| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Cracklin" |
| Date: |
26 Jul 2005 01:15:13 PM |
| Object: |
Pope and abortion |
Pope Pius IX in 1869 extended punishment of excommunication for the
abortion of an embryo at any age. In 1951, Pius XII restated the
principle, saying: “Every human being, even the child in the mother’s
womb, receives its right to life directly from God, not from its
parents.” Speaking in Kenya in 1985, John Paul II bluntly declared:
“Actions such as contraception and abortion are wrong.”
Many Catholics today, however, maintain that such an attitude is out of
date and must be revised. As a result, Roman Catholics are divided over
the issue.
.
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
14 Aug 2005 01:59:41 PM |
|
|
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 07:52:43 -0400, Hall Monitor
<life-is-good@let's-live.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<q2cuf15el3j2ri1h3opej2vl0r68csuv9o@4ax.com> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
O, Hall Monitor wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
When do you intend to follow it? You have consistently exhibited a
total lack of sympathy for others and you clearly take pleasure in
your adolescent insults. You are a hypocrite.
Not if he's treating us as he wants to be treated: remember how the
Marquis de Sade would use the golden rule.
Why do you bring up a person who obviously was not a normal, healthy,
decent, law abiding, loving person -- like 90 percent of the rest of the
world?
Do you think abnormal people are the norm?
How do you identify an abnormal person?
I don't. They usually identify themselves.
I have never seen anyone run around yelling " I'm abnormal! I'm
abnormal!"
That's because, in his case, he'd be bellowing "I'M PATRICK BARKER!"...
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 7 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darklady" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
16 Aug 2005 09:38:09 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 07:52:43 -0400, Hall Monitor
<life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
O, Hall Monitor wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
When do you intend to follow it? You have consistently exhibited a
total lack of sympathy for others and you clearly take pleasure in
your adolescent insults. You are a hypocrite.
Not if he's treating us as he wants to be treated: remember how the
Marquis de Sade would use the golden rule.
+ Why do you bring up a person who obviously was
not a normal, healthy, decent, law abiding, loving
person -- like 90 percent of the rest of the world?
+ Do you think abnormal people are the norm?
How do you identify an abnormal person?
+ I don't.
+ They usually identify themselves.
By agreeing with you.
-- Darklady
www.darklady.com
www.masturbate-a-thon.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
14 Aug 2005 04:07:20 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:15:47 -0400, Hall Monitor
<life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
When do you intend to follow it? You have consistently exhibited a
total lack of sympathy for others and you clearly take pleasure in
your adolescent insults. You are a hypocrite.
Not if he's treating us as he wants to be treated: remember how the
Marquis de Sade would use the golden rule.
+ Why do you bring up a person who obviously was
not a normal, healthy, decent, law abiding, loving
person -- like 90 percent of the rest of the world?
+ Do you think abnormal people are the norm?
No, most people are not like you or the Pope.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darklady" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
16 Aug 2005 09:37:52 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:15:47 -0400, Hall Monitor
<life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
When do you intend to follow it? You have consistently exhibited a
total lack of sympathy for others and you clearly take pleasure in
your adolescent insults. You are a hypocrite.
Not if he's treating us as he wants to be treated: remember how the
Marquis de Sade would use the golden rule.
+ Why do you bring up a person who obviously was
not a normal, healthy, decent, law abiding, loving
person -- like 90 percent of the rest of the world?
You mean the man who helped to open the Bastille doors when it
was stormed during the French Revolution?
Where on earth do you get the idea that 90% of humanity are
"normal, healthy, decent, law abiding, and loving" as YOU define it?
+ Do you think abnormal people are the norm?
You present yourself as being normative and you're one of the
most non-consensually perverse people I've encountered.
I find that inferior and inadequate people spend a lot of
time braying about their "normalcy."
-- Darklady
www.darklady.com
www.masturbate-a-thon.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hall Monitor" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
16 Aug 2005 06:43:44 PM |
|
|
Darklady <darklady@darklady.com> wrote:
Hall Monitor><life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
When do you intend to follow it? You have consistently exhibited a
total lack of sympathy for others and you clearly take pleasure in
your adolescent insults. You are a hypocrite.
Not if he's treating us as he wants to be treated: remember how the
Marquis de Sade would use the golden rule.
+ Why do you bring up a person who obviously was
not a normal, healthy, decent, law abiding, loving
person -- like 90 percent of the rest of the world?
You mean the man who helped to open the Bastille doors when it
was stormed during the French Revolution?
+ I dunno.
+ I've never met him.
+ Have you?
Where on earth do you get the idea that 90% of humanity are
"normal, healthy, decent, law abiding, and loving" as YOU define it?
+ I made it up.
+ It works for me.
+ Do you think abnormal people are the norm?
You present yourself as being normative and you're one of the
most non-consensually perverse people I've encountered.
+ Spoken by an arcer, I rest my case.
I find that inferior and inadequate people spend a lot of
time braying about their "normalcy."
+ So..... stop it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hall Monitor" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
13 Aug 2005 07:22:23 AM |
|
|
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
+ The Golden Rule is the epitamy of morality.
+ WHen do you think it shouldn't be followed?
When do you intend to follow it?
+ Grow up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
13 Aug 2005 07:26:35 AM |
|
|
"Hall Monitor" <life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote in message
news:dfprf1h0n205cmb9ijielurm69jaee4vpq@4ax.com...
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
+ The Golden Rule is the epitamy of morality.
+ WHen do you think it shouldn't be followed?
When do you intend to follow it?
+ Grow up.
I'll take that as a "never".
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
14 Aug 2005 04:07:21 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:22:23 -0400, Hall Monitor
<life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
+ The Golden Rule is the epitamy of morality.
+ WHen do you think it shouldn't be followed?
When do you intend to follow it?
+ Grow up.
I believe that answers the question.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Slate" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
12 Aug 2005 04:03:58 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:16:36 -0400, Hall Monitor
<life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
Actually, there is NOTHING morally wrong with abortion. YOU cannot
determine other people's morals. You can only determine what your own
morals are, and you cannot force them on anyone else.
+ Yes, you can.
+ We've done it for centuries.
Morals are subjective and mutable. They change between people,
locations, situations, over time, between religions, and between
cultures. There is no such thing as something that is absolutely
morally right or wrong. Everything with morals depends on viewpoint
and personal opinion.
+ The Golden Rule is the epitamy of morality.
+ WHen do you think it shouldn't be followed?
When it doesn't work.
Example: Is sex morally right, wrong, or neutral, and why. Any
circumstances that you include in you answer will invalidate your
answer.
+ What do you mean by sex?
+ Do you mean marital sexual intercourse between a man and his wife?
+ What makes ANYTHING right or wrong is.... intent.
Sex can be anything from the ~lights out, missionary position,~ to
as ~kinky as you like it~. It's not about right or wrong, it's about
two (or more) consenting adults having sexual relations for whatever
reason they choose. As Mark stated above, it's subjective.
What you may find repugnant, another may find pure ecstasy.
Slate
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
12 Aug 2005 02:26:27 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:16:36 -0400, Hall Monitor
<life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
Actually, there is NOTHING morally wrong with abortion. YOU cannot
determine other people's morals. You can only determine what your own
morals are, and you cannot force them on anyone else.
+ Yes, you can.
+ We've done it for centuries.
And that makes it right?
We all know that part of you assholes' "morality" is imposing your
religion on others.
Morals are subjective and mutable. They change between people,
locations, situations, over time, between religions, and between
cultures. There is no such thing as something that is absolutely
morally right or wrong. Everything with morals depends on viewpoint
and personal opinion.
+ The Golden Rule is the epitamy of morality.
+ WHen do you think it shouldn't be followed?
Duh. When YOU can't put yourself in the other guy's shoes from HIS
point of view.
Example: Is sex morally right, wrong, or neutral, and why. Any
circumstances that you include in you answer will invalidate your
answer.
+ What do you mean by sex?
+ Do you mean marital sexual intercourse between a man and his wife?
+ What makes ANYTHING right or wrong is.... intent.
No, moron, it's the effect ON THE OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED.
You assholes imagine that religiously harrassing people outside your
religion,lying about them etc is good, BUT THOSE YOU DO IT TO, DON'T.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hall Monitor" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
13 Aug 2005 07:07:10 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Hall Monitor><life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
Actually, there is NOTHING morally wrong with abortion. YOU cannot
determine other people's morals. You can only determine what your own
morals are, and you cannot force them on anyone else.
+ Yes, you can.
+ We've done it for centuries.
And that makes it right?
+ Didn't say that.
+ We shouldn't have to legislate morality.
+ It is jerks like you that force us to.
We all know that part of you assholes' "morality" is imposing your
religion on others.
+ If we leave you to your own devices, you'll screw up.
+ That is why we have laws on the books.
+ You don't have a moral compass, and you need help.
+ Laws aren't really written for all of the people.
+ Since most of the people on earth are decent, law abiding,
people, they don't need laws most of the time. They know
the Golden Rule and they follow it.
+ Rules are meant for the troublemakers who are so insecure
in their own lives, they want to be noticed by others, or they
wish to take more than their fair share.
Morals are subjective and mutable. They change between people,
locations, situations, over time, between religions, and between
cultures. There is no such thing as something that is absolutely
morally right or wrong. Everything with morals depends on viewpoint
and personal opinion.
+ The Golden Rule is the epitamy of morality.
+ WHen do you think it shouldn't be followed?
Duh. When YOU can't put yourself in the other guy's shoes from HIS
point of view.
+ Example please.
Is sex morally right, wrong, or neutral, and why. Any
circumstances that you include in you answer will invalidate your
answer.
+ What do you mean by sex?
+ Do you mean marital sexual intercourse between a man and his wife?
+ What makes ANYTHING right or wrong is.... intent.
No, moron, it's the effect ON THE OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED.
+ I disagree.
You assholes imagine that religiously harrassing people outside your
religion,lying about them etc is good, BUT THOSE YOU DO IT TO, DON'T.
+ Be nice.
+ And we won't have to chastise you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
15 Aug 2005 08:12:16 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:07:10 -0400, Hall Monitor
<life-is-good@let's-live.com> let us all know that:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Hall Monitor><life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
Actually, there is NOTHING morally wrong with abortion. YOU cannot
determine other people's morals. You can only determine what your own
morals are, and you cannot force them on anyone else.
+ Yes, you can.
+ We've done it for centuries.
And that makes it right?
+ Didn't say that.
+ We shouldn't have to legislate morality.
+ It is jerks like you that force us to.
No, it's assholes like you who want to rule everyone's lives
with an iron fist who desire to have those laws.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
13 Aug 2005 08:57:51 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:07:10 -0400, Hall Monitor
<life-is-good@let's-live.com> in news message
<68orf1pbvjmdvhmsjop9drthu981lksf0f@4ax.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Hall Monitor><life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
Actually, there is NOTHING morally wrong with abortion. YOU cannot
determine other people's morals. You can only determine what your own
morals are, and you cannot force them on anyone else.
+ Yes, you can.
+ We've done it for centuries.
And that makes it right?
+ Didn't say that.
+ We shouldn't have to legislate morality.
+ It is jerks like you that force us to.
Oh dear, poor baby, being forced to force other people to behave as
you determine they should behave. That must be a real burden on you.
We all know that part of you assholes' "morality" is imposing your
religion on others.
+ If we leave you to your own devices, you'll screw up.
That must make you extremely angry. Of course, you can't let other
people make their own decisions. The burden falls to you to tell them
what to do, nay force them to do what you know is best. Praise Jesus!
+ That is why we have laws on the books.
+ You don't have a moral compass, and you need help.
Your missionary work among the hapless citizens who are deluded into
believing that they, in the land of the free and the home of the
brave, are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
must present you with quite a heavy cross to bear.
+ Laws aren't really written for all of the people.
Yes, that silly "We the People" thing in the Constitution is rather
outdated, isn't it. God® knows that rule by your interpretation of
morality would be much more efficient . . . but burdensome to the
enforcer. Obviously, someone has to do it and who better to accept
the onerous task of being forced to force other people to behave than
you. Praise Hall Monitor!
+ Since most of the people on earth are decent, law abiding,
people, they don't need laws most of the time. They know
the Golden Rule and they follow it.
So you want others forcing you to behave in a manner which they deem
to be the correct manner, and telling you that you have no moral
compass? Or do you draw the line there at yourself . . . because,
well because you aren't the type of people you are preaching about?
What a terrible and awe inspiring load you are carrying!
+ Rules are meant for the troublemakers who are so insecure
in their own lives, they want to be noticed by others, or they
wish to take more than their fair share.
If you must live by the rules which you preach, does that make you a
troublemaker who is so insecure in your own life that you want to be
noticed by others, etc? Or do you exempt yourself from your own
rules? What a responsibility! What a strain! What a hardship! You
must grieve the day that you were chosen for this duty of being forced
to force others to obey your rules. You should be sainted if you are
Catholic.
[----]
Is sex morally right, wrong, or neutral, and why. Any
circumstances that you include in you answer will invalidate your
answer.
+ What do you mean by sex?
+ Do you mean marital sexual intercourse between a man and his wife?
+ What makes ANYTHING right or wrong is.... intent.
No, moron, it's the effect ON THE OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED.
+ I disagree.
So if you didn't *intend* to run down the child in the street with
your automobile when you were drunk, the death of that child is
completely moral. Your act in killing the child was unintentional so
the devastating effect it has other people is inconsequential morally
speaking -- according to you. That must give you great satisfaction
that you don't even need to ask for forgiveness because, well hey, you
acted morally. God® must have a special place in heaven reserved for
you.
You assholes imagine that religiously harrassing people outside your
religion,lying about them etc is good, BUT THOSE YOU DO IT TO, DON'T.
+ Be nice.
+ And we won't have to chastise you.
Be human and we won't need to rebuke you.
Liz #658 BAAWA
They all agree on what their god wants. Each theist will tell you
that what the only true god wants, and what he, himself, wants, are
exactly the same. -- Al Klein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hall Monitor" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
13 Aug 2005 07:07:08 PM |
|
|
iz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
Hall Monitor wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Hall Monitor><life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
Actually, there is NOTHING morally wrong with abortion. YOU cannot
determine other people's morals. You can only determine what your own
morals are, and you cannot force them on anyone else.
+ Yes, you can.
+ We've done it for centuries.
And that makes it right?
+ Didn't say that.
+ We shouldn't have to legislate morality.
+ It is jerks like you that force us to.
Oh dear, poor baby, being forced to force other people to behave as
you determine they should behave. That must be a real burden on you.
+ Someone has to do it.
+ Therefore, we vote for people to legislate for us.
+ Or, didn't you know about the democratic process?
We all know that part of you assholes' "morality" is imposing your
religion on others.
+ If we leave you to your own devices, you'll screw up.
That must make you extremely angry. Of course, you can't let other
people make their own decisions. The burden falls to you to tell them
what to do, nay force them to do what you know is best. Praise Jesus!
+ Praising Jesus is fine, if that is yer thang.
+ However, if we want to restrict people from driving
too fast through suburban neighborhoods, we must pass laws, put up
signs and then ensure people follow those laws.
+ We just think it is safer to drive slowly through areas where
children might be playing. This makes for a safe and happy society.
Don't you wish to belong to a safe and sane society?
+ If not, you may tune out now....
+ That is why we have laws on the books.
+ You don't have a moral compass, and you need help.
Your missionary work among the hapless citizens who are deluded into
believing that they, in the land of the free and the home of the
brave, are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
must present you with quite a heavy cross to bear.
+ Not me.
+ I elect people to legislate laws for me.
+ How does this process take place in your universe?
+ Laws aren't really written for all of the people.
Yes, that silly "We the People" thing in the Constitution is rather
outdated, isn't it. God® knows that rule by your interpretation of
morality would be much more efficient . . . but burdensome to the
enforcer. Obviously, someone has to do it and who better to accept
the onerous task of being forced to force other people to behave than
you. Praise Hall Monitor!
+ Thank you.... thank you.....
+ <applause... applause...>
+ Since most of the people on earth are decent, law abiding,
people, they don't need laws most of the time. They know
the Golden Rule and they follow it.
So you want others forcing you to behave in a manner which they deem
to be the correct manner, and telling you that you have no moral
compass?
+ Yup.
+ If I am a loozer like you.... I guess that is how it has to be.
+ However, since I have a moral compass, I don't need laws to tell me
to be safe, sane, sober, and answerable for my actions.
Or do you draw the line there at yourself . . . because,
well because you aren't the type of people you are preaching about?
+ Each person must soul search themseves to see if they feel they need
others to help them be nice to the other kids.
What a terrible and awe inspiring load you are carrying!
+ Once again...
+ I elect others to do this work.
+ Rules are meant for the troublemakers who are so insecure
in their own lives, they want to be noticed by others, or they
wish to take more than their fair share.
If you must live by the rules which you preach, does that make you a
troublemaker who is so insecure in your own life that you want to be
noticed by others, etc?
+ Nope.
+ I am normal.
+ Most people will agree with me.
+ We belong to a group who wishes no ill towards others.
Or do you exempt yourself from your own
rules? What a responsibility! What a strain! What a hardship! You
must grieve the day that you were chosen for this duty of being forced
to force others to obey your rules. You should be sainted if you are
Catholic.
+ Ahhh, but I have taken on the burden of being the hall monitor in
the arcer - hate the catholics - recovery group. Yes, it is difficult
many times - trying to ensure the catholic bashers don't lie too much
about the RCC, but someone has to do it. I have taken on the
responsibility to do this.
+ You can thank me later.
[----]
Is sex morally right, wrong, or neutral, and why. Any
circumstances that you include in you answer will invalidate your
answer.
+ What do you mean by sex?
+ Do you mean marital sexual intercourse between a man and his wife?
+ What makes ANYTHING right or wrong is.... intent.
No, moron, it's the effect ON THE OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED.
+ I disagree.
So if you didn't *intend* to run down the child in the street with
your automobile when you were drunk, the death of that child is
completely moral.
+ Didn't say that.
+ However, if is was an accident that could not have been avoided,
then the driver should not be charged with breaking a law, since no
law was broken.
Your act in killing the child was unintentional so
the devastating effect it has other people is inconsequential morally
speaking -- according to you.
+ Didn't say that either.
+ It was a terrible accident.
+ However, God will not hold the driver responsible if.....
he was not responsible for causing the acident.
That must give you great satisfaction
that you don't even need to ask for forgiveness because, well hey, you
acted morally. God® must have a special place in heaven reserved for
you.
+ Yes....
+ As I've said in the past, we Catholics do not have the only set of
keys to heaven, but we do have the best VIP Club there.
You assholes imagine that religiously harrassing people outside your
religion,lying about them etc is good, BUT THOSE YOU DO IT TO, DON'T.
+ Be nice.
+ And we won't have to chastise you.
Be human and we won't need to rebuke you.
+ I agree.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
13 Aug 2005 07:17:42 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:07:10 -0400, Hall Monitor
<life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Hall Monitor><life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
Actually, there is NOTHING morally wrong with abortion. YOU cannot
determine other people's morals. You can only determine what your own
morals are, and you cannot force them on anyone else.
+ Yes, you can.
+ We've done it for centuries.
And that makes it right?
+ Didn't say that.
+ We shouldn't have to legislate morality.
+ It is jerks like you that force us to.
Says the lying jerk who does not know what morality is.
We all know that part of you assholes' "morality" is imposing your
religion on others.
+ If we leave you to your own devices, you'll screw up.
+ That is why we have laws on the books.
+ You don't have a moral compass, and you need help.
+ Laws aren't really written for all of the people.
+ Since most of the people on earth are decent, law abiding,
people, they don't need laws most of the time. They know
the Golden Rule and they follow it.
Like the Marquis de Sade, who wanted people to hurt him sot he was
justified in hurting them first?
+ Rules are meant for the troublemakers who are so insecure
in their own lives, they want to be noticed by others, or they
wish to take more than their fair share.
People like you, who need a simple one-size-fits-all rule because you
are incapable of showing others any consideration or courtesy.
Morals are subjective and mutable. They change between people,
locations, situations, over time, between religions, and between
cultures. There is no such thing as something that is absolutely
morally right or wrong. Everything with morals depends on viewpoint
and personal opinion.
+ The Golden Rule is the epitamy of morality.
+ WHen do you think it shouldn't be followed?
Duh. When YOU can't put yourself in the other guy's shoes from HIS
point of view.
+ Example please.
Your behaviour towards us, for starters. Stop pretending.
Is sex morally right, wrong, or neutral, and why. Any
circumstances that you include in you answer will invalidate your
answer.
+ What do you mean by sex?
+ Do you mean marital sexual intercourse between a man and his wife?
+ What makes ANYTHING right or wrong is.... intent.
No, moron, it's the effect ON THE OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED.
+ I disagree.
Why?
You assholes imagine that religiously harrassing people outside your
religion,lying about them etc is good, BUT THOSE YOU DO IT TO, DON'T.
+ Be nice.
+ And we won't have to chastise you.
***** and die, moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hall Monitor" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
13 Aug 2005 06:50:22 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
***** and die, moron.
+ Oooh... nice come-back, fellah!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
13 Aug 2005 07:30:57 PM |
|
|
"Hall Monitor" <life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote in message
news:to1tf1hfrqb75qvi2ddum5iitlpras00k4@4ax.com...
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
***** and die, moron.
+ Oooh... nice come-back, fellah!
You meant that literally, word for word?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gaia" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
13 Aug 2005 08:24:26 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:07:10 -0400, Hall Monitor
<life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Hall Monitor><life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
Actually, there is NOTHING morally wrong with abortion. YOU cannot
determine other people's morals. You can only determine what your own
morals are, and you cannot force them on anyone else.
+ Yes, you can.
+ We've done it for centuries.
And that makes it right?
+ Didn't say that.
+ We shouldn't have to legislate morality.
+ It is jerks like you that force us to.
Whose morality?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hall Monitor" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
13 Aug 2005 06:51:18 PM |
|
|
Gaia <starchaser@inorbit.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:07:10 -0400, Hall Monitor
<life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Hall Monitor><life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
Actually, there is NOTHING morally wrong with abortion. YOU cannot
determine other people's morals. You can only determine what your own
morals are, and you cannot force them on anyone else.
+ Yes, you can.
+ We've done it for centuries.
And that makes it right?
+ Didn't say that.
+ We shouldn't have to legislate morality.
+ It is jerks like you that force us to.
Whose morality?
+ Depends on who is in charge.
+ Didn't you know that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
13 Aug 2005 06:51:58 PM |
|
|
Hall Monitor wrote:
Gaia <starchaser@inorbit.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:07:10 -0400, Hall Monitor
<life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Hall Monitor><life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
Actually, there is NOTHING morally wrong with abortion. YOU cannot
determine other people's morals. You can only determine what your own
morals are, and you cannot force them on anyone else.
+ Yes, you can.
+ We've done it for centuries.
And that makes it right?
+ Didn't say that.
+ We shouldn't have to legislate morality.
+ It is jerks like you that force us to.
Whose morality?
+ Depends on who is in charge.
+ Didn't you know that?
So, you're saying that morality is subjective?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hall Monitor" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
14 Aug 2005 06:38:58 AM |
|
|
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Hall Monitor wrote:
Gaia <starchaser@inorbit.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:07:10 -0400, Hall Monitor
<life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Hall Monitor><life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
Actually, there is NOTHING morally wrong with abortion. YOU cannot
determine other people's morals. You can only determine what your own
morals are, and you cannot force them on anyone else.
+ Yes, you can.
+ We've done it for centuries.
And that makes it right?
+ Didn't say that.
+ We shouldn't have to legislate morality.
+ It is jerks like you that force us to.
Whose morality?
+ Depends on who is in charge.
+ Didn't you know that?
So, you're saying that morality is subjective?
+ Nope.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
14 Aug 2005 01:44:37 PM |
|
|
Hall Monitor <life-is-good@let's-live.com> writes:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Hall Monitor wrote:
Gaia <starchaser@inorbit.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:07:10 -0400, Hall Monitor
<life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Hall Monitor><life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
Actually, there is NOTHING morally wrong with abortion. YOU cannot
determine other people's morals. You can only determine what your own
morals are, and you cannot force them on anyone else.
Yes, you can. We've done it for centuries.
And that makes it right?
Didn't say that. We shouldn't have to legislate morality. It is jerks
like you that force us to.
Whose morality?
Depends on who is in charge. Didn't you know that?
So, you're saying that morality is subjective?
Nope.
Of course not...in the fantasy world you live in, only your morality is
acceptable. Look how well that approach has worked. You might as well face
reality: you're still four centuries too late for the Inquisition, and us
infidels have a tendency to shoot back.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 7 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
13 Aug 2005 09:24:46 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:51:58 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id <yIvLe.2488$%K4.379@trnddc09> wrote:
Whose morality?
+ Depends on who is in charge.
+ Didn't you know that?
So, you're saying that morality is subjective?
Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hall Monitor" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
14 Aug 2005 06:39:53 AM |
|
|
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:51:58 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id <yIvLe.2488$%K4.379@trnddc09> wrote:
Whose morality?
+ Depends on who is in charge.
+ Didn't you know that?
So, you're saying that morality is subjective?
Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".
+ Yup.
+ And we call that group of "everbody" --- we call it society.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Newk Indofman" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
14 Aug 2005 10:08:37 AM |
|
|
"Hall Monitor" <life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote in message
news:uabuf1tnkiir4i98qanfk0t5s9lsmigbk6@4ax.com...
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:51:58 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id <yIvLe.2488$%K4.379@trnddc09> wrote:
Whose morality?
+ Depends on who is in charge.
+ Didn't you know that?
So, you're saying that morality is subjective?
Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".
+ Yup.
+ And we call that group of "everbody" --- we call it society.
Your "society" doesn't exist. The world is much bigger than your much
smaller brain allows.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
14 Aug 2005 01:45:57 PM |
|
|
Hall Monitor <life-is-good@let's-live.com> writes:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:51:58 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id <yIvLe.2488$%K4.379@trnddc09> wrote:
Whose morality?
Depends on who is in charge.
Didn't you know that?
So, you're saying that morality is subjective?
Almost everybody who refers to "moral" means "what I think that you should
do".
Yup.
Thanks for confessing.
And we call that group of "everbody" --- we call it society.
YOU call it that. Quit speaking for the rest of us.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 7 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
14 Aug 2005 12:24:00 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 07:39:53 -0400, Hall Monitor
<life-is-good@let's-live.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<uabuf1tnkiir4i98qanfk0t5s9lsmigbk6@4ax.com> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:51:58 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id <yIvLe.2488$%K4.379@trnddc09> wrote:
Whose morality?
+ Depends on who is in charge.
+ Didn't you know that?
So, you're saying that morality is subjective?
Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".
+ Yup.
+ And we call that group of "everbody" --- we call it society.
No, you do. I don't - my society does not legislate morals,
especially when based on some 'god' that cannot even be proven to
exist.
I suppose you would like to see the religious police on the streets.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darklady" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
16 Aug 2005 02:18:41 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 07:39:53 -0400, Hall Monitor
<life-is-good@let's-live.com> wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:51:58 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id <yIvLe.2488$%K4.379@trnddc09> wrote:
Whose morality?
+ Depends on who is in charge.
+ Didn't you know that?
So, you're saying that morality is subjective?
Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".
+ Yup.
+ And we call that group of "everbody" --- we call it society.
No, not really, especially since "everybody" doesn't agree
with you and, in fact, the majority of society does NOT agree with
you.
The more you talk about your morality, the more obvious it is
that you both make it up as you go along and look to the masses to
shore up your personal lack of morality.
-- Darklady
www.darklady.com
www.masturbate-a-thon.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hall Monitor" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
16 Aug 2005 07:28:59 PM |
|
|
Darklady <darklady@darklady.com> wrote:
The more you talk about your morality, the more obvious it is
that you both make it up as you go along and look to the masses to
shore up your personal lack of morality.
Don't forget your key word here, "merely."
It's hardly our fault that you're incapable of thinking your
own theories through to their logical conclusion.
Patrick is entirely comfortable with our forces killing as
many or more people in a much shorter time than Saddam did during his
reign of terror.
Saddam was "in charge" for a while. How dare you deny him the
right to legislate his morality...
The more you talk about your morality, the more obvious it is
that you both make it up as you go along and look to the masses to
shore up your personal lack of morality.
+ What's wrong, dl?
+ Are you bored?
+ Did you miss me?
+ Do you have a bunch of insults built up
and you need to unloose them against me?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
13 Aug 2005 09:33:58 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:51:58 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id <yIvLe.2488$%K4.379@trnddc09> wrote:
Whose morality?
+ Depends on who is in charge.
+ Didn't you know that?
So, you're saying that morality is subjective?
Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".
Wonder what Pope Benedict has to say to my interlocutor.... 8-)
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
