1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayNow you understand how morality works in reality, KellyJay.
We do, Kellly, we do.
..or at least medical counsels, learned members of society and legislative bodies do.
I sure hope they keep liking people of color or others that had that
title not put on them for awhile, since it is personal opinions that set
that bar on who is worthy of life according to you, the medical
counsels and our learned members of ...[text shortened]... eel that if those in the know and in
power like the idea of slavery it must be okay too?
Kelly
Any system defined and decided by humans is potentially as imperfect as we are.
Unfortunately we can end up with flawed systems which allow racism, slavery and State justified murder (corporal punishment).
Indeed your country (U.S.) is one of the worst offenders in the world on all 3 counts!
At least you have finally abolished Slavery. (although your pathetic minimum wage is tantamount to it)
1 edit
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI give up. You're a complete idiot. Do you know what the word SOCIETY means? Guess your readings in sociology never mentioned the word mores, either. No one is saying people all think alike, dunderhead, but what I am saying is that all societies are formed around a certain group of cultural mores. And at a basic level they are similar across virtually all societies. Just like there's not a lot of variety in the basic social behaviors of different chimpanzee groups, neither are there radical differences in the core rules of human societies on certain basic matters like respecting the life, property, etc. etc. of fellow society members. From this observation of human behavior, we can say that human beings have a common sense of basic morality based on empathy. Each person wants his life, property and autonomy to be respected and thus when he joins into society he accepts that he must respect other's rights. This is something internal; we all share a basic morality and know right and wrong. If you have a better explanation for how human beings act, go ahead.
Consider your question and read what I posted.
Originally posted by The Chess Express
blah blah blah Scripture quotes
by saying things like religion has no place in American law, lets look at it from an atheist’s perspective. Our concepts of right and wrong come from our neural functions. The law is a legalized moral because the law makers believe that the law is right.
Does this appease your obsession for separation of church and state?
Your presumption that, because I said that I was not an atheist, that your appeals
to frighten me with your Bible might have some argumentative merit. I assure you
they do not.
Indeed, your whole argument rests on the notion that rights and morals came from
God, and in particular YOUR GOD and, as such, all people ought to have 'empathy
and common sense' atuned to this notion.
God bless America for having more vision than that!
Like I said, I am not going to continue this merry-go-round where you assert that
disagreements are a product of our inability to empathize or have common sense.
They are a product of your inability to compose a rational argument without resorting
to supernatural agents.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioIronically, his God doesn't even believe a fetus should be treated as a human being, if Exodus 21:22-24 is to be believed.
Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b/]blah blah blah Scripture quotes
by saying things like religion has no place in American law, lets look at it from an atheist’s perspective. Our concepts of right and wrong come from our neural functions. The law is a legalized moral because the law makers believe that the law is right.
Does this appea ...[text shortened]... r inability to compose a rational argument without resorting
to supernatural agents.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioOriginally posted by ivanhoe
What a shock. You didn't answer the question!
How unusual!
Nemesio
Please enlighten me on these issues.
What is a human being in your book ?
Why do YOU assign rights to human beings ?
Please, enlighten me. I do not remember your stances on the issue.
Originally posted by no1marauder[/b]we can say that human beings have a common sense of basic morality based on empathy. Each person wants his life, property and autonomy to be respected and thus when he joins into society he accepts that he must respect other's rights. This is something internal; we all share a basic morality and know right and wrong.
I give up. You're a complete idiot. Do you know what the word SOCIETY means? Guess your readings in sociology never mentioned the word mores, either. No one is saying people all think alike, dunderhead, but what I am saying is that all societies are formed around a certain group of cultural mores. And at a basic level they are similar across virtually a ...[text shortened]... y and know right and wrong. If you have a better explanation for how human beings act, go ahead.
People may have similar wants, but achieving these wants translates into many different things. Our laws are based on morality, and morality is based on interpretation. This is what you fail to comprehend.
2 edits
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b]Somehow, you’ve managed to misinterpret everything that I’ve said. I agree, I’m tired of this discussion as well.
Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]blah blah blah Scripture quotes
by saying things like religion has no place in American law, lets look at it from an atheist’s perspective. Our concepts of right and wrong come from our neural functions. The law is a legalized moral because the law makers believe that the law is right.
Does this appeas ...[text shortened]... r inability to compose a rational argument without resorting
to supernatural agents.
Nemesio
Do me a favor though. Invest in a good dictionary.
Ok, that's it for tonight...
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI comprehend just fine that laws are based on subjective ideas of morality. What you fail to comprehend is that above laws enacted by temporary, transient ideas of morality is a Fundamental Law based on human rights that we all share, in every society. It is the duty of the judges here to strike down any law passed by fanatics like you that attempts to restrict the basic fundamental rights that are our birthright,
we can say that human beings have a common sense of basic morality based on empathy. Each person wants his life, property and autonomy to be respected and thus when he joins into society he accepts that he must respect other's rights. This is something internal; we all share a basic morality and know right and wrong.
People may have ...[text shortened]... based on morality, and morality is based on interpretation. This is what you fail to comprehend.[/b]
Got it now?
Originally posted by KellyJayI remembered incorrectly and I apologize.
I don't believe I said my church did that. I said it was done by a
group of people that all lost children, some that were born and
some that were not. There were believers and unbelievers within
that group. The loss of a child even before they were born is a
great loss, you have what you think is the promise of a child, and
then it is gone. The emotio ...[text shortened]... ple may not show "you" their grief, do
not assume because they don't it isn't there.
Kelly
However, you and ChessExpress can claim that because I know of only a
few people all you want.
The fact of the matter is the number of funerals that are had for stillborn
babies and the number of funerals that are held for miscarriages is wildly
disproportationate. Unless you believe that women who miscarry routinely
keep their emotions secret whereas women who lose children do not, this
disjunct in behavior is, in my mind very telling: it says that an embryo has
less value than a child.
What does it communicate to you?
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm not imposing my will upon you or anyone else.
Please, enlighten me. I do not remember your stances on the issue.
You are.
My stance affects no one but me.
Your stance, should it be instated, affects all women.
I have made no assertions.
You have.
So, my stances are not relevant.
Are you going to answer the question, or are you going to be your usual
pompous self, proclaiming the TRUTH from on high without being subject
to scrutiny?
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderabove laws enacted by temporary, transient ideas of morality is a Fundamental Law based on human rights that we all share, in every society.
I comprehend just fine that laws are based on subjective ideas of morality. What you fail to comprehend is that above laws enacted by temporary, transient ideas of morality is a Fundamental Law based on human rights that we all share, in every society. It is the duty of the judges here to strike down any law passed by fanatics like you that attempts to restrict the basic fundamental rights that are our birthright,
Got it now?
That are of coarse interpreted by temporay, transient ideas of morality.
It is the duty of the judges here to strike down any law passed by fanatics like you that attempts to restrict the basic fundamental rights that are our birthright,
Abortion was made illegal based off of the same criteria. It’s because of fanatics like you that those fundamental rights no longer apply to unborn babies.
2 edits
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressStupidity, but consistent stupidity. Fundamental rights of any kind never applied to zygotes, embyros and nonviable fetuses as you would know if you ever bothered to read Roe v. Wade. Criminal abortion laws were more a product of Victorian morality and a measure to protect women's health in the days when abortion was quite dangerous to the woman than anything else. No law ever considered abortion murder as you insist it is.
[b/]above laws enacted by temporary, transient ideas of morality is a Fundamental Law based on human rights that we all share, in every society.
That are of coarse interpreted by temporay, transient ideas of morality.
It is the duty of the judges here to strike down any law passed by fanatics like you that attempts to restrict the basi ...[text shortened]... t’s because of fanatics like you that those fundamental rights no longer apply to unborn babies.
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't want to distract into a debate on Exodus 21, but here's my 2 cents on the matter:
Ironically, his God doesn't even believe a fetus should be treated as a human being, if Exodus 21:22-24 is to be believed.
This text should be taken in context of the embryological knowledge of its time...
The "fruit of the womb" (a few week old embryo) was possibly not considered human as it didn't resemble as much and a early miscarriage was not significantly different from a woman's period.
As a posterity among the Jews was among the peculiar promises of their covenant, and as every man had some reason to think that the Messiah should spring from his family, any injury done to a woman with child, by which the fetus might be destroyed, was considered a very heavy offense; and as the crime was committed principally against the husband, the degree of punishment was left to his discretion. But "if mischief followed": if the fetus had been fully formed, and was killed by this means, or the woman lost her life in consequence, then the punishment was as in other cases of murder - the person was put to death;
Anyways, just a turd marble to balance the views and give the other side of the coin.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderGod decides who's stupid. It seems that name calling and personal attacks are your main basis for argument.
Stupidity, but consistent stupidity. Fundamental rights of any kind never applied to zygotes, embyros and nonviable fetuses as you would know if you ever bothered to read Roe v. Wade. Criminal abortion laws were more a product of Victorian morality and a measure to protect women's health in the days when abortion was quite dangerous to the woman than anything else. No law ever considered abortion murder as you insist it is.