It should be.

 

 

 

 

 

For Sale: One can o' worms -- opened, but unused.

 

 

Why? People have different sets of values/beliefs. Trying to legalize morality is going down a very slippery slope that can only end very very poorly.

Why is it sad? It's not our government's job to legalize morality.

 

Of course it is. In fact, I'd submit that we legislate ONLY our morality. What else is there?

If we accept the argument that it is the right to do what you want with your body, I offer the following for consideration.

 

a) Police, ambulance, EMT's, shouldn't respond to those who are seeking to commit suicide and should be allowed to do so cause it is their body and if a women has the right to end the life of an unborn child, why would you not have the right to end your own life?

 

b) If a doctor can assist a woman to end the life of an unborn child because it is her body, than a doctor should be allowed to assist in any person who wishes to end their own life.

 

c) Prostitution should be legalized as it is a woman choosing to do what they want with their own body?

 

d) All drugs should be legalized as it is a person choosing what to do with their own body.

 

I counter that argument that we cannot outlaw abortion because of a woman's right to do what they wish with their own body, with the point THAT WE DO THAT ALREADY in some of the above examples.

Not only am I ok with all of those but I fully support each one.

Sadly, there are those who would take you up on every one of these offers.

How is that sad?

It should be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

For Sale: One can o' worms -- opened, but unused.

Move to Saudi Arabia and you can have the theocracy you want....

Sadly, there are those who would take you up on every one of these offers.

 

Not only am I ok with all of those but I fully support each one.

 

BF meet FKW. FKW meet BF.:popcorn:

Move to Saudi Arabia and you can have the theocracy you want....

Obviously you have little understanding about how government works. That is truly a silly comment. And it's funny that you would decide to bring faith into the discussion. Are you not able to seperate faith from morality? Or is it that you fear a lack of morality could be a problem for a person who has no faith? There is quite a difference in a system based on moral principals and what you call a theocracy.

BF meet FKW. FKW meet BF.:popcorn:

Nah, I'm not going to spar with him. I will pray for him, as I know is not a person of faith. I assume that is what is coloring his off-point remark.

delete

Nah, I'm not going to spar with him. I will pray for him, as I know is not a person of faith. I assume that is what is coloring his off-point remark.

:lol::lol::lol:

 

This would be what I would consider a "silly remark". Make a grandstanding position of "not sparring" just one minute after this post:

 

Obviously you have little understanding about how government works. That is truly a silly comment. And it's funny that you would decide to bring faith into the discussion. Are you not able to seperate faith from morality? Or is it that you fear a lack of morality could be a problem for a person who has no faith? There is quite a difference in a system based on moral principals and what you call a theocracy.

Really seems like you aren't going to spar with someone. Typical...

 

Addressing the post(s), how very standard to dismiss, make assumptions, and belittle what I say because you "know" I"m not a person of faith. I guess you make it all better by saying you will "pray" for me. Comical.

 

I personally think all of those points brought up by lbbc deserve an actual discussion...

Not only am I ok with all of those but I fully support each one.

 

Nah, I'm not going to spar with him. I will pray for him, as I know is not a person of faith. I assume that is what is coloring his off-point remark.

 

I am far closer to formerkywrestler's position than I am the status quo on those issues and I am a Christian, so you'll have to do better than ad hominem his religious beliefs to say those issues are off limits for discussion.

Ladies four comments,

 

A-Murder is a Sin

 

B- See A

 

C- The women is sinning against God, God didn't want her to use her body that way, see the Stoning of the woman, "Go, and Sin no more.

 

D- Do not harm your body, its a gift from God, don't over do anything, including eat/drink/drugs.

 

Pretty basic I think. Was that Ladies point?

Ladies four comments,

 

A-Murder is a Sin

 

B- See A

 

C- The women is sinning against God, God didn't want her to use her body that way, see the Stoning of the woman, "Go, and Sin no more.

 

D- Do not harm your body, its a gift from God, don't over do anything, including eat/drink/drugs.

 

Pretty basic I think. Was that Ladies point?

This country is supposed to be a country in which the church is separated from the state. Thus, using "God said not to" as a defense for somethings illegality isn't really applicable.

 

Also, regarding A & B....do you believe euthanasia is the same as murder?

I use God, its my choice. God didn't change, man did.... so God applys. (A&B) Nope, usually its for the benefit of something that needs it for a greater purpose. In a case of the death penealty, "an eye for an eye". Opps, using God again...

I use God, its my choice. God didn't change, man did.... so God applys....

You can use God to frame how you believe all you want. But when we are speaking of somethings legality and you use "because God told me so" as your defense it's not a particularly strong argument.

 

(A&B) Nope, usually its for the benefit of something that needs it for a greater purpose. In a case of the death penealty, "an eye for an eye". Opps, using God again...

You'll have to explain further here. I don't quite understand what you are getting at. Are you saying euthanasia is used to "benefit something that needs it for a greater purpose" and thus supporting it???? Sorry for the confusion.