Bans 'do not cut abortion rate'

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I can't believe that you are that devoid of critical thinking skills that you can suggest that ethics and morality can only be derived from some notion of sin against a 'higher' power.

When did I say thaT? I asked some simple questions. Someone should be able to answer them.

Yes, you did. You baldly stated that you can't understand how someone can find murder bad if they are not religious. The only difference between a religious person and someone else, is that a religious person believes that the consequences of their actions are ultimately judged by a 'higher' power whereas someone without religions believes these consequences are only judged in the here and now. What's so hard to understand Joe?

Can you show me the post where I baldly said that?

A fetus isn't an individual Joe. Not now, not ever.

I'm wondering how many more pages can be squeezed out of Joe's circular logic and blunt thinking.

No circular. A baby is a baby. Thats all.

Very circular, a fetus is not a baby, nor is it an individual. Keep chasing your tail Joe, it's fun to watch

You two obviously don't know the concept of circular reasoning.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A fetus isn't an individual Joe. Not now, not ever.

I'm wondering how many more pages can be squeezed out of Joe's circular logic and blunt thinking.

No circular. A baby is a baby. Thats all.

But a fetus isn't a baby in the sense of murder.

As I'm sure you know people are conferred certain rights and legal protections when you're born or when you reach the ages of 16, 18 and 21. Barring some very narrow distinctions, that doesn't apply to developing fetuses - which are deemed the biological property of the mother.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I can't believe that you are that devoid of critical thinking skills that you can suggest that ethics and morality can only be derived from some notion of sin against a 'higher' power.

When did I say thaT? I asked some simple questions. Someone should be able to answer them.

Yes, you did. You baldly stated that you can't understand how someone can find murder bad if they are not religious. The only difference between a religious person and someone else, is that a religious person believes that the consequences of their actions are ultimately judged by a 'higher' power whereas someone without religions believes these consequences are only judged in the here and now. What's so hard to understand Joe?

Can you show me the post where I baldly stated that?

[Peikko 1,575]

So how does an atheist know that murder is bad?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

A fetus isn't an individual Joe. Not now, not ever.

I'm wondering how many more pages can be squeezed out of Joe's circular logic and blunt thinking.

No circular. A baby is a baby. Thats all.

But a fetus isn't a baby in the sense of murder.

As I'm sure you know people are conferred certain rights and legal protections when you're born or when you reach the ages of 16, 18 and 21. Barring some very narrow distinctions, that doesn't apply to developing fetuses - which are deemed the biological property of the mother.

Doesn't matter if chocolate is deemed broccoli - its still chocolate.

So how does an atheist know that murder is bad?

Ok - I don't see a bald statement in a question with no answers.

[_Simpson_ 250]

The conclussion is drawn because that is a moral judgement based upon a religious ideal. Not a bad thing per se, but can you really say that you independently came to the conclussion that murder was bad without the aide of some sort of religious or religious based literature?

I didnt need a copy of playboy to reassure me that I am straight and I dont need a bible to help me realize that murder is wrong. Brings us to the age old question, is being gay a choice.... I think not.

[Peikko 1,575]

A fetus isn't an individual Joe. Not now, not ever.

I'm wondering how many more pages can be squeezed out of Joe's circular logic and blunt thinking.

No circular. A baby is a baby. Thats all.

But a fetus isn't a baby in the sense of murder.

As I'm sure you know people are conferred certain rights and legal protections when you're born or when you reach the ages of 16, 18 and 21. Barring some very narrow distinctions, that doesn't apply to developing fetuses - which are deemed the biological property of the mother.

Doesn't matter if chocolate is deemed broccoli - its still chocolate.

So how does an atheist know that murder is bad?

Ok - I don't see a bald statement in a question with no answers.

Are you now saying you know the answer already?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A fetus isn't an individual Joe. Not now, not ever.

I'm wondering how many more pages can be squeezed out of Joe's circular logic and blunt thinking.

No circular. A baby is a baby. Thats all.

But a fetus isn't a baby in the sense of murder.

As I'm sure you know people are conferred certain rights and legal protections when you're born or when you reach the ages of 16, 18 and 21. Barring some very narrow distinctions, that doesn't apply to developing fetuses - which are deemed the biological property of the mother.

Doesn't matter if chocolate is deemed broccoli - its still chocolate.

Whatever you want to call it - its still the biological property of the mother.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

A fetus isn't an individual Joe. Not now, not ever.

I'm wondering how many more pages can be squeezed out of Joe's circular logic and blunt thinking.

No circular. A baby is a baby. Thats all.

But a fetus isn't a baby in the sense of murder.

As I'm sure you know people are conferred certain rights and legal protections when you're born or when you reach the ages of 16, 18 and 21. Barring some very narrow distinctions, that doesn't apply to developing fetuses - which are deemed the biological property of the mother.

Doesn't matter if chocolate is deemed broccoli - its still chocolate.

So how does an atheist know that murder is bad?

Ok - I don't see a bald statement in a question with no answers.

Are you now saying you know the answer already?

If you don't want to answer the question its fine. But the statement was made that you only get morality from religion. And I asked the question as a follow up. (even though Atheism is technically a religion).

[The_Dude 1,142]

Resorting to the copout answer early today.

Is it still a copout when you clearly lack the capacity to rationally articulate your position? You keep going round and round that a fetus is a baby and that constitutes murder. Well, sorry to break it to you for the 11,405th time in this post, but that is plainly wrong. The sooner you accept that and read the case laws associated with this issue, the sooner you can come to reality.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

A fetus isn't an individual Joe. Not now, not ever.

I'm wondering how many more pages can be squeezed out of Joe's circular logic and blunt thinking.

No circular. A baby is a baby. Thats all.

But a fetus isn't a baby in the sense of murder.

As I'm sure you know people are conferred certain rights and legal protections when you're born or when you reach the ages of 16, 18 and 21. Barring some very narrow distinctions, that doesn't apply to developing fetuses - which are deemed the biological property of the mother.

Doesn't matter if chocolate is deemed broccoli - its still chocolate.

Whatever you want to call it - its still the biological property of the mother.

No - the right answer is - No matter what you want to call it - its still a baby and killing babies is murder.

[Peikko 1,575]

Atheism isn't a religion, it's the absence of religious belief Joe.

I did answer the question already. That doesn't take away from the fact that you are incredibly naive if you needed to ask it.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Resorting to the copout answer early today.

Is it still a copout when you clearly lack the capacity to rationally articulate your position? You keep going round and round that a fetus is a baby and that constitutes murder. Well, sorry to break it to you for the 11,405th time in this post, but that is plainly wrong. The sooner you accept that and read the case laws associated with this issue, the sooner you can come to reality.

It isn't wrong. Whats wrong is to give a baby a bunch of other names so that its easier for you to kill it.

[The_Dude 1,142]

A fetus isn't an individual Joe. Not now, not ever.

I'm wondering how many more pages can be squeezed out of Joe's circular logic and blunt thinking.

No circular. A baby is a baby. Thats all.

But a fetus isn't a baby in the sense of murder.

As I'm sure you know people are conferred certain rights and legal protections when you're born or when you reach the ages of 16, 18 and 21. Barring some very narrow distinctions, that doesn't apply to developing fetuses - which are deemed the biological property of the mother.

Doesn't matter if chocolate is deemed broccoli - its still chocolate.

Whatever you want to call it - its still the biological property of the mother.

No - the right answer is - No matter what you want to call it - its still a baby and killing babies is murder.

And the Jerry's Kids Telethon Continues............

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, and you asked the question first, just so you can get your set of three wrongs in a row. Bravo

Resorting to the copout answer early today.

Is it still a copout when you clearly lack the capacity to rationally articulate your position? You keep going round and round that a fetus is a baby and that constitutes murder. Well, sorry to break it to you for the 11,405th time in this post, but that is plainly wrong. The sooner you accept that and read the case laws associated with this issue, the sooner you can come to reality.

It isn't wrong. Whats wrong is to give a baby a bunch of other names so that its easier for you to kill it.

Changing the name is not what makes it easier to kill Joe.