First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Court Forces Abortion
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Terra
Posted 2/28/09 , edited 3/1/09

madlibbs wrote:

o0James0o wrote:

madlibbs wrote:

o0James0o wrote:

madlibbs wrote:

o0James0o wrote:

madlibbs wrote:

Morals, in the most simplified definition, are distinctions between right and wrong. You are saying that survival of the fittest is right, and that killing the fetus while it is still a fetus is right. If there is no right and wrong, how can those things be right?

Does an infant born at 7 months have the right to live? An infant born at 9 months? A 9-month-old fetus? In each case, why?

"Evil exists to glorify the good. Evil is negative good. It is a relative term. Evil can be transmuted into good. What is evil to one at one time, becomes good at another time to somebody else. " - Mencius

the only difference between a born infant and a fetus still in the body is that once we see the infant, it is harder for us to kill it. we will sympathize with it and therefore, it would most likely survive. this is the same for a fetus of many months old in which can be shown on the mother's belly already. it is harder for us, especially the mother, to kill a fetus when you can feel and see it. on the other hand, if it is barely showing, we can just ignore it and kill it like nothing happened. it is not rather they had the right to live, it is rather we are "cold hearted" enough to kill them.

To the best of my knowledge, killing someone without good reason is always considered wrong, even though what is considered "good reason" may vary tremendously among times and societies.

Does anyone have the right to live? Is it intrinsic, earned, or simply an illusion?

good or not, it does not change the fact that we kill. we are all murderers, direct or indirect. it is our nature.

to live requires no right. it is just that if you have power, youre stronger. and if you lacked the power, your death is in the hands of others. so fetus, which lacks power, can be easily exterminated. yet, like i said, due to our sympathy, we prefer not to kill them.

People do not always do what is right. That is a fact of life. It does not change the fact that some things are always considered wrong.

Rights can be violated. My question is whether those rights existed in the first place.

like i said, there is no such thing as rights. it is created by us, humans, and it changes with time. the most basic of our, and all animals', desire is to survive and reproduce. hence, rights and wrongs are created to hypnotize a certain group into a certain belief to help the survival of certain, or majority, of the people.

"all humans are created equal, but their surroundings determine their nature."
if a person were raised in a very religious society, it is likely to say that person would be religious too. hence, since most of us are raised in a society of rights and wrongs, it is safe to say, we will follow the way of the society and judge people according to it's will. yet, there are always people like myself who sees the world not in black or white, but in gray and red.

please dont make me repeat myself... it would save me a lot of time if you read it over until you get it.

I understand exactly what you are saying. Apparently my responses do not make that as clear as I thought. I will try to be clearer about that.

You did not say that there is no such thing as rights. You said that rights are not necessary to live. I asked for a more specific answer, which you just provided. We are now on the same page there.

All humans are not created equal. Aside from obvious physical and mental disabilities, people have different brain chemistries. Some are smarter, happier, or more gullible than others because of these differences, which will in turn change how they react to their surroundings.

Having said that, I can move on to the main point of your argument. Black and white do exist, as do gray and red and a whole host of other metaphorical colors that most people fail to consider. Good and evil and right and wrong do in fact exist, though perhaps not in very simple absolute terms. If doing something will have more of a negative impact than a positive impact, then doing that would be bad. The opposite is also true. If you want to live to see tomorrow, driving very fast with your eyes closed is a bad idea.

im sorry if i had not mention that there is no such thing as rights before the previous post.

i meant to say the phrase in a response to thomas jefferson's "all men are created equal" it is obvious that our mentality and physicality are different. but what my phrase was meant to mean is that our status are the same before birth, but upon birth, the surroundings determine the equality and nature.

there is no absolute black nor absolute white, only gray and red. i dont quite get what other colors are you speaking off. I do believe that you do have an idea that im associating black with evil and white with good and red with blood.

like you said, it is not absolute, hence, no matter how good your good is, to me its evil. the world only exists in gray and red.

negative impact and positive impact are but the opinion of someone. hence, good and bad are but opinions.

morals are created by us to control us. why?, for the survival of the weak ,namely, the higher class. over time, the protection expanded.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.