American families still adopting children from other countries

Morality is universal. That's what it refers to or the word means nothing, which of course is exactly what pro-abortionists would like.

 

What makes morality universal? What mechanism applies the same morality to everyone? How does it do this considering that morality was invented by humanity? How can something we invented somehow elevate above us?

That sounds like....magic.

 

That's what it means. That's why it's a different word than "personal code," or "principles."

 

No that's not what it means at all. There is nothing about the word morality or the concept the word describes that means it is applied to all.

So unless you can substantiate why morality is universal, what you just responded with was essentially a dodge.

 

Face it. The ridiculous idea that "two persons are connected" has nothing to do with what rights they should have. Fox Hastings' theory about ethics and philosophy in the case of pregnancy is wrong.

It doesn't make it any less wrong to kill it just because it is connected.

The fetus is not an appendix or a liver.

 

We could duck tape two women together before we punish them.

Since you seem to believe an individual should have to be "separate" before they have rights.

I don't see how that would be any more absurd than what an abortion is.

 

You obviously don't know what "pregnancy" entails if you think it's like two people bound together with duct tape....although that scenario says a lot..

 

Oh? And what IS FoxHasting's ""theory about ethics and philosophy in the case of pregnancy"" ?

 

Because those women have been born and are two different and physically individuated persons. A fetus is far, far, far from being a woman. It is just a mere potential and a lifeform that is living inside and of the pregnant woman carrying it.

A fetus is not even part of a social context yet and has not entered the world to start interacting with and conceptualising it by using and developing their own reason and judgement.

I do not see how anti-abortionists always pretend as if there is not a major difference between being born and not being born.

 

Then you admit that they are separate entities?

 

Face it: potentials do not have rights.

 

Social context is hilarious.

The rights someone should have are dependent on their relation to other people?

I guess feral children being raised by a pack of wolves are inhuman?

 

Huh?

 

Yes it is very much dependent on your relation to other people. You would not have nor even need rights if you were alone on a deserted island, right?

 

You claim a fetus is not a woman, that they are nothing alike. But you claim the two are inseparable and that the fetus is part of the woman and not individuated.

It does strike me as seeming a little inconsistent.

 

You know that is a disingenuous analogy.

As soon as someone else steps onto that island and tries to kill me, I would have rights.
I don't have to talk to them or have any social relationship with them.

 

Oh, and you want to talk about moral reality. Look what one of these Pro-Choicers said in another part of this forum:

I think they actually believe what they say!


quotes from this thread: Colorado clerk is indicted for election tampering and misconduct

 

That's exactly what it means. I realize the idea is terrifying to you pro-abortionists, and to democrats in general.

 

Another dodge noted.

Surprise level: None.

 

Unless the fetus is IN the woman they are two separate entities.
A fetus isn't a woman, it's a fetus.....it may be a female fetus but that doesn't make it a woman...it's still a fetus.


Why did you dodge posts 160, 161 ? Too tough ?

 

What TF!!!

What is so "terrifying" to democrats?? ( there are no pro-abortionists )


Are we supposed to be "terrified" of what YOU think ???

 

What's "absurd" is thinking that a fetus is duct taped to the woman it's in.....LOL...


kazenatsu said: ↑
We could duck tape two women together before we punish them.""""



OH what THAT says about the poster...

 

One of my friends showed me a nasty porn video once where a guy stuck his head all the way inside a woman. So tell us, when his head was inside her body, was he a "part of her body" at that point?
(Many pro-choicers seem to believe a partial birth abortion is okay so long as the head is still inside, even if the rest of the body is dangling out)

Okay, so we have established that being inside a woman doesn't make it a part of her.

How is a fetus in the womb different from a fetus that is duck-taped to a woman's body?

Hmm, I'm thinking your just looking for any excuse so she can get her "choice".

 

I am sorry you deny the science of pregnancy and think a fetus is DUCT taped ( NOT, DUH, DUCK taped) to the woman it's in...

how silly but if you get all your information from sci-fi and PORN SITES then you won't learn much..


kazenatsu said: ↑
We could duck tape two women together before we punish them.""""



OH what THAT says about the poster...

 

Exactly. You do not have rights (nor do you need them) until you have a relationship to others.