NationStates Jolt Archive

Liberals hate the death penalty. They get very queasy over the thought of killing the guilty. Yet, when it comes to abortion, they have no problem with killing children. WTF?

Liberals hate the death penalty. They get very queasy over the thought of killing the guilty. Yet, when it comes to abortion, they have no problem with killing children. WTF?
Are you sure that it isn't that they get quesy over the thought of killing the innocent?

Liberals hate the death penalty. They get very queasy over the thought of killing the guilty. Yet, when it comes to abortion, they have no problem with killing children. WTF?

The view is that a fetus prior to a certain point is not a person, and thus isn't killed.

Umm....
The fact that you obviously know you twisted words to arrive at that conclusion, knowing that isn't the way most liberals(way to make a generalization, by the way) think of the issue, is abhorrent to me. I hope that you understand that it is simply wrong to make a statement in an attempt to get people to yell at you, so that you can feel superior to them afterwards.

We also get queasy over them guns. Oh how we hate you death makers.

I consider myself liberal, yet vehemently oppose both... except for cases of rape and threats to the health of the mother. I think that's a bit of a blanket statement.

*yawn*

Fetuses are not humans, convicts are.

Liberals hate the death penalty. They get very queasy over the thought of killing the guilty. Yet, when it comes to abortion, they have no problem with killing children. WTF?
Amazing, isn't it. They slaughter innocent children just because they are to lazy to use contraception, yet they beg an plead and cajole and threaten anyone who has the temerity to put a murderer to death.

*yawn*

Fetuses are not humans, convicts are.

Human or not (and I personally believe they are), fetuses never hurt anyone. Criminals, however, do. They're scum, plain and simple.

Yes, you did rather twist, but while we're at it,

How can conservatives tote and boast "Freedom" as an American quality when they strive to get rid of rights everyday, i.e. Patriot Act, and all the other stuff the "We'll tell you how to live your lives" Republicans pull

*yawn*

Fetuses are not humans, convicts are.
So what are fetuses? Pigs? Dogs? Rocks?

Fetuses are juat as human as you are.

Yes, you did rather twist, but while we're at it,

How can conservatives tote and boast "Freedom" as an American quality when they strive to get rid of rights everyday, i.e. Patriot Act, and all the other stuff the "We'll tell you how to live your lives" Republicans pull

Ah, but Republicruds are not conservatives. They're neo-conservative fascist slimeballs.

Liberals hate the death penalty. They get very queasy over the thought of killing the guilty. Yet, when it comes to abortion, they have no problem with killing children. WTF?

You are, sir, either incredibly moronic or constructing a dishonest argument. If you really cannot see the rational behind the objection to a death penalty and supporting abortion, you should do a little research. I suspect, however, that you are fully aware of the (very good) arguments for both these viewpoints; they are really too tedious to recount here; and have started this thread to

i. Attract attention
ii. Delude yourself into thinking that because you say these arguments do not exist, they don't.

In each instance you should

i. Get a life
ii. Refine your thinking

This is why your "controversial" posting has recieved very little response.

Liberals hate the death penalty. They get very queasy over the thought of killing the guilty. Yet, when it comes to abortion, they have no problem with killing children. WTF?
Well see, lots of them say that they don't like abortion personally... but that its wrong to enforce one's morality on others.

Unless those others happen to be rich.

I consider myself liberal, yet vehemently oppose both... except for cases of rape and threats to the health of the mother. I think that's a bit of a blanket statement.

So, you support the death penalty in this situation?

So what are fetuses?

Potential humans.

Is an egg a chicken?

So what are fetuses? Pigs? Dogs? Rocks?

Fetuses are juat as human as you are.
Sorry, I value a thinking human being more than a clump of undeveloped cells. You may have an argument after the brain begins to develop, but anyone who tries to say a newly fertilized egg cell is EQUAL to an adult human needs to take a step back and evaluate the situation, seriously.

I'm no fan of abortion, but fœtuses don't appear to be much smarter than farm animals, so I don't quite see how it is wrong to kill a fœtus if you don't have a problem with eating meat.

Potential humans.

Is an egg a chicken?

Being a Christian, I believe humans- even 'potential' humans- have souls, and thus have value. Because I don't believe animals have souls, I think that's an entirely different situation.

I personally am against using abortion as a method of birth control. But in cases of incest, rape, and mothers health, I"m all for it. I believe that if you willingly have sex, you should face the consequences(other than death).

I'm for the death penalty, but against our death penalty system. There are men on death row that are innocent. I actually met a man who was on death row for almost a decade, who was completley innocent. In fact, after he was released, they found the killer within a month after doing a simple DNA test...

Our judicial system is messed up. Yes there are plenty of murderers/rapists who deserve to die. I know if I were one of those people who lost a loved one like that, I'd want the f*cker to fry. However, the point is innocent men are put to death. If you put them in jail for life, at least they aren't dead when you find out they're innocent.

If the death penalty was full-proof and had absolutely no failures, everyone that was killed was guilty, I'd support it 100%.

Fetuses are juat as human as you are.

Fetuses are not human, they're fetuses. If you want to be perfectly frank, they are by definition parasites. If you have a living thing living off of you, and this will impede your own life, sometimes even threaten it, it is perfectly within your perview to remove the thing living off of you. Naturally, whether or not this thing will die should you remove it is something that you will have to take into consideration, but legally your body is your private property. People are legally allowed to shoot at trespassers.... :rolleyes:

Amazing, isn't it. They slaughter innocent children just because they are to lazy to use contraception, yet they beg an plead and cajole and threaten anyone who has the temerity to put a murderer to death.
*groan*
The emotive language... it's killing me!

Too lazy to use contraception? Way to display your ignorance there.
All "liberals" are too lazy huh?
UGH!

Being a Christian, I believe humans- even 'potential' humans- have souls, and thus have value. Because I don't believe animals have souls, I think that's an entirely different situation.

So, the value an individual has is nothing inherently to do with their humanity, but instead the fact that they have a soul?

You are however, missing the point of my question: is a fertilised egg laid by a chicken:

(1) a chicken
(2) a potential chicken
or (3)something else?

People are legally allowed to shoot at trespassers.... :rolleyes:

Really? I've heard of many cases where criminals sued homeowners for shooting at them.

So, the value an individual has is nothing inherently to do with their humanity, but instead the fact that they have a soul?

You are however, missing the point of my question: is a fertilised egg laid by a chicken:

(1) a chicken
(2) a potential chicken
or (3)something else?

1.5 (More than a potential chicken, but not quite a chicken yet)

Really? I've heard of many cases where criminals sued homeowners for shooting at them.
That is when you shoot to kill. :P

1.5 (More than a potential chicken, but not quite a chicken yet)

So, on this basis (aside from the question of possession of a soul), a fetus would also seem to be 'more than a potential human, but not quite a human yet', yes?

So, on this basis (aside from the question of possession of a soul), a fetus would also seem to be 'more than a potential human, but not quite a human yet', yes?

No, in my opinion, a fetus is a human. I know I'm going to get laughed at or flamed by some people, but I personally believe that it is a human from the moment of conception.

No, in my opinion, a fetus is a human. I know I'm going to get laughed at or flamed by some people, but I personally believe that it is a human from the moment of conception.

Aside from unverifiable/falsifiable ideas of the soul, what is the important difference here between the fertilised chicken egg and the fetus, then?

Amazing, isn't it. They slaughter innocent children just because they are to lazy to use contraception, yet they beg an plead and cajole and threaten anyone who has the temerity to put a murderer to death.

It always amuses me when conservatives accuse liberals of being wooly-minded and emotive, and then come out with this bilge. It persuades nobody (maybe you need a violin). The truth, of course, is that the conservative thinkers largly follow the church; the church's objection to abortions, in exactly the same way as it objects to contraception, has nothing whatsoever do with the wellbeing of the child, mother, or society. It is about sex, and the absolute paranoia the church (and many of its followers) have that anyone, anywhere, might start taking their sexuality into their own hands. It is extended puritanism, petrified that someone might be having fun in private, without the involvment of the community and society. They cannot stand the thought that women might be able to exercise their sexuality; that others may escape the patriarchism of the church; and is ultimately a trespass onto individual thought. The absurd opposition to gay marriage is exactly the same thing. Why should other people's sexual hang-ups impinge on my, and others, lives?

No, in my opinion, a fetus is a human. I know I'm going to get laughed at or flamed by some people, but I personally believe that it is a human from the moment of conception.

Good for you, that's a valid philosophical belief, and no one can force you to adopt any other. Philosophical, however, is precisely as it should stay. Why should you care what other people believe, or what they do to their own bodies?

its not "liberal hypocrisy" its conservatives perverted sexual hangups

I am proud to say that I am a liberal who supports the death penalty, though i agree that it should only be used when people are 100% guilty. The fact is, a life sentence is really just death by inmates. Most liberals oppose the death penalty for how its applied. If people used abortion as just an alternative to liposuction for pregant woman, liberals would oppose it too.

No, in my opinion, a fetus is a human. I know I'm going to get laughed at or flamed by some people, but I personally believe that it is a human from the moment of conception.
You have that right, but so do others have the right that its less human until birth or a brain develops: which ever comes first.

Also religion dictates according to Jewish law if you read the Old testament that a fetus is worth less than a pregnant woman. Killing a Pregnant woman's fetus is worth a fine I read. Granted this isn't exactly like Abortion, but it is very close.

So Christians really shouldn't say that is proof of them being against abortion.
I mean there are many other reasons you can have, but that doesn't cut it.

Really? I've heard of many cases where criminals sued homeowners for shooting at them.

I never claimed the system was bug-free. :p Personally, when people also win in court in a suit for spilling coffee on themselves, I think there are problems. However, I will par down the point to say that the argument of abortion comes from a fundamental difference of point of view. The pro-abortionists are not anti-life, they just view it as an issue of women having personal control of their own bodies and reproductive systems. The pro-lifers are not anti-freedom either, they just think that life begins at conception and that the life of a cell is just as important as an human being capable of independent existence. From a legal and historio-cultural standpoint (i.e. "possession is 9/10ths of the law"), private property ranks very hight up on the scale, such as people being exonerated of the shooting and sometimes accidental death of a tresspasser by saying that he or she was defending a definite threat against property, house, and home and the implicit threat against his or her life.

What makes this dissagreement flammable is that the vocal pro-lifers are also vocal about their religions, and/or cite their religious beliefs as the foundation for their position as pro-lifers. This becomes a problem when attempting to legislate a pro-life or anti-abortion agenda. And please, people, let's not get into the argument of us living in a Christian society founded by Christians, alright? Most of the founders were religious, but Thomas Jefferson himself said that the country was not founded on Christian principles, but rather English Common Law.

First off, "no problem" is really a gross overstatement to say the least. Second, at least I would hope this would be the case, when conservatives start handing out free birth control in poor neighborhoods and start supporting the social programs which would better life there, liberals will have much less reason to support abortion. Until then, it has to be the better of two evils.

why do conservatives oppose abortions but support unjust wars? also it should be noted that the number of abortions performed was falling dramatically under Clinton but now under Bush and his failed abstinence only programs that dont work and teach kids sexual ignorance the rate of abortions has actually risen

why do conservatives oppose abortions but support unjust wars?

They don't: their value systems for determining what is just or unjust are incompatible with yours.

They don't: their value systems for determining what is just or unjust are incompatible with yours.

Hehey! And round we go. So try arguing that your value system for the value of a foetus now outweighs everyone else's. :)

They don't: their value systems for determining what is just or unjust are incompatible with yours.
mostly due to their ignorant lack of facts

why do conservatives oppose abortions but support unjust wars?

Define 'unjust war.' Aren't all wars unjust? (Unless they're in self-defense and there is no other alternative)

Hehey! And round we go. So try arguing that your value system for the value of a foetus now outweighs everyone else's. :)

You will note that I am trying to determine what system (aside from the nebulous matter of the soul) Roach-Busters is using: not merely shouting him down.

You will also note that my first post on the thread was of the form "The view is that ...", thus describing the view held by liberals which fit into The Dark Dimension's description.

Define 'unjust war.' Aren't all wars unjust? (Unless they're in self-defense and there is no other alternative)

...but the invasion of Iraq was in self-defence - Tony Blair told the British people that Iraq could launch Weapons of Mass Destruction at the UK within 15 minutes, and he wouldn't lie to us, would he...?"

I'm a very liberal person. But, I'm for death penalty in cases of the murders of a lot of people, with definite-not just up to par, or a confession-evidence that the person is guilty, because mistakes can be made. I don't like abortion, but I still think that it should be legal. And because you Christians think they have souls should have no bearing on the laws about it. Because 1. Seperation of church in state (US and other places like this) and 2. Christianity is a load of crap anyway.

mostly due to their ignorant lack of facts

OK: explain to me your system of ethics and morality based on these facts of which they are ignorant, would you?

Whats really fascinating is that when these controversial topics pop up, the poster is nowhere to be found 1-2 pages into the thread, as their logic is shot down almost instantly.

Come on, argue your point! Don't just post it for the shock value; respond to the criticism.

Or are you not so stong in your beliefs in the face of logic?

/end anger

You will note that I am trying to determine what system (aside from the nebulous matter of the soul) Roach-Busters is using: not merely shouting him down.

You will also note that my first post on the thread was of the form "The view is that ...", thus describing the view held by liberals which fit into The Dark Dimension's description.

Oops, sorry ... all these usernames get kinda confusing. I do however think that a certain kind of "value system" has been forced so ubiquitously down our throats recently that many people have little interest in exploring what underlies it. Of course, I applaud any efforts to do so. I don't think dismissing the irrelevent is shouting down, mind. :)

Define 'unjust war.' Aren't all wars unjust? (Unless they're in self-defense and there is no other alternative)
yes thats the definition--invading Afghanistan was Just cause they were the ones who attacked us--invading Iraq was unjust since they never did a thing to us and wasnt any kind of threat to anyone at all--the sanctions against Saddam were a total success there was no self defense reason to invade them at all

Whats really fascinating is that when these controversial topics pop up, the poster is nowhere to be found 1-2 pages into the thread, as their logic is shot down almost instantly.

Come on, argue your point! Don't just post it for the shock value; respond to the criticism.

Or are you not so stong in your beliefs in the face of logic?

/end anger
It's because he went back under his bridge.

OK: explain to me your system of ethics and morality based on these facts of which they are ignorant, would you?
Im saying their ethics are based on ignorance because its based on religious dogma and pure emotional manipulation by our fearmongering and dishonest media

Human or not (and I personally believe they are), fetuses never hurt anyone. Criminals, however, do. They're scum, plain and simple.

Doesn't change the fact that they're still a human. What right does anyone have to decide when someone else dies? To execute criminals is to practice revenge, which brings society down to the criminal's level.

Okay, first off: would people that aren't going to be at least respectful towards the other viewpoint not post? It's getting really, REALLY irritating and rather than making your views look correct, they make you look like an idiot and a stain on your beliefs. "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all," as the saying goes, or in this situation, at least be respectful.

That being said, here be the opinions of a liberal Non-Nihilistic-Exestential-Monoist-Hermetic-Celtic-pagan (in other words: a religion so personalized and so far from the norms that it can't be categorizied and thus used against me in my arguments). Abortion, in my opinion, should only be allowed up to a certain point. If someone waits until brain development occures then decides they don't want the kid, it's irresponsible at the very least in my books and at the worst, murder. I understand that it's not always clear-cut, but for me, that's the limit. I understand other people have religious views on it, and I respect that. It's just my $0.02. Though one thing I CAN'T understand, and I'd love it if someone could explain it to me, is why some people don't support contraception. I mean, really, if you're preventing the pregnancy in the first place, what's wrong with contraception? It's not like you're killing anything more than some sperm, and last I checked, sperm isn't considered anything special (unless you're going off of Monty Python ;) ).

The death penalty? Sometimes, I'd say it's a valid thing. For people so horribly inhumane that there can be no saving them, I support it. Hitler, for instance, is a great example of someone who, without a doubt in the world, deserved nothing but death (and a slow, painful one at that). For others, though? Well, if they're proved without a doubt in the world to be guilty of something heinous, then yes, the death penalty might be the best for them - depending on the circumstances. Other than that, though? No way. A human life is far too valuable to throw away. This is NOT hypocrisy on my part... see my opinions on abortion. BTW, to the originator of this thread: could not the reverse agrument be made? "Why do conservatives support the death penalty, but freak out when it comes to abortion?" Just something to think about.

Doesn't change the fact that they're still a human. What right does anyone have to decide when someone else dies? To execute criminals is to practice revenge, which brings society down to the criminal's level.

While I don't agree entirely, you do make an excellent point.

Doesn't change the fact that they're still a human. What right does anyone have to decide when someone else dies? To execute criminals is to practice revenge, which brings society down to the criminal's level.
and what happens if they find out later the person executed was innocent? do we now get to kill the Prosecutor and the Judge to pay for that murder?I think maybe the only exception I can make for the death penalty may be in the case of serial killers only--everyone else should be allowed to at least make one or two murders max without being put to death just in case they were goin thru some kinda rough patch--but serial killers are perverted monsters

Im saying their ethics are based on ignorance because its based on religious dogma and pure emotional manipulation by our fearmongering and dishonest media

Whereas the source of your moral system is what exactly? - a system of Kantian categorical imperatives? - a utilitarian model? - an existentialist worldview? - what pray tell?

and what happens if they find out later the person executed was innocent? do we now get to kill the Prosecutor and the Judge to pay for that murder?
Now adays the criminals family can sue or/and the prosecutor and Judge says, "Ehh."

Whereas the source of your moral system is what exactly? - a system of Kantian categorical imperatives? - a utilitarian model? - an existentialist worldview? - what pray tell?

I knew it ... just knew it! ;)

I can spot a philosophy student a mile off.

So what are fetuses? Pigs? Dogs? Rocks?

Fetuses are juat as human as you are.

Embryos are just as much a human organism as your stomach lining is. That is, an embryo is a bunch of cells with human DNA which does not meet the necessary requirements to be deemed an organism.

The same goes for very early-term fetuses.

After the development of a rudimentary nervous system, they can be called organisms, although they are parasitic ones.

That being said, my *personal* opinion is that abortion should be reserved for cases in which the mother's life is in danger, as my *religious* belief is that the embryo/fetus should be considered as a person (within reason). However, as that is a purely religious viewpoint, and any objective view would disagree, I will not force my views upon others.

I can spot a philosophy student a mile off.

I haven't technically been a philosophy student for many a long year... but hey, if I learnt nothing else, I learnt the fun that can be had problematising other people's positions.

Whereas the source of your moral system is what exactly? - a system of Kantian categorical imperatives? - a utilitarian model? - an existentialist worldview? - what pray tell?
as much freedom as possible from authoritarian structures combined with an absence of concentrated centers of power except in cases where its used to fight power from being concentrated or in the case of national defense

Embryos are just as much a human organism as your stomach lining is. That is, an embryo is a bunch of cells with human DNA which does not meet the necessary requirements to be deemed an organism.

The same goes for very early-term fetuses.

After the development of a rudimentary nervous system, they can be called organisms, although they are parasitic ones.

Although I agree wholeheartedly with your point, the science is making me cringe. Ummm ... any living thing can be termed an organism, whether it has a nervous system or not. The whole point of organism as a piece of terminology is as the vaguest possible term encompassing living things. Bacteria certainly don't have a nervous system, and they're certainly organisms. The same goes for "parasitic life". Parasites have a very clearly defined ecological role. Progeny are not parasites. It makes no difference to the argument whether we call them parasites or not; embryos carry a large proportion of the genetic information of the parent, the support of them does not damage the survival chances of the parents genes, as occurs in parasites; and hence there is a clear functional difference.

as much freedom as possible from authoritarian structures combined with an absence of concentrated centers of power except in cases where its used to fight power from being concentrated

That's just a summary of the things you value, not an explanation of why these are good or bad things, or what ethical framework underpins these valuations. You dismiss the conservatives for their ignorance, but at the same time they could just present a similar list of the things that they value.

Aside from that, you seem to support the existence of concentrated centres of power when they are used to fight power from being concentrated elsewhere, yes? A very patriarchial view.

I haven't technically been a philosophy student for many a long year... but hey, if I learnt nothing else, I learnt the fun that can be had problematising other people's positions.

A past philosophy student? That scores double...

You certainly seem to be having fun ... surely the whole point of philosophy is to problematicise other people's positions ;) Hey, I'm way too self obsessed to bother with profound analysis of other's values (which is why I'm a scientist).

That's just a summary of the things you value, not an explanation of why these are good or bad things, or what ethical framework underpins these valuations. You dismiss the conservatives for their ignorance, but at the same time they could just present a similar list of the things that they value.

Aside from that, you seem to support the existence of concentrated centres of power when they are used to fight power from being concentrated elsewhere, yes? A very patriarchial view.
Im not sure what you mean by patriarchial but the ethical framework for what I value is democratic distribution of power to maximize individual freedoms

Although I agree wholeheartedly with your point, the science is making me cringe. Ummm ... any living thing can be termed an organism, whether it has a nervous system or not.

You miss the point entirely. In order to even *be* a living thing, an organism must have a method of *sensing and responding to stimuli as an organism*. This is basic grade school biology. In humans, this is accomplished through the nervous system. Until the rudimentary nervous system is developed, the embryo/fetus has no way to sense and respond to stimuli. Therefore, it is not an organism.

The whole point of organism as a piece of terminology is as the vaguest possible term encompassing living things. Bacteria certainly don't have a nervous system, and they're certainly organisms.

Bacteria are single-celled organisms. They do sense and respond to stimuli as an organism, and have specific processes and structures for that purpose.

The same goes for "parasitic life". Parasites have a very clearly defined ecological role. Progeny are not parasites. It makes no difference to the argument whether we call them parasites or not; embryos carry a large proportion of the genetic information of the parent, the support of them does not damage the survival chances of the parents genes, as occurs in parasites; and hence there is a clear functional difference.

There is nothing at all in the definition of parasite that states that supporting them must damage the survival of the host. In fact, doing so would often result in the death of the parasite, and thus many parasites have evolved to *not* cause significant harm to their host. ((Also grade school biology)).

I'm a liberal and I support the death penalty.

And couldn't someone just start a thread that says:

"You Republicans are so hypocritical always ranting about respecting the value of life, and yet you so perpetuate war and death penalties. You refuse to differentiate between cells completely dependant on the mother and a human being, but when it comes to chosing wether a living human deserves to die you're ALL FOR IT!"

You miss the point entirely. In order to even *be* a living thing, an organism must have a method of *sensing and responding to stimuli as an organism*. This is basic grade school biology. In humans, this is accomplished through the nervous system. Until the rudimentary nervous system is developed, the embryo/fetus has no way to sense and respond to stimuli. Therefore, it is not an organism.
Bacteria are single-celled organisms. They do sense and respond to stimuli as an organism, and have specific processes and structures for that purpose.

Oddly enough, grade school biology is largly not correct. Generalisation and vagueness is introduced to give us nice, easy difinitions, that don't really serve any functinal purpous. A fungal spore or a virus is also an organism, and these are largly inert to their surrounding and have no "processes" for the reception of stimulae. "Sensing and responding" is a totally arbitrary way of defining life; it is not rigourous, and does not explain the examples above. I have no desire to get into a description of what philosophically defines life; but within the sciences "organism" is used as a convenient peice of jargon to define any independent living thing. In practise the word would not be applied to an embryo or foetus at all, until after it was born. Organism is used as a vague shortcut word (meaning "life form"), and has no other significance. No moral inferences can be drawn from whether an entity is an "organism" or not.

There is nothing at all in the definition of parasite that states that supporting them must damage the survival of the host. In fact, doing so would often result in the death of the parasite, and thus many parasites have evolved to *not* cause significant harm to their host. ((Also grade school biology)).

Depends which definition you use. If you take the "grade school" definition of parasite, then you can start to call lots of things parasites. Pathogens such as bacteria and viruses are not generally considered parasites, even though a definition such as "uses resources and metabolites of host to further own development" might be your grade school definition. And hang on - for a parasite to gain any benefit from interaction with it's host, it must interfere with it in some way. If that interferance is beneficial, we call it symbiosis; if not, it is parasitic. But again, the word is an empty term that is used as a shortcut for the description of other things. Progeny are never, conventionally, considered parasites. And the delight is in the detail, my friend; if you're looking for an abstract philosophical definition, than why should "not significant" harm be different from "more significant". And all parasites, as opposed to beneficial symbitotes, must have a small negative effect on their host. One of thie things that is common to definitions of a parasite is that the parasite is of a different species, and unrelated to the host. One human cannot parasitise another.

A fungal spore or a virus is also an organism

Sorry, but I have to be a little anal about this, thanks to my old High School Biology teacher ranting about it all the time. A virus is not an organism, as it's not technically alive. In order to be alive a thing must have both DNA and RNA, and as a virus lacks either/or, it's not alive. Anyways, let the debate continue. :D

Sorry, but I have to be a little anal about this, thanks to my old High School Biology teacher ranting about it all the time. A virus is not an organism, as it's not technically alive. In order to be alive a thing must have both DNA and RNA, and as a virus lacks either/or, it's not alive. Anyways, let the debate continue. :D
Actually Virus' are nit alive becuse they cannot carry on life process like metabolism, reproduction (without assistance from other species), and more.

Sorry, but I have to be a little anal about this, thanks to my old High School Biology teacher ranting about it all the time. A virus is not an organism, as it's not technically alive. In order to be alive a thing must have both DNA and RNA, and as a virus lacks either/or, it's not alive. Anyways, let the debate continue. :D

I thought viruses weren't standardly considered to be organisms because they weren't able to reproduce independently and also couldn't regulate their own metabolism?


So, what happens if we encounter a star-travelling civilisation that isn't based on RNA or DNA but something else instead? Are they not technically alive?

It seems to me that the possession of DNA and RNA is neither a necessary (in the case of the hypothetical alien race) nor a sufficient (in the case of a corpse) criterion for describing something as alive or not...

Sorry, but I have to be a little anal about this, thanks to my old High School Biology teacher ranting about it all the time. A virus is not an organism, as it's not technically alive. In order to be alive a thing must have both DNA and RNA, and as a virus lacks either/or, it's not alive. Anyways, let the debate continue. :D

DNA and RNA? I've certainly never heard that one before...! And what stops it being an organism? I know that for a long time viruses haven't been considered technically alive; on the other hand, there doen't seem to be any fundamental principle (as opposed to arbitrary observation) that prevents them from being so. And actually, the HIV virus can produce both DNA and RNA; it's genome exists on RNA contained within the viral capsid; this also includes viral copies of a reverse transcriptase; and upon infection DNA is produced by reverse transcription of the RNA. I have a feeling that every high-school biology teacher has there own particular definition :) mine insisted on growth or movement as being a requirement of life. In reality it is a complex philosophical discussion. My tutor, who is a noted professor of genetics, however, has refered to viruses as being alive and organisms several times, so as conventional understanding goes...

Oddly enough, grade school biology is largly not correct.

This is true, but the requirements to be considered an organism don't change even once you reach grad school biology.

A fungal spore or a virus is also an organism, and these are largly inert to their surrounding and have no "processes" for the reception of stimulae.

Oh really? You apparently know nothing about biology, despite your name.

(a) A virus is not generally considered to be an organism. It is on the fringe, but much like prions, is not really "alive."
(b) A fungul spore absolutely can sense and respond to stimuli. When the environment is beneficial, it will exit out of the spore stage and begin dividing again. How do you think that happens? Magic?

"Sensing and responding" is a totally arbitrary way of defining life; it is not rigourous, and does not explain the examples above.

(a) It is only one of the requirements of life.
(b) How is it not rigorous, when combined with the other requirements?
(c) One of the examples above is not really considered life. The other you were wrong on. Care to try again?

I have no desire to get into a description of what philosophically defines life;

Good, since this would be entirely subjective and would fall under my "can't force your beliefs on others" rule.

but within the sciences "organism" is used as a convenient peice of jargon to define any independent living thing.

Which would not refer to a bundle of dividing cells which does not meet the requirements to be deemed as such.

In practise the word would not be applied to an embryo or foetus at all, until after it was born.

A point which simply backs up my point.

No moral inferences can be drawn from whether an entity is an "organism" or not.

I never said that they could. However, we can say the following:

All human beings are organisms (ie. meet all the requirements thereof).
Embryos/early term fetuses are not organisms (ie. do not meet all the requirements thereof).
Therefore, embryos/eary term fetuses are not *scientifically* human beings.

Pathogens such as bacteria and viruses are not generally considered parasites.

Viruses are not considered life, so they certainly could not be considered parasites. However, bacteria most certainly *are* considered parasites, unless we are talking about E. Coli, etc. in your gut, which serve a symbiotic role.

And hang on - for a parasite to gain any benefit from interaction with it's host, it must interfear with it in some way. If that interferance is beneficial, we call it symbiosis; if not, it is parasitic.

Not beneficial does not equate to detrimental. If, for instance, the parasite is removing a small amount of nutrients, but not enough to cause detriment, it is still a parasite.

Progeny are never, conventionally, considered parasites.

I was simply pointing out that they meet the definition. The fact that they are not "conventionally" called that is due to emotionalism.

And all parasites, as opposed to beneficial symbitotes, must have a small negative effect on their host.

But not necessarily one that is measurable.

Of course, fetuses *do* have measurable detrimental effects.

Liberals hate the death penalty. They get very queasy over the thought of killing the guilty. Yet, when it comes to abortion, they have no problem with killing children. WTF?
when scanning topcis to go into this set off my bullshit partisan nazi radar before coming into it, and what do you know, my radar is right again

piano wire + you = awesome

Actually Virus' are nit alive becuse they cannot carry on life process like metabolism, reproduction (without assistance from other species), and more.

Right. That's because they lack either DNA or RNA, and thus must rely on a host for the missing half. ;) Without it, no metabolism, reproduction, etc.

Sorry, but I have to be a little anal about this, thanks to my old High School Biology teacher ranting about it all the time. A virus is not an organism, as it's not technically alive. In order to be alive a thing must have both DNA and RNA, and as a virus lacks either/or, it's not alive. Anyways, let the debate continue. :D

Your high school biology teacher needs to go back to school. There is no requirement that both RNA and DNA are present. In fact, in early life, this was unlikely to be true.

The reason that viruses would not be considered alive is the lack of metabolism - they do not take in and utilize nutrients (one of the requirements to be deemed alive).

Actually Virus' are nit alive becuse they cannot carry on life process like metabolism, reproduction (without assistance from other species), and more.

Well here's an interesting one: humans, in their "natural state" (ie. without fortified cereal) cannot produce a fair number of vitamines. Without these substances even the most basic functions of metabolism (like respiration) would be impossible. We are dependent on bacteria and plants to produce these substances so we can reproduce. Does that not put us in exactly the same position as viruses. And actually viruses can metabolise, just on a very small scale (read up on HIV above!).

Well here's an interesting one: humans, in their "natural state" (ie. without fortified cereal) cannot produce a fair number of vitamines. Without these substances even the most basic functions of metabolism (like respiration) would be impossible. We are dependent on bacteria and plants to produce these substances so we can reproduce. Does that not put us in exactly the same position as viruses. And actually viruses can metabolise, just on a very small scale (read up on HIV above!).

Well actually humans can always produce some form of metabolism. But I get what you mean. We would be limited in metabolism.

Right. That's because they lack either DNA or RNA, and thus must rely on a host for the missing half. ;) Without it, no metabolism, reproduction, etc.

But then again, that IS just my old High School teacher's view on it. :) Myself, I'm no scientist, so I wouldn't know for sure.

Well here's an interesting one: humans, in their "natural state" (ie. without fortified cereal) cannot produce a fair number of vitamines. Without these substances even the most basic functions of metabolism (like respiration) would be impossible. We are dependent on bacteria and plants to produce these substances so we can reproduce. Does that not put us in exactly the same position as viruses. And actually viruses can metabolise, just on a very small scale (read up on HIV above!).

Viruses themselves do not metabolize at all. DNA or RNA is injected into a cell and the cell takes in all of the nutrients, makes all of the proteins, copies and packages the DNA/RNA into new viruses. The reverse transcriptase activity of HIV also falls under this category.

Viruses are essentially genetic pollution which hijacks the function of the cell. They cannot, however, perform all of the functions of life, and are therefore generally not considered to be life.

This is true, but the requirements to be considered an organism don't change even once you reach grad school biology.



Oh really? You apparently know nothing about biology, despite your name.

(a) A virus is not generally considered to be an organism. It is on the fringe, but much like prions, is not really "alive."
(b) A fungul spore absolutely can sense and respond to stimuli. When the environment is beneficial, it will exit out of the spore stage and begin dividing again. How do you think that happens? Magic?



(a) It is only one of the requirements of life.
(b) How is it not rigorous, when combined with the other requirements?
(c) One of the examples above is not really considered life. The other you were wrong on. Care to try again?



Good, since this would be entirely subjective and would fall under my "can't force your beliefs on others" rule.



Which would not refer to a bundle of dividing cells which does not meet the requirements to be deemed as such.



A point which simply backs up my point.



I never said that they could. However, we can say the following:

All human beings are organisms (ie. meet all the requirements thereof).
Embryos/early term fetuses are not organisms (ie. do not meet all the requirements thereof).
Therefore, embryos/eary term fetuses are not *scientifically* human beings.



Viruses are not considered life, so they certainly could not be considered parasites. However, bacteria most certainly *are* considered parasites, unless we are talking about E. Coli, etc. in your gut, which serve a symbiotic role.



Not beneficial does not equate to detrimental. If, for instance, the parasite is removing a small amount of nutrients, but not enough to cause detriment, it is still a parasite.



I was simply pointing out that they meet the definition. The fact that they are not "conventionally" called that is due to emotionalism.



But not necessarily one that is measurable.

Of course, fetuses *do* have measurable detrimental effects.

Um ... you seem to have forgotten that I was not arguing against your views on abortions. Right, lets get this strait

i. What is alive and not, an organism or not, is a complex issue. It cannot be based on an arbitrary observation, as that could easily be shown to be worng for some new unknown form of life in the future. It must be derived ab initio, and so be philosophically satisfying.
ii. According to this, what we define as life is largly based on convention. And modern geneticists do actually define viruses as life. Why shouldn't they be? Because you said so? They make use of the same processes as living things, use the same materials, etc
iii. The sensing argument is flawed because any interaction can be considered sensing. Personally, I don't consider the chemical diffusion and transcription factor binding that consitutes the activation of yeast spores to be sensing. Is a single enzyme an "organism"? Is an electrical component an "organism"?
Sensing is a totally arbitrary way of defining life. Plenty of things considered non-living will interact with other things.
iv. A parasite must be of a different species, unrelated to the host, for even the widest definition.

Incidently, are you attempting to abuse and patronise me because simply because you were labouring under the mispprehension that I was anti-abortion? (I am emphatically pro-choice, thank you very much) I was meerly pointing out that what is "alive" or not is a complex issue which GCSE biology does not deal with satifactorily, and pointing out that your use of the words "organism" and "parasite" are completely unorthodox. I think it's rather a shame that you should be getting heated up about what is, essentially, a totally abstract argument ("are viruses alive?") just becuase you think (incorrectly) that I have opposing views on some entirely seperate issue.

Being a Christian, I believe humans- even 'potential' humans- have souls, and thus have value. Because I don't believe animals have souls, I think that's an entirely different situation.

In other words, every sperm is sacred.

Well actually humans can always produce some form of metabolism. But I get what you mean. We would be limited in metabolism.

Yes, but without the vital cofactors we wouldn't get beyond a single cell, and so would never be able to reproduce. Doesn't that make us totally dependent (without Corn Flakes) upon these external factors for our existence?

Viruses themselves do not metabolize at all. DNA or RNA is injected into a cell and the cell takes in all of the nutrients, makes all of the proteins, copies and packages the DNA/RNA into new viruses. The reverse transcriptase activity of HIV also falls under this category.

Viruses are essentially genetic pollution which hijacks the function of the cell. They cannot, however, perform all of the functions of life, and are therefore generally not considered to be life.

Why should the reverse transcriptase fall under this category? It is a protein carried by the virus, encoded on the viral RNA, that processes components belonging exclusively to the virus. It has to be activated once infection occurs, because it wouldn't fulfill its function otherwise. And maybe to a virus, humans are genetic pollution ;)

Liberals hate the death penalty. They get very queasy over the thought of killing the guilty. Yet, when it comes to abortion, they have no problem with killing children. WTF?

the great prophet's of high charity concurr with the dark dimension anyone who would kill an unborn child can themselves be put to a most horrendouse death :sniper: :mp5:

the great prophet's of high charity concurr with the dark dimension anyone who would kill an unborn child can themselves be put to a most horrendouse death :sniper: :mp5:

Isn't amazing how one poorly worded and generally crappy post can kill a discussion?

Isn't amazing how one poorly worded and generally crappy post can kill a discussion?

Yeah, that was spectacular! And I'd just got onto my hobby-horse about viruses!

This is all very simple.

No need to kill the zygote.

Just physically remove it from the host, er, parents, and let it live on its own, since its an organism and all.

(I find myself curious to see if anyone can guess where I'm getting this argument from...)

And guys, its really silly to argue on the hypocrite thing. The typical republican response is to kill beings who are capable of thought already, and whom may be mischarged. They also tend to support war. Call an abortion a 'pre-emptive strike' if it makes you feel better.

*drops a pin* Wow. It really DID kill the conversation.

im getting worried--I havent gotten sick in a very very long time :confused:

Liberals hate the death penalty. They get very queasy over the thought of killing the guilty. Yet, when it comes to abortion, they have no problem with killing children. WTF?
not everyone who is convicted and sentenced to death is guilty and fetuses aren't people. you can't kill them as they are only potential lives.

piano wire + you = awesome

Becuase this thread has been so recently hijacked, I would like to point out that this is the best quote I've seen in an online forum.

Ever.

not everyone who is convicted and sentenced to death is guilty and fetuses aren't people. you can't kill them as they are only potential lives.
the same people who oppose abortion salivate at the mouth at the prospect of killing an innocent person on death row who was denied a fair trial

This is all very simple.

No need to kill the zygote.

Just physically remove it from the host, er, parents, and let it live on its own, since its an organism and all.

(I find myself curious to see if anyone can guess where I'm getting this argument from...)

And guys, its really silly to argue on the hypocrite thing. The typical republican response is to kill beings who are capable of thought already, and whom may be mischarged. They also tend to support war. Call an abortion a 'pre-emptive strike' if it makes you feel better.

I've always thought abortion was one of those "wrong in principle but right in practice" things.

i.e. yep it's wrong to take a life, but to deny people the right to do so leads to much worse consequences in practice.

similar arguments can be made for the examples that seem to come up here a lot, ie the death penalty (it's wrong to kill them, but right for society)
and "collateral damage" / civilian casualities (it's wrong that they died, but in the long run it's better for everyone)

dunno if anyone is old enough here to remember what it was like before abortion was legal - ask your mum! Mine was a nurse, she used to hook pregnant girls up with doctors willing to break the law, or failing that they used to fly to Australia (from NZ) to find a doctor who would do it.

The alternative for those who couldn't find a doctor or afford the flights, was either "home-made" abortions, using coat-hangers or throwing themselves down stairs.

Either that or have the kid and abandon it.

Which is why abortion became legal throughout most of the Western world. Because the alternative was worse.

So Abortion is wrong in principle.
But banning abortion is wrong in practice.

Um ... you seem to have forgotten that I was not arguing against your views on abortions.

No, I am just correcting your poor conception of biology.

ii. According to this, what we define as life is largly based on convention. And modern geneticists do actually define viruses as life. Why shouldn't they be? Because you said so? They make use of the same processes as living things, use the same materials, etc

A select few geneticists define viruses as life - but the vast majority do not. Why? Because they do not use any materials. They are made with certain materials - by the cell. Their DNA/RNA is used for making certain materials - by the cell. Viruses themselves do not meet the requirements to be considered life.

iii. The sensing argument is flawed because any interaction can be considered sensing. Personally, I don't consider the chemical diffusion and transcription factor binding that consitutes the activation of yeast spores to be sensing. Is a single enzyme an "organism"? Is an electrical component an "organism"?

If you would actually *read* my posts you would see that sensing and responding to stimuli is **one** of a set of requirements to be considered life. You do understand the difference between necessary and sufficient, correct? The ability to sense and respond to stimuli is necessary to be considered life, not sufficient.

Sensing is a totally arbitrary way of defining life. Plenty of things considered non-living will interact with other things.

See above, which I have explained before and you have conveniently ignored.

Incidently, are you attempting to abuse and patronise me because simply because you were labouring under the mispprehension that I was anti-abortion?

No, I am pointing out the ever-present flaws in your biology, that is all.

Why should the reverse transcriptase fall under this category? It is a protein carried by the virus, encoded on the viral RNA, that processes components belonging exclusively to the virus.

It is a protein that could process *any* RNA back to DNA, created entirely by a cell (not by the virus itself). Therefore, it is not metabolized *by the virus*. This really isn't hard to understand.

It has to be activated once infection occurs, because it wouldn't fulfill its function otherwise.

You don't actually study biochemistry, do you? Once the RT is in the cell, it can perform it's function. The only reason it doesn't do so inside the virus is the fact that there are no excess nucleotides there.

And maybe to a virus, humans are genetic pollution ;)

This is the most idiotic thing you have said yet. Without cells to infect, viruses wouldn't be able to spread - considering that they have no mechanism for reproduction or metabolism.

I've always thought abortion was one of those "wrong in principle but right in practice" things.

i.e. yep it's wrong to take a life, but to deny people the right to do so leads to much worse consequences in practice.

similar arguments can be made for the examples that seem to come up here a lot, ie the death penalty (it's wrong to kill them, but right for society)
and "collateral damage" / civilian casualities (it's wrong that they died, but in the long run it's better for everyone)

dunno if anyone is old enough here to remember what it was like before abortion was legal - ask your mum! Mine was a nurse, she used to hook pregnant girls up with doctors willing to break the law, or failing that they used to fly to Australia (from NZ) to find a doctor who would do it.

The alternative for those who couldn't find a doctor or afford the flights, was either "home-made" abortions, using coat-hangers or throwing themselves down stairs.

Either that or have the kid and abandon it.

Which is why abortion became legal throughout most of the Western world. Because the alternative was worse.

So Abortion is wrong in principle.
But banning abortion is wrong in practice.


Good points. BUt I have a question for those who say adoption.

Why should the woman carry the baby 9 months before its out of her hands?

Why should she be forced to have that burden? While laws can regulate that others cannot give her abortion. THe law is not saying she cannot. Granted its dangerous if she does it.
But why can't anyone help her then is the question?

when scanning topcis to go into this set off my bullshit partisan nazi radar before coming into it, and what do you know, my radar is right again

piano wire + you = awesome

Liberals are the ones who are Nazis, not conservatives.

*Sticks tongue out*

And guys, its really silly to argue on the hypocrite thing. The typical republican response is to kill beings who are capable of thought already, and whom may be mischarged. They also tend to support war. Call an abortion a 'pre-emptive strike' if it makes you feel better.

Genius.

And I do wish Republicans would stop randomly calling everyone Liberals as if it's an insult, for two reasons - firstly, you lot brand everyone left of you (ie not far-right) as Liberal and us socialists don't want to be catagorised with conservatives, and secondly it's not an insult. What IS an insult is the following: how anyone can think that the death penalty can be likened to abortion. The former kills a fully-grown human with all levels of conscienceness, and the latter kills a fetus before it has developed a fully-operational heart.

Not that it's a massive generalisation to say that all Liberals believe in banning the death penalty (if you live in an authoritarian state in which it is legal) yet keeping abortion legal, of course. Sigh.

Quote:

Liberals hate the death penalty. They get very queasy over the thought of killing the guilty. Yet, when it comes to abortion, they have no problem with killing children. WTF?

-Belive me... you are wrong. Yes we dislike the death penalty. We dont like abortion, but we accept it.

-But stupidity and a craving for easy solutions will never be in short surply. And that what death penalty is. You can not fight stupidity with easy solutions... like death penalty. Death penalty=wrong, unfair, stupid... and so very very very expensive...ok?! But we dont expect you to understand that "the Dark dimension". Only poor and black people get the death penalty... OK! well 99,9%... but it will never be fair or just :) But before you start to think I am a idiot... plz read the rest! My english is not good enughf to explain it to you proberly... but I will try :)

-Civilization is not the same as wealth power and knowledge. Its how you treat the less fortunate in society, which defines civilization. It is about how you use your mind and skills to improve the society. Dont Worry about it...you still got the majority behind you in the USA :rolleyes:

-Try to look at Scandinavia, studie them... be fair and honest to your self... and learn how they think and act. Then you will understand why they got: More Personal freedom, more wealth, no death penalty and a wellfair system to be proud of. It all about how you think and use your mind. Try it... it might change how you are thinking about the world. CHALLENGE your self :) Dont live in a box... come out of the cave... read a book :)

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

Dempublicents, I shall ignore your coarseness and aggression. It is not particularly endearing, and it does you no favours, particularly as we are arguing (or attempting to) over a completely abstract topic, and one that should allow us to remain level headed. I am perfectly aware that many geneticists do not consider viruses to be a living thing; there are a number of very good arguments to support this; the only point that I wish to emphasize that what is considered living, and what is not, is a complex issue that is considerably ambiguous. To deny this is obtuseness, and an attempt to simplify the issue purely so you can claim some sort of hollow victory - which rather defeats the object of discussion. Here are some definitions of the word "organism" harvested from the internet:

"An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life."

"a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently"

"a living thing; a form of life composed of mutually dependent parts that maintain various vital processes"

"Any autonomous living thing"

"The individual member of a species; can be a single cell or a multicellular organism. Organisms are the biological unit of reproduction and while cells of single cell organism are autonomous (bacteria, archaea), individual cells of multicellular organisms (fungi, plants, animals) are not"

I wish to demonstrate nothing more with these exracts than that the definition of "organism" is extremely vague. That is the whole point of the term. Most of the important terms in each definition can be interpreted in many ways: "autonomous", "processes", "independently", etc. Some of them specifically exclude viruses; some of them (such as the "unit of reproduction") could be seen as including them. The issue is ambiguous, and this fact is recognised by many scientists. In fact, it is largly a question of taste, and that alone, whether entities such as viruses are considered life forms. What is for sure is that the cells consituting embyros (or foeti) are most definitely alive. That is not the point at all; try arguing that embryos are not individuals, are not conscious, and cannot feel pain or suffer instead. If you can't see why the use of such a nubulous term as "organism" or "living thing" is not the valid basis of an argument, you should not wind yourself up to such a degree over a flippant discussion of whether viruses are included as life.

The point is that you cannot use the insistence that something is, or isn't, and organism to justify abortion (and remember, I support abortion). Bacteria are clearly organisms, and alive, but nobody would flinch from killing them in the name of hygeine. You fumble the (very strong) argument that embryos cannot be simply differentiated from other somatic cells by suggesting that whether they can be described as an organism is important. You then contradict yourself by using the (totally unconventional) word "parasite" to describe the progeny of an organism, claiming that it is not used for emotional reasons (incidently the term is emotive; emotionalist is one suffix too far, unless you are a fan of Joyce), when the only purpose of using this unconventional description is to shock; surely emotional blackmain equal to that of those claiming a "child" is being killed. The dictionary.com definition of parasite is

"An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

A different organism, right? But actually it isn't clear. Again, the definition is pretty nebulous, but if we are to argue like adults (and not sling abuse) then we should avoid using deliberately emotive words in contexts where they are never used conventionally. You could probably find a difinition that did include foeti as parasites. This is my point; you cannot use simple, general, extremely vague words to construct arguments that have philosophical or scientific validity. The question is complex. The same applies to your little sneer about metabolism ... it depends on how you define metabolism as to whether the reverse trasncriptase is considered to be an example of viral metabolism (and actually, the transcriptase does specifically recognise the viral RNA. Wouldn't the single viral RNA molecule be a little outnumbered by the amounts of cellular RNA in the cytoplasm? Doesn't that make sense?). Just because you want to define it in a certain way does not make it so, and our little forray into the world of the dictionary shows. And chill out, my friend, it is not life of death :)

Are you sure that it isn't that they get quesy over the thought of killing the innocent?
What exactly are children again? and before you bring up the bit about fetuses not necessarily being "human" that's all well and good. But if you haven't made up your mind by the 6th month you'd better keep it.

Quote:

Liberals are the ones who are Nazis, not conservatives.

*Sticks tongue out*

You are an idiot!

I consider myself republican and am against the death penalty and abortion unless extenuating circumstances warrant either. There is no real way to reabilitate someone who murders for fun and if the mother and child are going to die without an abortion one is necessary. What sickens me though is how some liberals, not all mind you, can condone partial birth abortion on the grounds that women should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies. Since when is a child being born part of the mother's body? If the aborting of a fetus that has begun to develope a brain is legal I believe that you may as well make murder legal. ANyone who can't see the logic in that probably needed to be aborted in the first place. Okay so maybe that's a bit of anger since there are many couples out there who would love to have the children that many people abort because of promiscuity. (Not saying promiscuity is a bad thing just wrap it before dang)

Amazing, isn't it. They slaughter innocent children just because they are to lazy to use contraception, yet they beg an plead and cajole and threaten anyone who has the temerity to put a murderer to death.
Pro-choice people usually don't think of foetuses as full humans, so it's not murder in their eyes.

Another thing, I have noticed that from Reagan onwards, all Republican politicians have been pro-lifers. Republicans have mostly controlled US politics since 1980, and they have almost totally controlled them since 2000. Yet still, despite the constant harping about morality, there is still no reversal of Roe vs Wade? I think that Republicans just put on the "moral values" show to attract voters. They don't really care much about them once they are in office. Their real agenda is to dismantle an entire century's worth of progressive economic policies (mainly the reforms of both Roosevelts, and Johnson), and in the case of the current neoconservatives, increase American world dominance.

(Damn, I hate the neocons.)

While we're pointing things out, how about this? Conservatives like to talk about "small government", but they support giving the government the right to kill its citizens.

Fetuses are human. However, having a particulair genetic code that says you belong to a certain species of ape doesn't make you a person. If you want to give a fetus rights you have to start calling the killing of most animals murder becuase they usually have much more brain activity that it does. Not doing so would be hypocritical.
You need memory and expiernce to become a person, therefore a fetus cannot be a person becuase it would have nothing with which to construct a mind even if it could.

Liberals are the ones who are Nazis, not conservatives.

*Sticks tongue out*
:rolleyes:

How about neither liberals nor conservatives being Nazis? I don't see either of them going around killing Jews, or even suggesting it.

invading Iraq was unjust since they never did a thing to us and wasnt any kind of threat to anyone at all--the sanctions against Saddam were a total success there was no self defense reason to invade them at all
I agree with your anti-war stance, but to describe the sanctions as a "total success" shows your own ignorant lack of facts. Those sanctions were poorly administered, in that Saddam got away with stealing billions of dollars for himself, while his people suffered. Over 500,000 Iraqi children died in the first six years of sanctions.

why do conservatives oppose abortions but support unjust wars?
Americans support such wars for partisan reasons. If the president who launched the Iraq war was Clinton or Gore, I think that most Democrats would support it, while Republicans would be against it.

Dempublicents, I shall ignore your coarseness and aggression. It is not particularly endearing, and it does you no favours,

Says the person who made the first attack.

I am perfectly aware that many geneticists do not consider viruses to be a living thing; there are a number of very good arguments to support this; the only point that I wish to emphasize that what is considered living, and what is not, is a complex issue that is considerably ambiguous. To deny this is obtuseness, and an attempt to simplify the issue purely so you can claim some sort of hollow victory - which rather defeats the object of discussion. Here are some definitions of the word "organism" harvested from the internet:

Yes, and random quotes from the internet are really an indication of biological consensus. While the *exact* definition of life/organisms are certainly debated, there is a general consensus as to what the main requirements are.

What is for sure is that the cells consituting embyros (or foeti) are most definitely alive. That is not the point at all; try arguing that embryos are not individuals, are not conscious, and cannot feel pain or suffer instead. If you can't see why the use of such a nubulous term as "organism" or "living thing" is not the valid basis of an argument, you should not wind yourself up to such a degree over a flippant discussion of whether viruses are included as life.

I'm sorry if biology bothers you, but organism is a biological term. As such, it is appropriate in a discussion of biology.

The point is that you cannot use the insistence that something is, or isn't, and organism to justify abortion (and remember, I support abortion). Bacteria are clearly organisms, and alive, but nobody would flinch from killing them in the name of hygeine.

If you insist on arguing with me, you should at least read my post. I never claimed that simply being an organism or not was justification for anything. I simply pointed out that, as I said before:

All human beings are organisms.
An embryo is not an organism.
Therefore an embryo is not technically a human being.

I never stated that killing all organisms was wrong, and there was nothing in my post from which to infer that.

You fumble the (very strong) argument that embryos cannot be simply differentiated from other somatic cells by suggesting that whether they can be described as an organism is important.

A multicellular organism is simply a collection of somatic cells. Thus, the fact that the cells in the embryo cannot be differentiated from them is *part* of my argument. Why do we not worry when we kill off a few skin cells -- because they do not constitute a human being.

You then contradict yourself by using the (totally unconventional) word "parasite" to describe the progeny of an organism,

And this is a contradiction.....how exactly?

when the only purpose of using this unconventional description is to shock; surely emotional blackmain equal to that of those claiming a "child" is being killed. The dictionary.com definition of parasite is

I am using the technical definition of the word. It bothers people in much the same way as telling them that they are technically classified as animals. Guess what? Human beings *are* animals. Whether or not it bothers someone means nothing to me.

"An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

A different organism, right? But actually it isn't clear. Again, the definition is pretty nebulous, but if we are to argue like adults (and not sling abuse) then we should avoid using deliberately emotive words in contexts where they are never used conventionally. You could probably find a difinition that did include foeti as parasites.

I hate to break it to you, but *your* definition classifies mid-term foeti as parasites. It says different *organism*, not different *species*, as you so claim. And again, I am using technical terms. It is not my fault that some people attach an emotion to said term.

This is my point; you cannot use simple, general, extremely vague words to construct arguments that have philosophical or scientific validity.

That's a new one - "You cannot use scientific terms to have scientific validity." Hmmmm....

The question is complex. The same applies to your little sneer about metabolism ... it depends on how you define metabolism as to whether the reverse trasncriptase is considered to be an example of viral metabolism (and actually, the transcriptase does specifically recognise the viral RNA. Wouldn't the single viral RNA molecule be a little outnumbered by the amounts of cellular RNA in the cytoplasm? Doesn't that make sense?).

Not really, most of the RNA in the cell is attached to other molecules. And no, the RT is not specific to viral RNA. After all, we use viral RT in the lab *constantly* for *mammalian* RNA.

Just because you want to define it in a certain way does not make it so, and our little forray into the world of the dictionary shows. And chill out, my friend, it is not life of death :)

Your dictionary definition supports my statement, friend. My definitions come straight out of biology. I'm sorry if they bother you.

What sickens me though is how some liberals, not all mind you, can condone partial birth abortion on the grounds that women should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies.

Actually, the *only* support I have seen for D&X is the *fact* that it is sometimes medically necessary. D&X is never performed as an elective procedure, as it is well after the cutoff date in all states but two.

If the aborting of a fetus that has begun to develope a brain is legal I believe that you may as well make murder legal.

For the record, once a brain is developed, abortion is only legal if the mother's life is in danger - so you can rest easy.

You know, the whole premise of this thread can be flipped perfectly and retitled "Conservative Hypocrisy." Behold:

Conservatives purport to believe in a "culture of life" and oppose abortion, yet they favor the death penalty. How can these be reconciled?

Or you could say: Conservatives love families. Except when those families include single mothers on public assistance or two daddies or two mommies.

What's yer point?

Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. Many people who are pro-choice don't like or approve of abortion. They simply feel a woman has to make that moral decision for herself and that the government should not have the power to control a woman's body and the most personal decisions about pregnancy.

The difference between pro-choice and anti-choice voters is that the anti-choice movement is arrogant enough to believe they know what is best for everyone else and that they have the right to push their opinions on all others through force of the government.

Liberals hate the death penalty. They get very queasy over the thought of killing the guilty. Yet, when it comes to abortion, they have no problem with killing children. WTF?

Republicans hate abortion. They complain and cite the bible about how a fetus is a baby even though it can't sense anything, and doesn't have a brain. They call themselves "pro-life". yet, they still support things like the death penalty (which kills many innocent citizens) and the iraq qar (which kills many innocent iraqis)