Originally posted by Silvershield

---

I still don't fit your definition of "holier-than-thou."

Anyhow, why don't you go ahead and restate the point of your last post in more certain terms. To see if I "missed" it.

---

Originally posted by Dracoon

---

An opinion is formed on how one lives their life and their situation in life. Your setting changes and alters your opinion, many people forget to look at all sides and not have an opinion. I planely, just don't care, I do not believe in morality, because morality is whimsical. I do not base my life around being "Holier than thou." because I know I'm the same organic flesh as everyone else. My life makes little difference to the world and to the grand scheme of things. All I can do is try to make life easier for those around me and myself, everyone deserves forgiveness and understanding.

---

Originally posted by Dracoon

---

I might not like what someone does, but I know that if I get caught up in what they do, I'm forgetting who they are. You see the multitude of women having abortions as just that. I think about how every single persons circumstance is different and how passing judgment on whether I think their actions are right or wrong is ignorant.

---

Originally posted by Dracoon

---

If you feel your only option is to say abortion is wrong and want to get rid of it, go ahead, but I believe it is "morally" correct that you learn why every single person who wants to have an abortion rather than have that child.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

I'll say it again: never in this thread have I cast judgement on a person for the actions he or she commits. However, I will very readily question those actions. If a person were not entitled to take issue with something that he sees happening in this world, there would never be any sort of commentary on society and nothing would ever improve. A person should not frivolously criticize a wartime leader because that person is not sinless himself, but he should be encouraged to criticize the war that the leader is waging, or criticize the leader's political policies.

You're confusing my arguments against the act of abortion as an argument against those people who support or commit abortion. The two are not equivalent.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

I don't understand why I'm holier-than-thou if I see a problem in our world and make a case against it. My argument does not involve any aspect of my personal life, nor does it ever refer to my own sinlessless, it simply aims to address the act of abortion. You're continually warping my argument into something that it isn't.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

You're the one who brought the phrase "holier-than-thou" into this in the first place.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

So, if you were socially obliged to commit murder if you traveled to this hypothetical person's homeland, you would do so? You think that his native morality is just as "correct" as yours is? I fully recognize cultural differences, and think that the contrast between different societies makes ours a rich and diverse world, but I know where to draw the line.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

---

---

One life for another might be a fair trade if a woman who does not get an abortion dies. She isn't trading her life away when she carries a child to full term, she's trading away her convenience. It's not a case of one life for another, it's a case of one life being saved and the other life, the one that is responsible for the child in the first place, being compromised but hardly taken.

---

Originally posted by Dracoon

---

Everyone's life means different things to them, your life might be your wallet, your car, your house, your body, your buisness (in case of a prositute), or your financial secruity. (since people are too lazy to work two jobs to pay for things.) One life for another is a fair trade though, right? Making one person miserable so two people can be miserable is great logic.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

You're entering an abstract and very subjective realm. I'll follow in your line of logic and say that, if an action affects others negatively, it is wrong. Murder affects others negatively. Therefore, murder is wrong. That's not an ideal that will change with time - murder will always affect people negatively, and it will therefore always be wrong. So, without extending our discussion any further, we can conclude that the wrongness of murder is an absolute moral value, because its negative effect on people will never change.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

You can't judge how someone "should" do something. You can only judge what exists in the present, what is there in front of you. I might having a certain opinion on how a woman should handle her pregnancy, but you still fail (and will continue to fail) to illustrate how I am judging anyone. You can't make a word mean something it doesn't.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

The reason why I don't approve of abortion is irrelevant. The only information of relevance is that I am not painting myself as a superior, sinless figure - that would be the prerequisite for me to be called "holier-than-thou," I think, not the fact that my argument is based around morality.[/qupte]

Can you comprehend english?

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

So, any person who is religious is, as a necessary accompaniment, holier-than-thou?

---

I'm going to act like this is a serious question.

No, when someone is religious but can't put their feelings behind them to let an action go that doesn't harm them and condemns other people's behavior, since you know, you ARE how you act, then they're being "holier-than-thou".

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

They were raised in a society that exalts homocidal fanatics, so they are therefore immune to any judgement of right versus wrong? I'd say that the society they were raised in is as immoral as the individuals are, if it was indeed their societal upbringing that guided their actions. "They're different" does not equal "they're just as right as we are" - were the Nazis of World War II justified in their genocide of six millions Jews and several million others just because they had a different sense of morality?

---

NO, LEARN HOW TO COMPARE THINGS TO OTHER SITUATIONS AND APPLY IT WITH BASIC KNOWLEDGE, DO THE CAPS HELP?

Look, you're justified to yourself, they're justified to themselves. NO ONE ELSE FUCKING MATTERS IN BOTH OF YOUR CASES. What if their ideas were right and you were in the wrong?

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

Then you think it's fair, if a choice needs to be made between saving the mother's life or saving her prenatal child's, to choose the child's life? What exactly is your criterion for determining whose life has greater value?

---

On the first part, I don't think you even pay attention to what I'm typing. First) If the baby has no brain, it has no value as a being. Potential doesn't matter or we could all be convicted of potential murder. Second) I would choose the mother's life so she could, guess what, have another baby at a later time. Third) There is no criteria, I can't judge human value.

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

Your original post, as it was written, was difficult to understand and was not tied closely enough to the rest of what you'd said for it to appear as a relevant idea.

---

Do you know english, etc.

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

Let's distinguish "life" in a literal sense from "life" in a figurative sense. To force a mother to have a child might end her figurative life, but it will hardly threaten her literal life. And, I think the latter is far more important.

---

Let's not, because of so many values that happen in a literal sense of life compared to the figurative sense of life is astronomical. If you're intelligent you can preserve your way of life, however at any point, you may die in a literal sense. Life is Life, no matter what life it is.

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

But it has a bad effect on the person who's been murdered. What now?

---

Ok, so you just further proved that justice can't exist, because now murder (your absolute wrong) does both right and wrong.

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

Your previous butchering of the definition of the word "judge" would lead me to ask the same question of you.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

Good, because it is a serious question. You said, "You're religious. That has been shown again and again," and used that as a justification to call me "holier-than-thou." The two are only incidentally related - one does not require the other, nor does one preclude the other.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

If I were not a religious person, or if nobody here were aware that I am, not a single thing I've said so far in this thread would have changed. I haven't argued my position from a religious standpoint, ever. The fact that I am religious outside the discussion of abortion is completely irrelevant.

Even so, just because an action doesn't harm me doesn't mean that the action is harmless. If I walk down the street and see a person getting mugged, I'm not being harmed at all by the event, but I would still step in to stop it. In fact, I would say that it is the mark of a virtuous person to take action rather than stand by the wayside when an event does not affect him directly yet has an adverse effect on others.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

The only thing the caps help with is making you a bit more obnoxious than you are otherwise.

I don't see how who's right and who's wrong makes any difference in this case, considering that the issue was one of whether one group actually can be right and the other wrong. It was never an issue of who actually is right and who actually is wrong.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

How do you justify this statement?

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

And that second baby would have, guess what, a genetic code that is entirely unique from the first. It would be a completely distinct being. That child that's been murdered isn't being given a second chance if the mother gets pregnant again - its mother has conceived a completely new child. The first one's chance is through.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

If you can't judge human value, how are you able to propose that no two human lives have the same value in the first place?

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

Yeah, the best way to account for your own ambiguity is to insult the person who can't understand it.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

No, life in a figurative sense is not life in a literal sense. When I fail a test and I say "My life is over!" I don't drop dead on the spot. When that mother who has the child finds that it makes her life more difficult, and she says "My life is over!" she doesn't drop dead on the spot, either. But, if an abortion is carried out, that child quite literally drops dead on the spot. If the options are to end a literal human life but preserve a figurative one (by allowing the mother to maintain the quality of life she is used to), or to preserve the literal life but hinder the figurative one (by forcing the woman to, at most, endure nine months pregnant and then surrender the child for adoption[because she isn't forced to do any more than that]), I choose the latter.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

Fine, if my logic has proved that justice doesn't exist, then I guess that's how it is. I was never arguing justice in the first place. It's morality that we've been discussing, and the two are pretty different concepts.

---