• 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:
Morality is objective. Moral judgments are subjective. You and I are free moral agents. We have a right to make our own moral decisions.

I've clearly stated this position on numerous occasions.
Click to expand...

Yep a position that you have no facts to support and that failed each and every time as pointed out by multiple;le posters using facts.

Do you have something that is actually relevant and fact-based that supports your failed feelings?
 
Re: License to Kill

AGENT J said:
FACTS:
Abortion =/= license to kill
Morals = subjective

If you or ANYBODY can prove otherwise, please do so now, thanks!
Click to expand...
Yeah, sure, because some dude from Pittsburgh says so. Where's the beef, man?
 
Re: License to Kill

AGENT J said:
Yep a position that you have no facts to support and that failed each and every time as pointed out by multiple;le posters using facts.

Do you have something that is actually relevant and fact-based that supports your failed feelings?
Click to expand...
^^^^
Ordure.
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
Morality is objective. Moral judgments are subjective. You and I are free moral agents. We have a right to make our own moral decisions.

I've clearly stated this position on numerous occasions.
Click to expand...

You have stated it, but you have not supported it. Your claim about it being based in biology failed...and you didnt even articulate a response to my demonstrating that...so it stands as failed.

We cannot continue a discussion based on your failed/unsupported argument if you are going to continually pretend you have proven it. If you dont want discussion, then you shouldnt continually challenge us to do so...or post lies...and pretending you have proven morality is objective is a lie.
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
Yeah, sure, because some dude from Pittsburgh says so. Where's the beef, man?
Click to expand...

Wrong again, FACTS say so, facts you havent been able to refute for 500 posts. Let us know when you can, thanks!
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
If you followed the thread with the least bit of understanding, you'd know ..... I am pro-choice and anti-abortion.
Click to expand...

Following the thread:

(women that disagree with you are). …….. "brainwashed by Pro-Choice politics and radical feminist propaganda." AND "Abortion is morally wrong, except to save the life of the mother, because it is the termination of innocent human life."



So, pro-choice means women can choose to have an abortion but if they do they are immoral, brain washed, radical feminists, killers of innocent humans.

One in four women of child bearing age get abortions. There are 75,400,000 women of child bearing age in the US. If 25% of them get abortions, that would make 18,850,000 women, add in the post menopausal women that already have had abortions, say 18,000,000, makes about 36,000,000 immoral, brain washed, radical feminist, killers in the US.

Well that certainly explains why you think women need your counseling and controlling morality. Bad women!!!!!
 
Re: License to Kill

Lursa said:
You have stated it, but you have not supported it. Your claim about it being based in biology failed...and you didnt even articulate a response to my demonstrating that...so it stands as failed.

We cannot continue a discussion based on your failed/unsupported argument if you are going to continually pretend you have proven it. If you dont want discussion, then you shouldnt continually challenge us to do so...or post lies...and pretending you have proven morality is objective is a lie.
Click to expand...
https://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/369803-w-344-license-kill-40.html#post1070711112
 
Re: License to Kill

weaver2 said:
Following the thread:

(women that disagree with you are). …….. "brainwashed by Pro-Choice politics and radical feminist propaganda." AND "Abortion is morally wrong, except to save the life of the mother, because it is the termination of innocent human life."
Click to expand...
No, not "women that disagree with me" -- women who agree with Lursa and Catharine MacKinnon.

weaver2 said:
So, pro-choice means women can choose to have an abortion but if they do they are immoral, brain washed, radical feminists, killers of innocent humans.
Click to expand...
A second misrepresentation.
Woman can choose to have an abortion because they are free moral agents. But as free moral agents, theirs is the moral responsibility for their choices. If they don't understand this, they're either ignorant, stupid, or brainwashed by radical feminist propaganda as it has been absorbed into pop culture.

weaver2 said:
One in four women of child bearing age get abortions. There are 75,400,000 women of child bearing age in the US. If 25% of them get abortions, that would make 18,850,000 women, add in the post menopausal women that already have had abortions, say 18,000,000, makes about 36,000,000 immoral, brain washed, radical feminist, killers in the US.

Well that certainly explains why you think women need your counseling and controlling morality. Bad women!!!!!
Click to expand...
Your misrepresentations show you to be in bad faith in this discussion. Look to it, or look for an Exit, citizen.
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/369803-w-344-license-kill-40.html#post1070711112
Click to expand...

I will continue to post as I wish, for others to consider.

And if you really didnt want me to respond, you would stop naming me in your posts.

Now...

Angel said:
If it's living and human (a biological designation), then it's a living human being.
Click to expand...

What is that distinction?

Angel said:
Of course there's a distinction: this is the gravamen of my thesis. A living human being is distinct from a living raccoon.
Click to expand...

Please, try again: If it's not about species...what is the distinction? Please explain. What is the difference in terms of the morality of killing either?

I wish to discuss, as you challenged, so: please answer the question:

If it's not about species...what is the distinction? Please explain. What is the difference in terms of the morality of killing either?​
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
Morality is objective. Moral judgments are subjective. You and I are free moral agents. We have a right to make our own moral decisions.

I've clearly stated this position on numerous occasions.
Click to expand...

It is all subjective.

But I get it. You subjectively view morality as objective.;)
 
Re: License to Kill

Lursa said:
His post and argument on 'biology' is a fail anyway:
Click to expand...

He has failed across the board. When people use the word "sacred" to talk about fetuses, there IS a religious subtext. What they're saying is that their god offers special status to the unborn. They claim a superior morality to secularists by virtue of their faith and, as such, needn't have a rational opinion on abortion, just wallow in holy sanctimony and expect everyone to honor it as a positive intention.

I feel that living women deserve more than to have their own sacred life declared forfeit to their spawn. So many women have died for that silly value system.
 
Re: License to Kill

year2late said:
It is all subjective.

But I get it. You subjectively view morality as objective.;)
Click to expand...

Objective morality is a popular notion with those who are too intellectually compromised by the defense of dogma to admit that commandments are not universally respected outside their might makes right authority.

They want to take choice away from women because they don't realize THEY are free to choose NOT to judge them. All of these "sacred life" idiots would GLADLY murder women for choosing the "wrong" option.
 
Re: License to Kill

D_NATURED said:
He has failed across the board. When people use the word "sacred" to talk about fetuses, there IS a religious subtext. What they're saying is that their god offers special status to the unborn. They claim a superior morality to secularists by virtue of their faith and, as such, needn't have a rational opinion on abortion, just wallow in holy sanctimony and expect everyone to honor it as a positive intention.

I feel that living women deserve more than to have their own sacred life declared forfeit to their spawn. So many women have died for that silly value system.
Click to expand...

There's a common argument across the board for religious pro-life people now that they have realized that their religious beliefs are not enough to be forced on American women, by law or morally...so they have resorted to trying to use 'science.' Their sole, foundational argument ends up being: it's a human life so it is equal to all other human lives and cannot be killed (except in self-defense).

Except that morality and even our laws are based on more than objective science. Science applies no value. Morality and laws (based on subjective but codified rights) are subjective. They hope to remove subjectivity by declaring 'all human life equal,' but reality and morality and society are not that black and white.

And then the OP tries, over a myriad of failed OPs, to "prove" that morality is objective and has a couple of "arguments" based on biology...which have also failed. We've demonstrably refuted his arguments on these...and so now he just reiterates over and over...and refuses to further articulate the arguments when challenged. Because they dont work.
 
Last edited:
Re: License to Kill

year2late said:
It is all subjective.

But I get it. You subjectively view morality as objective.;)
Click to expand...
Let's have your argument that "it is all subjective." Your assertion alone is like the assertions of Quag, Lursa, and many others in this forum -- a catchphrase only.
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
Let's have your argument that "it is all subjective." Your assertion alone is like the assertions of Quag, Lursa, and many others in this forum -- a catchphrase only.
Click to expand...

there is no "argument" it's just a fact based on the definition of the word. Again this is why your false claims and posted lies keep hilariously failing.

Fact remains, Abortion =/= license to kill, Morals = subjective but if you feel otherwise factually prove so. you wont cause you cant.
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
Uh-huh. Morality is subjective because of the definition of "subjective." We've heard this endless nonsense of yours much too long now. You should know better.
Click to expand...

Words have meanings you can learn what they are by looking up their definitions in a Dictionary
What you cannot do is pretend to redefine words to suit your personal view points then pretend you have made a valid point
 
Re: License to Kill

Quag said:
Words have meanings you can learn what they are by looking up their definitions in a Dictionary
What you cannot do is pretend to redefine words to suit your personal view points then pretend you have made a valid point
Click to expand...
So the word "subjective" has a meaning -- that was never in dispute. What does that meaning have to do with morality? You have no argument, man! You have only the definition of a term.
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
My moral intuitions tell me that the elective killing of human beings at a rate of a million per year is immoral. What do your moral intuitions tell you?
Click to expand...

Angel admitting his argument is based on his personal subjective "intuition" and thus shredding his own OP in grand style


/end thread
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
No, not "women that disagree with me" -- women who agree with Lursa and Catharine MacKinnon.
Click to expand...
Catharine MacKinnon was quite right about some things and quite wrong about some others. What's wrong with agreeing or disagreeing with Ms MacKinnon. What does she have to do with this thread, anyway?

A second misrepresentation. Woman can choose to have an abortion because they are free moral agents. But as free moral agents, theirs is the moral responsibility for their choices. If they don't understand this, they're either ignorant, stupid, or brainwashed by radical feminist propaganda as it has been absorbed into pop culture.
Click to expand...
.

Offering a box or chocolates and saying, "take a chocolate, but if you do you are a wretched sneak thief", is not a genuine offer of a chocolate. Stating women are free to choose to abort but if they do they are morally despicable, radicalized feminist killers isn't a choice. Women are not ignorant, stupid, brainwashed. Every woman that has ever gotten an abortion understands they are morally responsible for their choice. As you write your extraordinarily misanthropic view of women become apparent.

Your misrepresentations show you to be in bad faith in this discussion. Look to it, or look for an Exit, citizen.
Click to expand...

Bad faith? Throughout this discussion you've made it pretty clear, that you don't like people questioning your gratuitously tortured philosophy about abortion, morality of women and sanctity of the fetus by making snide little end of post jabs, name calling and ridiculous personal accusations.
 
Re: License to Kill

Angel said:
Morality is objective. Moral judgments are subjective.
Click to expand...

Society, culture, group, individual figures out what they think is moral, usually with reasons why. "figures", " think" That's subjective.

Then someone behaves in a way that is counter to that agreed upon morality, and they have to appear before some higher authority. The authority says: guilty because although you observed "G" you didn't follow A, B, C, D, E, or F. The consequences are XXY and Q. "guilty because: 1,2,3,4," , "consequences are a,b,c," That's objective
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom