[ POLL ] Morality Laws.

Post Reply New Topic

The fact that people don't agree is one reason for liberty, freedom, choice, etc., as a value. People in religions etc don't agree either (I made that clear before; consider all the different denominations of Christianity and how polarized they are on a number of relevant issues). The right to "kill one's own children less than 9 months old" is appealing to the value of freedom over one's own life, the right to choose how that life turns out, and not defining a "child" until it's really decided for it to exist and enters into this world. I think that's a bit arbitrary myself, and people should make up their minds early on...just as it's silly to see anything more than an unfertilized egg or sperm as somehow having a right to life because it happened accidentally. God didn't put that baby there, people having sex did, and they're the ones who are having to deal with it (which can end horribly for the baby in some cases, after it's born). Things happening by accident or atrocity don't need to be set in stone. You can also strip the "right to life" of whatever religious origins it may have, and argue for it from a reasonable attitude as well. It's obvious that after a certain point, whether it's inside or outside of the womb, it's still a human baby, and it should have rights. I can see both ways. I think a good compromise is to put a limit on when the killing can occur. Again, one of the issues and reasons behind motivating *choice* is that people don't agree. So you get to choose what's right for you. That's what choice is about. If you aren't infringing on someone else's rights, you get to do what you want. Why should we try to be possessive over what other people are holding inside their bodies and what they can do with it? One could argue it's still a part of them at that point, and you're free to hack off your own limb if you desire, because it's your body (and some babies in this stage could be seen as essentially parasites). At this point, dispute is being had over what qualifies as "someone else". Compromise is best in such cases. Some people (a minority of extremists) agree and say 0 months is not okay (but it's not really a person in the early stages, anyone who can think clearly sees this fact). These people even say negative months isn't okay, and often don't even believe in simple birth control, for archaic and counterproductive reasons. Others say 8 months is ok (when it's a fully formed baby). And there are people in the middle. So probably something like 5 months would be a good middle ground, because a baby isn't made all at once, and people don't agree. It's a gradual biological process, and started out as sperm. There's a big path of growth between sperm and a baby, so to treat it all the same as either clearly not a baby, or clearly a baby, wouldn't make sense. Choice is the more sensible and humane attitude, weighing all the cons that come along with forcing all pregnant women to give birth against their will.

A survey of scientists asked when life began and more of them answered at conception than any other answer. I think every person has a right to live from the moment they are conceived. From a strictly non-religious human reasoning standpoint, I don't think anyone has the right to take an innocent person's life for any reason. Allowing women to kill children under 5 months old isn't acceptable to me especially since it's almost always done for the sake of convenience. Even if an unborn child isn't strictly a person, it will become a person so killing him still takes away his right to life. On top of that, many people want children but can't have them. They'd love to adopt but there aren't enough babies available because women don't want to be inconvenienced by carrying their child and the law forbids those couples from paying the mother money to encourage her to keep the child since fanatics just hear oh no someone wants to buy or sell a baby and get all emotional. Religious laws would allow those couples to adopt children.

I want to believe what pro-life people preach about protecting innocent lives but at the same time these are usually the same conservatives who aren't bothered at all by the young children in third world countries getting blasted to death by our military. Plus they would rather protect their precious right to own firearms than keep our schools safe for our children to not get shot up.

Therefore their arguments come across as hypocritical. If they truly valued innocent lives at all they would not be supporting these military conflicts overseas or trying to prevent laws that attempt to stop school shootings.

People who are against abortions should also not be judging people who keep on having kids and blame them for having kids they cannot afford. It's either that or be for abortion. Also think of all the kids in 3rd world countries who are neglected and never get adopted so they either die or end up in mental institutions as adults. Plus we have so many kids in foster care here in the US as well who don't get adopted. With more abortions and better access to birth control, we wouldn't have this big of a problem.

I agree, also people who don't want to be pro-abortion shouldn't be judging people who are anti-abortion. I mean whatever happened to personal choice? Like I support the Death Penalty, but that doesn't mean I have the right to harshly judge those who are against it.

Of course maybe I'm a bit of a hypocrite myself as I seem to ragefully judge people over political differences all the time whenever I get set off.

Why not?



I'm opposed to both.



Is that worse than killing them? Why not ask them if they want to live and kill those who say they'd rather be dead?



That's because of massive government regulations that make it impossible for many couples to adopt. Anyone is allowed to have a child but the government only allows very few people to adopt one and makes it very difficult and expensive for them to do so.



More personal responsibility wouldn't hurt.

And you're expecting that out of human beings?

It's hypocritical.

A poor person gets pregnant but they can't afford a child so they get an abortion, you judge them. But if they kept the baby and got assistance to help provide for that kid, you would still judge them for having a baby in the first place. See what I mean?

What about people out there who have kids but only to abuse and neglect them, should they have had an abortion instead than having a baby to abuse?

Another thing here that drives me crazy is how I hear about parents abusing their kids and people get outraged and say how everyone shouldn't have kids but yet whenever someone gets an abortion, they judge them so I think they are hypocrites. Which is it?






You can't force people to have kids and be good parents so it's either have an abortion or have the kid suffer.



Is having a kid living in that condition worse than having an abortion? What about a child being abused? Is that worse than an abortion? Why even bother having a kid if you won't love them and take care of them? You can argue not getting pregnant is the same as killing them.




Yeah I can agree here that we need to allow more people to adopt. It used to be easy back then to adopt but the issue was too many people were just adopting a child to have as their slave so they can do all the housework so they made it stricter to ensure a kid will go to a loving home but the problem it created was they made it too strict so a kid never gets adopted. Maybe not make adoption so darn expensive.

Women don't just get pregnant for no reason. There's something women can refrain from doing to avoid getting pregnant. I don't like to judge people and I treat everyone equally regardless of gender but I'd like everyone to be responsible and not be burdened with the consequences of their actions.




When that happens where I live, those children are taken away and sent to live somewhere safer.




I think the people you're referring to would say they should exercise personal responsibility by keeping their legs closed which would allow them to avoid having kids without getting an abortion.





Those aren't the only choices.




I'd rather be abused than murdered.




I'm glad we agree on something.

Last edited by emotrtkey on 30 Aug 2020, 7:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, scientifically, life does begin at conception. But we're not protecting all life. We're protecting human life. What about asking scientists what qualifies as a human? A fetus qualifies now...an embryo? I don't think so. I and many others personally don't feel that's a human before a certain point. Where that point is...well it's definitely not right after conception. You realize that right after conception you're just looking at like, a lump...it can't even live outside the body in any capacity, it's just a mass of growing cells etc. inside the mom. A tumor or a cancer is a parasitic organism as well (i.e. life). Gradually, over time, the fetus forms into a human. These early-stage fetuses shouldn't be defended the same way an infant is. People have this knee-jerk reaction to the notion that this is a *baby* and it's some sacred thing. It's not, it's just a problem in some cases, one that needs taken care of, one way or another, because a baby deserves a future. Sometimes it was the product of rape, and how is that in any way a good thing? It's just not rational to defend, it's absurd. It's not the more the merrier, here. Lots of babies die who aren't properly taken care of and overpopulation is a real thing. People who are stubbornly pro-life either don't want to or can't see that, and they seemingly can't be reasoned with. In an ideal situation, maybe every fetus should become an infant and survive and become a thriving human being with a long life, but that's just not reality. You have to look at the facts and come up with a solution rather than clinging to ideals that are completely impractical, and perpetuate this cycle of people coming into the world with no support, and almost no life to speak of.

On the other hand, I think many people have a lot to learn about commitment, and taking care of a fetus, and eventually a baby. I think that in general, people should have little excuse to not practice birth control, and successfully plan when they want to have a baby, and not need to have an abortion. They should also be open to putting the child up for adoption if the baby is very far along, it deserves a shot. I think it should be the minority of cases where abortion is necessary, because it can be somewhat inhumane. I think it should be exceptional cases, and in those cases, it is more humane to have the abortion. Early on, I don't see it as remotely inhumane. It's just cells, and they belong to the parent(s). People project too much onto a bunch of cells. Easy come, easy go. Have the abortion now if you don't want it, and later on have the baby when you want it. It's really not that hard to understand. You shouldn't be forced to keep it and give it a life you don't want for it, even if it supposedly "makes other people happy". It is yours after all, it doesn't belong to someone else. What about what you want? What about your happiness?

Since God makes the laws, then it’s really up to God how those laws are executed. If ancient Israelites had actually obeyed those laws, everything post-Moses would have been radically different. The end result was that the Israelite nation was completely destroyed. Only the tribe of Judah remains, and they are a looooong way from restoring temple worship.

As to the ancient Israelite religion, the mercy seat was placed over the law of Moses in the ark of the covenant. You cannot have a true religion unless it values mercy over law.

The trouble is there can only be one correct religion.


With Christianity, the decision to convert has to be voluntary. Forced conversions are not conversions. Christianity does not establish a preference for believers or nonbelievers, but rather values everyone equally. The “rules” of Christianity basically are guidelines for how people behave in worship meetings. It’s not this exclusive, elaborate thing you have in the OT, but is instead adaptable to any culture. Since there is an emphasis on mercy, and a desire for inclusion, it’s difficult to use Christianity as a rationale for dealing harshly with certain behaviors. It’s a matter of whether society decides on its own that certain behaviors warrant destroying the person. Perhaps it is, depending on what the crime is, but reason is required to assess what exactly those things are and whether the punishment fits.

Don't forget that women can get pregnant from rape. I don't think she should be forced to carry the baby.If she wants to go along with the pregnancy and put the baby up for an adoption, that is her choice. I would respect anyone's choice for what they decide to do when they are pregnant.


If women are expected to keep their legs closed, men should be expected to keep their dicks to themselves. Men can just walk away from the whole thing if they don't want to be a father.

I agree, 100%. It's BS to force women to raise children when the men are not forced to stick around to help raise them. And I'm speaking from personal experience as the son of a single mother who never had a father in the picture.

I just want marijuana and public nudity legal here, but our governor is s Nazi.

I’m pro-life, and I believe no one gets a choice when another life is on the line. And I mean ANY life. If bringing a baby to term would, and I mean 100% certainty, absolutely, would result in the mother’s death, she has the right to preserve her own life in self defense, even if it means the baby has to die. And since I just watched doctors cut a baby out of my wife’s belly on Wednesday for the third time, put her back together, and she’s up, moving around, taking care of our baby AND three others besides, even after I’ve insisted her stubborn butt stay in bed so she can heal, the threat to a mother’s life doesn’t carry much weight with me.

Where rape is concerned, I do think carrying a rapist’s baby is expecting too much. However, I believe that a timely, immediate rape accusation should be REQUIRED, along with collecting evidence and measures taken to prevent embryo implantation. If all options are exhausted and a girl still ends up pregnant, she should have an abortion if she wants to. HOWEVER, it is still murder. And because it is the rapist who caused the pregnancy in the first place, it’s the rapist rather than the victim who should be charged with murder. In the event that the accused is found innocent and the victim is making a false accusation, she should be tried for murder.

I will not agree that abortion is acceptable unless those conditions are satisfied.

Abortion due to rape makes up less than 1% of all abortions. I think everyone has a right to live but most pro-lifers, myself included, would be willing to make an exception for rape, incest, and to protect a woman's life to save the lives of the vast majority who are aborted because their mother considered them an inconvenience.




No they can't. We're required by law to be responsible for our actions. We have to pay large sums of money for child support for about 20 years and are thrown in jail if we can't afford to pay it. We don't have any say regardling what happens to our child. We can't have the child aborted if the mother is opposed and usually aren't allowed to live with the child we are forced to support.

How would you feel if you were pregnant and the law allowed the father to decide whether to abort the child without allowing you to object, gave the father custody of the child, and forced you to pay for it? Men have it far worse.