- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Messages
- 5,623
- Reaction score
- 605
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You can be anti abortion but not against it being legal.
WHAT SCRABAHOLIC WROTE IS WHAT I REQUESTED (in #15) YOU PROVENo. That's stupid.
UTTERLY FALSE. Anyone who promotes slavery, like every abortion opponent does, is against choice. Slavery removes choice!Because no one is anti-choice,
ANOTHER STUPID LIE FROM YOU. I am pro-choice. It doesn't bother me at all if someone chooses to carry a pregnancy to term (to which a "pro-abort" would object!), exactly as it doesn't bother me at all if someone chooses to get an abortion. I'm all for letting them make their choices by themselves! YOU, on the other hand, want to remove choice; therefore you promote slavery.pro-abort.
IGNORANT, YOU MEAN. MORALS ARE PROVABLY ARBITRARY, AND THEREFORE ARE WORTHLESS --at least compared to "ethics". Your so-called "moral" regarding unborn humans derive from the days when 1/3 of all born babies died by the age of 5, and women had to be baby factories to make up for the losses --but those days no longer exist, which is exactly why that "moral" is arbitrary! If it was Objectively Valid, it would be valid everywhere and all the time, but today the world is overpopulated thanks to millions of folks just as ignorant as yourself. As far as Nature is concerned, human life is no more special than worm life. Go ahead! Just try to PROVE TO NATURE you are inherently superior to a worm --you will FAIL because all you can invoke in your favor is Stupid Prejudice.There are those of us who are moral
NOTHING NEW THERE; you have yet to offer an Objectively Valid reason to oppose the legality of abortion! Just opinion, so far!and oppose the legality of abortion,
I TAKE THAT AS A COMPLEMENT, SINCE I KNOW ETHICS IS VASTLY SUPERIOR TO MORALS. Ethics can be Objectively Valid, for one thing! Non-Arbitrary, for another. And Universally Applicable, for a third. Have I not mentioned to you the scenario of an intelligent alien species that has 1000 offspring at a time? YOUR WORTHLESS "MORALS" would insist that every one of those offspring must survive, even though the result would be one Malthusian Catastrophe after another (with up to 99% of the species dying each time, thereby rendering Utterly Stupid your so-called "morals"). Meanwhile, Ethics understands the difference between persons, beings, and mere-animal entities such as developing offspring. In Nature only a couple offspring of each breeding pair need survive, for the species to survive. The rest Nature doesn't care about, at all --and there is no great reason intelligent beings need to, either, when the result would be overpopulation.and then there are those who are at best amoral.