• 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

Angel said:
The term "natural law" and the concept of "natural law" come with too much historical and political baggage to be of any use to me in a conversation with secularists, but your surrogate argument is in the right spirit and direction, though again the order needs fixing.
Click to expand...

Taking out "natural law" and trying a cleaned up version, your thinking goes like this:

Some actions are seen as morally right or wrong by everybody. (sharing is morally right; murder is morally wrong)
These are universal truths
They are immutable and therefor objective.
Creating or allowing life is morally right
Life is a biological truth therefore morally right
Making it morally wrong to take away life.
Pregnancy is about life therefore morally right
Abortion takes away life and is therefore morally wrong
Biology is a scientific study which means morality is scientifically based
Morality is grounded in science
 
Re: [W:344]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...

Natural born is expressly enumerated if we have to quibble about the franchise.
 
Re: License to Kill

weaver2 said:
Taking out "natural law" and trying a cleaned up version, your thinking goes like this:

Some actions are seen as morally right or wrong by everybody. (sharing is morally right; murder is morally wrong)
These are universal truths
They are immutable and therefor objective.
Creating or allowing life is morally right
Life is a biological truth therefore morally right
Making it morally wrong to take away life.
Pregnancy is about life therefore morally right
Abortion takes away life and is therefore morally wrong
Biology is a scientific study which means morality is scientifically based
Morality is grounded in science
Click to expand...
Take out "sharing" and you've pretty much got it in your own words.
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
Take out "sharing" and you've pretty much got it in your own words.
Click to expand...

Another way to look at the foundational ethics around which laws of a culture, nation, society are built might be less binary, more aware of circumstances. But both sets of ethics when carried to their extremes are unworkable.
 
Re: License to Kill

weaver2 said:
Another way to look at the foundational ethics around which laws of a culture, nation, society are built might be less binary, more aware of circumstances. But both sets of ethics when carried to their extremes are unworkable.
Click to expand...
If morality is not binary, it is not morality.
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
If morality is not binary, it is not morality.
Click to expand...

The world is not binary. It never has been. But binary is seductive. It's simple, simplistic, requires no thinking and immorality is easy to identify. Best of all there are no ambiguities.
 
Re: License to Kill

weaver2 said:
The world is not binary. It never has been. But binary is seductive. It's simple, simplistic, requires no thinking and immorality is easy to identify. Best of all there are no ambiguities.
Click to expand...
Morality is binary, whatever the world is. There's no getting around this, I'm afraid.
 
Re: [W:344]License to Kill

"He not busy being born is busy dying."
Bob Dylan

​
 
Re: License to Kill

Scrabaholic said:
The fact that you lied about weaver2's statement.
Click to expand...
No, you lied, to yourself, something about some nonsense about "pro-choice as a whole," got schooled on a simple matter of semantics, but won't let it go.
 
Re: License to Kill

Scrabaholic said:
The fact that you lied about weaver2's statement.
Click to expand...

Angel said:
No, you lied, to yourself, something about some nonsense about "pro-choice as a whole," got schooled on a simple matter of semantics, but won't let it go.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry -- your exact words were "pro-choicers as a whole." I want to avoid further exchanges with you on this nonsense of yours.

Now, what weaver2 said in the post om question is: "You've set your judgements about morality above the law."
Sje later clarified for us that what she intended to say is: "You've set morality above the law."

The latter revised statement is true.
The original statement is false.

My moral judgment is precisely in line with the law -- namely, that women have the right to choose. That is, I'm pro-choice.
Now please let it go.
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
No, you lied, to yourself, something about some nonsense about "pro-choice as a whole," got schooled on a simple matter of semantics, but won't let it go.
Click to expand...

Please stop lying about me.
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
I'm sorry -- your exact words were "pro-choicers as a whole." I want to avoid further exchanges with you on this nonsense of yours.

Now, what weaver2 said in the post om question is: "You've set your judgements about morality above the law."
Sje later clarified for us that what she intended to say is: "You've set morality above the law."

The latter revised statement is true.
The original statement is false.

My moral judgment is precisely in line with the law -- namely, that women have the right to choose. That is, I'm pro-choice.
Now please let it go.
Click to expand...

I have never said you aren't pro choice.
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
Morality is binary, whatever the world is. There's no getting around this, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

OK, let's agree that the morality is binary. How do we handle all the situations where there is no clear cut right or wrong?
 
Re: License to Kill

weaver2 said:
OK, let's agree that the morality is binary. How do we handle all the situations where there is no clear cut right or wrong?
Click to expand...
Are there many such situations? Or is it rather a case of a withered moral sense at sixes and sevens?
But most pointedly, what do you mean by "handle"? Who's handling what here? Every moral agent is his own tribunal.
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
Are there many such situations? Or is it rather a case of a withered moral sense at sixes and sevens?
But most pointedly, what do you mean by "handle"? Who's handling what here? Every moral agent is his own tribunal.
Click to expand...

An organized religion rigorously adheres a strict binary morality. What course of action do they take if a member gets an abortion because the family situation has changed for the worse, another child will create problems the family can't cope with, the woman could carry the pregnancy to term but her health is so fragile that she will be a burden on an already stressed family situation. An early abortion will preserve the stability and security of a family.

How does a society with a strict binary moral and legal code deal with the person who lied in order to keep someone from harm.

How do authorities handle a "stand your ground" situation in which a person was killed in a state with a binary morality?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom