Page 39 of 219 FirstFirst ... 2937383940414989139 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 2185

Thread: [W:344:1201]License to Kill

  1. #381
    Sage
    Angel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,430
    Blog Entries
    17

    Re: License to Kill

    The Blind Spot in the Talking-point Pro-Choice Argument
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrabaholic View Post
    You missed the word "readily". And my statement stands.
    The word "readily" was not missed, nor does it alter the point you and are have been mooting in a dozen exchanges.
    So let's examine your statement, that exchange of posts, and see exactly what "stands" on your part.

    Here is the exchange from the outset:
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrabaholic View Post
    There is nothing civilised about forcing women to gestate and give birth against their will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    There is, however, something natural about it, yes? Of course, women can exert their will and thwart nature. Since 1973 this latter option has been enshrined in American law. So what are you on about anyway?
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrabaholic View Post
    There is abortion in nature. Animals will abort if the conditions are not right for raising/having offspring.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    And without shrilling political talking points in everybody's ears, God bless 'em.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    A recent post missing the point prompts me to follow up on this response lest there be any false impression on the record.
    Your post, pointing out that natural abortions occur, does not refute my post that nature forces women to carry to term unless women will otherwise.
    The natural exceptions prove the natural rule.
    Now carry on.
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrabaholic View Post
    Did you miss the 'against their will' part? Nature does not force women to gestate against their will, since there exists an alternative in abortion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    You seem to be missing the "will" part. Absent an exercise of will to the contrary, and the exceptional natural miscarriage, nature takes its course.
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrabaholic View Post
    When abortion is readily available, if a woman chooses not to avail herself of it, then she is choosing to gestate and give birth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    Abortion as an option has always been available, going back to cave woman. Unless a woman exerts her will against it, pregnancy takes nature's course.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    Judging by these posts of yours, so brainwashed by Pro-Choice politics and radical feminist propaganda are you at this stage of the cultural farce that you think pregnancy itself is a function of the will of the woman! So politicized are you and your sisters-in-arms that you can no longer conceive of nature and nature's course as a force in the world. In your world the world turns by dint of woman's will!
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrabaholic View Post
    You missed the word "readily". And my statement stands.
    Your initial statement was that "there is nothing civilised about forcing women to gestate and give birth against their will."
    My reply was that "there is, however, something natural" about women being forced to carry to term.

    Your subsequent cavils all turn on the question of "willing." But the fact of the matter is that nature takes its course in a pregnancy willy-nilly. Whether woman wants or does not want the pregnancy to go to term, the fact is that, barring natural miscarriage or unnatural abortion, the pregnancy goes to term in the natural course of things. Unless a woman's "nilly" translates into action to thwart nature's "will" in the pregnancy is supreme. Nature forces the issue whatever the woman wills unless the will of the woman translates into counteraction.

    But here's the most telling point. Your initial statement, that "there is nothing civilised about forcing women to gestate and give birth against their will" is logically equivalent to my counter-statement, that nature forces women to gestate and carry to term. The contradiction to both your statement and my counter-statement is exactly the same, namely: unless the woman chooses to take action not to carry to term. But you do not see that! Your objection to my counter-statement throughout is that a woman can choose to interfere and thwart the course of nature. But you fail to recognize that that option applies to your statement as well. Even if abortion were not legal and civilization attempted to force women to gestate and carry to term, women could still abort.

    In short, your objection to my counter-statement is an objection to your statement as well, but you fail to recognize or acknowledge this. Women can always choose against nature, whether legally or illegally in the civilized state of affairs, or unnaturally in the state of nature.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/u68aMie.jpg target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://i.imgur.com/u68aMie.jpg</a>
    "I'm not 100% sure that you and I exist, but I'm surer that God exists than that you exist, and I'm as sure God exists as I am that I exist."
    Angel Trismegistus

  2. #382
    Tenacious
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    58,403

    Re: License to Kill

    (Following the trend for greater context...great idea btw!)

    Your argument is still wrong:

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    Nature forces women to carry to term unless women will otherwise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    My reply was that "there is, however, something natural" about women being forced to carry to term.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Wrong. Environmental stresses bringing on spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) and fetal adsorption (spelled correctly) happen all the time in nature...just like those stresses that women who choose abortion face. And nature also drives mothers to eat and otherwise kill their young under the same circumstances.

    Nature chooses the reproductively mature individuals all the time over the unborn and juveniles...they are the better 'investment,' they have the highest odds of surviving and reproducing (passing on their genes) again in the future.


    You dont seem to have a good grasp of philosophy or nature.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    Your post, pointing out that natural abortions occur, does not refute my post that nature forces women to carry to term unless women will otherwise.

    The natural exceptions prove the natural rule.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    No, you are still wrong.

    "Nature" also "forces" miscarriages on pregnant humans and other pregnant animals against their will all the time. Not remotely exceptions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    You seem to be missing the "will" part. Absent an exercise of will to the contrary, and the exceptional natural miscarriage, nature takes its course.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Miscarriages are not even 'exceptional' among human women, much less other species.

    Which fertilized eggs will become healthy human fetuses? Researchers predict with 93% accuracy -- ScienceDaily

    Two-thirds of all human embryos fail to develop successfully. Now, in a new study, researchers have shown that they can predict with 93 percent certainty which fertilized eggs will make it to a critical developmental milestone and which will stall and die. The findings are important to the understanding of the fundamentals of human development at the earliest stages, which have largely remained a mystery despite the attention given to human embryonic stem cell research.

    Again, this argument of yours...fails.

    You should acknowledge it and move on.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    ... you think pregnancy itself is a function of the will of the woman! So politicized are you and your sisters-in-arms that you can no longer conceive of nature and nature's course as a force in the world. In your world the world turns by dint of woman's will!
    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    "Continuation of a pregnancy" certainly is...factually...in the US...up to the will of the woman.

    No one controls all health threats...miscarriages happen, women have their health destroyed by pregnancy, women lose their lives in childbirth.

    All very very good reasons why each individual woman alone has the moral choice to continue with a pregnancy...for only she will suffer the consequences. She and perhaps her loved ones and her dependents.

    (And dont bother...the unborn "suffers" nothing.)
    Last edited by Lursa; 10-07-19 at 02:33 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by COTO View Post
    Even if this were true (it's not), how many million years do you want to spread the infection over?
    RE: Italy's mortality rate
    Quote Originally Posted by Luther View Post
    Perhaps it because their population is so old(their own doing)?

  3. #383
    Sage
    Angel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,430
    Blog Entries
    17

    Re: License to Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    "If you were to learn that the dictator of a small nation in Asia had executed one million citizens per year for the last 50 years for political reasons, would you or would you not find the dictator's actions morally repugnant?"
    Angel Trismegistus
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    If you would not find the dictator's actions morally repugnant, then your moral intuitions are extravagantly out of sync with mine and doubtless those of the rest of the civilized world.

    If you would indeed find the dictator's actions morally repugnant, then your moral intuitions are perfectly in sync with mine and likely those of the rest of the civilized world.

    Now, if most if not all civilized citizens of the world find the termination of 50 million innocent human lives for political reasons morally repugnant, how can the termination of 50 million innocent human lives for political reasons in the case of elective abortion in the last 50 years not be morally repugnant to civilized citizens of the world?
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    Answer: Politics Poisons the Moral Intuitions of Mankind.
    The effect of the poison is a terrible delirium, in which uncritical thinking appears authoritative.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/u68aMie.jpg target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://i.imgur.com/u68aMie.jpg</a>
    "I'm not 100% sure that you and I exist, but I'm surer that God exists than that you exist, and I'm as sure God exists as I am that I exist."
    Angel Trismegistus

  4. #384
    Tenacious
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    58,403

    Re: License to Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    The effect of the poison is a terrible delirium, in which uncritical thinking appears authoritative.
    This is a discussion forum...not a 'talk to yourself' forum.

    You made an original argument...why have you abandoned supporting your arguments against those that have accommodated you by challenging your arguments? Currently...the situation stands at: your arguments failed.

    Are we leaving it there then?
    Quote Originally Posted by COTO View Post
    Even if this were true (it's not), how many million years do you want to spread the infection over?
    RE: Italy's mortality rate
    Quote Originally Posted by Luther View Post
    Perhaps it because their population is so old(their own doing)?

  5. #385
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Last Seen
    01-29-20 @ 07:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    12,153

    Re: License to Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    The effect of the poison is a terrible delirium, in which uncritical thinking appears authoritative.
    Yep. And you need an antidote for that yourself. False equivalence doesn't help your argument.

  6. #386
    Sage
    Angel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,430
    Blog Entries
    17

    Re: License to Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    False equivalence doesn't help your argument.
    Identify the false equivalence and explain why you consider it false.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/u68aMie.jpg target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://i.imgur.com/u68aMie.jpg</a>
    "I'm not 100% sure that you and I exist, but I'm surer that God exists than that you exist, and I'm as sure God exists as I am that I exist."
    Angel Trismegistus

  7. #387
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Last Seen
    01-29-20 @ 07:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    12,153

    Re: License to Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    Identify the false equivalence and explain why you consider it false.
    Sure. Human zygotes and fetuses are not people.

  8. #388
    Tenacious
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    58,403

    Re: License to Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    Identify the false equivalence and explain why you consider it false.
    Why divert from your original argument? Are you not interested more in the moral argument you have attempted to make? There are pages here where we have continued to address your actual arguments..and we are still prepared to respond...yet you once again bob and weave away from your unsupported opinions.

    Why add one more to your list?
    Quote Originally Posted by COTO View Post
    Even if this were true (it's not), how many million years do you want to spread the infection over?
    RE: Italy's mortality rate
    Quote Originally Posted by Luther View Post
    Perhaps it because their population is so old(their own doing)?

  9. #389
    Sage
    Angel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,430
    Blog Entries
    17

    Re: License to Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Sure. Human zygotes and fetuses are not people.
    Just as I thought. Another confused talking-pointer. I never used the word "people" or "person." I'm talking throughout about human beings.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/u68aMie.jpg target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://i.imgur.com/u68aMie.jpg</a>
    "I'm not 100% sure that you and I exist, but I'm surer that God exists than that you exist, and I'm as sure God exists as I am that I exist."
    Angel Trismegistus

  10. #390
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Last Seen
    01-29-20 @ 07:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    12,153

    Re: License to Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    Just as I thought. Another confused talking-pointer. I never used the word "people" or "person." I'm talking throughout about human beings.
    Once again there is a breakdown in communication. One more time: what does human beings mean? 39 pages in and you have failed to define it and why it is morally wrong to kill them or why it is more wrong than killing a raccoon?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •