| If you have no conecpt of morality, you have no basis to say "this is wrong."
Other than perhaps a personal attack, I'm not sure what you mean here. Of course I have a sense and a concept of morality. I just don't have your "sense of morality," or agree with your "concepts," apparently."
Theocracy, autocracy, democracy....whatever. You can call a thing whatever you wish,
"and again," you're speaking gibberish. Translator please! Now where did I put that universal translator. Perhaps it's my fault. Oh well...
And again, I see no reason why you are bringing up people breaking the law. Who has defended or advocated people breaking the law? And, for that matter, if the "right to choose" is so important why don't you value the right to choose that?
Apparently you missed the reference to those who take what you consider "moral law" and go off the edge. I was complimenting you on your restraint. If I held such an opinion I would be so outraged by what I consider violations of "moral law" I might be tempted. I'd have to be in that position to know what I would actually do.
Because that's an apples and oranges comparison. If a woman decides what happens to something growing inside them the rightness or wrongness of that decision is something she will have to live with. But I won't wind up at the other end of an anti-abortion protestors gun, or a cop won't wind up on the other end of my gun in the example I gave or...
Unless of course you believe the fetus is of the same worth, value (or more) than those who are already born. This is where we disagree.
If a poor man and a rich man start to foolishly spend all of their money with no thought to the future...
Huh, what? This relates to the conversation... how? |