Please answer this question.

[pavlos]

You and pavlos are confused. Let me try to clarify it for you.
Restrictions does not mean illegal. Pavlos said that abortion was against the law after the first trimester - that is simply untrue.

Of course it is as it isn't what I said, this is what I said " In the US a zygot/embryo cannot be aborted after the first trimester it is against the law, the only time it happens after is due to medical reasons such as the mothers life is in danger.
The law/laws have been posted up several times it would be in your best interest to read them.
But it seem you either quote mine, post up a strawman, or your reading comprehension is terrible, I would rather think you were honest, so I take it as you reading is faulty.

Here are those laws again.
First trimester: A woman and her doctor may freely decide to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester.
Second trimester: State governments can restrict abortion access after the first trimester with laws intended to protect the woman's health.
Third trimester: Abortions after foetal viability must be available if the woman's health or life are at risk; state governments can prohibit other abortions."

Yes, it's true that there are restrictions later in the pregnancy, but what you guys don't seem to realize is that those so-called "restrictions" are easy to get around.

Irrelevant. The the statement was that Hadit/Lily could legally kill his/her unborn child any time he/she wished, but this is not so.

No, it's not. By the time most abortions take place, the preborn already has arms, legs, brain waves, a beating heart, a little face, etc. Definitely not merely a "collection of cells" - but do keep up the lies and BS, it just makes people who are on the fence come over to the prolife side.

Irrelevant: the arguement is whether it is legal for hadit/Lily to kill his/her unborn child, it matters not at what stage the zygot/embryo/foetus. it is clear by the law he/she cant do what he/she wishes.
I'm not against a woman's right to do what she pleases with her own body, I don't happen to like abortion, and if it were me making the law I would keep solely to the first two months.

And why is it lily whenever someone questions you with an intelligent arguement you call sock puppet.
Is hadit a sock puppet of you as your always kissing his arse.


Oh and by the way welcome to the forum SusieSusie.

[Isolde]

I was under the impression that God told us it was wrong to kill.

[hadit]

I was under the impression that God told us it was wrong to kill.

He said it was wrong for individuals to murder.

[chunk98]

It's susiesusie here.
So you ban me because someone with an agenda in the argument cries "sockpuppet" just goes to show christians don't like any descenting opinions.
You moderators should be ashamed of yourselves, you give in to zealots like you have no backbone, and you call this site disscussanything, quite frankly that is hilarious.
This site needs a more unbiased group of moderators, although you will probably just ban me again, because if someone agrees with another they must be a sockpuppet, right!
You moderators are pathetic to the nth degree.

[chunk98]

What pav*cough*susiesusie is doing is trying to put words in my mouth, so he can knock down a straw man.

I was going to reply to that, but I think I'll wait til I get back here in a few days - as I said a little while ago, I was only popping in for a bit and just wanted to reply to his/her abortion post to hadit.

On the contrary, the statement "by definition God is the ultimate authority and it's silly to think that we know better." implies that.
It states that god has the right to do anything and it is considered just, therefore my post was not a strawman at all, it was right on the money.

You're either naive or misinformed. You seem to be treating all abortions after the first trimester as "late term." That is incorrect. Late term usually refers to abortions that take place either in the third trimester, or at the earliest in the second half of the second trimester, which is around 20 or 21 weeks.

So for you to lump in all abortions after the first trimester into the same category (for the purpose of claiming they're illegal) is either ignorant or deceptive.

You must have a problem with your reading, because I did no such thing, now whose straw manning.
I suggest you read the links provided, because you obviously haven't, and you have the cheek to call me misinformed, don't make me laugh.

[chunk98]

then she'd be as impressed as I am about what a great individual you are

Do you guys want a room, I think your a sockpuppet of lily, a sock here, a sock there, a sock just about everywhere.

[SivVulk]

give it up neither Lily or 86Dude have IPs that match that of three other members, let alone 1.

[Jarik]

It's susiesusie here.
So you ban me because someone with an agenda in the argument cries "sockpuppet" just goes to show christians don't like any descenting opinions.
You moderators should be ashamed of yourselves, you give in to zealots like you have no backbone, and you call this site disscussanything, quite frankly that is hilarious.
This site needs a more unbiased group of moderators, although you will probably just ban me again, because if someone agrees with another they must be a sockpuppet, right!
You moderators are pathetic to the nth degree.

I agree and at the same time don't agree with this guy.

I don't want to ban ANYONE for exercising their free speech unless they're intentionally provoking hate without trying to even prove a point or get anything accomplished. Susiesusie may have been unnecessarily rude in his arguments, but he argued a point with the purpose of proving it. I don't see why he needed to be banned.

[Manstein]

I think you've got moral relativity all wrong, Dreamy and Lily.

Lily is operating under the assumption that morality has to be objective in nature in order to have any validity, as opposed to subjective and hence relative, to different people and societies.

Objective morality means that certain acts are truly wrong, whether someone perceives it as wrong or not. I.E. The Holocaust was truly wrong, even though the Nazis believed it was good.

Even if the Nazis won WW2 and successfully killed or brainwashed everyone that disagreed with them (so that everyone agreed with them), the Holocaust would still be wrong under objective morality.

This is mistaken. People do things that they know are immoral all the time. This can't be negated simply by saying "Oh! Today I think rape is moral!" That's not how moral relativism works, and no moral relativist would see those two people as "moral equivalents", whatever THAT is supposed to mean.

Of course not many moral relativists would consider them "moral equivalents", but that is because they are not being consistent with their worldview.

If one accepts that morals are relative and societal constructs, then one has to accept that certain actions are not truly wrong or right. Morals are merely what imperfect, slightly evolved animals (Homo Sapiens) have deemed wrong or right to improve survival of the species.

That sounds crude but it is exactly what relativism logically leads to under an atheistic mindset.

That's false. Moral relativists can and do make judgments on morality all the time, it's a matter of context, not personal opinion.

Of course they make judgments, but again they are not being consistent. Who are they to cast judgment on someone's actions? What ultimate moral authority do they possess?


Either way, the issue of subjective vs objective morality and moral relativism is a lot more subtle and sophisticated than it appears at first. Bertrand Russell, Sarte, Camus, and many others wrestled with the idea of relativism and could not come to a desirable conclusion. Camus even settled on life being "absurd" at its core, due to the utter meaninglessness of life due to morality and value being entirely relative.

[lily]

Excellent post, Manstein. Thanks for replying to him. I'm still going to reply later, I'm just quickly popping in again.

I agree and at the same time don't agree with this guy.

I don't want to ban ANYONE for exercising their free speech unless they're intentionally provoking hate without trying to even prove a point or get anything accomplished. Susiesusie may have been unnecessarily rude in his arguments, but he argued a point with the purpose of proving it. I don't see why he needed to be banned.

Read the post right above yours. SivVulk is a mod. I'll let him reply to you, but I just wanted to tell you - they don't ban people for "exercising free speech." They do ban a double account, especially if the person has a history of doing that.

Maybe you haven't been here long enough to know that, but don't worry - it usually takes a lot to get banned around here. (You get warning points, and then after a certain number of warning points, you get a temporary ban, and then if you keep going the length of the ban goes up) The exception is spammers or double accounts.

[Jarik]

Read the post right above yours. SivVulk is a mod. I'll let him reply to you, but I just wanted to tell you - they don't ban people for "exercising free speech." They do ban a double account, especially if the person has a history of doing that.

Maybe you haven't been here long enough to know that, but don't worry - it usually takes a lot to get banned around here. (You get warning points, and then after a certain number of warning points, you get a temporary ban, and then if you keep going the length of the ban goes up) The exception is spammers or double accounts.

Ah, that makes more sense.

[Jarik]

Either way, the issue of subjective vs objective morality and moral relativism is a lot more subtle and sophisticated than it appears at first. Bertrand Russell, Sarte, Camus, and many others wrestled with the idea of relativism and could not come to a desirable conclusion. Camus even settled on life being "absurd" at its core, due to the utter meaninglessness of life due to morality and value being entirely relative.

It seems ALL things in any way tied to the meaning of life, including morality, are utterly enigmatic in nature. It's a pity one cannot get a serious mental foothold on a subject of such importance as this.

But I'd like to remind people of the danger I see in objective morality: Once the rules are set... you cannot change them. Better hope they're damn good rules.

[86Dùde]

So who was dat chunk guy?

[Sparrow]

I admit I can't vote above if only I'm not so sure I see Him allowing an earthly life to end as opposed to Him just saying "Well today I think I'll kill him, her and that one over there." Nor does He disrupt free will so if someone else is willfully killing me...
Forgive me tho if I'm not understanding this clearly tho.

[pavlos]

Read the post right above yours. SivVulk is a mod. I'll let him reply to you, but I just wanted to tell you - they don't ban people for "exercising free speech." They do ban a double account, especially if the person has a history of doing that.

I hope you don't mean me if that's what your suggesting, I haven't done it now and I have never done it in the past.
I've been here nearly five years why would I jeopardise my status on this site with something so stupid that it could get me banned.
I think you've banned an innocent person, for all the wrong reasons, no wonder they are incensed.
I think the mods must be using buggy software.

I think Lily you're one of the most hateful people I've ever had the misfortune to come across, I'm glad I don't know you personally.(well I wouldn't even bother) For a so called "Christian" your detestable.

[lily]

I didn't ban anyone, I'm not even a mod, sheesh. Take it up with the mods.

And as usual, your anti-religion obsession has caused you to go off the deep end. I don't hate you or anyone on this site. In fact, I get along with a number of lefties on this site who most conservatives can't even have a civil conversation with. I like most people on this site. But thanks for the horrible and hateful stuff you said to me. You're just showing once again that your anti-religion obsession rules you and clouds everything. You're constantly projecting.

[Sparrow]

I think Lily you're one of the most hateful people I've ever had the misfortune to come across, I'm glad I don't know you personally.(well I wouldn't even bother) For a so called "Christian" your detestable.

I'm afraid Lily just happens to be one of the most gentle souls on this site, usually having one of the biggest hearts. Why would you say such a thing?

[86Dùde]

Chunk/pav/susie or whatever you are: Take your own advice and get a room for yourself, preferably one with rubber walls. See what 45 years of secular humanist commie infiltration produces?

[lily]

I'm afraid Lily just happens to be one of the most gentle souls on this site, usually having one of the biggest hearts. Why would you say such a thing?

Aw, thank you Sparrow! I truly appreciate that. I was actually shocked at his comment. I know that he and I don't get along well, but... I thought that was over the top. I felt like someone literally took a punch at me.

Thanks again for the kind words.

And thank you to 86 for what he said earlier.

You guys rock.

[pavlos]

I didn't ban anyone, I'm not even a mod, sheesh. Take it up with the mods.

But you called it, on a purely innocent person, you instigated the banning, just because it seems you didn't like what they were saying that is nasty.

And as usual, your anti-religion obsession has caused you to go off the deep end. I don't hate you or anyone on this site. In fact, I get along with a number of lefties on this site who most conservatives can't even have a civil conversation with. I like most people on this site. But thanks for the horrible and hateful stuff you said to me. You're just showing once again that your anti-religion obsession rules you and clouds everything. You're constantly projecting.

What has my humanism to with your getting someone banned, Just shows how hateful you are turning it into something it's not. Evil pure evil.

I'm afraid Lily just happens to be one of the most gentle souls on this site, usually having one of the biggest hearts. Why would you say such a thing?

You know her personally, do you. if you think she is nice just because, she treated you nice on here. Well Hitler treated Eva Braun nice too, as did Stalin to his wife Nadezhda.
____________