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

BMS

Well-known member
You somehow have the idiotic idea that this is what I said. Do you understand what the word "opposite" means? It doesn't look like it from this paragraph.

Nonsense. For someone to think that slavery is moral, all that it takes is for someone to think that slavery is moral. It doesn't need anyone to agree. That doesn't mean that slavery actually is moral of course. Nothing actually ismoral or indeed isimmoral. Morality is a matter of opinion, not objective morality.
This is what you drscribed.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Slavery to Jesus during Physical LIFE is the way it all works.
We are dealing with non believers who need a revelation of Jesus before they can grasp slave to righteousness or slave to sin.

Indeed slavery to them is at least subconsiously the 18th century slave trade. That was for cotton mainly whereas today the slave trade is even bigger and its for sex of course
 

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.
We do have thought police as the overwhemling evidence prooves. Not just Harry Miller having his thinking checked but the 13 year old vistited at home with his parents by the police for misgendering another pupil who is imagining being non-binary.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Too bad morals aren't a matter of opinion like you claim. You haven't shown one shred of evidence to support it.
To bad morals aren't an aspect of nature like you claim. You haven't shown a shred of evidence to support it.

As for evidence for it being opinion, what is you view on the morality of abortion? My opinion is different. If you think that my opinion is factually wrong, you will be able to show that empirically. Your failure to do so is strong evidence that morality is a subjective judgement, not an objective property.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
To bad morals aren't an aspect of nature like you claim. You haven't shown a shred of evidence to support it.

As for evidence for it being opinion, what is you view on the morality of abortion? My opinion is different. If you think that my opinion is factually wrong, you will be able to show that empirically. Your failure to do so is strong evidence that morality is a subjective judgement, not an objective property.
I sure have and you've ignored it very time and I understand because you have no counter point. I bet the very next thing you ask is something asinine like "What evidence"? Lmbo can't wait.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
To bad morals aren't an aspect of nature like you claim. You haven't shown a shred of evidence to support it.

As for evidence for it being opinion, what is you view on the morality of abortion? My opinion is different. If you think that my opinion is factually wrong, you will be able to show that empirically. Your failure to do so is strong evidence that morality is a subjective judgement, not an objective property.
Nobody seems to be able to prove that morals aren't a matter of opinion.

All it would take is a logical syllogism that invokes no opinions...
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
Too bad morals aren't a matter of opinion like you claim. You haven't shown one shred of evidence to support it.
All you need to do is look at recent history. in 1950 Murdering Babies was "Immoral", in 2022 it not only "Moral" but praiseworthy. Human "Morals" change with the tides, and social mores. And of course, according to President James Buchanan, Black Slaves weren't even "People" so "Morally", you could use/misuse 'em anyway you wanted. You could sell their kids, or rape their wives, and it was all good. how much "evidence" do you think you need???
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BMS

Yakuda

Well-known member
All you need to do is look at recent history. in 1950 Murdering Babies was "Immoral", in 2022 it not only "Moral" but praiseworthy. Human "Morals" change with the tides, and social mores.
No not really. What's allowable may change but whats moral or immoral doesnt. The fact that people applaud someone for killing a baby doesn't make killing babies moral. Please tell me you get that. You're supposedly a "christian" if I'm not mistaken. Is that right Bob?

Your argument above is the same logic as someone is a woman is they believe they are. What a woman is doesn't change with "tides and social mores" any more than the color of the sky.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Ever heard of "Planned Parenthood"?? and the uproar over Roe v Wade??
Do Planned Parenthood praise women for having abortions?
Congratulate them?

I would need to see some evidence of that.

And the uproar is about the choice being taken away.
The Bible doesn't present it as a SIN, but does give guidelines as to how they are to be treated, and under what circumstances they are to be freed (ever read Deut 15:12-18 - 1 Cor 7:20-22???).
So it is not a sin to own slaves in the present day, because once (not) a sin, always (not) a sin, right?
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
No not really. What's allowable may change but whats moral or immoral doesnt. The fact that people applaud someone for killing a baby doesn't make killing babies moral. Please tell me you get that. You're supposedly a "christian" if I'm not mistaken. Is that right Bob?

Your argument above is the same logic as someone is a woman is they believe they are. What a woman is doesn't change with "tides and social mores" any more than the color of the sky.
"Morality", and "Ethics" are totally situational, and are defined by the SOCIETY du jour. Any knowledge of history makes that totally clear.

the Bible concerns itself with SIN, and Righteousness.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
Do Planned Parenthood praise women for having abortions?
Congratulate them?

I would need to see some evidence of that.

And the uproar is about the choice being taken away.

So it is not a sin to own slaves in the present day, because once (not) a sin, always (not) a sin, right?
Just another social issue, nothing more. The SIN comes in when slaves (or "Servants" or "Employees") are treated/used in a sinful manner.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
"Morality", and "Ethics" are totally situational, and are defined by the SOCIETY du jour. Any knowledge of history makes that totally clear.

the Bible concerns itself with SIN, and Righteousness.
I'm not sure how you people got so confused. I'd agree ethics are defined by the "SOCIETY du jour" but not morality. You realize dont you that Hitler killing jews, that didn't make killing Jews moral? Please tell me you realize that.

Once AGAIN are you suggesting it righteous to kill people?
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
I'm not sure how you people got so confused. I'd agree ethics are defined by the "SOCIETY du jour" but not morality. You realize dont you that Hitler killing jews, that didn't make killing Jews moral? Please tell me you realize that.
SInce "Morality" is nothing but a situational SOCIAL invention, and JEWS were the enemy of his society, then to him, exterminating them was "Moral" as it was in England where Jews were massacred in 1070, and Jews were EXPELLED from England in 1290 (Oliver Cromwell let 'em re-enter in 1655).
Once AGAIN are you suggesting it righteous to kill people?
"MORAL", yes (obviously with socially determined justification ), RIGHTEOUS?? just because you feel like it, no. in 2019 we in the U.S. murdered 630,000 babies "Morally", "Ethically", and Legally.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
SInce "Morality" is nothing but a situational SOCIAL invention, and JEWS were the enemy of his society, then to him, exterminating them was "Moral" as it was in England where Jews were massacred in 1070, and Jews were EXPELLED from England in 1290 (Oliver Cromwell let 'em re-enter in 1655)
Correct, to Hitler Bob but killing another human being is NOT moral Bob regardless of what Hitler thinks. Same with someone who has XY chromosomes and a penis, they don't suddenly become a woman because they think they are. Please tell me you get that
"MORAL", yes (obviously with socially determined justification ), RIGHTEOUS?? just because you feel like it, no. in 2019 we in the U.S. murdered 630,000 babies "Morally", "Ethically", and Legally.

See above Bob
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
Correct, to Hitler Bob but killing another human being is NOT moral Bob regardless of what Hitler thinks. Same with someone who has XY chromosomes and a penis, they don't suddenly become a woman because they think they are. Please tell me you get that


See above Bob
You appear to believe that "Morality" is connected to some "Absolute". But it's not. It's totally circumstantial, and determined by the Society du jour. I.E. "Human Morals" don't mean SPIT.
 
Top