Abortions

[UncleSam]

What this will basically come down to are the answers to two questions: When, exactly, does life begin, and are we allowed to kill those whose lives appear to have little value, or who are determined dangerous or unproductive by "society"(which is often the ruling class acting for "society" I might point out, same thing happened in the French Revolution. As the vast majority of people would agree(although apparently not Veedrock or CIM) that we should not be allowed to kill people because they are "unwanted", I think the answer to my first question is what the issue or abortion really comes down to, in the end. When, exactly, does "potential life" turn into "life", and do we have the right to exterminate "potential life" in everyday circumstances, in extradinary circumstances, or in no circumstances? Deck Knight appearas to be saying "in no circumstances", but I think he is in the vast minority there, and most can see that it makes sense for abortion to be legal in some scenarios(such as the "smoochum and electabuzz" scenario mentioned by losa). HOWEVER, "potential life" in all of it's forms is not, generally, allowed to be killed off under normal circumstances; it really comes down to whether or not you rooted for the Navi' in Avatar or the Corporation("potential life" versus human rights to money, prosperity, etc.), and surprisingly, it seems everyone comes out arguing exactly the opposite in the case of abortion. If one believes life is sacred, why shouldn't all life be sacred? On the other end of the spectrum, if one believes some life is sacred, why shouldn't all life be sacred? Just pointing out that the vast majority of people are total hypocrites. Personally, I think that all life is "sacred" unless it presents a clear and present danger to other life, but hey, I am just an insignificant speck on this ginormous(yes, it is a word) planet.

 

[cim]

First off that study proves nothing although it does seem fairly convincing. Assume that it is correct, there a lot of people that society would be "better off without". That doesn't give us the right to play God and start choosing who lives and who dies based on "the good of society".

The study is an excellent example of benefits to preventing unwanted pregnancies, through abortion or otherwise.

I'm not totally getting your point here. The fact is that results from embryonic stem cells are years away if they are ever going to be discovered. On top of that Embryonic stem cells have not even been shown to be more effective or practical than adult ones. You might say they have more potential but so far there's been nothing to prove that they are better.

You're making stuff up.

Besides, scientists wouldn't just "kill embryos" for fun...

I am not making straw man arguments. Everything I pointed out has actually been used in defense of abortion.

Not by any of us! So every argument ever used against or for anything can be attacked by any opponent at any time? I guess once I heard someone say they were pro life because they hated women, thus, all pro-lifers hate women. You misogynist pig. ;)

I have no problem making absolute statements because there is such thing as absolute truth.

"TRUTHINESS"

No seriously, an opinion is never "absolute truth".

This is a ridiculous statement to make. By this definition it should be legal to kill children until they can live by themselves.

Stop making slippery slope arguments. I pretty clearly made the distinction in my post between "a child" and "a fetus" and explained why I thought they were different. Thanks for trying to oversimplify my argument, though.

 

[WarriorPrince]

Aside from raped females, I think abortions are wrong. You make mistakes, and you live with them. Calling a child a "mistake" is kinda savage. I guess the child just jumped into her belly?? The mistake was having unprotected sex or sex without birth control (maybe the condom broke, or your birth controlled failed). You were taking those risks in the first place. It's humans playing God again. You can't get pregnant by mistake. Did she accidentally slip fall, rip off her clothes, and jump up and down on a man's privates?? I don't think so. There is no line to draw between when "it" is a human or not. When it becomes, it is. How can something that is living have "potential life" when it is already living (a fetus). I believe that all life is precious. Man can't create life. He can't taken something dead and make it live. When something is not living, it will never live. When something is living, it will live until it is not living (dead).

Personally, I think that all life is "sacred" unless it presents a clear and present danger to other life, but hey, I am just an insignificant speck on this ginormous(yes, it is a word) planet.

I agree.

 

[Dr. Attack]

You're making stuff up.

Show me one practical implementation of embryonic stem cells that is being used today.

Not by any of us! So every argument ever used against or for anything can be attacked by any opponent at any time? I guess once I heard someone say they were pro life because they hated women, thus, all pro-lifers hate women. You misogynist pig. ;)

My first post was not addressed specifically to anyone in the thread. I was making a general anti-abortion statement.

"TRUTHINESS"

No seriously, an opinion is never "absolute truth".

Your statement is false. If you say an opinion is never absolute truth than there can never be absolute truth. An opinion is absolute truth when it lines up with absolute truth (although I would argue that man's opinion is never the base for absolute truth). Absolute truth: Murder is wrong. If my opinion is that murder is wrong then my opinion in that case is absolutely true.

Stop making slippery slope arguments. I pretty clearly made the distinction in my post between "a child" and "a fetus" and explained why I thought they were different. Thanks for trying to oversimplify my argument, though.

Your reason for why they are different is frankly not very reasonable. I had already explained why that way of determining "life" was bad earlier in my post and I was just continuing that line of thought.

If you want to give me a reasonable difference between a fetus and a child and why one should not be killed and the other should then I would love to hear it.

 

[evolutia]

“Are you pro-choice or are you against abortions,

I'm pro-choice.

furthermore, do you believe there is some point in the development that should signify when an abortion should and should not be allowed?”

It's a bit tricky for me to give an absolute statement but ideally if the woman wants an abortion, I'd like to see abortions preformed before the 28th week. At that stage many babies can survive outside of the womb, though the baby would be considered in critical condition.

I'd also be against abortions(I don't even know if you can call them that or if it's allowed) at the 40th week. At that time the baby is completely viable to survive outside of the womb with outside care, unless it's a very serious reason (death of the mother).

there any other significant changes you would like to see in regards to this issue (such as if abortion clinics need to be more accessible to women)? Are you against it except for some special circumstances? If you yourself have had any experience in this subject, or even if you don’t I would thoroughly appreciate hearing your story or opinion.

The morality issue of this topic, the primary reason why so many of these arguments get heated and out of hand, I think needs to stop. One thing that people on both sides of the spectrum can agree upon is that the birthrate among teenages needs to be reduced. We need to instill values of personal responsibility in children and teens. We need to teach both abstinence and using protective measures when engaging in sexual activity. We need to talk about it. Who knows, perhaps if this type of intervention worked and I believe it can with enough effort from everyone perhaps, people's morals will change.

Do I like abortions? I don't. However with the current frame of the argument (moral reasons, religious reasons vs scientific reasoning) I don't feel like it's getting anywhere. I sometimes feel like people want to bring the debate to a standstill, so they can argue with reasonings that they know themselves won't change someones mind.

We need to focus on what both sides can agree upon, that is, reducing unwanted pregnancy's.

 

[Ancien Régime]

Because the duggars are sons of bitches. There is ZERO call for having that many kids when the population is booming so fiercely out of control.

sorry but this is a lie

Population levels are going to level off around 2050, and from there, start a deep, deep, deeeeeep downward crash. Most societies in the world are aging. Nearly every country that is close to developed is breeding below replacement rate, and the countries that aren't are shitholes where a large part of those kids die young.America is one of the few countries breeding above replacement, but it's trending downward too.
We need MORE Duggars, not less.

Natural rights are only created by interstate agreement, that is, exactly the same sort of discussions and legislative declarations that generate rights at a national level. Indeed, outside of the US (where treaties are self-enacting), natural rights do not exist within a country until they are codified by the domestic government.

wow holy fuck no

Natural rights exist a priori. Repeat after me. A PRIORI. A PRIORI. They exist PRIOR to law and human convention.

To contend otherwise begs the question, because "rights" that are created by interestate agreement are neither natural nor are they rights (because rights must be universal.)

There are three main secular justifications for natural law:

The evolutionary/biological argument: in general, persons who adhered to the principles of natural law tended to survive and pass on their genes to the next generation. Furthermore, it derives from the fact that humans are social, but not eusocial animals, who socialize, engage in trade, and think.

The pure reason argument: that natural rights are discoverable by pure reason and logic.

The observational argument: The universality of natural law is seen in the fact that in general, virtually all people adhere to the same ethical code to one extent or another. It is the rare person that, say, steals and kills without understanding that they are wrong in doing this (and don't even try to argue that humans need to be taught not to do this - we wouldn't have survived otherwise.)

In theory, the state exists to defend rights that already exist - if rights did not exist prior to the state, then the state has no justification for existing, other than the fact that it has the power to employ force to make others meet its dictates, and you don't have the right to object.

Nobody said a cancer cell or a sperm was not life. Are they human? I don't see any chromosomes there, so no. Again, the core of human uniqueness - DNA - is present from conception, and extends unto death.

 

[lati0s]

By the way, there are other benefits to abortions as well. Stem cell research, which I know you've piped about before as being bad so I won't draw you further into that, is just one example of a positive side effect.

I'm pretty sure most stem cell research centers get thier embryos from the excess of fertility clinics and not from abortions.

If one believes life is sacred, why shouldn't all life be sacred? On the other end of the spectrum, if one believes some life is sacred, why shouldn't all life be sacred? Just pointing out that the vast majority of people are total hypocrites. Personally, I think that all life is "sacred" unless it presents a clear and present danger to other life, but hey, I am just an insignificant speck on this ginormous(yes, it is a word) planet.

Do you cry when you step on an ant? are you a sociopath who kills people for fun? If you answered no to both of those questions you are clearly a hypocrite because either all life is sacred or no life is sacred.

Seriously though, the world is not black and white, and some things have more right to life than others. A fetus in the early stages of pregnancy is not intelligent, sentient, or capable of surviving on its own. I don't care if it is human, I assign its life less value because of these things so I think that it can sometimes be the right thing to get an abortion.

 

[Luduan]

Your statement is false. If you say an opinion is never absolute truth than there can never be absolute truth. An opinion is absolute truth when it lines up with absolute truth (although I would argue that man's opinion is never the base for absolute truth). Absolute truth: Murder is wrong. If my opinion is that murder is wrong then my opinion in that case is absolutely true.

What?

 

[Obsessed]

Your statement is false. If you say an opinion is never absolute truth than there can never be absolute truth. An opinion is absolute truth when it lines up with absolute truth (although I would argue that man's opinion is never the base for absolute truth). Absolute truth: Murder is wrong. If my opinion is that murder is wrong then my opinion in that case is absolutely true.

Could you rephrase what I quoted in English? I understood the rest of your post, but you seemed to slip into some foreign tongue here. I could really only understand the bolded part.

And I fail to see how "murder is wrong" is an absolute truth. There are people that think murder would be justified in some cases, such as going back in time and killing Hitler/Stalin/etc... For some people murder is not always wrong, therefore "murder is wrong" is not an absolute truth.

Aside from raped females, I think abortions are wrong. You make mistakes, and you live with them. Calling a child a "mistake" is kinda savage. I guess the child just jumped into her belly?? The mistake was having unprotected sex or sex without birth control (maybe the condom broke, or your birth controlled failed). You were taking those risks in the first place. It's humans playing God again. You can't get pregnant by mistake. Did she accidentally slip fall, rip off her clothes, and jump up and down on a man's privates?? I don't think so. There is no line to draw between when "it" is a human or not. When it becomes, it is. How can something that is living have "potential life" when it is already living (a fetus). I believe that all life is precious. Man can't create life. He can't taken something dead and make it live. When something is not living, it will never live. When something is living, it will live until it is not living (dead).

This whole post just reeks of "it is 100% the women's fault." I really hope you don't think that if a girl gets pregnant it is entirely her fault.

Also I hope you know that in many cases, the people that get abortions lack sex education, or got abstinence only education. Why should their life be ruined because a bunch of morons decided to take condoms/birth control out of the health curriculum? Abortion should be an option for these kinds of people. Of course, abortions wouldn't be needed as much if children received proper sex education.

I also fail to see why a women should be forced to deal with a potentially life ruining mistake when it can be easily fixed.

And ugh... clearly there is a line between what is and isn't "life" otherwise this debate would not exist.

As for your last few points: What does man's inability to create life (which is false, man has created life under laboratory conditions. There is also cloning. Mankind also can reproduce, thus creating new life), and inability to resurrect the dead have to do with life being sacred?

And someone already asked this (though the question was directed towards another person), but do you mourn the death of an insect? Do you feel that you commit murder any time you crush a bug? If not, why? Is not all life sacred? Just because a clump of cells will become human in a few months time does not mean that it is sacred.

 

[Morm]

I'll believe it when I see it, Ancien Regime. Projections are so easily skewed or incorrect. Not to mention our world could only stand to benefit from a population crash, so if that projection is correct- stay the course and disbar assholes like the duggars from sexing it up.

CIM, my point was pretty much that the babies are dependent on someone, which makes them a parasite nonetheless.

Dr. Attack, of course it's murder. There are cases where murder is totally justifiable though. Absolute truth? Truth varies, even in absolution, from culture to culture and person to person. Ironically, I bet you're the kind of person that would go to war to defend that absolute truth you just talked about.

 

[Tsunami]

And I fail to see how "murder is wrong" is an absolute truth. There are people that think murder would be justified in some cases, such as going back in time and killing Hitler/Stalin/etc... For some people murder is not always wrong, therefore "murder is wrong" is not an absolute truth.

Morally though, it still is. Your taking the life of another even if that person took millions more, you have committed the same crime as that person.

 

[MrIndigo]

Show me one practical implementation of embryonic stem cells that is being used today.

Cancer treatments are in use that use embryonic stem cells.

That's right. Embryonic stem cells CURE CANCER.

Your statement is false. If you say an opinion is never absolute truth than there can never be absolute truth. An opinion is absolute truth when it lines up with absolute truth (although I would argue that man's opinion is never the base for absolute truth). Absolute truth: Murder is wrong. If my opinion is that murder is wrong then my opinion in that case is absolutely true.

No, it's not. You don't understand what an opinion is. An opinion is a personal belief about a particular system. A fact is something that is objectively determinable about a particular system. You only claim murder is an absolute truth because you cannot separate the opinions you have been embedded with from childhood with fact. There is nothing inherently right or wrong about murder objectively. It is only that society rejects it that makes it "wrong" in a particular context.

Any concept of "right" and "wrong" in the moral sense of the word is inherently subjective because people believe different things about what is right and what is wrong. The middle east has laws encoding the belief that cutting off someone's hands for stealing (perhaps a loaf of bread to feed their family) is perfectly moral. In the West, we view this behaviour as abhorrent.

This isn't even getting into the issue that what actually constitutes a "murder" is not really that well defined. After all, given legal status in most of the West right now, you cannot murder a fetus. The concept is entirely impossible. Similarly, you cannot murder a cat. Or a plant. Or a rock.

If you want to give me a reasonable difference between a fetus and a child and why one should not be killed and the other should then I would love to hear it.

You're not objective, so like in all religious debates, there will be no definition of reasonable to which you will agree, unless you care to state one.

Aside from raped females, I think abortions are wrong. You make mistakes, and you live with them. Calling a child a "mistake" is kinda savage. I guess the child just jumped into her belly?? The mistake was having unprotected sex or sex without birth control (maybe the condom broke, or your birth controlled failed). You were taking those risks in the first place. It's humans playing God again. You can't get pregnant by mistake. Did she accidentally slip fall, rip off her clothes, and jump up and down on a man's privates?? I don't think so. There is no line to draw between when "it" is a human or not. When it becomes, it is. How can something that is living have "potential life" when it is already living (a fetus). I believe that all life is precious. Man can't create life. He can't taken something dead and make it live. When something is not living, it will never live. When something is living, it will live until it is not living (dead).

Two problems with this, both of which have already been addressed in the thread.

1) Forcing a woman to live with and raise a child that she didn't want, assuming it was a "mistake", is going to fuck that kid's life from beginning to end. Given how bad some parents are when the kid was NOT a mistake, how can you possibly think that this plan is a good thing for the child? All this reveals is subconscious misogyny, because you think the woman should be punished for her transgressions but you don't actually care about the child itself.

2) The potential life argument doesn't work, because it means that all sperm (of which 20 million die every time a woman gets pregnant) cells are on the same footing as the fetus. Every ovum a woman produces, which means that every period she has is a lost life. Every cancer cell that we cut from someone's body was similarly on the same platform as cellular life. Ultimately, there is no cutoff you can draw that is not inherently an arbitrary one to support your pre-existing beliefs.

Morally though, it still is. Your taking the life of another even if that person took millions more, you have committed the same crime as that person.

You don't understand objectivity. Morals are relative to culture and individual. As a society, we consider self-defence, and even military service, morally clear. The fact that you have a personal disagreement with this only proves my point that there is no universal morality.

 

[Phantom_IV]

Morally though, it still is. Your taking the life of another even if that person took millions more, you have committed the same crime as that person.

If you could kill Hitler and stop him from causing millions of deaths, wouldn't that be morally justified?

And either way, it doesn't change the fact that fetuses are not people. You do not have funerals for 1st trimester miscarried fetuses. And what about zygotes that do not even attach to the uterine wall? Would you mourn for the fact that your wife probably crushed it when she moved? (Heck, you wouldn't even know, as the zygote was the size of the period at the end of this sentence.)

What if your wife has miscarried 2 fetuses already? Do you stop because creating another one would likely be manslaughter?

The only way for you to answer all these things coherently is to accept that fetuses are not people immediately after conception, and that there is a gray area where you may or may not consider your fetus to be a person.

 

[Dr. Attack]

Ok yeah re-reading that paragraph I typed I see that I didn't do a great job of clearly communicating my thoughts.

Let me try and rephrase my point.

I believe that absolute truth exists. It does not vary, it is not subjective, it is absolute.

Chris is me said that an opinion is never absolute truth.
Technically yes I suppose that an opinion is not absolute truth. That does not mean that an opinion that I hold (or anyone else) cannot agree with an absolute truth. I hope this clarifies what I meant. I realize some of you will probably disagree with me on this but it comes down to being on two different pages as far as absolute truth. (I do not really want to delve into the religious aspect of absolute truth because I cannot imagine it being a productive discussion or really contributing to the debate about abortion).


I think for the most part the arguments have been clearly defined on both sides. I understand where pro-choice people are coming from but when you really boil the subject down past all the statistics and surveys (from both sides) it is hard to deny that abortion ends a baby's life. All the limits on when you can perform an abortion and when you can't are arbitrary.


Also @Morm I would go to war to defend myself and/or my family and loved ones. I would not go to war to push my beliefs or views on others. I hate abortion but I would never attack an abortion clinic or doctor who practices abortion.

 

[MrIndigo]

wow holy fuck no

Natural rights exist a priori. Repeat after me. A PRIORI. A PRIORI. They exist PRIOR to law and human convention.

No, they don't. Without any religious/supernatural concept of order (which is in itself a product of society), there is nothing anywhere that creates a right.

To contend otherwise begs the question, because "rights" that are created by interestate agreement are neither natural nor are they rights (because rights must be universal.)

I don't think 'begs the question' is the correct phrase here; in fact, the reverse is probably true. To say "The right to life transcends human law and convention" assumes that rights exist universally, and there is no evidence of that anywhere. By denying it, I'm simply putting the onus on the one making the unevidenced claim. You can't assume something exists to show it exists. You have to show evidence that leads to it.

There are three main secular justifications for natural law:

The evolutionary/biological argument: in general, persons who adhered to the principles of natural law tended to survive and pass on their genes to the next generation. Furthermore, it derives from the fact that humans are social, but not eusocial animals, who socialize, engage in trade, and think.

This only shows a biological motive for humans to create rights. It doesn't mean that rights exist a priori.

The pure reason argument: that natural rights are discoverable by pure reason and logic.

Example, please. I'm not aware of this EVER happening without starting from some socially-biased assumptions. If you can show me how the Axiom of Choice (or another similar axiom) leads to a right, then I might be more inclined to believe this.

The observational argument: The universality of natural law is seen in the fact that in general, virtually all people adhere to the same ethical code to one extent or another. It is the rare person that, say, steals and kills without understanding that they are wrong in doing this (and don't even try to argue that humans need to be taught not to do this - we wouldn't have survived otherwise.)

That contradicts the very definition of universal. The existence of one objector automatically voids the argument that morality is objective and exists outside of human society. The fact that a lot of people agree that something is wrong just means that it is a social norm, not that it existed a priori.

In theory, the state exists to defend rights that already exist - if rights did not exist prior to the state, then the state has no justification for existing, other than the fact that it has the power to employ force to make others meet its dictates, and you don't have the right to object.

There are biological imperatives for forming societies and states. In fact, without a priori rights, there's more of a reason to form a state. It prevents other bodies enforcing their social belief on you, and it allows you to generate some level of uniformity in belief within a particular social group, just on a very large scale.

Nobody said a cancer cell or a sperm was not life. Are they human? I don't see any chromosomes there, so no. Again, the core of human uniqueness - DNA - is present from conception, and extends unto death.

Sperm cells contain DNA. Cancer cells contain DNA. Animals have chromosomes, but we kill them all the time without blinking. Your argument is arbitrary.

 

[Obsessed]

I believe that absolute truth exists. It does not vary, it is not subjective, it is absolute.

Also @Morm I would go to war to defend myself and/or my family and loved ones.

Could you name one absolute truth please?

Also I find it strange that you would be willing to murder another person to protect your family/friends while simultaneously saying that murder is always wrong. If it is wrong to defend your family, then why would you do so unless you happen to be immoral? Or is it that murder isn't always wrong?

 

[lati0s]

Could you name one absolute truth please?

1+1=2

Absolute truth exists, absolute morality does not.

 

[Dr. Attack]

Cancer treatments are in use that use embryonic stem cells.

That's right. Embryonic stem cells CURE CANCER.

As far as I can tell every treatment involving embryonic stem cells is highly experimental. Whether they will ever cure anything is still to be seen. I am doubtful as to the practicality of those treatments especially if they are experimental like I suspect. Fair point if they are being used to cure people and the treatments have a good rate of success.

No, it's not. You don't understand what an opinion is. An opinion is a personal belief about a particular system. A fact is something that is objectively determinable about a particular system. You only claim murder is an absolute truth because you cannot separate the opinions you have been embedded with from childhood with fact. There is nothing inherently right or wrong about murder objectively. It is only that society rejects it that makes it "wrong" in a particular context.

Any concept of "right" and "wrong" in the moral sense of the word is inherently subjective because people believe different things about what is right and what is wrong. The middle east has laws encoding the belief that cutting off someone's hands for stealing (perhaps a loaf of bread to feed their family) is perfectly moral. In the West, we view this behaviour as abhorrent.

This isn't even getting into the issue that what actually constitutes a "murder" is not really that well defined. After all, given legal status in most of the West right now, you cannot murder a fetus. The concept is entirely impossible. Similarly, you cannot murder a cat. Or a plant. Or a rock.

You do not believe in absolute truth so every moral and every right and wrong is subjective in your eyes. If you do not have absolute truth than there is no right and wrong.

You're not objective, so like in all religious debates, there will be no definition of reasonable to which you will agree, unless you care to state one.

I cannot think of any. You couldn't come up with a reasonable difference if you tried because there aren't any that aren't arbitrary.

Two problems with this, both of which have already been addressed in the thread.

1) Forcing a woman to live with and raise a child that she didn't want, assuming it was a "mistake", is going to fuck that kid's life from beginning to end. Given how bad some parents are when the kid was NOT a mistake, how can you possibly think that this plan is a good thing for the child? All this reveals is subconscious misogyny, because you think the woman should be punished for her transgressions but you don't actually care about the child itself.

You assume a lot. You have no way of knowing if the kid's life will be miserable. I wonder what's worse for a kid, growing up in a troubled home or being killed?

2) The potential life argument doesn't work, because it means that all sperm (of which 20 million die every time a woman gets pregnant) cells are on the same footing as the fetus. Every ovum a woman produces, which means that every period she has is a lost life. Every cancer cell that we cut from someone's body was similarly on the same platform as cellular life. Ultimately, there is no cutoff you can draw that is not inherently an arbitrary one to support your pre-existing beliefs.

How is a sperm on the same footing as a fetus? A fetus is not potential life, it is alive. If you leave a sperm alone it will die. If you leave a fetus alone it will grow and live.



@everyone about absolute truth

If you do not believe in God then you have no true morality. Every moral you have is arbitrary and subjective. I agree with you on that point.

 

[Obsessed]

1+1=2

Absolute truth exists, absolute morality does not.

Bah, you knew what I meant.

You assume a lot. You have no way of knowing if the kid's life will be miserable. I wonder what's worse for a kid, growing up in a troubled home or being killed?

Given that the fetus isn't sentient (yet) there would be no suffering. Not suffering is better than suffering in my opinion.

Also let us assume that heaven/hell actually do exist, and that a just god also exists. A fetus has committed no wrongs. Would it not be spared from hell, and end up in heaven? In fact, assuming that such a belief is right, abortions are actually a great thing to have as they save countless souls from the fiery pits of hell.

 

[Deaga]

If you do not believe in God then you have no true morality.

Great point there dude.

 

[Dr. Attack]

Great point there dude.

I'm glad you liked it! I mean to say that if you don't believe in God then you should perceive all morals as subjective and arbitrary. It's not that they actually are because God does exist and his laws are not arbitrary and whether you believe in God or not Absolute truth does exist and absolute morality does as well.

 

[Obsessed]

I'm glad you liked it! I mean to say that if you don't believe in God then you should perceive all morals as subjective and arbitrary. It's not that they actually are because God does exist and his laws are not arbitrary and whether you believe in God or not Absolute truth does exist and absolute morality does as well.

lol

Perhaps we should make another god thread. I'd like to see what concrete evidence you could provide that would prove the existence of your god. I mean nobody has been able to do so before, but clearly you must be able to in order to make a statement like "god does exist" with such confidence.

In fact, your argument pretty much rests on god/absolute morality existing. So unless you can provide some evidence for either one existing your argument is entirely moot.

And since you are so certain that your personal religious beliefs are correct, could you please respond to one of my prior points?:

Also let us assume that heaven/hell actually do exist, and that a just god also exists. A fetus has committed no wrongs. Would it not be spared from hell, and end up in heaven? In fact, assuming that such a belief is right, abortions are actually a great thing to have as they save countless souls from the fiery pits of hell.

 

[Deaga]

It was a sarcastisc comment actually.

 

[Dr. Attack]

In fact, your argument pretty much rests on god/absolute morality existing. So unless you can provide some evidence for either one existing your argument is entirely moot.

Well it's almost impossible to debate anything being wrong or right if you have no morals.

And since you are so certain that your personal religious beliefs are correct, could you please respond to one of my prior points?:

That's not how that works. Aborted babies do go to heaven. That does not make it right to murder them so they can go to heaven. God is not ok with the "ends justify the means" argument. Life on this earth is precious and is not to be taken lightly.

Edit: @everyone who may possibly want to debate God- Just to state this as a response to further questions: I am not here to prove to you all that God exists. I have stated my opinion on abortion and I do not wish to derail this thread anymore. If you wish to contact me further about God feel free to pm me.

 

[Blightbringer]

Well it's almost impossible to debate anything being wrong or right if you have no morals.



That's not how that works. Aborted babies do go to heaven. That does not make it right to murder them so they can go to heaven. God is not ok with the "ends justify the means" argument. Life on this earth is precious and is not to be taken lightly.

Edit: @everyone who may possibly want to debate God- Just to state this as a response to further questions: I am not here to prove to you all that God exists. I have stated my opinion on abortion and I do not wish to derail this thread anymore. If you wish to contact me further about God feel free to pm me.

nice job voicing your opinion while attributing said opinion to god buddy