Here's the problem some few run up against: if you oppose abortion in case of rape, you're an extremist. If you oppose abortion in case of incest, you're an extremist. If you oppose abortion in case of the continued pregnancy and/or delivery threatening the life of the mother, you're an extremist. And it is irrational, twisted, unacceptable, and very unpopular to be an extremist.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
New abortion ban law in S.Carolina, thoughts?
- Thread starter Zanna
- Start date
Werbung:
My grand niece is pretty glad her mother put her life on an equal basis.
Irrational, twisted, unacceptable and unpopular are opinions. Right and wrong are notm
This isn't a question of right and wrong or moral and immoral. Different people make different decisions based on the facts and medical guidance, and all are free to make such decisions.
Right and wrong simply are. Morals are chosen. Some people will do what they want to do regardless.
Is it right or wrong to have more than one wife? Is it right or wrong to stone a woman caught in adultery? Is divorce right or wrong? Is it right or wrong to disobey authority?
Swing and a miss. No more tangents please.
Ok, so you can't answer them and still pretend things are black and white even though you claimed "right and wrong simple are". Got it.
Last edited:
Here's your situation: you have been trapped by your own failed "logic" and personal opinions to the point that it is very obvious to anyone, but you struggle to save face anyway with more bad "logic" and false pleas objecting to "deflection" when I directly addressed your statement lacking validity. "Right and wrong simply are" is not valid and you can't allow yourself to admit it.
Right and wrong are as in are not opinion. You ask about whether certain constructs of society fall into a universal view and think it's a gotcha. It's not.
Wife count varies for very practical reasons which is why in the labor intensive days of yore more made sense.
Stoning ? As the victim was viewed as guilty (not innocent) it could be justified. As not murder.
Divorce? Might as well ask about kissing and telling.
No more silly questions. Stay on topic or walk away.
Wife count varies for very practical reasons which is why in the labor intensive days of yore more made sense.
Stoning ? As the victim was viewed as guilty (not innocent) it could be justified. As not murder.
Divorce? Might as well ask about kissing and telling.
No more silly questions. Stay on topic or walk away.
Then you are contradicting yourself. And now you posture to bully your way to a "win".
You claim right and wrong are fixed and not opinion, yet you agree that today we in the U.S. and many countries consider having more than one wife wrong enough to justify criminal charges. You agree that stoning a woman found in adultery was considered right at one time but wrong today in our culture. Some (Catholic Church) considered divorce to be wrong enough to justify excommunication, yet most in our society find divorce to be right in some circumstances and neither right nor wrong in others.
Questions of right and wrong are determined by morals and ethics. Philosophers dealing with the question say morals and ethics are not the same even if the dictionary says otherwise. Ethics, they say, deals with innately known questions of right and wrong, like murder, and morals are culturally determined as to right and wrong. I think this may be where we are having trouble. We would agree that murder is wrong and stealing is wrong, etc. But we disagree on some morals of right and wrong because they are culturally determined and your culture is likely different from mine on a number of issues. Hence we disagree on some issues.
And yet there is no absolute regarding ethical or moral right and wrong. If there were, then ethics would be universal. Yet in a wolf pack wolves occasionally kill each other and it is considered by biologists and others to be proper as a survival matter and for purifying the species and keeping it strong. So even ethics are not absolutes even though they are innate to us. They are not innate to wolves or other species.
But humans largely agree on ethical questions yet disagree on moral questions because while ethical questions like murder are determined by innate (or genetic) forces, moral questions are determined by culture which makes them opinion-based and not fixed.
So it is incorrect to declare that right and wrong are fixed and unchanging.
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
And you have been quite deceived by that very tactic. The original use of the term "fetus" was to describe the act of bearing young, offspring; which came from the Latin term "fetus" meaning "newly delivered, fruitful".
However, neither "Precision, accuracy, principle, truth, and fact" are present in your argument.
It looks to you like I've been deceived by it because you have been brainwashed by religious zealot right-to-lifers.
The ancient use or derivation of the word is irrelevant in modern meanings since those meanings are agreed upon and established as valid ones by definition. But you want to invent your own definitions and sometimes drag out either ancient or modern partisan meanings to help you sound as though you have superior knowledge. You don't. You have bias contrary to popular and accepted meanings. But you seem to be too ashamed to admit your sources.
It's not surprising that you are at sea over this. If you see the taking of life as being in the family of getting a divorce it's easy to see why you cannot grasp right and wrong.
Let me simplify it for you.
Marriage is a formalization of a man and woman living a life together largely to establish property rights.
Murder leaves someone dead. That is permanent and irreparable.
Divorce is neither right nor wrong.
Murder is wrong.
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
Ahhhh, but it does little cricket. Was it you who spoke of changing the meaning of words to deceive others? Now you see how it is your that has been deceived by that tactic, and still you lack the intellectual honesty, or ability, to accept how you have been deceived. And then, like the crowing chicken you are, you rely on the tactic of the coward with comments like this: "But you seem to be too ashamed to admit your sources". Then I go back, and look at your responses, and what do I find? NOTHING but your opinion, no sources, no nothing. Just your opinion, as weak as it is, with no rational basis for it.
You really are pathetic.
Werbung:
Stop deflecting. Either deal with the facts as presented or walk.
Last edited:
Similar threads
