• 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

Woman who aborted because she was working 3 jobs to feed, clothe and house her 3 born children standing before God:

God: You did your best, Jane, and were in a difficult position. You did nothing wrong. Welcome to Heaven.

Finish your narrative. Jane: 'But what about the aborted baby?'

Democrat version of God's response: 'To hell with him. He did not matter.'
 
Re: License to Kill

Finish your narrative. Jane: 'But what about the aborted baby?'

Democrat version of God's response: 'To hell with him. He did not matter.'

That isn't in my narrative. For one, there's no baby. For another, a woman who does not regret aborting would not ask such a question.
 
Re: [W:344]License to Kill

Ah let me simplify for you. You can believe what you want...but saying your beliefs out loud does not make them facts.
And what are "facts"? Be careful here, Madame, because your answer will no doubt be one of those beliefs you've allowed us.
 
Re: [W:344]License to Kill

And what are "facts"? Be careful here, Madame, because your answer will no doubt be one of those beliefs you've allowed us.

People have sex. On occasion a woman may become pregnant from this union. Fact.

A woman may not want to remain pregnant. Fact.

What YOU believe she should do is based on your belief system.
 
Re: [W:344]License to Kill

People have sex. On occasion a woman may become pregnant from this union. Fact.

A woman may not want to remain pregnant. Fact.

What YOU believe she should do is based on your belief system.
You were asked what are "facts," not what are examples of "facts." Again, what are "facts"?
 
Re: [W:344]License to Kill

You were asked what are "facts," not what are examples of "facts." Again, what are "facts"?

Good lord.

Go to your philosophical fact playground and leave me alone.:lamo
 
Re: [W:344]License to Kill

Good lord.

Go to your philosophical fact playground and leave me alone.:lamo
Sure.
But just for the record, your condescending post distinguishing between belief and fact was, as per usual, just a talking point which fails to survive the least scrutiny or challenge:
Ah let me simplify for you. You can believe what you want...but saying your beliefs out loud does not make them facts.
 
Re: [W:344]License to Kill

Sure.
But just for the record, your condescending post distinguishing between belief and fact was, as per usual, just a talking point which fails to survive the least scrutiny or challenge:

Morals are not "fiction". They are based on your own belief system. I will not call your sense of philosophy or morality "fiction" ….your beliefs are yours. Others need not apply. Who am I to call your beliefs fiction?

When you start applying you personal sense of morality and philosophy to others...that is when you lose me 100 percent.
 
Re: [W:344]License to Kill

He isn't trying to force his beliefs on others he is trying to prove his beliefs are the correct ones, .....

...... and the only correct (true?) ones meaning all others are wrong, incorrect, false or immoral.

However, if as s/he says "All human beings are free moral agents"........ then all humans are free to claim their beliefs are the correct ones, logically, then no belief and all beliefs are true. That being so, if all humans are free moral agents there is no need to show everybody that one owns the only true belief. So many posts wasted on the great unwashed.
 
Last edited:
Re: [W:344]License to Kill

Morals are not "fiction". They are based on your own belief system. I will not call your sense of philosophy or morality "fiction" ….your beliefs are yours. Others need not apply. Who am I to call your beliefs fiction?

When you start applying you personal sense of morality and philosophy to others...that is when you lose me 100 percent.
Here you're using the ambiguous term "morals" -- a term that conflates morality and moral judgment in the service of ignorance, a term I've objected to and corrected a dozen times already -- and denying something that was not charged, presumably to divert attention from your previous loose talk of "facts" or only God knows why. The talking-point pro-choice reliance on legal fictions seems to weigh heavily on the conscience of this post. If you want to be left alone. then stop the flagrantly off-kilter replies to my posts.
 
Re: [W:344]License to Kill

Reprise
toward a return to topic

The Key Exchange

The Woman does not have the right to kill the baby once it leaves her body any more than an airline captain has the right to kill his or her passengers after having carried them awhile and feeding them.
I waited a thousand posts for your post! Yes, that is the point no one else has thought to raise. I was not surprised that the talking-point pro-choicers did not think to raise this question, but that no pro-lifer raised it was surprising.

Here's the way I see it. Morality and law are distinguishable, of course. And law is not always on the side of morality: 1850s law on slave ownership is the locus classicus. In the case of abortion law, once again law and morality do not coincide. The law on abortion condones an immoral act, the taking of a human life. There are political reasons for this, but my thesis is not concerned with politics. Or law for that matter. My thesis is concerned only with the morality of the case, and I've made my argument throughout this thread for the immorality of taking human life except to defend human life, and on that basis abortion except to save the life of the pregnant woman is immoral.

Nevertheless, my moral argument recognizes the freedom of the moral agent in all cases to choose to commit an immoral act. For moral freedom cannot be abridged or constrained without abandoning morality altogether. So the woman has the moral freedom to choose to have an abortion though her life is not at risk, but in so choosing chooses to commit an immoral act. The law does not punish this immoral act.

The airline pilot of your example is also morally free to kill his passengers -- anyone is morally free to kill anyone else in fact -- but the law against homicide will punish him for his immoral action.


What it is!
 
Re: [W:344]License to Kill

Reprise
toward a return to topic

That analogy already failed and is actually not analog because abortion has nothing to do babies outside of her body :)
Fact remains morals are subjective
 
Re: [W:344]License to Kill

No thank you for umpteenth re-assertion of your talking point.

Not up to speed on the latest pop hates. Why, exactly, are talking points something to be scorned?
 
Re: [W:344]License to Kill

Not up to speed on the latest pop hates. Why, exactly, are talking points something to be scorned?
Those who proffer talking points generally have no arguments to support them.
 
Re: [W:344]License to Kill

No thank you for umpteenth re-assertion of your talking point.

Well if you would stop going on about your subjective moral points I would stop responding to them.;)
 
Re: [W:344]License to Kill

Well if you would stop going on about your subjective moral points I would stop responding to them.;)
Repeating a catchphrase a hundred times is not a response. Do you have an argument for the subjectivity of morality? If you do, let's hear it. I've posted arguments for the objectivity of morality. Are you interested in discussion or just get your kicks being contrary?
 
Re: [W:344]License to Kill

Repeating a catchphrase a hundred times is not a response. Do you have an argument for the subjectivity of morality? If you do, let's hear it. I've posted arguments for the objectivity of morality. Are you interested in discussion or just get your kicks being contrary?

Already proven wheras you failed to support your erronous claim that morals are objective, not that it matters because your failed OP relies upon your personal moral judgement which you admit is subjective
 
Re: [W:344]License to Kill

Repeating a catchphrase a hundred times is not a response. Do you have an argument for the subjectivity of morality? If you do, let's hear it. I've posted arguments for the objectivity of morality. Are you interested in discussion or just get your kicks being contrary?

No you really haven't presented arguments. You have presented more subjective information.

This is as boring as sitting in a coffee house listening to dime store philosphers wax on about the truth of the meaning of life.
 
Re: [W:344]License to Kill

No you really haven't presented arguments. You have presented more subjective information.

This is as boring as sitting in a coffee house listening to dime store philosphers wax on about the truth of the meaning of life.
This is a new angle on the talking point universe of discourse. Not only does the talking point activist not have arguments for the talking points, but she doesn't even recognize arguments that are presented to her.
 
Re: [W:344]License to Kill

Repeating a catchphrase a hundred times is not a response. Do you have an argument for the subjectivity of morality? If you do, let's hear it. I've posted arguments for the objectivity of morality. Are you interested in discussion or just get your kicks being contrary?

Facts were already presented by many posters many times thats what makes this thread so awesome, i hope it makes it to 2000 continuing the factual and utter beat down of every false claim that was in the op and other delicious failed attempts. Fact remains morals are subjective. If you or ANYBODY can provide one fact proving otherwise, please do so now, . . . one . . .thanks
 
Back
Top Bottom