[W:344:1201]License to Kill

[Peter King]

Re: License to Kill

The word you want in that sentence is "effects," not "affects," and the moral catastrophe has been defined from the first: the killing of 50 million human beings in 50 years.
The rest of your post is spin, which is all you ever do. That's your dance. You never engage. You spin your interlocutor's points so that your engagement seems unnecessary. You don't get away with that ruse with me, which is why I encouraged you to find a more hospitable thread.

You can have an opinion about how it is immoral/moral catastrophe but the only morality that matters in the early stage of the abortion is that of the mother. Morality is very private. You can feel abortion is immoral but moral catastrophe is just inaccurate. You have not made believable why it was a disaster? I cannot for the life of me see a disaster in it.

I would say it is a tragedy that so many women had abortions, something they would not have chosen to do voluntarily but situations/realities forced their hand into having one. The tragedy comes from the reasons why many of these abortions were deemed necessary, lack of respect for women's rights, lack of availability of birth control, the arrogance of men to not use birth control, the lack of proper sex education and the idiocy of mostly the republicans to not put things in place (pregnancy leave, mandatory vacation days, living wage, etc. etc. etc. etc.).

That is the only real tragedy IMO.

 

[Peter King]

Re: License to Kill

No, you said "License to kill", which is the same as a license to murder. You don't need a license to defend yourself from an invasive fetus and it's not immoral to save your own ass from injury or death or the myriad hardships that unwanted children represent. Your hyperbole aside, you're triple wrong about everything.

Yeah, that goes a bit far, we do not need to discuss this in the "invasive fetus" discussion. The only thing that matters is the rights women have and the lack of rights a fetus has during the first trimester. Women have the right to decide whether or not they want to have an abortion, medical reasons (risk of complications can be a very reasonable reason to abort a ZEF).

 

[Peter King]

Re: License to Kill

No, "murder" is a legal term, designating unlawful killing. "Killing" is not a legal term; it simply means "taking a life." And abortion certainly did "need the license" it received in 1973, or it would have remained unlawful.

Well, to take a life usually means you take the life of another person. But a ZEF in the first trimester/far before viability is not a person. So you cannot take a life if that person's life has not even started.

 

[Peter King]

Re: License to Kill

A "catastrophe" is a large disastrous event of great significance; "moral" is an adjective indicating rightness or wrongness of action.
A "moral catastrophe" is a large disastrous event that is wrong.
Killing 50 million human beings in 50 years is a moral catastrophe, whether done under the color of law or not.
If your moral intuitions are so dissipated by politics that they do not recoil at this statistic, then we really have nothing to talk about.

Except abortion is not a large disastrous event. How can it be significant is beyond me, not increasing the population (especially with the ever increasing population) is not a disaster.

And no, again no, a ZEF is not a human being. A 12 week old fetus does not have the properties that makes it a person or a human being. This is not about morality but about rights.

 

[Peter King]

Re: License to Kill

There is, however, something natural about it, yes? Of course, women can exert their will and thwart nature. Since 1973 this latter option has been enshrined in American law. So what are you on about anyway?

Mankind does nothing but thwart nature on a daily basis. Not sure why that should matter in this discussion. Nature aborts ZEF's a lot of the time. Sometimes nature, especially in the late abortion situation, needs a bit of help. At that moment, when there are fetuses that are so grossly malformed that it is incompatible with life. Or for that matter would only mean a baby to live a few hours/a few days in terrible agony. Nature cannot help but doctors can. It would be another matter if it would be legal to euthanize such a baby, then a late abortion would not be necessary. But in the US does not have that option.

 

[Peter King]

Re: License to Kill

Nature forces women to carry to term unless women will otherwise. Another breakdown in reading, yes?

We have the ability to overrule nature on this issue. That is the nature of mankind, we see nature and we desire to control it. So nature no longer forces women to carry to term at all, the only ones who are trying to force women to do that is those who try and legally force them to carry against their will, religious extremists and also people who viciously attack women as baby killers IMO.

 

[Peter King]

Re: License to Kill

Quoting Angel's question...



Good question to ask any lowly liberal/Demo who is thinking about impeachment inquiries against our President Trump.
As for myself I reach the conclusion about not being intimidated by those who try to bully in believing abortion is as American as apple pie. perhaps apples with worms and maggots inside.
Wait a minute...I guess getting practice of aborting is to kill the worms and maggots...smart.

Well I as a lowly liberal/demo is happy to answer a backward conservative (hey, you call us low, we call you backward, turnabout is fair play ).

The impeachment inquiries were a fair representation of the crimes committed by this Orange Oaf. And this is not about abortion being as American as apple pie, this is about the core values of the United States of America. The pledge of allegiance speaks of liberty and justice for all. Women deserve liberty and justice too, the liberty to decide what happens to their bodies and the justice of not having their civil liberties encroached on by bullying religious pro-life extremists.

The declaration of independence clearly states that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable and sacred rights that every American has. That means women have these rights too. And while abortion may not be as American as apple pie, the freedom to choose is as American as apple pie.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

We have the ability to overrule nature on this issue...

That's exactly what Angel said.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

...You can feel abortion is immoral but moral catastrophe is just inaccurate. You have not made believable why it was a disaster? I cannot for the life of me see a disaster in it...

Can you count?

For stats on Stalinism, Nazism and Maoism, see here:
Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls

10 million human lives are lost to cancer each year.
Google it if you don't believe me.

But abortion beats all, at 1 million per week. That's also googleable.

These are the facts. The stats. The numbers.
Abortion Apologists, take heed.
And bow your heads.

 

[Peter King]

Re: License to Kill

And without shrilling political talking points in everybody's ears, God bless 'em.

You mean without the extremist right wing pro-life lot or the people who condemn the animals as killers you mean?

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

Except abortion is not a large disastrous event....

Count.

Reflections on The Fifty Million

There have been 50,000,000 abortions in America since Roe v Wade

50 million lives lost to abortion since 1973

Think about it

That's more than the populations of most of the countries of the world


Populations of countries of the world

Morocco 36,910,560

Saudi Arabia 34,813,871

Uzbekistan 33,469,203

Peru 32,971,854

Angola 32,866,272

Malaysia 32,365,999

Mozambique 31,255,435

Ghana 31,072,940

Yemen 29,825,964

Nepal 29,136,808

Population by Country (2020) - Worldometers

Happy New Year, America?
​

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

But even that is not correct, nobody is of the opinion that it is "just a zef". The word zef was used, but "it's just a zef" was not used. Nobody thinks it is "just a zef" but compared to the rights of the mother, an early ZEF has no rights to equal that of the mother....

Peter King thinks it's just "a zef":

Well, to take a life usually means you take the life of another person. But a ZEF in the first trimester/far before viability is not a person. So you cannot take a life if that person's life has not even started.

 

[Peter King]

Re: License to Kill

"If you were to learn that the dictator of a small nation in Asia had executed one million citizens per year for the last 50 years for political reasons, would you or would you not find the dictator's actions morally repugnant?"
Angel Trismegistus​

Except ZEF's are not human beings, no woman is killing any citizen.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

Except ZEF's are not human beings, no woman is killing any citizen.

There is nothing inside a woman called "a zef" -- "a zef" is your dehumanizing term for a living individual human organism.

 

[Peter King]

Re: License to Kill

If you would not find the dictator's actions morally repugnant, then your moral intuitions are extravagantly out of sync with mine and doubtless those of the rest of the civilized world.

If you would indeed find the dictator's actions morally repugnant, then your moral intuitions are perfectly in sync with mine and likely those of the rest of the civilized world.

Now, if most if not all civilized citizens of the world find the termination of 50 million innocent human lives for political reasons morally repugnant, how can the termination of 50 million innocent human lives for political reasons in the case of elective abortion in the last 50 years not be morally repugnant to civilized citizens of the world?

Well everybody would find the act of killing millions of human beings/citizens/persons, it would be a crime against humanity. It would be a crime in general. Abortion however is not a crime, no person/citizen/human being is being killed.

You cannot compare the immoral murderous acts of Stalin/Hitler/Mao/Pol Pot with a woman having an abortion. That is just not accurate or morally equatable. And while the acts of human beings being killed by dictators present/past/made up are indeed morally reprehensible for the violation of people's/human beings rights.

Abortion however is not a violation of someone's legal or moral rights. You might think so and that is fine, you are not forced to have one (if you were a woman, which you are not). And no, elective abortion is not morally repugnant to all civilized citizens of the world because:

1. it really is not our business to make such moral determinations
2. women should have the right to choose and not be maligned whatever choice they make
3. morality about abortion should be decided by those making the decision, it can be an immoral choice but usually it is the most morally sound decision women can make.

 

[Peter King]

Re: License to Kill

A recent post missing the point prompts me to follow up on this response lest there be any false impression on the record.
Your post, pointing out that natural abortions occur, does not refute my post that nature forces women to carry to term unless women will otherwise.
The natural exceptions prove the natural rule.
Now carry on.

But we shouldn't give a crap about natural rule/natural force.

We as humans, because of our reasonable intelligence have largely become masters of our own destiny. Elective abortion is just one of those ways mankind has become the masters of our own destiny. In this case women who have the freedom to choose.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

Well everybody would find the act of killing millions of human beings/citizens/persons, it would be a crime against humanity. It would be a crime in general. Abortion however is not a crime, no person/citizen/human being is being killed.

A human being is killed in abortion. Biology te;;s us so.

Abortion however is not a violation of someone's legal or moral rights....

Abortion is a violation of the moral right to life.

 

[Peter King]

Re: License to Kill

Answer: Politics Poisons the Moral Intuitions of Mankind.

No, it is religion and populists (both left and right) who poison public discourse. As said morality about abortion is purely as personal choice, we cannot have a moral view on it because we have no clue as to why a woman has had an abortion.

 

[Peter King]

Re: License to Kill

And America has had her moral intuitions poisoned in the course of fifty years by radical feminism.
In response to the moral catastrophe identified in the Op we hear an endless chorus of political talking points and pro-abortion propaganda.
Time for America to "woman up" and recognize the culture of abortion as the rank immorality it is.
That's the thesis of this thread.

Radical feminism? You mean the fight of women for equal rights? How dare they demand those things :roll:

And no, the point is that the US political world/public institutions have been poisoned towards women's rights due to right wing extremists, religious extremists, people who want to deny women the right to choose and people who attack women who exercised their legal/moral/medical freedom as killers/murderers/mass murderers (not all used by you but terms that have been used many times to describe women who exercised their freedom to choose).

 

[Peter King]

Re: License to Kill

You seem to be missing the "will" part. Absent an exercise of will to the contrary, and the exceptional natural miscarriage, nature takes its course.

Mankind/women are the masters of their own environment/nature. It is no more than logical that women use the medical possibilities to their advantage when it comes to their own reproductive possibilities.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

Radical feminism? You mean the fight of women for equal rights?...

No, I mean what followed the success of the feminist equal rights movement.

 

[Peter King]

Re: License to Kill

Those who think women should have the right to destroy life in which I am opposed. Those who support abortions thinks it's the right thing to do...just like same sex marriages it's wrong. One day I will take you more seriously. Ah yes my team the Ravens won.

To those who think pro-lifers have to right to force women to do what they want, because they oppose a woman's right to choose, I say, so what that you oppose it. It is a woman's right and you have no business forcing them to comply to your wishes.

And there is nothing wrong with same-sex marriages. It again is just respecting a person's right to have the same rights as every other person in the US/first world.

And the Ravens are a nice team, but they lost and the Kansas City Chiefs from Missouri won the only game that mattered.

 

[Peter King]

Re: License to Kill

Abortion as an option has always been available, going back to cave woman. Unless a woman exerts her will against it, pregnancy takes nature's course.

Why make things up, no person knows if cave woman choose to have abortions. Abortions as a choice is not evident. The first proved induced abortion is from 1550 before the year zero.

And women are master of nature's course, that is what abortion, morning after pills and birth control do.

 

[Peter King]

Re: License to Kill

Judging by these posts of yours, so brainwashed by Pro-Choice politics and radical feminist propaganda are you at this stage of the cultural farce that you think pregnancy itself is a function of the will of the woman! So politicized are you and your sisters-in-arms that you can no longer conceive of nature and nature's course as a force in the world. In your world the world turns by dint of woman's will!

Isn't it equally likely that, judged by your posts, you have been brainwashed by the pro-life extremists politics and conservative christians who have convinced you that not only do you have the right to call someone who has an abortion a killer but also clearly denounce anyone who actually freely supports women the full freedom of choice without condemnation.

And it is the human's natural reaction to make it the master of nature. We do it in most other things, why are women denied that right to choose without condemnation and recriminations by pro-lifers/anti abortion people.

 

[Angel]

Re: License to Kill

Isn't it equally likely that, judged by your posts, you have been brainwashed by the pro-life extremists politics and conservative christians who have convinced you that not only do you have the right to call someone who has an abortion a killer but also clearly denounce anyone who actually freely supports women the full freedom of choice without condemnation.

And it is the human's natural reaction to make it the master of nature. We do it in most other things, why are women denied that right to choose without condemnation and recriminations by pro-lifers/anti abortion people.

Pro-life is the natural, rational, moral view. Anyone deviating from that view is being unnatural, irrational, and immoral.