William Barr: Religion is Under Attack

ffreeloader

Well-known member
Her body her choice.

And that to you is moral.... How about the life of the child? To you it counts for nothing. It's there to be killed if a woman so desires. That's murder, not a choice between two equal outcomes. I find that kind of "morality" despicable. It devalues life to the point of meaninglessness. Why don't we just say all murder is acceptable? It's just a choice on the part of an individual. Nothing immoral about that, at least not in your mind.

The weakest, least able to defend themselves, are obviously fair game for killing in your set of "morals".
 

Lon

Well-known member
Actually, the data is quite amenable to analysis in many ways.
Agree, but with no other stats, you've no history in which to compare thus we cannot write our own. We can look at it in the scope of historical abortions but it has only been wide-open since the 80's. There is a difference from inference vs. history and again, we don't get to write it. It is always given in hindsight and by others.



It's reality. So not open to change. But of course the historic trend can change.
The debate here isn't over observance, but rather what fits the definition of historic. There is no possible way but to predict because you and I cannot write it. History isn't done this way. It will be up to others long after we are gone.



Lon, it's always written by the winners who participated. You want a history of the Albigensians? How about Aztecs? Guess who got to write them.
Right, but the definition isn't 'history' it is 'commentary.' There is a difference. The next generations will either buy or reject what we spin. That is when it will be history.



Being a veteran, I get to do exactly that. Still working on a one-liner.

And I see it as a good thing that more people prefer to have a child than to abort it. Even if they aren't married.
:think: Next of Kin as far as I've ever heard. I've officiated enough of these to know you can write it by your life, but your kin will write it regardless. I do thank you for your service, but that isn't where my heart and life are for my own epitaph. I'm aiming for something higher.
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
And that to you is moral.... How about the life of the child? To you it counts for nothing. It's there to be killed if a woman so desires. That's murder, not a choice between two equal outcomes. I find that kind of "morality" despicable. It devalues life to the point of meaninglessness. Why don't we just say all murder is acceptable? It's just a choice on the part of an individual. Nothing immoral about that, at least not in your mind.

The weakest, least able to defend themselves, are obviously fair game for killing in your set of "morals".

Who stated anything about equal outcomes? It's immoral to force a woman to give birth against her will. No, it's not an upstanding moral choice to abort ...nor is the forced alternative just. It's a tough, serious PERSONAL decision for a woman. Simply making loud proclamations bemoaning a lack of "equal outcomes" and "murder" is sophomoric, revealing the ill-informed, biased modus of typical anti-choice vitriol.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Who stated anything about equal outcomes?

So the outcomes are not equal, in your mind?

You missed it, quip. Try again:

How about the life of the child? To you it counts for nothing. It's there to be killed if a woman so desires. That's murder, not a choice between two equal outcomes. I find that kind of "morality" despicable. It devalues life to the point of meaninglessness. Why don't we just say all murder is acceptable? It's just a choice on the part of an individual. Nothing immoral about that, at least not in your mind.

The weakest, least able to defend themselves, are obviously fair game for killing in your set of "morals".

Are they, quip?

It's immoral to force a woman to give birth against her will.

No, quip, it's wrong to kill a baby in his mother's womb. If that means that a woman must carry the baby to term, then so be it, and if she doesn't want her child at that point, she should let someone adopt. But killing the baby is murder.

No, it's not an upstanding moral choice to abort

Telling women that it's not wrong to kill their innocent child is immoral.

There is NEVER a situation where it is OK to kill a baby in his mother's womb.

...nor is the forced alternative just.

You're question begging, trying to make it sound like having a baby is the most unnatural thing in the world. The "alternative" here (even though it is no alternative at all) is in killing the baby, and the default option (as if there were any other), and the one that women for the past seven thousand years have chosen, is to carry the baby to term and give birth.

It's a tough, serious PERSONAL decision for a woman.

When the choice is between carrying a baby to term, versus murdering one's own child, the choice should ALWAYS be to let the child live.

Simply making loud proclamations bemoaning a lack of "equal outcomes" and "murder" is sophomoric, revealing the ill-informed, biased modus of typical anti-choice vitriol.

This coming from the sophomoric, ill-informed (or just willfully ignorant), biased modus of typical, anti-life, vitriolic quip.

Why do you hate babies so much?

Do you know someone who killed their own baby in their womb, or worse, did you yourself convince someone to do so?

Does the life of the baby in a mother's womb mean so little to you?
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
So the outcomes are not equal, in your mind?

You missed it, quip. Try again:



Are they, quip?



No, quip, it's wrong to kill a baby in his mother's womb. If that means that a woman must carry the baby to term, then so be it, and if she doesn't want her child at that point, she should let someone adopt. But killing the baby is murder.



Telling women that it's not wrong to kill their innocent child is immoral.

There is NEVER a situation where it is OK to kill a baby in his mother's womb.



You're question begging, trying to make it sound like having a baby is the most unnatural thing in the world. The "alternative" here (even though it is no alternative at all) is in killing the baby, and the default option (as if there were any other), and the one that women for the past seven thousand years have chosen, is to carry the baby to term and give birth.



When the choice is between carrying a baby to term, versus murdering one's own child, the choice should ALWAYS be to let the child live.



This coming from the sophomoric, ill-informed (or just willfully ignorant), biased modus of typical, anti-life, vitriolic quip.

Why do you hate babies so much?

Do you know someone who killed their own baby in their womb, or worse, did you yourself convince someone to do so?

Does the life of the baby in a mother's womb mean so little to you?

Opinion duly noted.
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
Who stated anything about equal outcomes? It's immoral to force a woman to give birth against her will. No, it's not an upstanding moral choice to abort ...nor is the forced alternative just. It's a tough, serious PERSONAL decision for a woman. Simply making loud proclamations bemoaning a lack of "equal outcomes" and "murder" is sophomoric, revealing the ill-informed, biased modus of typical anti-choice vitriol.

So, a woman can play the field, get pregnant, and then decide she is inconvenienced by the coming child so just kill it is the solution. She has no responsibility to the child, just to her own self. That's pure selfishness and pure immorality. Of course she has a responsibility for the life she helped bring into existence. To say her only thought should be of herself is very revealing as to your personal ethics/morality. Or rather your lack of personal ethics/morality. You who preached empathy at me has zero empathy for the truly helpless. All you care about is that a woman might be inconvenienced due to the choices she made and if that inconvenience can be removed by murder, kill the kid.

It's really interesting to see you reveal your own moral depravity and your disregard for human life. The fact that you think it's more immoral that woman be held accountable for her own actions than for her to murder her own child shows a complete lack of morality on your part.
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
How about answering the questions you were asked?

I have. Throughout the years I've covered all the rhetoric spewed forth from the ranks of the TOL anti choicers...it's a broken record. Yours is more of the same: moral declaration sans substance.
Don't feign debate JR...you simply desire a platform for a diatribe.

Been there, done that.
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
So, a woman can play the field, get pregnant, and then decide she is inconvenienced by the coming child so just kill it is the solution. She has no responsibility to the child, just to her own self. That's pure selfishness and pure immorality. Of course she has a responsibility for the life she helped bring into existence. To say her only thought should be of herself is very revealing as to your personal ethics/morality. Or rather your lack of personal ethics/morality. You who preached empathy at me has zero empathy for the truly helpless. All you care about is that a woman might be inconvenienced due to the choices she made and if that inconvenience can be removed by murder, kill the kid.

It's really interesting to see you reveal your own moral depravity and your disregard for human life. The fact that you think it's more immoral that woman be held accountable for her own actions than for her to murder her own child shows a complete lack of morality on your part.

Re: above.
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
Re: above.

So lack of morality on your part means we are making emotional arguments. LOL. You've made yourself quite clear. You have no consideration for human life. You think that being held accountable for a person's actions is more immoral than murder. I got ya.
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
So lack of morality on your part means we are making emotional arguments. LOL. You've made yourself quite clear. You have no consideration for human life. You think that being held accountable for a person's actions is more immoral than murder. I got ya.

Ahhh...The (presumptuous) ad hom tactic. Fail: guilt by association fallacy. Didn't we cover the 'choice' issue a few post back? Meh. How quickly reason gets abandoned by way of emotion.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
Ahhh...The (presumptuous) ad hom tactic. Fail: guilt by association fallacy. Didn't we cover the 'choice' issue a few post back? Meh. How quickly reason gets abandoned by way of emotion.

Reason your way past this, if you can - human life begins at conception
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
Reason your way past this, if you can - human life begins at conception

Who's denying that?
You seem to be implying some impassioned precept, which is not a rational position but rather a conveniently biased declaration.

While conception of this life begins in a woman's womb.

It takes two to tango. Use your power of ratiocination to accept this fact.
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
Ahhh...The (presumptuous) ad hom tactic. Fail: guilt by association fallacy. Didn't we cover the 'choice' issue a few post back? Meh. How quickly reason gets abandoned by way of emotion.

Haven't you learned yet that your position is completely untenable? I associated you with abortion? LOL. You've made multiple posts defending the position that it is more immoral for a woman to be held accountable for her actions than it is to murder her own child. And that is my associating you with abortion and a lack of ethics/morality? That has to be one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen anyone make. The evidence is all over this thread that you have placed your own self in association with abortion/murder. Any guilt by association is of your own making.

Just how stupid do you think people are? Did you really think that you arguing for abortion for the last few hours wouldn't be noticed by anyone and you could just make any old claim you wanted? Well, you probably did as evidenced by the outrageous claims you've made over the last few hours.
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
Haven't you learned yet that your position is completely untenable? I associated you with abortion? LOL. You've made multiple posts defending the position that it is more immoral for a woman to be held accountable for her actions than it is to murder her own child. And that is my associating you with abortion and a lack of ethics/morality? That has to be one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen anyone make. The evidence is all over this thread that you have placed your own self in association with abortion/murder. Any guilt by association is of your own making.

Just how stupid do you think people are? Did you really think that you arguing for abortion for the last few hours wouldn't be noticed by anyone and you could just make any old claim you wanted? Well, you probably did as evidenced by the outrageous claims you've made over the last few hours.

You can do better than provocative language and a straw man.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Agree, but with no other stats,

In the last 47 years, there's voluminous data, with many millions of pregnancies,each a data point. So we can be very sure.

you've no history in which to compare thus we cannot write our own.

I doubt if you could find a historian who wouldn't consider a half-century to be enough for a history.

We can look at it in the scope of historical abortions but it has only been wide-open since the 80's.

Roe vs. Wade was 1973, and there is history in some states before that. And of course data from other nations as well.

There is a difference from inference vs. history

History is data and inference is what we learn from it.

and again, we don't get to write it.

A half-century seems like a lot of history to me, given the mass of data we have from those decades.

It is always given in hindsight and by others.

History is written by the winners, only much later do we second guess them.

The debate here isn't over observance, but rather what fits the definition of historic.


History of the Gulf War

Since the Arab oil embargo of 1974, Western states have attempted to find alternatives to their growing dependence on imported oil. However, the West did a better job of negotiating regional security arrangements to protect the leading sources of oil imports than it did in finding substitutes. With the fall of the Shah of Iran and the Iranian hostage situation, the West lost its only regional military base. This loss caused an increased risk that the Gulf could be dominated by a radical anti-Western power (Cordessman 1-2). When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the West moved quickly and decisively to strike down the enemy that would threaten its allies and deprive it of its supply of oil.

https://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/history-gulf-war

Historians would be puzzled by your assertion.

https://www.nrlc.org/abortion/history/

There have been several generations in the past half-century.

Next of Kin as far as I've ever heard. I've officiated enough of these to know you can write it by your life, but your kin will write it regardless.

Walking in several national cemeteries, I see a lot of them written by the deceased.

I do thank you for your service, but that isn't where my heart and life are for my own epitaph. I'm aiming for something higher.

Perhaps, some of them wanted to say something for their families. My personal favorite: "Don't wreck my truck."
 
Last edited:

ok doser

Well-known member
...How quickly reason gets abandoned by way of emotion.

Reason your way past this, if you can - human life begins at conception

Who's denying that?

if you're not denying that, you're denying the value of that human life


You seem to be implying some impassioned precept ...

is that what you seem to be imagining that I'm doing?

which is not a rational position but rather a conveniently biased declaration.

:yawn: strawman

While conception of this life begins in a woman's womb.

now you're getting it! :thumb:

It takes two to tango.

and?
 
Top