[W:344:1201]License to Kill

[Scrabaholic]

Re: License to Kill

Please stop this and learn the difference between a lie and a misstatement, a mistake, a misunderstanding, etc. Do you have anything to say on topic?

I will do whatever I want within the rules. You lied, I called you on it and you spent days saying I was lying.

 

[weaver2]

Re: License to Kill

Here's what I think. I think we live in a moral universe; I think you think we live in an a-moral universe and make up rules of conduct.
What did the Anasazi think about the universe?

I think the universe is neither moral, a-moral or immoral. It just is. It exists. The concept of morality and immorality is a characteristic of humans only. Nothing else has a set of ethics. There are some actions all humans and all cultures agree are moral and some actions that all cultures agree are not moral. The morality of these actions were not made up arbitrarily. They are the actions that make civilization possible. In a way civilizations regard these actions as binary and have incorporated them into laws. But in order to deal with ambiguous situations we have elected, conferred, deeded, ceded or allowed to inherit positions of judgement where ambiguities are debated and eventually settled in a manner that serves the culture not the individual in the best way.

About the Anasazi: still processing archeological and architectural information I've seen on this trip.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

I will do whatever I want within the rules. You lied, I called you on it and you spent days saying I was lying.

Stop calling me a liar, Madame. These vindictive posts of yours have become worse than tiresome. Angel is not the topic of this thread; the topic is abortion. The contretemps surrounding weaver2's post was resolved civilly between her and me three days ago. Move on.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

...About the Anasazi: still processing archeological and architectural information I've seen on this trip.

I'll wager the Anasazi lived in a moral universe. Let us know once you've processed the experience.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

that is not a false claim

an act involving sex is either moral (marriage) or immoral (outside marriage..etc)

an act involving life or death is either moral (life supporting) or immoral (abortion).

Murdering an innocent human being is ALWAYS wrong...

funny how these days, you have to say such things.. things that used to be Duh

You're right on the button, citizen.
A very warm welcome to the forum.
I hope we'll be hearing a lot from you.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

On Morality
a reprise
​

Morality and Moral Judgmentt

Morality is Objective
Moral Judgment is Subjective

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 (subjective) derives from Feeling (subjective),

Feeling from Emotion (objective),

Emotion from the Survival Instinct (objective)

The Survival Instinct from the Value of Life (hardwired)


PostScript
Moral Intuition is a form of Moral Judgment
​

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: License to Kill

Stop calling me a liar, Madame. These vindictive posts of yours have become worse than tiresome. Angel is not the topic of this thread; the topic is abortion. The contretemps surrounding weaver2's post was resolved civilly between her and me three days ago. Move on.

I did not call you a liar. If you think I did, then hit the report button. You are free to not respond.

 

[marke]

Re: License to Kill

The universe has no thoughts or feelings. It can neither be moral or amoral.

Sort of like how democrats see babies in the womb, neither moral nor immoral and without feelings? BTW, when do unborn babies start feeling pain, 30 minutes or so after birth? Is there biologic evidence to support such an assumption?

 

[year2late]

Re: License to Kill

Sort of like how democrats see babies in the womb, neither moral nor immoral and without feelings? BTW, when do unborn babies start feeling pain, 30 minutes or so after birth? Is there biologic evidence to support such an assumption?

Please state your source for this assertion that a baby can only start feeling pain 30 minutes or so after birth. This is the first time I have heard this.

There have been multiple scientific /medical reports on when a fetus is capable of feeling pain. Care to look up reliable sources and come back to me?


Now a fetus is incapable of making moral or immoral decisions. Are you saying otherwise?

 

[marke]

Re: License to Kill

Please state your source for this assertion that a baby can only start feeling pain 30 minutes or so after birth. This is the first time I have heard this.

There have been multiple scientific /medical reports on when a fetus is capable of feeling pain. Care to look up reliable sources and come back to me?


Now a fetus is incapable of making moral or immoral decisions. Are you saying otherwise?

Have babies been aborted after the period in formation when they could feel pain?

 

[AGENT J]

Re: License to Kill

On Morality
a reprise
​

another reprise and another fail since facts havent changed.
Fact remains morals are subjective and nothing has been provided that logically suggest otherwise

if anybody can do so please do so now, please provided one single fact that shows otherwise, thanks!

 

[Moonglow]

Re: License to Kill

When did life become fair?

 

[babalu]

Re: [W:344]License to Kill

A License to Kill

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?​

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.

 

[Angel]

Re: [W:344]License to Kill

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.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: [W:344]License to Kill

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.

Who here is advocating its a right to kill born babies?

oh thats right . . nobody lol

 

[AGENT J]

Re: [W:344]License to Kill

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.

Morals are subjective so again your post fails as theres no facts or intellectual logic to support it

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: [W:344]License to Kill

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.

You have not proven your claim that abortion is immoral. It is immoral to YOU and you are free to not abort if you find yourself pregnant and don't want to be.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: License to Kill

Sort of like how democrats see babies in the womb, neither moral nor immoral and without feelings? BTW, when do unborn babies start feeling pain, 30 minutes or so after birth? Is there biologic evidence to support such an assumption?

It has been posted many times on this forum.

While the presence of thalamocortical fibers is necessary for pain perception, their mere presence is insufficient—this pathway must also be functional. It has been proposed that transient, functional thalamocortical circuits may form via subplate neurons around midgestation, but no human study has demonstrated this early functionality. Instead, constant SEPs appear at 29 weeks’ PCA, and EEG patterns denoting wakefulness appear around 30 weeks’ PCA. Both of these tests of cortical function suggest that conscious perception of pain does not begin before the third trimester.

Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence | Pain Medicine | JAMA | JAMA Network

 

[year2late]

Re: License to Kill

Have babies been aborted after the period in formation when they could feel pain?

My guess is possible with issues with severe fetal defects. Are there any studies that you know about (from reliable peer reviewed medical sources)

In hospital very late "abortions" are babies with severe/catastrophic defects that are allowed to be delivered prematurely. Then if the baby delivered survives childbirth, usually comfort care. It is a difficult decision between a woman and her doctor. More chances for serious maternal health issues later in pregnancy. Also, if the fetus dies while gestating, a woman can get very ill and even die if the dead fetus remains in the uterus. Then there are the serious emotional issues. Depends on the woman and here personal, medical, social, and financial resources.

 

[Angel]

Re: [W:344]License to Kill

You have not proven your claim that abortion is immoral. It is immoral to YOU and you are free to not abort if you find yourself pregnant and don't want to be.

On the contrary, I believe I've acquitted myself of my burden of proof more than adequately to the satisfaction of any reasonable person. The morality I've put forward is grounded in evolutionary biology and issues in the moral principle that taking a human life for any other reason than defense of human life is immoral. That's irrefutable except by the standards of a-morality. That talking-point pro0choices refuse to acknowledge the reasonableness of my view is not surprising since this political camp is not interested in morality at all.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: [W:344]License to Kill

1.) On the contrary, I believe I've acquitted myself of my burden of proof more than adequately to the satisfaction of any reasonable person.
2.) The morality I've put forward is grounded in evolutionary biology and issues in the moral principle that taking a human life for any other reason than defense of human life is immoral. That's irrefutable except by the standards of a-morality. That talking-point pro0choices refuse to acknowledge the reasonableness of my view is not surprising since this political camp is not interested in morality at all.

1.) facts dont care about your unsupportable beliefs
2.) nope thats just your feelings you presented that still haven't been backed up. Biology does not support you

Now while we all know you cant and wont ill always ask, if you disagree simply please post any facts that support your claims and makes them true or hell . . just post one factually objective moral and prove it, thanks!

 

[babalu]

Re: [W:344]License to Kill

Who here is advocating its a right to kill born babies?

oh thats right . . nobody lol

The moment it leaves the woman's body and is alive it is murder.

And the process of aborting the baby inside the woman is like the captain of the airliner coming into the passenger cabin and killing one of the passengers.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: [W:344]License to Kill

1.)The moment it leaves the woman's body and is alive it is murder.
2.) And the process of aborting the baby inside the woman is like the captain of the airliner coming into the passenger cabin and killing one of the passengers.

no surprise you totally dodge my question
1.) who claimed otherwise?
2.)actually its nothing like that at all. facts, rights and legality all prove your claim to be absurd and not analogous and i can easily destroy it with one question. No ADULT who is honest educated and objective would ever take your claim seriously.

so ill ask you AGAIN, Who here is advocating its a right to kill born babies?

 

[marke]

Re: License to Kill

It has been posted many times on this forum.

Really? I must have missed the explanation or speculation or whatever it was. Do babies begin to sense pain before or after their hearts start beating for the first time?

 

[babalu]

Re: [W:344]License to Kill

no surprise you totally dodge my question
1.) who claimed otherwise?
2.)actually its nothing like that at all. facts, rights and legality all prove your claim to be absurd and not analogous and i can easily destroy it with one question. No ADULT who is honest educated and objective would ever take your claim seriously.

so ill ask you AGAIN, Who here is advocating its a right to kill born babies?

What you advocate is the most elitist possible act.

e·lite or é·lite (ĭ-lēt′, ā-lēt′)
n. pl. elite or e·lites or élite or é·lites
1.
a. A group or class of persons considered to be superior to others because of their intelligence, social standing, or wealth: