Abortion is murder in a non-legal sense... so what?

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
This is very vague - what specific consequences come from legal abortion?
Devaluation of human life. You can't see this? This is not obvious? Sorry--but this is so typical of liberals and abortion supporters. They over-think and over-rationalize everything--and because of that--miss what is right before their faces. In other words---they are intelligent--yes---and it is that intelligence that is their own undoing.

Here is what you are essentially saying: "Human life in the womb has no value and is not worth protecting."

Fine. Given this, on what basis you expect me or anyone else to believe that the life of anyone has value and is worth protecting--aside from my own life and the lives of those I love? On what basis do you expect me to condemn the death penalty, war, racism or climate change?

You see, sir, this is all inter-connected. It all begins in the womb. If life in the womb has no value-----then-----why does life outside the womb have value? If we can so arbitrarily dismiss the rights of the unborn and the value of the unborn--as you and other abortion supporters do, I see no reason why we cannot do this with life that is born. Why stop with the womb? You arbitrarily claim that life in the womb has no value and is not worth protecting. Fine---why can't we be equally as arbitrary with life outside the womb?

Do you know in New York State that cats have more rights than the unborn? You cannot get you cat declawed in New York--because that is cruel. So--declawing your cat is cruel, but a doctor burning an unborn child with saline solution to kill it, or a doctor using forceps to puncture the brain of an unborn child to kill it, then cut up its parts and removing them from the womb---for some reason--this is not cruel, but in fact, should be celebrated---as proof of an enlightened society. Yes: the cruel destruction of an unborn life is enlightened, and so is forbidding declawing your cat.

Why in the----- should I care about a cat----------when------------abortion exists and is celebrated as a right?

And you seriously ask "What SPECIFIC consequences come from legal abortion?" Sir, open your eyes! Stop your incessant rationalizing---and open your eyes for heaven's sake!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BMS

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Devaluation of human life. You can't see this?
That's not a consequence; if true, it would have consequences.

Such as?
Here is what you are essentially saying: "Human life in the womb has no value and is not worth protecting."
WRONG.
I am only in favour of the pregnant woman being able to make the call; if somebody other than her were to decide that her unborn child has no value, I would be as outraged as you.
Fine. Given this,
Not given, as explained above.
You see, sir, this is all inter-connected. It all begins in the womb. If life in the womb has no value
Not given, as explained above.
If we can so arbitrarily dismiss the rights of the unborn and the value of the unborn--as you and other abortion supporters do,
Wrong - see above.
The only right the unborn should not have, IMO, is the right to live inside an unwilling woman.
I see no reason why we cannot do this with life that is born. Why stop with the womb?
Oh - it's a slippery slope fallacy.
Do you know in New York State that cats have more rights than the unborn? You cannot get you cat declawed in New York--because that is cruel.
If the cat were inside your body, you would want the right to remove it even if the removal entailed killing it.
And so would I.
So--declawing your cat is cruel, but a doctor burning an unborn child with saline solution to kill it, or a doctor using forceps to puncture the brain of an unborn child to kill it, then cut up its parts and removing them from the womb---for some reason--this is not cruel, but in fact, should be celebrated
I don't celebrate abortions.
This is a common misapprehension (or, rather, misrepresentation) about pro-choice.
And you seriously ask "What SPECIFIC consequences come from legal abortion?" Sir, open your eyes! Stop your incessant rationalizing---and open your eyes for heaven's sake!
Your slippery slope consequences are based on the idea that I see no value in the unborn, which is false.
It's that the value does not justify an unwilling woman being denied the right not to carry it to term.
 
Last edited:

shnarkle

Well-known member
Devaluation of human life. You can't see this? This is not obvious? Sorry--but this is so typical of liberals and abortion supporters. They over-think and over-rationalize everything--and because of that--miss what is right before their faces. In other words---they are intelligent--yes---and it is that intelligence that is their own undoing.
I disagree. It has nothing to do with intelligence of their way of thinking. It's strictly an emotional response devoid of any critical thinking whatsoever.

Your opponent comes up with one logical fallacy after another, and can't be bothered to address them as they are all based upon their emotional response, e.g. A woman engages in the most effective way to place another human being into her body, and then suddenly because she is no longer willing to pay for the consequences of her actions, she has every right to evict them from her premises. They love to present this false equivalency of a deadbeat renter, but their analogy fails almost immediately as they are the ones who placed this tenant there in the first place.
Here is what you are essentially saying: "Human life in the womb has no value and is not worth protecting."
It's more complicated than that. They claim that human life has worth and that it simultaneously doesn't have worth. Their standard of morality is firmly set in mid air. It is the capricious argument of those affirming and defending slavery.
Fine. Given this, on what basis you expect me or anyone else to believe that the life of anyone has value and is worth protecting--aside from my own life and the lives of those I love? On what basis do you expect me to condemn the death penalty, war, racism or climate change?
If they're consistent, it would have to be the same capricious standard they keep promoting.
You see, sir, this is all inter-connected. It all begins in the womb. If life in the womb has no value-----then-----why does life outside the womb have value?
It doesn't. Their argument holds property rights to be fundamental, not human life.
If we can so arbitrarily dismiss the rights of the unborn and the value of the unborn--as you and other abortion supporters do, I see no reason why we cannot do this with life that is born. Why stop with the womb? You arbitrarily claim that life in the womb has no value and is not worth protecting. Fine---why can't we be equally as arbitrary with life outside the womb?
We are. Children are brought up in homes where their mother is murdering their siblings. It is what is known as generational curses. They will grow up to have no value for the life of the unborn or anyone else for that matter.
Do you know in New York State that cats have more rights than the unborn? You cannot get you cat declawed in New York--because that is cruel. So--declawing your cat is cruel, but a doctor burning an unborn child with saline solution to kill it, or a doctor using forceps to puncture the brain of an unborn child to kill it, then cut up its parts and removing them from the womb---for some reason--this is not cruel, but in fact, should be celebrated---as proof of an enlightened society. Yes: the cruel destruction of an unborn life is enlightened, and so is forbidding declawing your cat.

Why in the----- should I care about a cat----------when------------abortion exists and is celebrated as a right?

And you seriously ask "What SPECIFIC consequences come from legal abortion?" Sir, open your eyes! Stop your incessant rationalizing---and open your eyes for heaven's sake!
There are none so blind as those who will not see. Christ says to let those who have ears hear. One should never insult those who don't by talking to them in the first place.
 

BMS

Well-known member
That's not a consequence; if true, it would have consequences.

Such as?

WRONG.
I am only in favour of the pregnant woman being able to make the call; if somebody other than her were to decide that her unborn child has no value, I would be as outraged as you.

Not given, as explained above.

Not given, as explained above.

Wrong - see above.
The only right the unborn should not have, IMO, is the right to live inside an unwilling woman.

Oh - it's a slippery slope fallacy.

If the cat were inside your body, you would want the right to remove it even if the removal entailed killing it.
And so would I.

I don't celebrate abortions.
This is a common misapprehension (or, rather, misrepresentation) about pro-choice.

Your slippery slope consequences are based on the idea that I see no value in the unborn, which is false.
It's that the value does not justify an unwilling woman being denied the right not to carry it to term.
If it is a human life then destroying it on purpose is devaluing it. Unless you are saying it isnt human, and/or abortion doesnt destroy it.
Also of course there are consequences, not least the death of the unborn. So consequences indeed, but they dont change the logic of devaluing
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
WRONG. I am only in favor of the pregnant woman being able to make the call; if somebody other than her were to decide that her unborn child has no value, I would be as outraged as you.
Yes: in other words-----the value of the life of an unborn child------depends-----entirely upon the subjective whims of the person carrying the child.

Why would you be outraged if someone other than the woman decided that the unborn child has no value? Because the only person to decide that is the mother of the child? Why does the mother get to decide whether the life of her unborn child has value in the first place? Is not the value of a human being objective? Are not our rights inalienable? You are suggesting that the rights of one are not inalienable, but in fact depend entirely upon the subjective whims of another.
Wrong - see above. The only right the unborn should not have, IMO, is the right to live inside an unwilling woman.
Sir, the problem---with an "unplanned pregnancy" is NOT the pregnancy itself, but the decisions and actions that led to the pregnancy. Why do you not understand this? Why do you not grasp this one simple fact? Why do you not make the connection between sex and pregnancy? Why do you think pregnancy and sex are totally and completing unrelated, having nothing whatever to do with each other?

If a woman is unwilling to be a mother, if a woman does not want a child living in side of her, then that woman should take the proper steps to ensure that a pregnancy will not result. One of the steps a woman can take to avoid pregnancy---is by not having sex during the times she is fertile. Another step a woman can take to avoid pregnancy is by taking contraception. Yet another step a woman can take is using a condom. Another step she can take is to have her tubes tied. Another step she can take is to tell the man to get sterilized. There are so many options for women who want to avoid pregnancy it is, as I have repeatedly said, difficult to understand why abortion on demand is necessary.

Once a woman gets pregnant it is too little too late to say "Gee, I do not want to be pregnant." One a woman is pregnant, she is pregnant. Even there, if a woman does not want to be a mother, all she has to do is bring the child to term and put it up for adoption. Again, it is difficult if not impossible to understand why we need abortion on demand--given all the options women have available to them.

The only sure fire way not to get pregnant and become a mother---is by not having sex. If a woman wants to have sex but not get pregnancy--then she can take any one or more of the following steps I mentioned.
If the cat were inside your body, you would want the right to remove it even if the removal entailed killing it. And so would I.
Seriously dude? You think a cat living inside your body is analogous to a child living inside of you? A cat is not a human person with rights. That was the whole point of my brining up the cat in the first place.

In the second place, if I am the cat's owner and the cat is living inside of my house because I am generously providing for the cat, I have the right to decide I do not want the cat to have claws--so my house is not destroyed. But in New York, if you want to kill your unborn child, that is fine. But you do not have the right to declaw your cat. And you, sir, apparently are blind to the blatant hypocrisy of it all.

But you could rightly say to me in New York: if you do not like the law as it is written either work to get the law changed-----or-----do not have a cat as a pet. Same logic applies to abortion: if you do not want a pregnancy, don't get pregnant.
I don't celebrate abortions. This is a common misapprehension (or, rather, misrepresentation) about pro-choice.
Really? Looking at the way abortion supporters behave you could have fooled me. They are always taking about victory for women's rights and blah, blah, blah. I can guarantee--if the SCOTUS votes to uphold Roe and overturn the law in Mississippi, abortion supporters will be celebrating. You as an individual may not "celebrate" abortion, but many abortion supporters do. They treat abortion as if it was some divine right.
Your slippery slope consequences are based on the idea that I see no value in the unborn, which is false.
But you don't. You make no judgement at all about an unborn child.

Let's apply this logic to racism: I make no judgement about racists or the values of the lives of minorities. That simply isn't my concern. I have nothing to say about it. It is not my business.
It's that the value does not justify an unwilling woman being denied the right not to carry it to term.
Why did the "unwilling" woman get pregnant in the first place---if she was so "unwilling?"
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Yes: in other words-----the value of the life of an unborn child------depends-----entirely upon the subjective whims of the person carrying the child.
Yes.
That is a far cry from "unborn life has no value".
Why would you be outraged if someone other than the woman decided that the unborn child has no value?
Because the pregnant woman's will is that the unborn child continue to live and, in case you have forgotten, her will is paramount, IMO.
Why does the mother get to decide whether the life of her unborn child has value in the first place?
Because she is the one carrying it.
Is not the value of a human being objective?
No.
If it were, there would be no death penalty, and all killings in self-defence or war, would be punishable.

Exceptions are made.
I just include one that you don't.
Are not our rights inalienable? You are suggesting that the rights of one are not inalienable, but in fact depend entirely upon the subjective whims of another.
All rights are alienable if somebody with more power curtails them.

There is no practical difference between a right that's not recognized, and a right that doesn't exist - either way, you are denied.
Sir, the problem---with an "unplanned pregnancy" is NOT the pregnancy itself
In your opinion.
But, unless you are the one that's pregnant, I simply do not care about your opinion.

If you don't see your pregnancy as a problem, fantastic - have your baby, I have no qualm.
If you do, that's unfortunate - have your abortion, I have no qualm.
Why do you not understand this? Why do you not grasp this one simple fact? Why do you not make the connection between sex and pregnancy? Why do you think pregnancy and sex are totally and completing unrelated, having nothing whatever to do with each other?
You do not seem to grasp the fact that telling somebody what they should/not have done in the past does not resolve an issue in the present.
Once a woman gets pregnant it is too little too late to say "Gee, I do not want to be pregnant." One a woman is pregnant, she is pregnant.
She can stop being pregnant.
It's called abortion.

What you mean is that you think it should be too late.
Even there, if a woman does not want to be a mother, all she has to do is bring the child to term and put it up for adoption.
What if she doesn't want to give birth?
What if she doesn't want to be pregnant tomorrow?

You seem to think that an unwillingly-pregnant woman's issue with being pregnant is possibility that she'll have to put the child through college - stop being so long-sighted.
The only sure fire way not to get pregnant and become a mother---is by not having sex. If a woman wants to have sex but not get pregnancy--then she can take any one or more of the following steps I mentioned.
I agree 100%.
But this does not address an unwanted pregnancy in the present.

You are the kind of person that, had you been on the Titanic five minutes after it hit the iceberg and asked what should be done, would say

"The rudder was too small for the ship."

Address the problem.
Really? Looking at the way abortion supporters behave you could have fooled me.
I am not "abortion supporters"; I'm me.
I don't paint you with the same brush as, say, the Phelps clan, do I?
You as an individual may not "celebrate" abortion, but many abortion supporters do.
Then address them, not me.
But you don't. You make no judgement at all about an unborn child.
I have just told you that I consider the unborn child to have value up to the willingness of the mother to carry it.
Let's apply this logic to racism: I make no judgement about racists or the values of the lives of minorities. That simply isn't my concern. I have nothing to say about it.
None of this applies to my position on abortion, which is contingent on one person being inside another.
Why did the "unwilling" woman get pregnant in the first place---if she was so "unwilling?"
Why do rock climbers sometimes break their legs, if they are so unwilling?

They took a risk, and lost. We don't deny them medical treatment because of that.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Yes: in other words-----the value of the life of an unborn child------depends-----entirely upon the subjective whims of the person carrying the child.
Yes. No-one else has any say, nor should they.

Why would you be outraged if someone other than the woman decided that the unborn child has no value? Because the only person to decide this is the mother of the child? Why does the mother get to decide whether the life of her unborn child has value in the first place?
Because she is the person who is pregnant. She is the only major stakeholder.
Is not the value of a human being objective? Are not our rights inalienable?
No. Rights are neither objective nor inalienable. They are an arbitrary gift of the particular society you find yourself in.
You are suggesting that the rights of one are not inalienable, but in fact depend entirely upon the subjective whims of another.
That's right. The unborn have no rights whatsoever, except those that the pregnant woman consents to grant them.

Sir, the problem---with an "unplanned pregnancy" is NOT the pregnancy itself, but the decisions and actions that led to the pregnancy. Why do you not understand this? Why do you not grasp this one simple fact?
Because it is not true.
Why do you not make the connection between sex and pregnancy? Why do you think pregnancy and sex are totally and completing unrelated, having nothing whatever to do with each other?
Of course they are related, but they are just as clearly not the same. Becoming pregnant is a rare occurance. No one having sex, even those desperate to become pregnant, expects it to happen on any particular occasion. The other function of sex is to promote pair bonding. It is frequently the case that this is a much more important aspect, that is in the front of the mind of the people involved. Pregnancy, on the rare occasions when it does happen, is sometimes delightful, sometimes OK, sometimes unwelcome and sometimes disastrous. It is fatuous to say that if you don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex. There are a number of legal measures that can be taken to prevent pregnancy, or if that fails, to terminate it.

If a woman is unwilling to be a mother, if a woman does not want a child living in side of her, then that woman should take the proper steps to ensure that a pregnancy will not result. One of the steps a woman can take to avoid pregnancy---is by not having sex during the times she is fertile. Another step a woman can take to avoid pregnancy is by taking contraception. Yet another step a woman can take is using a condom. Another step she can take is to have her tubes tied. Another step she can take is to tell the man to get sterilized. There are so many options for women who want to avoid pregnancy it is, as I have repeatedly said, difficult to understand why abortion on demand is necessary.
Abortion is there as a legal stop gap should any of the previous measures fail for whatever reason.

Once a woman gets pregnant it is too little too late to say "Gee, I do not want to be pregnant."
Why? There are a number of weeks within which she is perfectly entitled to make that decision, and do something about it.
One a woman is pregnant, she is pregnant. Even there, if a woman does not want to be a mother, all she has to do is bring the child to term and put it up for adoption. Again, it is difficult if not impossible to understand why we need abortion on demand--given all the options women have available to them.
Abortion is for those who don't want to be pregnant. Not wanting to be a mother is not the same thing.

The only sure fire way not to get pregnant and become a mother---is by not having sex. If a woman wants to have sex but not get pregnancy--then she can take any one or more of the following steps I mentioned.
As none of the aforementioned methods are foolproof or 100% effective, legal abortion is a completely reasonable, and legal option as a safety net.

Seriously dude? You think a cat living inside your body is analogous to a child living inside of you? A cat is not a human person with rights. That was the whole point of my brining up the cat in the first place.
Neither is a foetus a person with rights.

In the second place, if I am the cat's owner and the cat is living inside of my house because I am generously providing for the cat, I have the right to decide I do not want the cat to have claws--so my house is not destroyed. But in New York, if you want to kill your unborn child, that is fine. But you do not have the right to declaw your cat. And you, sir, apparently are blind to the blatant hypocrisy of it all.
Not really. Cruelty to an animal is nothing to do with abortion. There is nothing analogous between the two situations.

But you could rightly say to me in New York: if you do not like the law as it is written either work to get the law changed-----or-----do not have a cat as a pet. Same logic applies to abortion: if you do not want a pregnancy, don't get pregnant.
And if you do get pregnant, have an abortion.

Really? Looking at the way abortion supporters behave you could have fooled me. They are always taking about victory for women's rights and blah, blah, blah. I can guarantee--if the SCOTUS votes to uphold Roe and overturn the law in Mississippi, abortion supporters will be celebrating. You as an individual may not "celebrate" abortion, but many abortion supporters do. They treat abortion as if it was some divine right.
There is a huge difference between celebrating abortion and celebrating the right to have an abortion. Abortion is always hugely regrettable, something to be avoided unless the alternative is worse. Having the right to a cheap, accessible and legal abortion, in contrast, is the mark of a civilised and mature society.

But you don't. You make no judgement at all about an unborn child.

Let's apply this logic to racism: I make no judgement about racists or the values of the lives of minorities. That simply isn't my concern. I have nothing to say about it.
How silly. Making a judgement about one thing, racism, does not imply that you are forced to make a judgement about something entirely different.

Why did the "unwilling" woman get pregnant in the first place---if she was so "unwilling?"
Perhaps because she was applying the preeminent function of sex, pair-bonding.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Yes. No-one else has any say, nor should they.
The father should have some sort of say.

Because she is the person who is pregnant.
[ She is the woman who is pregnant. Remember, men who call themselves transwomen, whom you treat as women cant be pregnant
She is the only major stakeholder.
No, the father is a major stakeholder and the unborn; the unborn has a life in front of him/her
Rights are neither objective nor inalienable.
Of minor consequence since its the life of the unborn human that is paramount, followed by the life of the mother, followed by the interests of the father
They are an arbitrary gift of the particular society you find yourself in. That's right.
irrelevant
[quote
The unborn have no rights whatsoever, except those that the pregnant woman consents to grant them.
Of minor consequence since its the life of the unborn human that is paramount, followed by the life of the mother, followed by the interests of the father

Because it is not true.
of course its true. If the woman doesnt want an offspring use protection or abstain from sex.

It is fatuous to say that if you don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex.
How come?

Why? There are a number of weeks within which she is perfectly entitled to make that decision, and do something about it.
Depends where she lives.

Abortion is for those who don't want to be pregnant.
Nonsense, what you meant to say is abortion is for those who didn't want to be pregnant, but that is wrong as we have seen

Neither is a foetus a person with rights.
Doesnt make sense. What is the 'fetus' creature you imagine? The human being in the womb could be a embryo stage, and should have rights; its you lot who deny them.

There is a huge difference between
Let me stop you there. There is a huge difference between a reasoned rational argument and the one you are attempting
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
The father should have some sort of say.

[ She is the woman who is pregnant. Remember, men who call themselves transwomen, whom you treat as women cant be pregnant
No, the father is a major stakeholder and the unborn; the unborn has a life in front of him/her
Of minor consequence since its the life of the unborn human that is paramount, followed by the life of the mother, followed by the interests of the father
irrelevant
[quote
Of minor consequence since its the life of the unborn human that is paramount, followed by the life of the mother, followed by the interests of the father

of course its true. If the woman doesnt want an offspring use protection or abstain from sex.

How come?

Depends where she lives.

Nonsense, what you meant to say is abortion is for those who didn't want to be pregnant, but that is wrong as we have seen

Doesnt make sense. What is the 'fetus' creature you imagine? The human being in the womb could be a embryo stage, and should have rights; its you lot who deny them.

Let me stop you there. There is a huge difference between a reasoned rational argument and the one you are attempting
This is my favorite

"Rights are neither objective nor inalienable."

He knows more than the founders.

So a woman can be raped because after all she has no objective right not to have her person violated unless people agree if they don't then who cares right?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
This is my favorite

"Rights are neither objective nor inalienable."

He knows more than the founders.

So a woman can be raped because after all she has no objective right not to have her person violated unless people agree if they don't then who cares right?
What an utterly stupid statement. It is not morality that protects a woman from rape, but the law. The objective right not to have her person violated is granted by the state, through its legal system, not by ineffable morality. It is the legal system that arrests, tries, convicts and sentences offenders, not morality. I know that you would like to lock people up for what they think, but we don't have thought police. Legal sanctions are brought to bear on what people do, not on what their views on morality are. The potential rapist can daydream all he likes, who cares? He is deterred from acting by the law, not by your po-faced morality.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
What an utterly stupid statement. It is not morality that protects a woman from rape, but the law. The objective right not to have her person violated is granted by the state, through its legal system, not by ineffable morality. It is the legal system that arrests, tries, convicts and sentences offenders, not morality. I know that you would like to lock people up for what they think, but we don't have thought police. Legal sanctions are brought to bear on what people do, not on what their views on morality are. The potential rapist can daydream all he likes, who cares? He is deterred from acting by the law, not by your po-faced morality.
The reason it's illegal is because its immoral Einstein. Laws dont "protect" anyone anything. You probably don't realize women still get raped. Talk a out stupid.
 

BMS

Well-known member
What an utterly stupid statement. It is not morality that protects a woman from rape, but the law. The objective right not to have her person violated is granted by the state, through its legal system, not by ineffable morality. It is the legal system that arrests, tries, convicts and sentences offenders, not morality. I know that you would like to lock people up for what they think, but we don't have thought police. Legal sanctions are brought to bear on what people do, not on what their views on morality are. The potential rapist can daydream all he likes, who cares? He is deterred from acting by the law, not by your po-faced morality.
What do you mean by'women' ?
The law can be a deterent but not when it allows men to pose as women under the lie of transgender enter women's spaces and rape them.

And we do have the thought police, the police college guidelines and arrests.
What did the PC say to Harry Miller, I have to chevk your thinking.
 
Last edited:

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
But abortion is legal, and murder is not, so abortion is not murder.

And unless you can prove that your purported "ramifications" exist, they have no place in law.
Chuckle!!! Not in "Man's law" for sure. for sure. But there's a higher law. The "PROOF" will take care of itself when it's time.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Chuckle!!! Not in "Man's law" for sure. for sure. But there's a higher law. The "PROOF" will take care of itself when it's time.
Then why complain that it's legal under "man's law"?

Why not just let what happens happen, and your god can sort it all out "when it's time"?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
The reason it's illegal is because its immoral Einstein. Laws dont "protect" anyone anything. You probably don't realize women still get raped. Talk a out stupid.
The reason it is illegal is because a majority of those in society who determine the law, think or is immoral. You seem to have the crazy idea that no objective morality means no morality at all. You also donvt have a coherent argument. You say :
1.If there is no objective morality, there is nothing to stop women being raped.
2.Women are being raped.
3. Therefore there is an objective morality.

Perhaps you find it difficult to understand, but there are three things going on here. One is the concept that it is wrong to rape women, which most people agree with. That is the moral position, though there is nothing to show that it is an objective moral position. Secondly there is the law, that says that if you rape women, you will suffer these consequences. Thirdly there is the decision made by some people to ignore the morality, and the law, and rape women any way. That is the real world. That is what really happens. Your pathetic argument doesn't interact with the real world at any point.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
The reason it is illegal is because a majority of those in society who determine the law, think or is immoral. You seem to have the crazy idea that no objective morality means no morality at all. You also donvt have a coherent argument. You say :
1.If there is no objective morality, there is nothing to stop women being raped.
2.Women are being raped.
3. Therefore there is an objective morality.

Perhaps you find it difficult to understand, but there are three things going on here. One is the concept that it is wrong to rape women, which most people agree with. That is the moral position, though there is nothing to show that it is an objective moral position. Secondly there is the law, that says that if you rape women, you will suffer these consequences. Thirdly there is the decision made by some people to ignore the morality, and the law, and rape women any way. That is the real world. That is what really happens. Your pathetic argument doesn't interact with the real world at any point.
I love how ticked off you get. Society decides it's illegal something greater than a pion like you decided it's immoral. It's know its immoral and objectively so because no one who is physically or mentally healthy wants to be raped, murdered lied to or stolen from. It's amazing how twisted leftist wing nuts are. The LAST thing anyone needs is a dimwit leftist deciding for them what their rights are.
 
Top