"God Values Your Life From Conception" Far Less Irrational:

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

What makes this act sensible, moral in your opinion?
What makes this immoral?

My Opinion:
 -When we abandon God and His ways, devaluing the valuable is common and expected.
 -Everyone follows a 'code of conduct'.  To me "a loving creator who is for us" is much more rational to believe in then the 'expert's' poison.
-So much for 'womens right to choose within their body'...now the experts are thinking "parents right to see, touch feel" and pitch away if they don't like.
While 'experts' are defaming the value of human life, other experts are launching animals by looking to give them human rights. 
-Most powerful argument against such individualistic, humanistic and selfish thinking is to live my life placing the highest priority on humans by loving others, serving and solving problems.
-Often times non-theists declare, "who are you to impose your view on me?", to which I reply back, "who are you to impose your humanistic views on me?".

Without Transcendent Moral Codes, Everyting Is Fair Game

Mother launches Facebook campaign against former teacher moving in with teen

A California school teacher has quit his job and left his wife and kids to move into an apartment with an 18-year-old student less than half his age.

The Modesto Bee says the teen's mother, Tammie Powers, has waged a Facebook campaign against the teacher since her daughter moved out of the family's home last week and into a Modesto apartment with 41-year-old James Hooker.

Powers hopes the publicity resulting from the 'James Hooker to Jail Page' will put Hooker in legal jeopardy

Hooker quit his teaching job at Enochs High School last week and left his wife and children, one of them an Enochs student, to live with Enochs senior Jordan Powers.

Hooker acknowledges the couple hurt a lot of people, but says they decided to follow their hearts. Jordan said she knew that many people did not understand the nature of the relationship.

"[He's] my best friend. I mean he's more than just a lover," she said.

The non-theist individual often express religion as foolishness against reason while excusing away some of the more dangerous moral quandaries as 'products of human choice' and therefore not being 'immoral'... after all, who decides on what is moral and not? Surely not God.

This girl is of age, so according to Lady Gaga, she is on the 'right path baby, she was born that way'

Lady Gaga's songs do not go into the repercussions that choices have, like for example the 'predatory nature' some teachers (rarely, as most are hero's) may take with students. The destruction of a family is often not talked about as individuals explore every concept known to mankind to find fulfilment.

On more then one occasion I have been criticized (perhaps fairly) for not offering my opinion on matters, so for the purposes of starting a debate, here it is:

1. God giving us boundaries to live within is not a 'constraint' that is 'against us' or limits the joy of our lives. For example, God says, "Don't steal". That is for our benefit. The boundary is to serve us. Likewise, telling your daughter she may not touch the hot stove may be a crippling law the evil parent forces on their child (according to the curious daughter), but the reality is you love your daughter and desire to protect her: your rule is for her benefit. I believe God loves us and desires to protect us therefore his 'law' is good, for our benefit and to serve us.

2. Operating within the protective boundaries God set out brings life, fulfilment and joy.

3. The degree to which we step outside those protective boundaries often determines the consequences we face. I.E, God says 'be sober minded', we choose to take crazy drugs, think we can fly and test the theory off a 20 storey building. That consequence is different then if I am unloving and selfish towards my wife. Still outside the boundaries, but different consequences.

4. This man's (will only focus on him) actions are outside of God's protective boundaries on many levels (despite how catchy "Born this way" by Lady Gaga is). A few of the consequences are: lost job, destroyed family, deceived teenager being brought into his home and the stigma/stain of credibility on the school (I send my kid to be taught by you, not screwed/swept away).

5. I respect free choice. I am called to love people. I have no influence in their life and cannot try to help either of them directly. Typically, I learn how I can better protect my heart and family by being less selfish and operate with more integrity. I often look at a tragedy and try to understand what is going on, only to learn from it so I don't have to learn the hard way.

Lessons learned:

-the actions of this 'couple' were preceded by a thought. I need to take bad thoughts captive and squash them by talking to loved ones. I need to run to people not from people.

-My choices have the power to destroy a family. Wow. What a sober reminder that I have power within my choice. I desire to choose life: a growing relationship with my wife, kids and friends.

Still Trying For A Response...

To my dismay, I failed to receive any responses to my last entry questioning on what moral grounds homosexuality is moral, but incest is not. It seems they are either both moral/amoral or both immoral. (I did not weigh in with an opinion, I just asked a few questions)

Can anyone help me understand what makes homosexuality moral and incest immoral? If they are both amoral/moral, then where is the celebrity and homosexual defense of incest like we see with homosexuality? If the homosexual community is really for love, justice, peace and rights (as they often share they are) then we should see the same passion towards all sexual orientations, right?

Since I have not seen Celeb passion for the liberty of incest like I do for other orientations, I have changed Ann's quotation for the purpose of asking for a distinction to be made.

What makes her 'homosexual' quote heroic and posted by 1000's on Facebook? Call the answer "X".

Let "X" be the basis for an outpouring of support for incest. I say this because logically, the basis on which many deem homosexuality 'moral' is the same argument anyone can make for incest couples being both 'normal' and moral. I.E: loving adults choose to share their love: who are you to claim moral superiority and judge their actions?

If the 'incest' quote does not sit right, just remember according to the homosexual community you are 'unloving' if you dare judge the people walking out relationships of incest and Ann will likely give you hell.

Edited version:

Original:

What is the distinction between incest and homosexuality that makes one immoral and the other moral?

It seems like the “2 adults who love each other choose to express their love” works for both incest and homosexuality.

It seems like “who are you to H8, judge and claim homosexuality is immoral” also can just as easily be said of incest.

It seems like there is a real inconsistency within the homosexual and celebrity community for using 1 set of logic to boldly support homosexuality, and yet that same set of logic sits silent by those same people when it seems equal application ought to be made to the incest community. Is this hypocrisy, or is there a distinction that can be made?

Homosexual community, Lady Gaga and Anne Hathaway, please draw a distinction between why you feel incest is wrong, but homosexuality is not.   Otherwise, I will apply the same logic you use to support the homosexual community with incest.  Furthermore, I call on you to support the incest community just as vigorously as you support your own interests.

Please note: I am not saying incest or homosexuality is either moral or immoral.  I am dealing with the simple logic of inclusion/exclusion:

If all carrots are vegetables, then this carrot is a vegetable.

If all loving relationships where 2 people choose to express their love is moral, then incest is moral.

Please note: I am not implying I am correct by these questions. I am genuinely looking to learn why the passion for one group, but silent for the other group when it appears the same logic can easily be applied to both groups.