Morality Quiz

Terror · January 21, 2003

well, perhaps the attacked didn't know she carrying a child and for that he should theoretically not be charged... however, attacking someone is wrong anyway, and thus if he accidently kills the baby, he should suffer the consequences

Acriku · January 21, 2003

Well ignorance never stood in courts. :-

emprworm · January 21, 2003

well i see all these so called "pro-choice" people are actually quite anti-choice.

To say that a woman who DECIDES her unborn baby is something she wants and places equivalent value on her unborn baby as she would a born child and then strip her of her choice is being quite the anti-choice person!

A woman who chooses that part of her body- say a 7 month old fetus- is no longer part of her body, but instead she disowns it as an appendage and grants it priveleges as a seperate entity to nourish itself from her body. And then have some male sheuvanist pig tell her that she cant do that to her own body is unacceptable is downright offensive. :O

Acriku · January 21, 2003

Since when is pro-life chauvinistic? And since when are only men pro-life?

emprworm · January 21, 2003

huh? i never said neither.

Acriku · January 21, 2003

And then have some male sheuvanist pig tell her that she cant do that to her own body is unacceptable is downright offensive

Why does the male have to be chauvanistic, why does it have to be a male, and saying it is unacceptable is obviously a pro-life standpoint...

ordos45 · January 21, 2003

1. Which of the following has the LEAST value?
A. An unhatched bald-eagle egg
B. An unborn whale
C. An unborn human
2. An unborn human is merely a "foetus" which is a term I like to use. It is more comfortable to me to call it a "foetus" because it removes any human identity from the life-form. A "foetus

emprworm · January 21, 2003

And then have some male sheuvanist pig tell her that she cant do that to her own body is unacceptable is downright offensive
Why does the male have to be chauvanistic, why does it have to be a male, and saying it is unacceptable is obviously a pro-life standpoint...

i was referring to a woman who chooses that "part of her body"- say a 7 month old fetus- is no longer "part of her body," but instead she disowns it as an appendage to her body and grants it priveleges as a seperate entity to nourish itself from her body, thereby giving it status as an individual human.

to any man who says she does not have those rights over her body is a male sheuvanist pig...right? Isn't that what you anti-lifer's are all about? Upholding a womans right over her body?

Acriku · January 21, 2003

How would she "disown" the baby and let it live on its own? Don't they kill it and then flush it out?

to any man who says she does not have those rights over her body is a male sheuvanist pig...right? Isn't that what you anti-lifer's are all about? Upholding a womans right over her body?

"Anybody who says she doesn't have rights over her body" would be better, because anyone can tell her that, and they do, men and women. So I guess the women are chauvanistic ::) And who said I am anti-life? I am pro-choice, which leaves it up to the woman to decide. She might do it she might not, but that is not my decision, unless I have a rational reason to do so where the mother-to-be cannot make competently.

exatreide · January 21, 2003

yea i belive so...

emprworm · January 21, 2003

"How would she "disown" the baby and let it live on its own? Don't they kill it and then flush it out?"

she disowns it as an appendage...read what I said. It means that this woman is empirically declaring:

"This thing inside my body, I no longer own as part of my body. This is hereby and henceforth a seperate living being. I am granting it permission to now use my body for nourishment and protection, but it is no longer part of my body. I revoke all rights to this being as an appendage. Any actions this thing inside my body does from this point on, are as a seperate being."

I am pro-choice, which leaves it up to the woman to decide. She might do it she might not, but that is not my decision

then how can you impose your morality on her and say she has no moral case for murder (not legal case) if, after making her choice, the individual human inside her womb is killed via deliberate assault.

ordos45 · January 21, 2003

then how can you impose your morality on her and say she has no moral case for murder (not legal case) if, after making her choice, the individual human inside her womb is killed via deliberate assault.

I'm wondering something. Why are you imposing your views of morality on everyone else? You argue ceaselessly yet don't reply to your own quiz.

I find it quite confusing. Oh well once again, just my mind questioning why you avoid the topic and prefer to slam the views of others.

I question everything, including quizzes where however you go, you are immoral.

Acriku · January 21, 2003

she disowns it as an appendage...read what I said. It means that this woman is empirically declaring:
"This thing inside my body, I no longer own as part of my body. This is hereby and henceforth a seperate living being. I am granting it permission to now use my body for nourishment and protection, but it is no longer part of my body. I revoke all rights to this being as an appendage. Any actions this thing inside my body does from this point on, are as a seperate being."

So she says this when she decides to abort it, or am I lost?

then how can you impose your morality on her and say she has no moral case for murder (not legal case) if, after making her choice, the individual human inside her womb is killed via deliberate assault.

I never said she has no moral case for murder. When there is no law against it, she has no case. Plain and simple. But she can perhaps sue.

emprworm · January 21, 2003

"Why are you imposing your views of morality on everyone else"

huh?

I am asking people in here who think this woman has no moral case for murder how THEY can impose their morality on her! I have imposed nothing.

A woman who wants to have her child and it is killed to assault wants it to be treated as murder.

yet many anti-woman people in here think she should not be able to. I am wondering why that is.

emprworm · January 21, 2003

"So she says this when she decides to abort it, or am I lost?"

she decides that the moment she wants to keep it, so that if it is killed through assault, she wants to ensure a moral case for murder.

Acriku · January 21, 2003

She could not say its a human just to have a murder case, the state would have to have laws against the killing or harm of viable fetuses. Legally speaking, fetuses are not human beings. A moral case would not hold up in court unless there was actually a law broken.

emprworm · January 21, 2003

i think, acriku, you keep misinterpreting everything I am saying. I am not concerned about laws. I am concerned more about your personal opinion. ARe you in agreement with the law? Do you think she should have a credible murder case, regardless of law?

Acriku · January 21, 2003

So in this imaginary case, where law has no standing, would she have a murder case? No. But it would be a lesser crime, than that of killing a human being.

emprworm · January 21, 2003

thats my point, you are no pro choice then. you are saying that the woman has no right over her body to individualize the human being within her womb.

Acriku · January 22, 2003

Putting words in my mouth again eh? :D I am pro-choice because I believe that it is the woman's choice to abort or not, to the point that if the doctor has a rational reason to do so or not, where the mother-to-be cannot make competently.

emprworm · January 22, 2003

but you do not support a womans choice to say that her unborn child is an individual using her body as opposed to an appendage that is part of her body?

how is that pro-choice? enlighten me

Acriku · January 22, 2003

What is the correlation between the two?

emprworm · January 22, 2003

huh?

Acriku · January 22, 2003

What is the correlation between pro-choice and supporting that a womans choice to say that her unborn child is an individual using her body as opposed to an appendage that is part of her body?

emprworm · January 22, 2003

the correlation is that she is making a choice to disown her fetus as an "appendage" (no longer considers it part of her body) and choose to allow the individual to use her body for nourishment. This means that killing the individual in her body is killing a seperate and distinct human being (not just an appendage), therefore making it murder.

Sign In

Morality Quiz

Recommended Posts

Terror

Acriku

emprworm

Acriku

emprworm

Acriku

ordos45

emprworm

Acriku

exatreide

emprworm

ordos45

Acriku

emprworm

emprworm

Acriku

emprworm

Acriku

emprworm

Acriku

emprworm

Acriku

emprworm

Acriku

emprworm

Join the conversation

Activity

Important Information