What Is Morality?

AGENT J said:

1.) protected rights and freedoms, it wasnt force like the other poster is talking about at all
2.) there you go again with another failed post, factually prove there was no morals or conscience in RvW....
or better yet logically support that claim with somethign that cant be instantly turned around in the other direction. You cant :shrug:
it can just as easily be said you have no morals and conscience....

Click to expand...

Is the unjust taking of life an act of morality, or conscience? One of the major concessions of Natural Law is the right to life, and the persuiit of happiness. The Hippocratic oath that doctors take says "do no harm". The judges that formed the ruling for RvW took an oath to obey the Constitution, yet they ignored the Constitution, and created a "right to privacy" that does not exist.

Obviousdly "I can". You just lack the morality to see it. or the conscience to feel sorrow for it.

Old Trapper said:

1.) Is the unjust taking of life an act of morality, or conscience?
2.) One of the major concessions of Natural Law is the right to life, and the persuiit of happiness.
3.) The Hippocratic oath that doctors take says "do no harm".
4.) The judges that formed the ruling for RvW took an oath to obey the Constitution, yet they ignored the Constitution, and created a "right to privacy" that does not exist.

Obviousdly "I can". You just lack the morality to see it. or the conscience to feel sorrow for it.

Click to expand...

LMAO seems you keep dodging my questions? ill just keep asking since they expose your claims and show they have no validity in this discussion

1.) whos life? what makes it factually unjust?
2.) natural law is subjective but regardless who right to life?
3.) yep what factual hard are they doing?
4.) how did they factually ignore the constitution, what part was ignore and why when challenged many many times in history did it remain standing?

oh yeah and odnt forget my first questions/challenge you ran from

factually prove there was no morals or conscience in RvW....
or better yet logically support that claim with something that cant be instantly turned around in the other direction. You cant
based your logic it can just as easily be said you have no morals and conscience....

AGENT J said:

LMAO seems you keep dodging my questions? ill just keep asking since they expose your claims and show they have no validity in this discussion

Click to expand...

No, you just keep changing the question in an attempt to justify your own lack of oral values.

1.) whos life? what makes it factually unjust?

Click to expand...

Is it that you are just too stupid to understand what life is? Even science has determined that life of the human begins at conception. Is that too hard of a concept for you to grasp?

2.) natural law is subjective but regardless who right to life?

Click to expand...

I guess I should not be surprised that you are too stupid to know that when a woman gets pregnant there are then two olives with (and sometimes more) within the her, hers, and that of the child. Now, unless you have some valid reason, and you don't save for the idea that the woman is the sole owner of that second life, where does this right you claim come from to deestroy the child, and take from it what Natural Law says it is entitled to?

3.) yep what factual hard are they doing?

Click to expand...

If I were to kill you would there be harm done?

4.) how did they factually ignore the constitution, what part was ignore and why when challenged many many times in history did it remain standing?

Click to expand...

Show me where the "right to privacy" exists in the Constitution where it involves ones body?

factually prove there was no morals or conscience in RvW....
or better yet logically support that claim with something that cant be instantly turned around in the other direction. You cant
based your logic it can just as easily be said you have no morals and conscience....

Click to expand...

Already answered, and you have offered no proof that my answers lack validity. The opinion of an ignorant fool is not enough, and bears no validity.

Old Trapper said:

1.) no you just keep changing the question in an attempt to justify your own lack of oral values.
2.)Is it that you are just too stupid to understand what life is? Even science has determined that life of the human begins at conception. Is that too hard of a concept for you to grasp?
3.) I guess I should not be surprised that you are too stupid to know that when a woman gets pregnant there are then two olives with (and sometimes more) within the her, hers, and that of the child. Now, unless you have some valid reason, and you don't save for the idea that the woman is the sole owner of that second life, where does this right you claim come from to deestroy the child, and take from it what Natural Law says it is entitled to?
4.) If I were to kill you would there be harm done?
5.)Show me where the "right to privacy" exists in the Constitution where it involves ones body?
6.) Already answered, and you have offered no proof that my answers lack validity.
7.) The opinion of an ignorant fool is not enough, and bears no validity.

Click to expand...

1.) LMAO posting lies since your claims have been exposed wont change anything, I never changed any questions . . fail
also what factual lack of moral values?
2.) hey look another dodge, also FYI science has NOT determined life starts at conception many scientist argue life simply continues. Try to educate yourself on the subject
ill repeat my questions, try not to dodge them
again WHOS LIFE?
what makes it factually unjust?
3.) aaaaaaaaaand another dodge and failed personal attack. Watching you get angry over facts and questions is hilarious!
Ill ask you AGAIN . . whos right to life?
4.) kill me? depends why are you killing me?
ill ask you AGAIN, what factual harm are they doing
5.) dont have to that was something YOU said that was YOUR made up and retarded strawman.
Ill repeat MY question again:
how did they factually ignore the constitution, what part was ignore and why when challenged many many times in history did it remain standing?
6.) again posting lies wont fool anybody honest educated and objective. You NEVER answered them so ill ask them AGAIN:
factually prove there was no morals or conscience in RvW....
or better yet logically support that claim with something that cant be instantly turned around in the other direction. You cant
based your logic it can just as easily be said you have no morals and conscience....
7.) sweet irony :lamo

Ok we'll be waiting, This tim try to post with honesty and integrity, keep the meltdowns and lies in your posts to a minimum and do not dodge all the questions, thanks!

Old Trapper said:

Is the unjust taking of life an act of morality, or conscience? One of the major concessions of Natural Law is the right to life, and the persuiit of happiness. The Hippocratic oath that doctors take says "do no harm". The judges that formed the ruling for RvW took an oath to obey the Constitution, yet they ignored the Constitution, and created a "right to privacy" that does not exist.

Obviousdly "I can". You just lack the morality to see it. or the conscience to feel sorrow for it.

Click to expand...

Who decides what is 'unjust?'

And is 'feeling sorrow' a determiner of what is or isnt moral? Dont we make difficult decisions all our lives and even tho they make us sad...are still the right decision? Like divorce, for instance? Painful, highly stressful, and yet, people make that decision with the belief in a better future for themselves and their families. Certainly doesnt mean it was the wrong decision.

Lursa said:

Who decides what is 'unjust?'

Click to expand...

One conscience should decide what is "unjust" such as the war in Iraq. In that vein, how does one justify the taking of an innocent life especially when that life has no voice in the decision?

And is 'feeling sorrow' a determiner of what is or isnt moral? Dont we make difficult decisions all our lives and even tho they make us sad...are still the right decision? Like divorce, for instance? Painful, highly stressful, and yet, people make that decision with the belief in a better future for themselves and their families. Certainly doesnt mean it was the wrong decision.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between feeling "sorrow" such as in a divorce, and the taking of a life. What is especially telling is when one does not feel sorrow in either of those situations.

Old Trapper said:

One conscience should decide what is "unjust" such as the war in Iraq. In that vein, how does one justify the taking of an innocent life especially when that life has no voice in the decision?



There is a difference between feeling "sorrow" such as in a divorce, and the taking of a life. What is especially telling is when one does not feel sorrow in either of those situations.

Click to expand...

There are many many justifications for abortion...but that is not the topic here.

It seems then, that your stance on morality is whatever that person believes, personally?

And you make your own personal distinctions in your 2nd paragraph also.

In both cases, I say, "who says?" Who says those things are wrong or that someone must feel a certain way about it?

Good lord, you've reduced 'morality' to personal opinion!

Lursa said:

There are many many justifications for abortion...but that is not the topic here.

Click to expand...

Only medical, and less then 1% of abortions are done for medical reasons. Convenience, and finances, are not justifications, they are excuses.

It seems then, that your stance on morality is whatever that person believes, personally?

Click to expand...

Based on Natural Law, and, in my case, Christian values.

And you make your own personal distinctions in your 2nd paragraph also.

In both cases, I say, "who says?" Who says those things are wrong or that someone must feel a certain way about it?

Click to expand...

Really? If you need to ask then I am sorry you are so lost in your own alt reality. When I have to put down an animal I feel sorrow. And you have to wonder why one should when destroying a human life? Even the animals have more compassion then you.

Good lord, you've reduced 'morality' to personal opinion!

Click to expand...

Based on reality, compassion, my religious beliefs, and common sense.

Do you believe in the killing of the defenseless, and where do you draw the line?

Old Trapper said:

Only medical, and less then 1% of abortions are done for medical reasons. Convenience, and finances, are not justifications, they are excuses.

Click to expand...

That's only your opinion, there are many other justifications for abortion but again, that is not the topic here.

The point to take away is...that your idea of 'justification' is not universal, nor even morally acceptable from other view points.

Based on Natural Law, and, in my case, Christian values.

Click to expand...

Also not universally accepted.

("Natural Law" is still an appeal to a higher authority and one that many religious people cling to when they know that they cannot use their religious beliefs when discussing secular or legal matters).

Really? If you need to ask then I am sorry you are so lost in your own alt reality. When I have to put down an animal I feel sorrow. And you have to wonder why one should when destroying a human life? Even the animals have more compassion then you.

Click to expand...

I dont see any additional support for an appeal to a moral basis here...only more of your personal opinion. Now you have moved onto 'how people *should* feel, as if that has to do with the an actual moral stance? A persons' moral stance may inform their 'feelings' on something but that has little to do with the actual perceived morality of an issue. We can feel as terrible as we want about a specific war...but that has nothing to do with whether or not it's a 'moral' war. It may or may not be.

Based on reality, compassion, my religious beliefs, and common sense.

Click to expand...

This is an answer for almost any issue from a personal view point. It's not 'discussion.'

Do you believe in the killing of the defenseless, and where do you draw the line?

Click to expand...

If you want to discuss specifics, then please go to the appropriate sub-forum and open up your question there. I see no reason to go into any real delth here at allm, since your OP has only devolved into 'this is my judgement on your morality and your feelings'....not a discussion of the parameters of morality.

Lursa said:

That's only your opinion, there are many other justifications for abortion but again, that is not the topic here.

The point to take away is...that your idea of 'justification' is not universal, nor even morally acceptable from other view points.

Click to expand...

So, because some cultures believe in cannibalism then it is OK? Others believe in vaginal ????? where the vagina of children are sewn shut. That's OK too, right?

Also not universally accepted.

("Natural Law" is still an appeal to a higher authority and one that many religious people cling to when they know that they cannot use their religious beliefs when discussing secular or legal matters).

Click to expand...

There really is no way common sense can enter the mind of those who lack it. Killing a life is either right, or it is wrong. Using your "logic" one can just as easily kill an old person in a vegetative state with alzheimers as not. It too would be "justified".

I pity the world you live in.

Old Trapper said:

So, because some cultures believe in cannibalism then it is OK? Others believe in vaginal ????? where the vagina of children are sewn shut. That's OK too, right?

There really is no way common sense can enter the mind of those who lack it. Killing a life is either right, or it is wrong. Using your "logic" one can just as easily kill an old person in a vegetative state with alzheimers as not. It too would be "justified".

I pity the world you live in.

Click to expand...

So, despite your OP...morality is 'your way or the highway' I see.

So much for discussion.

You just wanted to blog 'your feelings' on abortion.

Lursa said:

So, despite your OP...morality is 'your way or the highway' I see.

So much for discussion.

You just wanted to blog 'your feelings' on abortion.

Click to expand...

Is that not what you are proposing? No amount of evidence regarding the life of the child will ever prevent you from killing that child.

The laws of morality are brought to you courtesy of the same folks who bring to the laws of grammar: your society.

Old Trapper said:

Is that not what you are proposing? No amount of evidence regarding the life of the child will ever prevent you from killing that child.

Click to expand...

Wrong forum

Lursa said:

Wrong forum

Click to expand...

When did it become the wrong forum? You liars are all alike. Lose, and you want to change the topic.

Old Trapper said:

When did it become the wrong forum? You liars are all alike. Lose, and you want to change the topic.

Click to expand...

It would be inappropriate to hijack this thread and forum to go into a discussion on abortion.

Your topic was 'morality.' You used abortion as an example, fine, but then you devolved into making it all about "me and you and our differences on abortion."

I'm happy to continue a discussion on the morality of abortion specifically...if you post it where it belongs. And you should search for Different Drummer's thread on that first....it was one of the more recent ones, a few months ago. It's not like it's a 'new' angle of discussion on that issue :roll:

And then I can break out my OneNote and copy and paste anything you want on the topic...it's not likely you'll bring up anything I havent seen before.

Realpolitik can't be ignored forever

AlbqOwl said:

…

The problem with the abortion issue is that two lives are involved instead of one. The pro-abortion crowd of course wants to insist that the conceived baby is not a life until it is viable and some of them consider it expendable even then. But the fact is that nobody whether radically progressive or radically right wing or something in between has not gone through a period of development within the womb. That baby in the womb is a life however much they want to rationalize that it is not.

And while there are times that necessary choices must be made re whose life will continue, a choice based on nothing other than the convenience or financial circumstances of the woman will never be the moral choice to me.

Click to expand...

Well & good. M. Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood - was against abortion. She felt that if the pregnancy were unwanted, the woman (or family) should give birth & put the child up for adoption. PP went a different way, once Sanger wasn't leading it.

If everyone agreed that abortions were to be minimized, then the solution would be fairly straightforward: Distribute birth control information & devices widely, & try to ensure that pregnancies were not accidental. However, much of the anti-abortion front feels that this policy would be tantamount to endorsing/encouraging permissive sexual experimentation, especially among our youth. & so that option is forbidden. & the anti-abortionists find themselves trying to deny sex is a natural function, & that if we only hung the 10 commandments prominently in every classroom, & somehow otherwise turned back the calendar to 1950 or so - all our troubles would disappear.

That's not going to happen; the World is with us. & even if the US were to attempt the impossible, the other countries of the world are not going to humor us in this. Just as the US pried open Japan from its attempt to shut out the world, some other exploring nation would surely eventually come calling. & besides, the US economy can't run on purely domestic resources - unless we want to give up our electronics, the Internet, cell phones, & on & on. That's not going to happen either.

The US is not a theocracy

Old Trapper said:

Is the unjust taking of life an act of morality, or conscience? One of the major concessions of Natural Law is the right to life, and the persuiit of happiness. The Hippocratic oath that doctors take says "do no harm". The judges that formed the ruling for RvW took an oath to obey the Constitution, yet they ignored the Constitution, and created a "right to privacy" that does not exist.

Obviousdly "I can". You just lack the morality to see it. or the conscience to feel sorrow for it.

Click to expand...

The US Supreme Court judges who ruled on Roe v. Wade were mostly conservatives, & had been mostly appointed by conservative presidents. The "right to privacy" does exist in Constitutional law - the precedents were laid out by minnie616, I think it was, in one of the discussions on abortions on this board.

You just lack the morality - Once you go down this path, you're headed for another Civil War, or maybe something like the convulsions in Rwanda between the Hutu & the Tutsi. That was a bloody shambles. Here we're in the Political forums, General Political Discussion. In the US, we live in a secular government, & it's that way by design. The theocracies that exist in the World are mostly very unpleasant places, especially for a member of Western civilization, because the underlying assumptions are almost directly opposite to the ones we make about everyday life in the US.

Re: Realpolitik can't be ignored forever

southwest88 said:

Well & good. M. Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood - was against abortion. She felt that if the pregnancy were unwanted, the woman (or family) should give birth & put the child up for adoption. PP went a different way, once Sanger wasn't leading it.

Click to expand...

Actually she wasn't. She just felt that birth control was safer:

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition

the anti-abortionists find themselves trying to deny sex is a natural function,

Click to expand...

That too is a lie.

Re: The US is not a theocracy

southwest88 said:

The US Supreme Court judges who ruled on Roe v. Wade were mostly conservatives, & had been mostly appointed by conservative presidents. The "right to privacy" does exist in Constitutional law

Click to expand...

The Court was primarily appointed by Republicans (5), but where they got the idea that a "right to privacy" in an abortion could be found in the 4th., or the 14th. Amendments, is a mystery to many. It actually started with the ruling in Griswold v Conn., and is still meaningless. It just isn't there as used to justify te killing of the child.

You just lack the morality - Once you go down this path, you're headed for another Civil War, or maybe something like the convulsions in Rwanda between the Hutu & the Tutsi. That was a bloody shambles. Here we're in the Political forums, General Political Discussion. In the US, we live in a secular government, & it's that way by design. The theocracies that exist in the World are mostly very unpleasant places, especially for a member of Western civilization, because the underlying assumptions are almost directly opposite to the ones we make about everyday life in the US.

Click to expand...

So, a secular world means you have no moral values. Interesting. Nobody of any among is seeking a theocracy, that is a red herring placed there by the haters of morality to justify immoral behaviour.

Re: Realpolitik can't be ignored forever

southwest88 said:

Well & good. M. Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood - was against abortion. She felt that if the pregnancy were unwanted, the woman (or family) should give birth & put the child up for adoption. PP went a different way, once Sanger wasn't leading it.

If everyone agreed that abortions were to be minimized, then the solution would be fairly straightforward: Distribute birth control information & devices widely, & try to ensure that pregnancies were not accidental. However, much of the anti-abortion front feels that this policy would be tantamount to endorsing/encouraging permissive sexual experimentation, especially among our youth. & so that option is forbidden. & the anti-abortionists find themselves trying to deny sex is a natural function, & that if we only hung the 10 commandments prominently in every classroom, & somehow otherwise turned back the calendar to 1950 or so - all our troubles would disappear.

That's not going to happen; the World is with us. & even if the US were to attempt the impossible, the other countries of the world are not going to humor us in this. Just as the US pried open Japan from its attempt to shut out the world, some other exploring nation would surely eventually come calling. & besides, the US economy can't run on purely domestic resources - unless we want to give up our electronics, the Internet, cell phones, & on & on. That's not going to happen either.

Click to expand...

I don't determine my morality from Margaret Sanger or any other person regardless of how much they might agree with me, or not as the case may be. And no group, movement, religious institution, political party, or any nation dictates to me what is right and wrong. The closest government can come is to determine what is and is not legal which is sometimes a very different thing than what is right and wrong.

Sanger is right though. The moral thing to her and for many of us, if we become pregnant and are in no position to raise a child, giving that child a chance at life and putting it up for irreversible adoption is the moral choice. The last I read there at at least 36 married, financially stable, and approved couples waiting to adopt every such child available for adoption. Virtually all cities of any size have services, public and/or private charities, who provide financial and other help for pregnant women who choose to give up their child.

Yes, parents, or the schools with parental consent, should be teaching kids how pregnancy and STD happens, what is or is not reliable to prevent it, where contraceptives can be purchased and pros and cons of various types, that contraceptives sharply reduce risk but no contraceptive is 100% foolproof or effective. And also sex education should instill in them a sense of responsibility that if a female becomes pregnant through consensual sex, the responsibility is hers and also the sperm donor, and the two of them have begun a human life that should not be casually discarded only because it is inconvenient or unwanted.

Re: The US is not a theocracy

Old Trapper said:

The Court was primarily appointed by Republicans (5), but where they got the idea that a "right to privacy" in an abortion could be found in the 4th., or the 14th. Amendments, is a mystery to many. It actually started with the ruling in Griswold v Conn., and is still meaningless. It just isn't there as used to justify te killing of the child.

So, a secular world means you have no moral values. Interesting. Nobody of any among is seeking a theocracy, that is a red herring placed there by the haters of morality to justify immoral behaviour.

Click to expand...

Ah, so it's scorched earth. Best of luck with it.