1. Settled? Do you not see the arguments I could use against you with this statement? And a right???
I think you need to stop reading the quick blurbs put forward by one certain side about Roe V Wade and read the ruling for yourself.
I would advise against using Google for such things, I tried to find you a link and the first 4 pages at least are just propaganda. Seriously just propaganda.
I am clearly responding to Randy, who continues to try to pretend that laws are the same as morality, and the only defense he needs to ban abortion is in the law. Even though, as you point out, it doesn’t actually make any sense.
Since Randy is confused, let’s return back to the top of the thread:
quote
Originally posted by 2.5:
I welcome you to lay out your argument, or argue with mine. Be advised there are many old threads on this topic, many unanswered questions and avoided realities, threads left without good arguments. I would also recommend you read those threads.
Here is the gist of mine: Premeditated murdering of people is bad, even if the moral majority decides it isn't.
If your only arguemt is something like what about rape, risk to mothers life..or other exceptions...then I welcome you to consider your exception raised in the argument and cater your argument to the rest of the instances when you reply. Since they are the massive majority.
2.5 lays out a proposition. He claims abortion is bad, regardless of majority opinion on the subject.
So the question is: Is abortion wrong? It’s not: Is abortion lawful?
Randy is confused, because he can’t seem to actually address that question. All he can do is discuss laws. But, as laid out in the beginning of the thread, that was never the question, and quoting laws of the land that differ from region to region and over different periods of time doesn’t actually address anything about if abortion is wrong or not.
My argument is that abortion is not wrong, because in a hierarchy of rights, your rights to bodily autonomy go beyond someone else’s right to life. You cannot be forced to give up your bodily autonomy due to their right to life.
No, it’s not based on laws. Nothing in the law states there is a hierarchy of rights. My belief is built on a foundation of logic, it’s philosophical. I’m willing to have it torn down, if appropriate, but it hasn’t been yet.
2.5 has argued with the argument. Good discussion. Randy has still not, he just claims I am using high-school level logic and avoids the discussion.
If it’s high-school level logic, then take it down.
I am clearly responding to Randy, who continues to try to pretend that laws are the same as morality,
WHY are you LEFTISTS always so damn DISHONEST?
If you have to LIE to try to support your babbling argument, you've already lost.
Show me anywhere in the past 3 pages that I have specifically stated that "laws are the same as morality".
Don't give us any of your goddam Leftist "parsing" or that I somehow "inferred it" or that I allegedly "hinted at it" or that I "suggested it".
Shown where I specifically stated what you just LIED about. So far you've tried just about all the tricks in the book from attempting to reframe the argument, to trying to limit the argument and now you're down to just OUTRIGHT LYING about what I said.
If you can't understand the indelible connection between codified law and societal morality then just confess that it's beyond your obvious limited intellectual grasp and walk away,......
.....just don't start LYING about what I said.
By the way, YOU DON'T LIVE A COUNTRY THAT RECOGNIZES YOUR SILLY-ASSED "HEIRARCY OF RIGHTS THEORY" that you continue to babble about.
The United States Constitution and our various federal and states laws DO NOT rank any of our rights as being more important than one another.
You DO live in a country that can absolutely "force you to defend someone else's right to life" and take away your equally stupid idea of "bodily autonomy" when, and if, the government, (BY LAW), decides it needs to. If you don't believe that just ask anyone that has ever been drafted into the military.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-02-2022).]
Originally posted by randye: Because you STILL haven't exhibited any.
Saying it over and over while clicking your red heels together doesn’t make it true. Talking to you is like talking to an angry child that can’t reason through a problem.
Originally posted by randye: In 8 of the 13 states that ratified the United States Constitution slavery was already illegal.
74 years later, moral people, waged a war against those Demorat slavery states to change their immoral laws.
yes they were CONSERVATIVE WHO WERE IN THE democratic party and today their racist kids are in the Gop because the demo's saw the error and nixon was a creep who didnot but saw advantage
they are CONSERVATIVE first and last
and no you can't count 7 slave states and some yank states still allowed some slaves so you fail civics and history to what a typical rumper
[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 04-02-2022).]
Saying it over and over while clicking your red heels together doesn’t make it true. Talking to you is like talking to an angry child that can’t reason through a problem.
even if he holds his arm out at 45 deg up while facing Berlin ?
Talking to you is like talking to an angry child that can’t reason through a problem.
Talking to you is like trying to teach quantum physics on "the short bus".
You did marginally better when you were stupidly hooting about "peer reviews" and "control groups" because at least, in that instance, you didn't compound your monumental ignorance with LYING like you did here.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-03-2022).]
Originally posted by randye: 1.) As I elaborated above, your whack-job "basic logic" isn't supported by anything, and that includes law OR morality. I've seen better, and more well founded, reasoning from an average high school student.
2.) Our codified laws are absolutely founded in MORALITY and they have been since ancient times. Where the hell do you think they came from?
3.) Your bullshit of "bodily autonomy" and "hierarchical rights" went right out the window with government mandated masks, and vaccinations.
4.) WTF is it with your continual use of the terms "people" and "pregnant person" in this thread? Are you unable to properly determine that only women can become pregnant? The blather that you post around here always contains some sort of nonsensical "woke speak".
5.) After reviewing the sum total of your other recent posts and your posts in this thread I now believe that YOU ARE A "LIBERTARIAN" and I believe that in exactly the same manner that I believe that this is a "woman":
Do you need me to explain it any further?
WHY are YOU always so damn DISHONEST?
If you have to LIE to try to support your babbling argument, you've already lost.
Show me anywhere in the past 3 pages that I have specifically stated that "laws are not founded in morality".
Don't give us any of your goddam "parsing" or that I somehow "inferred it" or that I allegedly "hinted at it" or that I "suggested it".
Shown where I specifically stated what you just LIED about.
So far you've tried just about all the tricks in the book from attempting to reframe the argument to talking about LAWS when that WASN'T the original question, to refusing to acknowledge the content of my posts, now you're down to just OUTRIGHT LYING about what I said.
By the way, YOU DON'T LIVE A COUNTRY THAT RECOGNIZES YOUR SILLY-ASSED "HEIRARCY OF RIGHTS THEORY" that you continue to babble about.
The United States Constitution and our various federal and states laws DO NOT rank any of our rights as being more important than one another.
quote
Originally posted by theBDub:
No, it’s not based on laws. Nothing in the law states there is a hierarchy of rights. My belief is built on a foundation of logic, it’s philosophical. I’m willing to have it torn down, if appropriate, but it hasn’t been yet.
When it comes to this discussion about abortion, I'm not here to render any judgement about this idea of a "hierarchy" of constitutional rights and freedoms, as described by theBDub. Maybe theBDub is just flat out wrong on this point. But that doesn't make me want to disrespect theBDub or call him a LIAR, or call him SILLY-ASSED, as we see the "randye" has done, in the immediately preceding remarks.
The "randye" constantly resorting to coarse language; i.e., the other forum member's SILLY-ASSED idea... the other SILLY-ASSED forum member... a distinction without a difference. The same either way. The "randye" is fully aware of this.
It's not that "SILLY-ASSED" (in all caps) is all that disgusting, in and of itself, but it's SILLY-ASSED this, MORONIC-that, DUMB-ASSED the other thing; yada, yada, yada. And LIAR, LIAR, LIAR.
The "randye" is a tiresome, disgusting "bleep" show. He is a disservice to the ideas and arguments that he is pretending to uphold.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-04-2022).]
What do ya know, the 3 amigos part of the sick "cult" of the 'Groom'n Agenda'. The band is back together. Didn't realize Disney Land/World characters are off on Sunday's.
Don't you have some brains to suck out and use for stem cell research somewhere in a foreign country? The sick "cult" won't rest until immortality is reached so it can continue it's sick way/VIEW of life.
Most of us would appreciate not having to read about your (rinselberg's) thoughts in multiple other threads.
A lot of us would appreciate not having to read randye repeatedly trying (over & over & over again) to bait anyone in multiple threads who doesn't happen to agree with his ideology. No offence Joe, but it works both ways.
And now there's some boy droning on about a "sick cult". It gets weirder here all the time!
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 04-04-2022).]
IMHO, randye responds to inane Liberal posts, but doesn't start the fight.
Inane Liberal policies are hastening the downfall of the free world and should be challenged at every turn.
Your opinion may be different.
What a SILLY-ASSED post. You're a LIAR. And a RIGHTWING NUT JOB. You are "desperate to look relevant." This makes you look "pathetic." Until a couple of days ago, you didn't know a Liberal policy from a "bean burrito."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-04-2022).]
Originally posted by olejoedad: It's over my head.
I despise anyone who goes onto an online forum of this kind and constantly disparages other forum members, calling them "liars" and rudely makes other false assertions about other forum members or things that other forum members have said, when that person himself is anything BUT an "oracle of truth", and when that same person never evidences any embarrassment when called out on this, and never stops doing it. I don't know that he's even cut back on any of it, of his own volition. Barely, if at all.
I picked three of the most recent examples that come to my mind. These are just three, off the top of my head. If I wanted to go "digging" I could add many more.
FACT CHECK Claim by forum member randye that I lied when I said that weapons of various kinds, including firearms, were being carried by some of the rioters who invaded the Capitol Building on January 6. The claim that I lied about this is a Pants on Fire falsehood. See the evidence: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/...HTML/000112.html#p27
FACT CHECK The randye claimed that I was mistaken when I reported that multiple members of the Oath Keepers had been indicted for Seditious Conspiracy in connection with January 6. I don't know where that old "Jan 6" thread got to (if it still exists) but this is what I was talking about: https://apnews.com/article/...2e8df786aaf77215a110
OK, I found the evidence of forum member randye's stupid LIE and his embarrassment for himself when it was called on him. An embarrassment which he lamely tried to cover up. https://www.fiero.nl/forum/...HTML/127292.html#p38
Originally posted by olejoedad: It's over my head.
Is this "over your head?" And why would you not share my dislike for someone who has made this misbehavior into his "brand" for the last umpteen years on this forum, ever since he reemerged during 2015 or perhaps somewhat earlier, after hibernating for a period.
It's not just the erroneous statements that are his habit. It's the idiot-level rudeness about it, on his part.
Mostly I'd been ignoring him, but for some odd reason I actually read one of his posts the other day and it inspired me to "go big" for the last few days. I don't remember exactly why I decided to read that post. Maybe because it was at the top of a discussion page. Maybe because I didn't expect that it would have anything to do with me. I can't remember that moment anymore.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-10-2022).]
And now there's some boy droning on about a "sick cult". It gets weirder here all the time!
ray b has a problem with a large number of people who worship a form of deity. They're cults to ?it?. rinselberg "wishes for ray b", and when ?it? does, ?it? shows up. Like a genie out of a bottle, ?it? rubs that lamp. ?They? are a minority that worships a sick twisted form of government.
Try to keep up.
The fact that most uses of abortion is an excuse for someones stupidity/accident/not-following-science/poor-judgement, when there are SO MANY METHODS that can be used to prevent that final vile act shows how much the psyche of MAN (human race) has sunk to that of wild ANIMALS. Lack of self control when 'booty-sweat' reaches the nostrils. Are you a human or an animal? Works for BOTH (there are only 2 <two/dos/zwei/deux/dvah> ) sexes. Think about it. Wild animals can't.
rinselberg "wishes for ray b", and when ?it? does, ?it? shows up. Like a genie out of a bottle, ?it? rubs that lamp. ?They? are a minority that worships a sick twisted form of government.
You can thank radical progressive liberals (like your Trudeau) for me not knowing how to properly address/identify ?them?.
Anywho, I find that remark RACIST! Since today I *feel* like I have a very dark skin tone, which I don't. This is the system you're creating. Don't you enjoy it? There is no sense in looney liberal world!
Originally posted by WonderBoy: rinselberg "wishes for ray b", and when ?it? does, ?it? shows up. Like a genie out of a bottle, ?it? rubs that lamp. ?They? are a minority that worships a sick twisted form of government.
WonderBoy is making a mountain out of a molehill about this. I said that I had my fingers crossed that ray b would show up in that thread. That's really about all I said in that way. I guess I found the thread kind of boring, up to that point, and hoped for someone like ray b to come in and "make some waves."
I don't even remember which of the current or recently active threads that was in.
I do not recall seeing any instance in which ray b has singled out other forum members directly by their names or screen names, or by directly addressing them as "LIARS" or "SILLY-ASSED" or any of a whole slew of other derogatory terms that are a particular other forum member's long established specialty or brand. So putting all other considerations aside, as best I can, I perceive ray b as considerably more civil n his commentaries than the other particular forum member that I have in mind, in terms of this comparison.
I said I do not recall.... I'm not saying that it hasn't ever happened—just that I don't remember such an instance from ray b from my years on this forum.
I didn't intend my "fingers crossed" remark to be taken all that seriously. I am not here to team up with ray b in any scripted or premeditated or "behind the scenes" kind of way. I don't see any obvious reason that the text string "ray b" will be recreated by me, again, in the immediately foreseeable future.
I like to see almost any forum member who's been a presence before, and then gone dormant or mostly dormant, come back to life again (so to speak.)
I wish there were more voices on this forum, as there used to be quite some years ago. More voices in Totally O/T and in this new Politics & Religion section. "The more the merrier."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-05-2022).]
Anyway back on topic; I'm still with my earlier stated view.
quote
Originally posted by 2.5:
I think this is a stretch far beyond the reach of the applicable argument and reprocussions. Stick to reproducing humans. If one sees a human as of no value, worth and having no dignity there isnt much I can talk to them about regarding this topic. Its too late.
I disagree, it is murder. Same as murdering a 1 month old who can't survive by themself. A 6 month old, or a 1 year old, etc.
"The conflict to me is using what I consider irrelevant excuses to override one's own concerns,. There was no horrible accident and the baby can survive. On top of that [you] created the baby. It wasnt some strange unfortunate circumstance. The wrongness of killing a child, on either side of the mother to be's belly, doesn't change "
I am clearly responding to Randy, who continues to try to pretend that laws are the same as morality, and the only defense he needs to ban abortion is in the law. Even though, as you point out, it doesn’t actually make any sense.
To be clear... the laws in the United States are very much based on morality. That is the Christian morality. Take the first few lines of the Declaration of Independence:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
They mention God twice here.
And lest you say that the 1st Amendment "protects us against religion" ... I quote you the exact text from the First Amendment and establishment clause...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
We know that when this was written, they were referring to the denomination of religion... e.g. Protestant, Catholic, etc. But in the true words and intent of the constitutional amendment, it was to ensure the right of the people to practice ANY religion.
This was further codified when Thomas Jefferson penned a letter to the Danberry Baptist Association in 1802... further qualifying what he meant... he said:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
It is well understood that our Constitution and the founding of our country was religiously based in Judeo-Christian morals... e.g., the "Golden Rule." As stated above, the "wall" refers to not establishing a foundational religion by which the Government is run. The intent there was to ensure that we didn't exist in a society where the Catholic Church ruled alongside the monarchy such that the Pope had direct influence on the King.
But to suggest that our laws are not somehow based in morality is wrong. Everything is based in morality... it just depends WHO'S morality you're talking about.
And that said... the use of "of" rather than "from" is an important distinction here.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 04-06-2022).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: To be clear... the laws in the United States are very much based on morality. That is the Christian morality. Take the first few lines of the Declaration of Independence:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
They mention God twice here.
And lest you say that the 1st Amendment "protects us against religion" ... I quote you the exact text from the First Amendment and establishment clause...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
We know that when this was written, they were referring to the denomination of religion... e.g. Protestant, Catholic, etc. But in the true words and intent of the constitutional amendment, it was to ensure the right of the people to practice ANY religion.
This was further codified when Thomas Jefferson penned a letter to the Danberry Baptist Association in 1802... further qualifying what he meant... he said:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
It is well understood that our Constitution and the founding of our country was religiously based in Judeo-Christian morals... e.g., the "Golden Rule." As stated above, the "wall" refers to not establishing a foundational religion by which the Government is run. The intent there was to ensure that we didn't exist in a society where the Catholic Church ruled alongside the monarchy such that the Pope had direct influence on the King.
But to suggest that our laws are not somehow based in morality is wrong. Everything is based in morality... it just depends WHO'S morality you're talking about.
And that said... the use of "of" rather than "from" is an important distinction here.
I never said they weren't based on morality. I said they weren't the same. You can't use a law in and of itself to prove something is wrong or not wrong. Laws are laws, morality is morality, and though they often intertwine, they aren't the same thing.
My point is simply that telling me I'm wrong about a moralistic belief because it goes against a law is not a good argument. If that were the case, interracial marriage was morally wrong at some point, slavery was not, and it was morally acceptable to treat women as less than men.
my religion is SEX and DRUGS and ROCK&ROLL MANY OF MY BELIEFS AND THE SACRAMENTS OF MY RELIGION IS AGAINST YOUR LAWS WHERE IS MY FREEDOM TO PRACTICE MY RELIGION ?
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
Topic Closed
You get one guess!
