• 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

The OP Argument

1. Abortion law since 1973 has allowed for the killing, with impunity, of 50 million human beings.
2. Killing 50 million human beings with impunity constitutes a license to kill.
3. Therefore, abortion law constitutes a license to kill.

It is illegal to kill human beings. Zefs are not human beings.
 
Re: License to Kill

It is illegal to kill human beings. Zefs are not human beings.
Politics does not trump biology in designations by genetic identity. There is no such thing as a "Zef."
 
Re: License to Kill

What one person calls a threat to life may not be perceived as such by another. Very subjective.
I don't know what work your "very" is supposed to do, but if one person observes a bear lumbering toward her yard and perceives in its approach a cause for alarm and a possible threat to her life, and another person observes a bear lumbering toward his yard but does not perceive in its approach a cause for alarm and a possible threat to his life, then, since they are observing the same objective set of circumstances, their different perceptions must have an explanation. Maybe the man is an animal trainer and the approaching bear belongs to him. Maybe the man is a fool and hasn't sense enough to recognize a dangerous situation. Maybe the man is an animal rights activist and truly believes that wild animals do not pose a threat unless provoked. Maybe the man is a fur trapper and is luring the bear toward a trap. If we all agree that the approach of a bear is cause for alarm and a possible threat to life, then the differing perceptions in our hypothetical must have an explanation.

That explanation, whatever it is, accounts for their different perceptions.

To bring this hypothetical back to our topic: if two people observe the taking of a human life, and one perceives it as immoral while the other does not perceive it as immoral, or perceives it as moral or a-moral, then, since they both observe the same act, there must be an explanation for their different moral perceptions.
One explanation is that the pro-abortion moralist has been sold a bill of goods about a mythical entity known as a "Zef."
"The Zef" is a bit of jabberwocky right out of Lewis Carroll.
 
Last edited:
Re: License to Kill

The OP Argument

1. Abortion law since 1973 has allowed for the killing, with impunity, of 50 million human beings.
2. Killing 50 million human beings with impunity constitutes a license to kill.
3. Therefore, abortion law constitutes a license to kill.


"This is is not an argument against abortion or against the women who choose abortion." Correct. But it is the argument of this thread.

I completely ruined this "explanation" about 25 pages ago. Please acknowledge your pointless repetition here...it's not an 'argument:'

The bold, your number 1, is not even being contested...abortion is legal (the 'license to kill' you refer to).
2 gives a date, no one's disputing that. Otherwise, redundant
3 is also redundant and remains uncontested

So...what was your argument again?


And just FYI, you did write:

Lursa: the legalization is the license.

So I wish to discuss, as you offered:

Please...articulate your argument again...one that doesnt use circular "logic". Good lord it's not even circular, it's repetition.
 
Re: License to Kill

...It is not an argument for or against the morality of abortion.
The Moral Argument

1. Taking human life, except in self-defense, is immoral.
2. Abortion is taking human life.
3. Therefore, abortion, except to save the life of the woman, is immoral.
 
Re: License to Kill

63 pages and we still aren't getting anywhere.

1. Killing a human being for no reason, is immoral.
2. An embryo or a fetus is not a human being.
3. Therefore, abortion isn't immoral.
 
Re: License to Kill

63 pages and we still aren't getting anywhere.

1. Killing a human being for no reason, is immoral.
2. An embryo or a fetus is not a human being.
3. Therefore, abortion isn't immoral.

Not to mention that the woman has plenty of reason...and any that she feels is valid to preserve her life and livelihood (which includes others) is perfectly moral.
 
Re: License to Kill

It is illegal to kill human beings. Zefs are not human beings.

One explanation is that the pro-abortion moralist has been sold a bill of goods about a mythical entity known as a "Zef."
"The Zef" is a bit of jabberwocky right out of Lewis Carroll.

The Zef
after Lewis Carroll


'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the dreaded Zef, my lass
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and pass
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

She took her vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe she sought—
So rested she by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought she stood,
The dreaded Zef, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
She left it dead, and with its head
She went galumphing back.

"And hast thou slain the dreaded Zef?
Come to my arms, my beamish lass!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
She chortled and passed gas.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Jabberwocky by Lewis Carroll - Poems | Academy of American Poets
 
Re: License to Kill

The Zef
after Lewis Carroll


'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the dreaded Zef, my lass
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and pass
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

She took her vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe she sought—
So rested she by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought she stood,
The dreaded Zef, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
She left it dead, and with its head
She went galumphing back.

"And hast thou slain the dreaded Zef?
Come to my arms, my beamish lass!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
She chortled and passed gas.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Jabberwocky by Lewis Carroll - Poems | Academy of American Poets
Are we supposed snap our fingers or hold up lit BIC lighters for your silly ass poem?
 
Re: License to Kill

This is is not an argument against abortion or against the women who choose abortion. It is not an argument for or against the morality of abortion.
And as morality is subjective to each person, there is no argument.
 
Re: License to Kill

Are we supposed snap our fingers or hold up lit BIC lighters for your silly ass poem?
No, my audience was only supposed to have a basic acquaintance with English literature, enough to recognize that it wasn't my "silly ass poem."
And as morality is subjective to each person, there is no argument.
As it stands, this post seems to embrace a rather jejune understanding of morality, relying as it does on the internet catchphrase about morality being subjective.
But I always give an interlocutor the benefit of the doubt. Let's hear your argument for the subjectivity of morality.
 
Re: License to Kill


LMAO

you are not going to add yourself to the VERY short list of people that claim ZEF isnt a real acronym are you buecase that would be hilarious.

Last i checked theres no more of those posters left,(maybeone but they know better) that was tried one time and it completely failed. In fact one poster (one of the worst posters ever on DP) had the **** kicked out of him so bad of that and his other lies he doesnt post here anymore or made a new name etc

The delicious history goes like this

the liars: claimed ZEF was a bigoted slur only used by prochoice people on this board
FACTS: showed it was use by lots of people on other boards also

The liars: then claim yeah but only by pro-choicers
FACTS: showed pro lifers and pro choicers used it on different boards including this one

The Liars: claim its only internet slang and its still a bigoted slur
FACTS: showed it appears in many list of acronyms and is used outside of the internet

The lairs: then claimed no pro life people use it in real life
FACTS: showed not only did pro life people use it in real life at least two prolife groups (one a church group) existed and in their literature they were fighting for "ZEF RIGHTS"
(this is where the numbers disappeared and there were only like 2 or 3 of these tards left)

The liars: then claimed its not proper medical term usage and its use to dehumanize
FACTS: showed it was indeed used in the medical field and any claims of dehumanizing made no sense since ZEF stands for zygote, embryo and fetus . . 3 things that are all HUMAN lol

as far as i know this is where the number went down to 1 (maybe one is still here but again she NEVER brings it up any more cause she knows better)

the liar: then claimed no DOCTORS use it
FACTS: were quickly provided of ZEF being used in a published paper by a doctor
The liar said that doesnt count because the doctor(writer) wasnt an embryologists and the editor(not the writer) was a cardiologist :lamo

this caused people right left and center, prolife and prochoice to mock this moron so bad that he meltdown even further out of control

he upgraded from blatant lies and trolling to even attacking women for simply disagreeing with him even calling them ****s
he attacked peoples families and did other things i cant mention because of forum rules

his insane meltdown was hilarious and one of the best things ive seen on DP as far as deserved karma goes
 
Re: License to Kill

I've been meaning to ask... Why does he talk like Dr. Frasier Crane?
 
Re: License to Kill

Let's hear your argument for the subjectivity of morality.

1.) its YOUR failed argument that everybody has destroyed already with facts and definitions, if YOU disagree its YOUR job to prove otherwise
2.) thers no "argument" to be made, we simply just pointed out facts and this is why the OP continues to fail.
Theres not one rational, edcuted, intellectual, accurate, fact that supports the failed, dishonest, destroyed, mocked, unsupportable, half witted, nonsensical, wisdomless, hilarious claims that abortion is a license to kill or that morals are objective . . not one.

If anybody disagrees plese prove otherwise, thanks
 
Re: License to Kill

The OP Argument

1. Abortion law since 1973 has allowed for the killing, with impunity, of 50 million human beings.
2. Killing 50 million human beings with impunity constitutes a license to kill.
3. Therefore, abortion law constitutes a license to kill.
The Moral Argument

1. Taking human life, except in self-defense, is immoral.
2. Abortion is taking human life.
3. Therefore, abortion, except to save the life of the woman, is immoral.

Morality is objective, grounded in biology, and based on the Value of Life.
Moral judgments are subjective determinations.
Moral intuitions are a form of moral judgment.
 
Re: License to Kill

No, my audience was only supposed to have a basic acquaintance with English literature, enough to recognize that it wasn't my "silly ass poem.”
It is your silly ass poem because you referenced/posted it.. Who wrote the silly ass poem is of no interest to me.

As it stands, this post seems to embrace a rather jejune understanding of morality, relying as it does on the internet catchphrase about morality being subjective.
But I always give an interlocutor the benefit of the doubt. Let's hear your argument for the subjectivity of morality.
Jejune huh? Couldn’t come up with a more douchey word choice to better emphasize your false impression of superiority?

The facts (because there is no valid argument otherwise) proving that morals and morality are subjective have been laid before you numerous times already. No reason to continue beating that dead horse, even though you try.
 
Re: [W:344]License to Kill

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?

against abortion? don't have one , but don't tell people of different faiths what to do

Jewish law does not share the belief common among abortion opponents that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Sources in the Talmud indicate that prior to 40 days of gestation, the fetus has an even more limited legal status, with one Talmudic authority (Yevamot 69b) asserting that prior to 40 days the fetus is “mere water.” Elsewhere, the Talmud indicates that the ancient rabbis regarded a fetus as part of its mother throughout the pregnancy, dependent fully on her for its life — a view that echoes the position that women should be free to make decisions concerning their own bodies.
 
Re: License to Kill

.... and based on the Value of Life.
Hallelujah, as determining the value of life is a purely subjective undertaking, it looks like you’re finally admitting the truth, that morals and morality are purely subjective.
 
Re: License to Kill

Hallelujah, as determining the value of life is a purely subjective undertaking, it looks like you’re finally admitting the truth, that morals and morality are purely subjective.

:applaud:
 
Re: License to Kill

The OP Argument

1. Abortion law since 1973 has allowed for the killing, with impunity, of 50 million human beings.
2. Killing 50 million human beings with impunity constitutes a license to kill.
3. Therefore, abortion law constitutes a license to kill.

..... it is the argument of this thread.

It's a statement of your opinion. There isn't any argument . You're entitled to your opinion and however you want to state it.
 
Re: License to Kill

How is it possible to philosophize thus:

Morality is biologically grounded in the survival instinct
Life is the fundamental value of morality

The value of Life informs the emotions of Fear and Disgust, Sympathy and Empathy
Emotions are objective measurable states of being

Feeling is the consciousness of emotion
With feeling subjectivity enters moral dynamics

Moral judgment derives from Feeling


and claim one is staunchly and philosophically pro-choice.
 
Re: License to Kill

Celine Dion's mother was initially devastated that she was having a 14th child. She went to the priest to see if she should have an abortion. The priest told her that she should not abort the child. Taking that advice, she gave birth to Celine. And we all heard that song from Titanic because of it.

See how that devastates society? If you don't acknowledge that abortion has an impact on society with this example... well, then you never will.

Yes... because Celine Dion's singing makes the world a better place...

...how about we reverse this and argue that had Hitler's mother had an abortion it would have saved 50,000,000 million lives?
 
Re: License to Kill

Morality is objective, grounded in biology, and based on the Value of Life.
Moral judgments are subjective determinations.
Moral intuitions are a form of moral judgment.

Morality is subjective...
 
Re: License to Kill

Celine Dion's mother was initially devastated that she was having a 14th child. She went to the priest to see if she should have an abortion. The priest told her that she should not abort the child. Taking that advice, she gave birth to Celine. And we all heard that song from Titanic because of it.

See how that devastates society? If you don't acknowledge that abortion has an impact on society with this example... well, then you never will.

Well, that's a fun story, but no Quebecois of that era would have ever consider abortion let alone discuss it with a priest.
 
Back
Top Bottom