|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 18, 2019 8:52:52 GMT
Miley Cyrus is a Christian and unaffiliated to any political party, as far as I know. And since fetuses have less personality than grown vertebrate animals, there's nothing hypocritical about advocating animal rights while being pro-choice. And new born babies have less personality then adults. Does that mean they also have less right to live? A fetus is a living human being. Just at a particular stage of it’s development. Just as a toddler is at a different stage of it’s development than a teenager.
|
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 18, 2019 9:17:35 GMT
Has she said anything about abortion? My friend she’s licking a cake that says “ABORTION IS HEALTHCARE”. What do you think she’s supporting? And that makes her devil incarnate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 18, 2019 9:30:08 GMT
My friend she’s licking a cake that says “ABORTION IS HEALTHCARE”. What do you think she’s supporting? And that makes her devil incarnate. No. It makes her a hypocrite with double standards. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 10:40:23 GMT
So no hypocrisy, then. A claim made by Cody that turns out to be non-factual; what a shocker! It's so unexpected! Well championing for animals rights due in large part to their inability to defend themselves while simultaneously celebrating abortion, the killing of pre-born babies, literally the most innocent and defenceless among us. You seriously can’t see the hypocrisy in that? No, not in the slightest. Because a 'pre born baby' isn't a thing that exists, and even if it did, the cases are not comparable. Hypocrisy is stating a belief whilst acting in the opposite; what we have here is a person with two unrelated beliefs. Just because you mistakenly think the beliefs are related, that doesn't mean that she sees them that way, or that they are in reality. Now your worshipping a god who condones slavery, whilst believing slavery is immoral... that's hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 18, 2019 10:48:15 GMT
Miley Cyrus is a Christian and unaffiliated to any political party, as far as I know. And since fetuses have less personality than grown vertebrate animals, there's nothing hypocritical about advocating animal rights while being pro-choice. And new born babies have less personality then adults. Does that mean they also have less right to live? Legally, no. Ethically, yes. A fetus is a living human being. Just at a particular stage of it’s development. Just as a toddler is at a different stage of it’s development than a teenager. As is sperm and egg cells. But I don't believe that every sperm is sacred.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 18, 2019 10:56:15 GMT
Well championing for animals rights due in large part to their inability to defend themselves while simultaneously celebrating abortion, the killing of pre-born babies, literally the most innocent and defenceless among us. You seriously can’t see the hypocrisy in that? No, not in the slightest. Because a 'pre born baby' isn't a thing that exists, and even if it did, the cases are not comparable. Hypocrisy is stating a belief whilst acting in the opposite; what we have here is a person with two unrelated beliefs. Just because you mistakenly think the beliefs are related, that doesn't mean that she sees them that way, or that they are in reality. Now your worshipping a god who condones slavery, whilst believing slavery is immoral... that's hypocritical. “Because a 'pre born baby' isn't a thing that exists” So a fetus is not a thing that exists? “Hypocrisy is stating a belief whilst acting in the opposite;” Yes. She is stating her belief that we should stand up for defenceless innocents when it comes to animals. But acting in the opposite by promoting the killing of the even more defenceless and innocent pre-born babies. This is hypocrisy and double standards plain and simple. And the two cases are absolutely comparable, you can deny it all you like. “Now your worshipping a god who condones slavery, whilst believing slavery is immoral... that's hypocritical.” No. I worship a God who regulated indentured servitude as a necessary need in the society of that time. This has been explained to you over and over again, but your secular deranged leftist mindset doesn’t allow you to reason that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 18, 2019 10:57:45 GMT
And new born babies have less personality then adults. Does that mean they also have less right to live? Legally, no. Ethically, yes. A fetus is a living human being. Just at a particular stage of it’s development. Just as a toddler is at a different stage of it’s development than a teenager. As is sperm and egg cells. But I don't believe that every sperm is sacred. “Legally, no. Ethically, yes” Are you for fucking real? “As is sperm and egg cells. But I don't believe that every sperm is sacred.” Sperm and eggs cells are not human beings you dehumanising little prick. |
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 18, 2019 15:39:47 GMT
And that makes her devil incarnate. No. It makes her a hypocrite with double standards. So, just jumping on the bandwagon. Not doing anything to cause such hostility - except for those still living in the 18th Century.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 18, 2019 16:19:50 GMT
Are you for fucking real? Wow, what a convincing and profound argument. Can't say I am surprised. Sperm and eggs cells are not human beings you dehumanising little prick. And fetuses aren't persons. And insults dishonor only those who speak them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 18, 2019 16:35:55 GMT
Are you for fucking real? Wow, what a convincing and profound argument. Can't say I am surprised. Sperm and eggs cells are not human beings you dehumanising little prick. And fetuses aren't persons. And insults dishonor only those who speak them. “Wow, what a convincing and profound argument. Can't say I am surprised.” Yeah because you made such a convincing and profound initial argument yourself... “And fetuses aren't persons” 1. You have no authority to make that kind of determination. Your claim is based on nothing more than your own subjective and self-serving definition of personhood. 2. A fetus is a living human being regardless of personhood and thus should be afforded the same fundamental right to life as every other human.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 18, 2019 21:10:15 GMT
Wow, what a convincing and profound argument. Can't say I am surprised. And fetuses aren't persons. And insults dishonor only those who speak them. “Wow, what a convincing and profound argument. Can't say I am surprised.” Yeah because you made such a convincing and profound initial argument yourself... “And fetuses aren't persons” 1. You have no authority to make that kind of determination. Your claim is based on nothing more than your own subjective and self-serving definition of personhood. 2. A fetus is a living human being regardless of personhood and thus should be afforded the same fundamental right to life as every other human. Guessing you are not a Catholic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2019 2:38:58 GMT
No, not in the slightest. Because a 'pre born baby' isn't a thing that exists, and even if it did, the cases are not comparable. Hypocrisy is stating a belief whilst acting in the opposite; what we have here is a person with two unrelated beliefs. Just because you mistakenly think the beliefs are related, that doesn't mean that she sees them that way, or that they are in reality. Now your worshipping a god who condones slavery, whilst believing slavery is immoral... that's hypocritical. “Because a 'pre born baby' isn't a thing that exists” So a fetus is not a thing that exists? Rule of "so". Again, since you're apparently too dim to grasp what I said before : No, there is no hypocrisy here. Partly because you're talking about things that don't exist. Partly because the cases are not similar. Thicko Cody strikes again. And it's okay to do something horribly immoral if it's considered necessary? Your allegedly morally perfect god is fine with endorsing something immoral if it's too much trouble to forbid it? If you think that you're as much of a moral monster as the sky daddy you crawl to. I know you have trouble with moral issues, so I'll put it plainly : the only moral response to slavery is to oppose it by every means necessary, up to and including destroying any civilisation that endorses it. "It's okay to have slavery if it's necessary" is a confession of your own evil, plain and simple. And guess what? Abortion is far more of a necessary need of modern society than slavery ever has been for any society ever. So you're still a hypocrite in opposing it, even by your own standards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2019 2:41:47 GMT
Legally, no. Ethically, yes. As is sperm and egg cells. But I don't believe that every sperm is sacred. “Legally, no. Ethically, yes” Are you for fucking real? “As is sperm and egg cells. But I don't believe that every sperm is sacred.” Sperm and eggs cells are not human beings you dehumanising little prick. This from the guy who will do anything, absolutely anything, to justify the owning of another human being as property. You have no business telling anybody they're immoral, you sick bastard.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jun 19, 2019 5:03:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 19, 2019 5:38:45 GMT
“And fetuses aren't persons” 1. You have no authority to make that kind of determination. Your claim is based on nothing more than your own subjective and self-serving definition of personhood. Actually, I was using a definition also used by Peter Singer in his "writings on an ethical life". A person is an entity with a sense of self, and with a sense of time, and expectations and plans for the future. A fetus or newborn has none of these and is therefore not a person in that sense. 2. A fetus is a living human being regardless of personhood and thus should be afforded the same fundamental right to life as every other human. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 19, 2019 5:41:32 GMT
Thank you . I had forgotten how spot on, perspicacious and hilarious was Monty Python BOTH back in the day and now.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Jun 19, 2019 5:43:09 GMT
How is killing a unborn baby considered 'healthcare'? it's just more insanity from the godless left, as usual. progressiveelementWell the abortion issue tends to generally tell you which political party is the better of the two overall... conservatives support the right-to-life and liberals make it easier to end innocent life (liberals are backwards in the sense they put a persons "choice" higher than a persons right-to-life when it should be the other way around). that speaks volumes about the general moral judgement of those two political parties as a whole as when someone can't see that basic point there, they just tend to be backwards in many other major moral areas since they failed to get the most basic one right with the abortion issue as it's a basic life issue, not a "choice". but the left has to sugar-coat that evil act to dress it up to appear better than it truly is where as us conservatives call the issue like it truly is which is those for life and those against it at it's most innocent stage which is in a mothers womb. but that's the godless left for you as those for abortion tend to have less respect for human life in general. but it's not that surprising since those who don't believe in God, life in general tends to become more meaningless and of lesser value because of that. phludowinAssuming that's true... she's pretty much Christian in name only as abortion is a MAJOR violation of God's moral law since it violates the 'Thou Shall Not Kill' commandment. abortion is murder (Popes have stated this truth). it's not one of those optional things either as you can't be Christian and support abortion. I think those who promote abortion, like it's a good thing, are led by satan basically. almost like they are taking pleasure in promoting a evil act. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 19, 2019 5:50:17 GMT
How is killing a unborn baby considered 'healthcare'? it's just more insanity from the godless left, as usual. progressiveelement Well the abortion issue tends to generally tell you which political party is the better of the two overall... conservatives support the right-to-life and liberals make it easier to end innocent life (liberals are backwards in the sense they put a persons "choice" higher than a persons right-to-life when it should be the other way around). that speaks volumes about the general moral judgement of those two political parties as a whole as when someone can't see that basic point there, they just tend to be backwards in many other major moral areas since they failed to get the most basic one right with the abortion issue as it's a basic life issue, not a "choice". but the left has to sugar-coat that evil act to dress it up to appear better than it truly is where as us conservatives call the issue like it truly is which is those for life and those against it at it's most innocent stage which is in a mothers womb. but that's the godless left for you as those for abortion tend to have less respect for human life in general. but it's not that surprising since those who don't believe in God, life in general tends to become more meaningless and of lesser value because of that. phludowin Assuming that's true... she's pretty much Christian in name only as abortion is a MAJOR violation of God's moral law since it violates the 'Thou Shall Not Kill' commandment. abortion is murder (Popes have stated this truth). it's not one of those optional things either as you can't be Christian and support abortion. I think those who promote abortion, like it's a good thing, are led by satan basically. almost like they are taking pleasure in promoting a evil act. What is so different about abortion and miscarriage?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 19, 2019 8:04:47 GMT
“Because a 'pre born baby' isn't a thing that exists” So a fetus is not a thing that exists? Rule of "so". Again, since you're apparently too dim to grasp what I said before : No, there is no hypocrisy here. Partly because you're talking about things that don't exist. Partly because the cases are not similar. Thicko Cody strikes again. And it's okay to do something horribly immoral if it's considered necessary? Your allegedly morally perfect god is fine with endorsing something immoral if it's too much trouble to forbid it? If you think that you're as much of a moral monster as the sky daddy you crawl to. I know you have trouble with moral issues, so I'll put it plainly : the only moral response to slavery is to oppose it by every means necessary, up to and including destroying any civilisation that endorses it. "It's okay to have slavery if it's necessary" is a confession of your own evil, plain and simple. And guess what? Abortion is far more of a necessary need of modern society than slavery ever has been for any society ever. So you're still a hypocrite in opposing it, even by your own standards. “Rule of "so".” Is a fetus something that exists or not? “No, there is no hypocrisy here. Partly because you're talking about things that don't exist. Partly because the cases are not similar.” A) Pre-born babies do exist. B) The two cases do not have to be identical to be comparable. Again, she is defending the killing of defenceless animals and promoting the killing of defenceless pre-born babies(that do exist). She is a hypocrite with double standards plain and simple. So are you for that matter. “And it's okay to do something horribly immoral if it's considered necessary? ” No, of course not. But indentured servitude isn’t something I would classify as “horribly immoral”. Abortion fits that description far more accurately. “Abortion is far more of a necessary need of modern society than slavery ever has been for any society ever. So you're still a hypocrite in opposing it, even by your own standards” Killing innocent human beings is more necessary than a system designed to give people some economic relief? Wow. Once again you highlight just why you are a deranged imbecilic leftist piece of trash. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2019 12:29:31 GMT
Rule of "so". Again, since you're apparently too dim to grasp what I said before : No, there is no hypocrisy here. Partly because you're talking about things that don't exist. Partly because the cases are not similar. Thicko Cody strikes again. And it's okay to do something horribly immoral if it's considered necessary? Your allegedly morally perfect god is fine with endorsing something immoral if it's too much trouble to forbid it? If you think that you're as much of a moral monster as the sky daddy you crawl to. I know you have trouble with moral issues, so I'll put it plainly : the only moral response to slavery is to oppose it by every means necessary, up to and including destroying any civilisation that endorses it. "It's okay to have slavery if it's necessary" is a confession of your own evil, plain and simple. And guess what? Abortion is far more of a necessary need of modern society than slavery ever has been for any society ever. So you're still a hypocrite in opposing it, even by your own standards. “Rule of "so".” Is a fetus something that exists or not? Stop trying to change the subject. So you are fine with your god endorsing slavery because you also endorse slavery. What a sick filthy disgusting bastard you are. Take your feeble attempts at moral condemnation and shove them up your ass, Cody. And the same to the evil god you worship.
|
|
