Abortion

#355
#355
utvolpj said:
what is amendment 35?
Click to expand...

Said on news last night that in nov. 2012 MS will vote on amendment 35 which is to give any person the right to kill any person who is an innconveniance to their life. Seen a few of my friends also talking about in on facebook. Dont get me wrong though pj im gonna have to research this more and make sure it very well isnt about abortion after all
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#356
#356
rockyvols said:
Said on news last night that in nov. 2012 MS will vote on amendment 35 which is to give any person the right to kill any person who is an innconveniance to their life. Seen a few of my friends also talking about in on facebook. Dont get me wrong though pj im gonna have to research this more and make sure it very well isnt about abortion after all
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I would say some research is needed before I would believe any part of that
 
#362
#362
rockyvols said:
Said on news last night that in nov. 2012 MS will vote on amendment 35 which is to give any person the right to kill any person who is an innconveniance to their life. Seen a few of my friends also talking about in on facebook. Dont get me wrong though pj im gonna have to research this more and make sure it very well isnt about abortion after all
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

This to me sounds like a very sarcastic way of someone trying to say "why stop at abortion, lets' kill everyone who inconveniences our lives"
 
#363
#363
volfanjustin said:
This to me sounds like a very sarcastic way of someone trying to say "why stop at abortion, lets' kill everyone who inconveniences our lives"
Click to expand...

Right. It is childish. Great display of maturity by the elected officials of MS.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#364
#364
bamawriter said:
There is the issue. It really doesn't matter what belief it is that inspires morality, only that it does so. I'm a Christian, and as such I try to live my life as I believe Christ would have me live it. I fail rather consistently. That's not to say that I'm guaranteeing that Christianity is the answer to the great question, only that I believe it is. Whether any particular belief is the correct one, or if none of them are, the belief itself inspires one's morality.
Click to expand...

If we are talking personal morality, then I am fine with this. To each their own. However, if we are talking about the morality of a society, then I vehemently oppose it. Divine morality is acceptable for the individual but not for society. It is never acceptable for a majority or even a minority to impose their divine morality upon their peers. It is ironic that many Christians in this county are outraged by the thought of Sharia Law being implemented throughout the world (and possibly here) yet do not see parallels to the current debacle in Mississippi (Amendment 26). In short, social morality should be strictly secular.

bamawriter said:
However, if there is truly nothing beyond this life, then morality is obviously possible, but clearly irrelevent. If one is born, lives, and dies, and his consciousness is limited to that lifespan, then there is truly no greater motivation than his own self-interest. It's like Crowley said, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". If it makes a person feel good to lead a lifestyle that society considers "moral", then that's awesome, but he would still be doing it because of how it makes him feel. Simply living the moral life for the sake of morality would be beyond pointless. If a person doesn't care much for the feelings of others, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with hurting others. After all, in the worst case scenario pain is temporary.

I guess what I'm saying is that if this is all there is, the "moral" and the "immoral" end on equal footing every single time.
Click to expand...

I disagree about the relevance of morality sans divine judgement. I think it is relevant. In my opinion, if one believes morality is truly "irrelevant" then they must on some level believe that life without the possibility of an afterlife is ultimately pointless too. Honestly, I could make the argument either way. However, I feel one must be constant. Life cannot have meaning and morality still be irrelevant.

I do understand what you are trying to convey. If you look at it from a cosmos standpoint, morality sans divinity is truly irrelevant. However, you must also concede that life is also pointless.
 
#365
#365
PKT_VOL said:
I do understand what you are trying to convey. If you look at it from a cosmos standpoint, morality sans divinity is truly irrelevant. However, you must also concede that life is also pointless.
Click to expand...

I think we agree for the most part. I wouldn't say that life is "pointless", but rather that the point of life is to serve yourself as you see fit.
 
#366
#366
bamawriter said:
I think we agree for the most part. I wouldn't say that life is "pointless", but rather that the point of life is to serve yourself as you see fit.
Click to expand...

I meant pointless in an ultimate, abstract way. I would say the only "point" or mission for life is to survive. No doubt, the need to survive feeds our own self interest or as you say, to live life as one sees fit.
 
#367
#367
PKT_VOL said:
I meant pointless in an ultimate, abstract way. I would say the only "point" or mission for life is to survive. No doubt, the need to survive feeds our own self interest or as you say, to live life as one sees fit.
Click to expand...

many think it's to procreate. we're just animals with bigger brains.
 
#368
#368
PKT_VOL said:
I meant pointless in an ultimate, abstract way. I would say the only "point" or mission for life is to survive. No doubt, the need to survive feeds our own self interest or as you say, to live life as one sees fit.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with that. If life is pointless, then surviving isn't to be valued. Continuing in this life as long as it is enjoyable makes sense. But if life isn't enjoyable, and there is no indication of it turning, I would say that ending it would, perhaps, be preferable.
 
#369
#369
bamawriter said:
I'm not sure I agree with that. If life is pointless, then surviving isn't to be valued. Continuing in this life as long as it is enjoyable makes sense. But if life isn't enjoyable, and there is no indication of it turning, I would say that ending it would, perhaps, be preferable.
Click to expand...

I think your mixing up "life" with humans in a developed country. When I mean life, I am talking from a biological perspective. Humans in undeveloped parts of the world are still struggling just to survive though. I should have been more precise with my language. Sorry about the confusion.
 
Last edited:
#370
#370
PKT_VOL said:
I think your mixing up "life" with humans in a developed country. When I mean life, I am talking from a biological perspective. Humans in undeveloped parts of the world are still struggling just to survive though. I should have been more precise with my language. Sorry about the confusion.
Click to expand...

Ah, that makes perfect sense.
 
#371
#371
Abortion is such a complicated issue, and I absolutely resent that we have allowed our politicians to ensnare us in this never ending debate to the point that we are distracted from the actual things Government is responsible for (and miserably failing at).

I am definitely for banning anything past the second trimester, outside of that extremely rare case that the mothers life is truly in danger. I honestly don't care what you trot out to try to rationalize it, but if you haven't made up your mind after nearly 6 months, then I ain't got nothing for you. I'm sorry I have a hard time believing that is not the case for 99% of the cases out there.

Anything below that is when i starts getting really muddy for me. Personally I am vehemently opposed to the act, but I'm also vehemently opposed to infidelity by married folks, but that doesn't mean it can be legislated away.

I truly believe life starts from conception BUT if I had to put an actual scientific number on it I'd say between the 1st and 2nd month. But I honestly do not know. The only thing that urks me in this whole debate is if the government shouldn't get involved in telling someone what they can do with their body. Ok, then they should take a FULL neutral stance on the issue and provide absolutely ZERO funding for something that is completely elective as well. And Nancy Pelosi can take her "Leaving women dying on the surgery floor" and blow it out her ass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#372
#372
Dems all about government funding abortions.

but the reasons the dems are all for it is sick.

anyone who disagrees also doesn't understand why the right to choose was passed.
 
#373
#373
NEOCON said:
Dems all about government funding abortions.

but the reasons the dems are all for it is sick.

anyone who disagrees also doesn't understand why the right to choose was passed.
Click to expand...

But I thought abortion was murder. And anyone who "chooses" is just a baby killer who is morally corrupt.
 
#374
#374
trevols81 said:
But I thought abortion was murder. And anyone who "chooses" is just a baby killer who is morally corrupt.
Click to expand...

not disputing that.

i'm just pointing out why the license to be a baby killer was passed to begin with.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top