Abortion dialogue I've been having...

[tavarish]

LOL!

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?

You have a choice to do what you want based on your personal circumstances. Why should a certain morality be representative in law? What exactly is secular morality? Please define it.

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?

As a society, we have built laws that reflect what we value as rights and uphold the ways we want to be treated and coexist with one another. These are imperfect laws and subject to change. They are not moral guidelines, they are societal framework that we must accept at a basic level in order to be a part of the society. We're not moving towards an absolute, but changing with the environment and adapting laws to fit certain circumstances. You certainly have the right to disregard the law, but there are certain consequences to these actions. You're painting a caricature of my argument in which I propose some kind of anarchy in which we should respect everyone's beliefs just for the sake of their feelings being hurt or something.

I'm advocating a woman's right to choose what she does with her body and the organisms necessarily developing from that body.

Pro choice means ignore morality, in your definition.

Pro-choice means to allow the woman the choice of what she does with her body. Morality can still be a part of the equation, no one's taking that away from you. You think abortion's immoral? Don't do it. It's just that easy.

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.

And how is this relevant?

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.

A level headed discussion in which he calls to ban 93 percent of abortions as a viable option. Let's take this into context here. We outlaw rape and murder - does that stop them from happening?

Please explain to me where I'm fueled by hate - anywhere.

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

It addresses the fact that morality is only as good as the society administering it. You fail to realize that values for human to human interaction evolves and changes over time. Morals entirely depend on a subjective interpretation of societal norms. Whether you think that it's a God-given attribute is on you, but the fact remains that criminalizing something for the sake of a certain group's moral value is not something that is advocated in a secular society such as ours, however you may practice your morality however you see fit - just don't impose it on anybody else as an objective reality.

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?

Which is why I said "words mean things", and you said "the religious". Would you like me to contest the nonsensical claim that "God is taking the moral choice" perhaps, and get off to an even further tangent?

The subject is the unrealistic and impractical nature of the pro-life campaign and how banning something doesn't solve the problem. I honestly do not care what you, or any ohter Christian considers moral, because that was never my fucking argument, nor will it be.

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.

LOL @ Real morality. Give me a fucking break. Would you actually like to ADD anything to the conversation, or just menstrate all over the thread parading your babynuts around?

"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

Which is exactly why I say morality is irrelevant. What exactly is your argument then?

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.

What the fuck are you talking about? Universally true that killing is immoral? Of course - because we don't live in a society that advocates wars and capital punishment. Not to mention that "universally true" implies universal morality - and you still have not demonstrated if such a thing exists. Moreover, morality has nothing to do with it, and your reply does nothing to contest my claim about religious individuals force feeding their dogma to those who don't want to hear it.

If I tell you that me and a bunch of my friends think eating lettuce is wrong, and we convince enough people that it's wrong, to the point where we try to ban the selling of lettuce in grocery stores, would that be justified on the grounds that we believe it to be an objective moral truth?

2. Making propagandizing statements that appeal to emotion, based upon a declared non stance is force feeding dogma.

How the fuck can you spread propaganda about something in which you have no stance?
What exactly would the dogma of a non-stance be?

I actually have fun reading vacuous crap like this.

I'd like you to cite anywhere in this text or any previous text in which I impose anything on anyone and prohibit anyone from doing anything.

3. If it's a universally accepted position, why not face up and state the position?

If it was universally accepted, we wouldn't be having this dialogue and it would be a non-issue. Fortunately, we don't live in a goddamn fantasy world driven by a single moral doctrine. Unfortunately, some people think we do.

4. You think making a statement lessens anybody's choice and the compassion towards those making them?

I don't care about lessening their burden, and I don't feel I have to be compassionate in this situation. My point is necessarily prohibiting a woman from making choices regarding her own body based on someone else's morality isn't a practical way to address the issue of abortion. Illustrating choices and educating the public is without a doubt the best method to preventing pregnancy and abortion.

5. Promoting anarchy is irresponsible. You actually are force feeding the notion that no one has any responsibility.

And yet another post in which you make a way off strawman of my argument. Did I say no one has responsibility? I'm actually advocating that people have the responsibility to safeguard themselves against unwanted pregnancies, so elective abortion doesn't happen, and I'm realistic enough to know that banning something doesn't solve a fucking thing.

But bravo, you made the connection between pro-choice and anarchy. It's like a game of six degrees of seperation, but Kevin Bacon is replaced with a heaping bowl of shit.

Your constant jibberish is both childish and sensationalist.

Here's a tip - don't read it then. You haven't contributed a damn thing to this conversation other than obfuscations and assertions that your morality is somehow universal. Get off your high horse for a second and stop trying to refute arguments no one fucking made.

I'm childish? Be the more mature one and walk away in that case. Certainly don't waste your time replying to my emotional tirades with your highly intellectual, point-filled arguments, I fear I won't be able to keep up with all the logic involved.

...