- Joined
- May 1, 2012
- Messages
- 27,375
- Reaction score
- 19,413
- Location
- Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.
Politics does not trump biology in designations by genetic identity. There is no such thing as a "Zef."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."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.What one person calls a threat to life may not be perceived as such by another. Very subjective.
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.
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.
Lursa: the legalization is the license.
The Moral Argument...It is not an argument for or against the morality of abortion.
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.
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.
Are we supposed snap our fingers or hold up lit BIC lighters for your silly ass poem?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
And as morality is subjective to each person, there is no argument.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.
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."Are we supposed snap our fingers or hold up lit BIC lighters for your silly ass poem?
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.And as morality is subjective to each person, there is no argument.
The Zef
Let's hear your argument for the subjectivity of morality.
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.
It is your silly ass poem because you referenced/posted it.. Who wrote the silly ass poem is of no interest to me.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.”
Jejune huh? Couldn’t come up with a more douchey word choice to better emphasize your false impression of superiority?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.
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?
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..... 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?