example If A Man assaults a pregnet woman and the baby dies it is then refered to as a baby and the man is charged with Murder (It happened near where I live a few years ago) A baby's status/humanity has nothing to with gestation, but whether or not it is wanted by the mother. So tell me some more about this self righteous 'morality' you all use to judge God.

Hosea 13:16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open.”

I guess this doesn't count? Or is it because the fetus has sinned?

Absolutly not. Because i asked you to explain YOUR Morality, not examine Hosea 13. Can you answer this question without appealing to a red herring?

In that case, sorry. But said law is irrelevant to my own morality. As for why someone else might have that morality, I cannot offer an adequate explanation.

I meant morally, not in terms of how the abortion was carried out. Removing a fetus that is undeveloped is one thing, directly killing a viable fetus is another. Killing a viable fetus that survives an abortion would, or at least should be considered infanticide.

But, it's not or wasn't till just a few years ago. Again the viablity of a baby/fetus only has to do with whether or not the mother wants the child. If the child is unwanted the person in side the mother is deemed a fetus no matter what stage of development it was in, and therefore ripe for any abortion proceedure the 'doctor' deemed nessary. Infanticide only applies to wanted pre birth babies.

When I say 'viable' I mean a fetus that could survive outside the womb. I was making an argument that was irrespective to current or past law.

Again not do get into too deep to abortion it self but I am pointing to the sliding scale of man's 'morality' and justification of Something as Henous as killing babies. This is why i say man's standard is crap, and why YOU can not use the passage in Hosea to judge God. Why? Because the moral standard you are trying to use says God is 'immoral' for killing dump truck load of babies.

That doesn't validate or invalidate the moral standard, nor was it meant to. It was simply to show that god is a hypocrite.

I guess you're right that they can't be aborted. I was just curious, as "heartbeat" could not work as a universal definition of life.

A Heart beat only needs to be the human standard of Life as that is the focous of our conversation.

That could be debated, but I think you earlier said that you hadn't intended to get this deep into an abortion debate, so I'll leave this.

I won't disagree with that.

(You agree with the Golden rule becoming obsolete according man's morality if given enough time)

Eh, no. This is what I agreed to.

In a soceity with declining morals 'common sense' becomes less and less common. At some point, the 'golden rule' will also become obsolete.

I understand that you consider the moral standards of our current society to be declining, but I do not.

That's just it. No matter how careful one is, without a true standard to measure by, or a fix point like a bull's eye to shoot for, your just throwing darts at a blank wall. If you play darts without a board then you can claim no matter where the dart lands it is a bullseye, and where ever my darts lands to be out of bounds.

To an extent, I think you are right. But, I do not think the standard by which to gauge this is the Bible.

I don't think that is what the article was saying. I am pretty sure that it was arguing for easier access to early abortions to reduce late term abortions.

that was the final spin yes, but if you read the 'facts' of the study' it points to the reasons late term abortions were needed for low income women. None of which changes with easier access. The vast majority/71% of late term (5 months or later) Simply did not know they were prego.

Then they wouldn't be done if people figured out they were pregnant sooner, I guess. Not so much a moral problem as a "people need to be smarter" problem. Would making abortions harder to get result in fewer late term abortions? Probably not.

I whole reason for this thread is to point out that 'man's morality' is based on works, which many of you assume God's righteousness is also based on works/what you do. It's not. God's righteounsess is a standard so pure none of use can ever hope to reach it. Therefore we must seek the attonement Christ offers. When we do this then we take on the 'morality' of Christ. Meaning we become as sinless/blamless as Christ is to the Father.

And yet I don't think this so called pure standard is all that great.