@MagisterTom@xanga - I left out conscience to try and prove my point.

@StatelessPilot-  A baby isn't a parasite. Neither were you. You're worth way more than you think.

By destroying life, you destroy a whole chain of links (friends, partner, parent,...). There's a life at stake. I'm not saying this to be 'difficult'. It's out of love for the unborn child. The child shouldn't be punished because his/her parents had sex. The child shouldn't be punished because he/she has an illness either. A life growing inside of it's mother's womb doesn't deserve to be sucked out, burned with acid,... Innocent, fragile and pure. If pro-lifers didn't stand up for it, that life wouldn't have a voice. Everyone has a difficult time. Life isn't perfect. Who are we to end it based on the thought of the child not having a good life. A child isn't 'just a nuisance', he/she can bring you joy on a whole other level.  Poor little fetus. Killed before being able to show the world what you're made of. </3

@MagisterTom@xanga - I'm not sure if I'd use the term murder or not. To be honest, it seems to go against many people's intuition (not that intuition is worth all that much)...depending on your background. On the other hand, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you either. I don't disagree with Marquis' philosophical argument on equating abortion to murder...which is a fairly convincing secular argument against abortion.

Speaking of Marquis....@StatelessPilot - you haven't yet responded on Marquis' argument as a legitimate secular argument against abortion.

@Grtt@xanga - I think there is a distinction being made (by @BA94er@xanga and others) between a moral law (it seems that this entails objective or universal moral law) and a moral system...which could mean anything....whether it is evolved or derived...through reason or any other means. (ie. "All things that benefit me are good, all things that hurt me are bad" could be a moral system.) So I think they mean there can be no universal moral law based in atheism...to which I would agree. I'm not religious but I have a hard time seeing how anything other than moral relativism derives from atheism. (And the moral landscape gets even more suspect factoring in Darwinian evolution.) That isn't to say atheists or non-religious people aren't or can't be moral...but again, simply that no universal law can be derived from atheism.

@wizexel22@xanga - I was assuming that, since the post is about abortion, they were talking about a law (of the land) based on the morality of the act. I don't know though. She appears to just be yelling the same thing over and over without actually explaining anything.

Although, a long-established value is generally understood to be a 'moral law', seemingly independently of how it was established. It seems like the only way to have a 'moral law' be something that is necessarily established objectively would be to delve further into normative ethics. 

 @wizexel22@xanga - YOU GET IT :) (unnecessary large letters)

@barefoot_nomad@xanga - You're proving my point. Kant took God and put Him as a guideline FOR A MORAL LAW (unnecessary large letters). No one can come to a moral law based on atheism. You need God in order to design the moral law.

The ideas of morality, meaning, hope, the idea of a destiny: none of them ultimately make sence in a naturalistic universe. The fact that an atheist would even raise that question... You need God to even make sence out of the question you're asking. The question of morality, meaning, hope, the idea of a destiny: they are meaningless questions in a purely materialistic and naturalistic universe. So how can an atheist even raise the question of what is good and evil. They deny a moral law-giver and the moral framework but they can't come up with one without involving God. An atheist asking the question doesn't make sence because the question selfdestructs. Our questions actually portray a belief in a transcended point of reference. And that transcended point of reference doesn't exist  unless God exists. Actually, a lot questions don't even make sence outside a judiac-christian worldview. It's like walking into a plane and saying you don't need to fasten your seatbelt because you're superman. But superman doesn't need an airplane either. 

Abortion: To me the child is a vulnerable treasure. It's not the father's life or the mother's. From the moment of conception that life is a new entity. A being different from both parents by a merging of the two. Now you can tell us we can't impose our ethics upon you, but if the person is a Christian, which I'm not, he/she still can't stop voicing his/her objection. Because God says they are to protect life as it is sacred. What needs to be changed isn't a law, it's the heart of men. Because laws will always be broken. 

Only a change of heart can change a society. Because even most christians don't follow God's law. But there are bad apples everywhere and are not an argument against religion. It's the message that needs to be looked at. And the message Jesus gave was to love eachother. Love, the supreme ethic. The main message.

We can be very 'moral' and still be morally lost.

The arguments going on here make my heart break. This is what God said to Jeremiah, recorded in chapter five, verse one of Jeremiah: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.” While we may not all be appointed to be prophets, God knows and cares for the human race BEFORE a person is even formed! 

really. that many people know nothing about Hitler, have never heard of him, or can't even recognize his iconic image. that disgusts me mostly. 

@StatelessPilot - I sometimes feel like that too because of my upbringing and all the shit I was put through as well. 

@mynotebooks@xanga - It's been nearly 72 years since the start of WWII. I don't blame them for not knowing something that wasn't in their lifetime. Time has a way of fading the past. Also, not everyone is going to know this or that history from a specific time period even if that moment in time was quite important and still is (some people just don't know. It happens. The best thing to do is educate them on it, to change that), not to mention that some people don't like history or are not good with it. I'm still discovering the past, through books about leaders and civilizations I never knew existed even within my own country's history. 

@Hinase@xanga - Unless they personally lived it, they'll never understand. Seriously.

Read The Cider House Rules by John Irving. The novel's central topic is abortion and takes place during a time when it was illegal. In it there is a scene where a young girl, only 13, is going to have an abortion done by some backwater "doctor" because her father raped her. This sickening story isn't just fiction, it happens today, every day.

Where is the morality in that?!

@mynotebooks@xanga - It was recorded in California. Maybe their education system is that bad? Anyway, for that part, I'm going to hold out hope that it took a long time for them to find people who hadn't heard of Hitler.

@xfrozen_rosex@xanga - Few people argue against abortion in cases where the mother, and possibly baby, would die if it weren't done. Unfortunately, the court case that legalized it said it was only acceptable in the event that it would effect the mother's health. But, they didn't define mother's health. So, if the mother feels she will not be happy with a baby, then her health is effected and she can get an abortion. This nation is absurd.

@MagisterTom@xanga - I obviously know that, but I'm not one to tell a person what is right or wrong. Some people may not believe that it's a baby and I accept people don't have the same beliefs as me. Therefore, I'm not telling anyone what to do nor should you. 

@MagisterTom@xanga - I'm done arguing with narrow minded people. I can't stand people who can't understand that others may just have different beliefs than them. I am at least educated enough to notice that people may or may not share my beliefs. A fetus is

not a baby. I believe it's a baby though that's growing but some people may go on science, not love.

@anchoredreams@xanga - Science is based on experiments and observations. Back to what I said in the previous comment, the fetus in the womb is a very tiny baby. We know this because when it is old enough to come out of the womb it is a baby. Whether you call it logic or science, or even love, it is still true. If your stance that it is okay to kill a baby is bothered by this, then maybe you need to reconsider it or find a way to live with two contradictory "truths."