(May 28, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Heywood Wrote: You're rationalizing your copout.
I take it that's a "no" to the question at the end of my post then.
(May 28, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Heywood Wrote: The position that it is immoral for you to impose your moral code on others is untenable.
Then provide an argument against it. Go ahead. I'll wait.
(May 28, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Heywood Wrote: If others thought it was morally acceptable to shoot gingers, would you not speak out against the shooting of gingers? Of course you would. But if your actions are consistent with your stated beliefs....you would remain silent. You would do nothing to stop them from shooting gingers because to do so would be an act of imposing your morality upon them.
Wrong, because their actions would be taking away the gingers' free will in a manner that could be avoided. The fact that you can't (or won't) understand my position doesn't make it a copout, or untenable, or wrong.
(May 28, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Heywood Wrote: You are not pro-life. You are afraid of telling others they are doing wrong.
I don't post much on this forum, so I'll let that one slide.
I am not afraid of telling others they are "doing wrong". I am telling you, right now, that you are "doing wrong". In fact, that's what I've been doing since I first responded to your response to my post.
I don't see a debunk of my tattoo analogy, nor my logic regarding the fact that fetus and mother are one. Am I to think that you accept those arguments as valid, but don't want to appear "weak" or whatever?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
![[Image: LB_Header_Idea_A.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i280.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fkk172%2FBlaziken_rjcf%2FLB_Header_Idea_A.jpg)