• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:344:1201]License to Kill

Re: License to Kill

Iron_Merc said:
And here we go again!
Click to expand...

Iron_Merc said:
Abortion is not a civilized answer to todays problems. And YOU KNOW IT
Click to expand...

Two more failed dodges and still nothign factual andon topic, why keep dodging?

Heres the OP and its lies and failed claims
Angel said:
Even if one is as staunchly pro-choice philosophically as I am, one must in good faith recognize and, without dissembling, concede,
that American legal culture has, for going on fifty years now, conferred upon women, necessarily and irrevocably, a license to kill.

A moral catastrophe of the first order.
[/B][/CENTER]
Click to expand...

Please simply prove morals are objective and its a moral catastrophe and that abortion = licences to kill, thanks!
 
Re: License to Kill

Iron_Merc said:
You know what, that pretty much sums up their entire debate methodology. Invalidate the evidence and move on quickly. They sure don't stay in hot water for very long LOL
Click to expand...
I like the metaphor! Yes, they see the steam rising from the water and decide they don't want to take a bath after all. A hundred bath denials later, they are stinking but cannot smell themselves.
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
Do you plan to publish your Godwin Award acceptance speech? Your fans will be disappointed otherwise.
In what way or ways do you find the concept of being ambiguous?
Click to expand...

I am sorry to have disappointed you, my loyal fan.

You said "being" means existing or existence. So it would be "human existence".
 
Re: License to Kill

Iron_Merc said:
You know what, that pretty much sums up their entire debate methodology. Invalidate the evidence and move on quickly. They sure don't stay in hot water for very long LOL
Click to expand...

What evidence? Point them out for us.
 
Re: License to Kill

Scrabaholic said:
There is nothing civilised about forcing women to gestate and give birth against their will.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
A License to Kill
loVwrXp.jpg


Even if one is as staunchly pro-choice philosophically as I am, one must in good faith recognize and, without dissembling, concede,
that American legal culture has, for going on fifty years now, conferred upon women, necessarily and irrevocably, a license to kill.

And kill women have!
To the tune of 50 million and still counting....
A moral catastrophe of the first order.

The genie is out of the bottle, however.
There's no turning back from here, no retracing our steps to that moral crossroads and following the road not taken.

Short of the moral rehabilitation of an entire people, there's nothing to be done to stop the killing.

The only moral redemption left to us at this point is to be open and honest with ourselves and each other about this tragic state of affairs.

But who among us has the strength of character to face the truth about ourselves?​
Click to expand...

This is a great post! Women need people like you to help guide them as to what to do with their bodies. I'll bet you're against birth control because all it does is turn women into uncontrollable sex-demons!

Thank goodness for your stewardship and wisdom!
 
Re: License to Kill

lurchadams said:
This is a great post! Women need people like you to help guide them as to what to do with their bodies. I'll bet you're against birth control because all it does is turn women into uncontrollable sex-demons!

Thank goodness for your stewardship and wisdom!
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reprise of the OP -- it was time. And thanks for the tempered use of irony in your post. Most of those who misunderstand the view expressed in the OP simply become shrill. And for the record, you'd lose your bet.
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
Thanks for the reprise of the OP -- it was time. And thanks for the tempered use of irony in your post. Most of those who misunderstand the view expressed in the OP simply become shrill. And for the record, you'd lose your bet.
Click to expand...

Oh, no problem! Anytime!
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
What's ambiguous about that?
Click to expand...

Trees exist. Rocks exist. Eggs exist. Raccoon exist.

Hmm. Nothing ambiguous about it. What's ambiguous is how you tie morality with existence.
 
Re: License to Kill

AProudLefty said:
Trees exist. Rocks exist. Eggs exist. Raccoon exist.

Hmm. Nothing ambiguous about it. What's ambiguous is how you tie morality with existence.
Click to expand...
No, nothing ambiguous in the least. The word means the same thing in every case.
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
No, nothing ambiguous in the least. The word means the same thing in every case.
Click to expand...

Then killing a human "being" is the morally equivalent to killing a daccoonish being?
 
Re: License to Kill

AProudLefty said:
Then killing a human "being" is the morally equivalent to killing a daccoonish being?
Click to expand...
Well, it certainly is existentially equivalent -- Both are equally dead. A Jain would say it is morally equivalent as well. But there's nothing ambiguous about the being and the ceasing to be.
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
Well, it certainly is existentially equivalent -- Both are equally dead. A Jain would say it is morally equivalent as well. But there's nothing ambiguous about the being and the ceasing to be.
Click to expand...

Then you're a Breatharian, I take it?
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
Why on earth would you think that?
Click to expand...

Because killing human beings is morally equivalent to killing other types of beings simply because, according to you, they exist.
 
Re: License to Kill

Iron_Merc said:
You know what, that pretty much sums up their entire debate methodology. Invalidate the evidence and move on quickly. They sure don't stay in hot water for very long LOL
Click to expand...

I havent moved on from a single one of his arguments. He continually pleads for discussion and now has been reduced to running away from each of them. He's not defending anything.

I'm still here, waiting for him to actually address the last 2-3 posts where I refuted him....
 
Re: License to Kill

AProudLefty said:
Because killing human beings is morally equivalent to killing other types of beings simply because, according to you, they exist.
Click to expand...
Did you not pick up the distinction drawn in that post between the existential and the moral meanings?
 
Re: License to Kill

Iron_Merc said:
Abortion is not a civilized answer to todays problems. And YOU KNOW IT
Click to expand...

You have continually failed to explain how abortion negatively affects "civilization" (society) at all. Feel free to prove your claim...or stop lying about it.
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
Well, it certainly is existentially equivalent -- Both are equally dead. A Jain would say it is morally equivalent as well. But there's nothing ambiguous about the being and the ceasing to be.
Click to expand...

So then why is it immoral to kill a human and not a raccoon?

Please explain the distinction, if there is one?

Post 249 provides some reference material if needed.
 
Last edited:
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
Did you not pick up the distinction drawn in that post between the existential and the moral meanings?
Click to expand...

I read that. What you didn't do is show the distinction. You still haven't explicitly defined being and why it is morally distinct from other types of beings. 32 pages in and you haven't advanced your argument one inch.
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, it is not natural to force women to gestate and give birth against their will. Read upthread and you will see what I was responding to.
 
Re: License to Kill

AProudLefty said:
I read that. What you didn't do is show the distinction. You still haven't explicitly defined being and why it is morally distinct from other types of beings. 32 pages in and you haven't advanced your argument one inch.
Click to expand...
I don't follow you. What distinction am I expected to "show"? Being has been explicitly defined as "existing." 32 pages in and you display not an ounce more understanding than you did on page 1. You have to take responsibility for that.
 
Re: License to Kill

Scrabaholic said:
No, it is not natural to force women to gestate and give birth against their will. Read upthread and you will see what I was responding to.
Click to expand...
Nature forces women to carry to term unless women will otherwise. Another breakdown in reading, yes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom