[W:344:1201]License to Kill

[Lursa]

Re: License to Kill

An embryo is not a person.

Here's the OP position in a nutshell: he's "pro-choice" because he believes a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion but if she chooses to have an abortion under any circumstances except her life being in danger, her choice is immoral.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: License to Kill

So what? The OP needs only that it be living.

It also needs:

morals to objective
abortion to be a license to kill

since you can't provide one fact that makes either of those things above true, your OP complete and hilariously fails providing us much entertainment. If you disagree simply prove those things are in fact true. thanks!

 

[AProudLefty]

Re: License to Kill

So what? The OP needs only that it be living.

You were talking about the morality of "killing" embryos and fetuses prior to 20 weeks that have not been proven to be people.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

You were talking about the morality of "killing" embryos and fetuses prior to 20 weeks that have not been proven to be people.

Please quote the OP where you find mention of personhood or period of gestation.

 

[AProudLefty]

Re: License to Kill

Please quote the OP where you find mention of personhood or period of gestation.

So basically killing an embryo is as immoral as killing a virus?

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

So basically killing an embryo is as immoral as killing a virus?

Well, first, science cannot agree that a virus is living. So your question might better be asked of a bacterium.
Second, your question assumes that the OP does not assume distinctive status for the living thing killed in abortion. On what in the OP do you base this assumption of yours?

 

[AProudLefty]

Re: License to Kill

Well, first, science cannot agree that a virus is living. So your question might better be asked of a bacterium.
Second, your question assumes that the OP does not assume distinctive status for the living thing killed in abortion. On what in the OP do you base this assumption of yours?

Your OP was discussing the morality of killing embryos and fetuses. If they are not people (like viruses and bacterium) then why is it immoral to kill them?

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

Your OP was discussing the morality of killing embryos and fetuses. If they are not people (like viruses and bacterium) then why is it immoral to kill them?

My OP does not mention "embryos and fetuses." Nor does the OP mention "personhood." Please get this straight.
Is your question, then, why is abortion immoral?

 

[AProudLefty]

Re: License to Kill

My OP does not mention "embryos and fetuses." Nor does the OP mention "personhood." Please get this straight.
Is your question, then, why is abortion immoral?

abortion noun
abor·​tion | \ ə-ˈbȯr-shən \
Definition of abortion
1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus

And yes why is it immoral when they are not people? That's the nexus of the issue.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

abortion noun
abor·​tion | \ ə-ˈbȯr-shən \
Definition of abortion
1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus

Why are you quoting a dictionary definition of abortion? If you cannot discuss abortion without talking about "embryos and fetuses" and "personhood," then you're posting in the wrong thread. You might consider following Lursa to the more comfortable talking point threads.

 

[AProudLefty]

Re: License to Kill

Why are you quoting a dictionary definition of abortion? If you cannot discuss abortion without talking about "embryos and fetuses" and "personhood," then you're posting in the wrong thread. You might consider following Lursa to the more comfortable talking point threads.

Okay then why is abortion immoral?

Besides you said license to kill. Kill WHAT?

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

Okay then why is abortion immoral?

Besides you said license to kill. Kill WHAT?

Killing a living human being.

 

[Quag]

Re: License to Kill

Okay then why is abortion immoral?

Besides you said license to kill. Kill WHAT?

Angel thinks its immoral because he beleives his morals are THE morals and anyone who disgarees is immoral

 

[Lursa]

Re: License to Kill

Why are you quoting a dictionary definition of abortion? If you cannot discuss abortion without talking about "embryos and fetuses" and "personhood," then you're posting in the wrong thread. You might consider following Lursa to the more comfortable talking point threads.

Are you inventing your own definitions (again)? If you cannot properly define your OP arguments, the failure is yours...just reacting to other's arguments by pretending the proper usage of terms invalidates the discussion is moral cowardice and proof of a weak/non-existent argument.

You dont even clarify the terminology...just disparage. Others cant read your mind. You imagine your own success in the obfuscation...not accuracy...of your own arguments.

 

[AProudLefty]

Re: License to Kill

Killing a living human being.

There it is. As I have stated, it's the nexus of the issue. What exactly does "being" mean?

 

[AGENT J]

Re: License to Kill

Killing a living human being.

oh this will be fun watchign this much fail

What is factually "killing a live human being"?
What makes that act factually immoral?



opcorn2:

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

Angel thinks its immoral because he beleives his morals are THE morals and anyone who disgarees is immoral

Does Quag not believe that terminating an innocent human life ranks as a moral issue?

 

[Lursa]

Re: License to Kill

Killing a living human being.

Who says that's wrong? What authority? And I'm referring to human as a biological categorization. Homo sapiens, having human DNA. Is that how you are you referring to it here, using human being? Please clarify. Biological, or more? If more, please state your distinctions.

We consider many types of justified killing moral...even if we dont like the necessity. Self-defense, war, pulling the plug, assisted suicide, etc.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

There it is. As I have stated, it's the nexus of the issue. What exactly does "being" mean?

It means existing.

 

[AProudLefty]

Re: License to Kill

Does Quag not believe that terminating an innocent human life ranks as a moral issue?

Most people believe that. Asking a question with obvious answer will not help your argument.

 

[AProudLefty]

Re: License to Kill

It means existing.

Rocks exist.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: License to Kill

Angel thinks its immoral because he beleives his morals are THE morals and anyone who disgarees is immoral

Ding ding ding 100% correct

Hence why the OP fails because its based on lies and feelings and no facts.

 

[Lursa]

Re: License to Kill

Rocks exist.

Nice! Well-played.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

Are you inventing your own definitions (again)? If you cannot properly define your OP arguments, the failure is yours...not just reacting to other's arguments by pretending the proper usage of terms invalidates the discussion is moral cowardice and proof of a weak/non-existent argument.

You dont even clarify the terminology...just disparage. Others cant read your mind. You imagine your own success in the obfuscation...not accuracy...of your own arguments.

Who says that's wrong? What authority? And I'm referring to human as a biological categorization. Homo sapiens, having human DNA. Is that how you are you referring to it here, using human being? Please clarify. Biological, or more? If more, please state your distinctions.

We consider many types of justified killing moral...even if we dont like the necessity. Self-defense, war, pulling the plug, assisted suicide, etc.

If it's living and human (a biological designation), then it's a living human being.
Yes, I am aware of "our" justifications of killing. And I'm aware of "your" justifications of abortion. What's your point? To throw your mantric question back at you: Who says these justifications are right? What authority?

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

Most people believe that. Asking a question with obvious answer will not help your argument.

What is my argument?