NationStates Jolt Archive

If a person did not believe a fetus to be a living being, why would they seek to destroy it?

Because we love to hear their death screams. It makes grinding them up and coating their remains on our ice cream at night so much more satisfying.

Oh crap, I accidentally spilled the details of the secret liberal sacrement. . .

Seriously, dude, there are a lot of different reasons why abortion happens. Not all of them good reasons, but most of them understandable: most people simply can't afford the pregnancy, couldn't manage a child, and with even the most cursory research would discover our adoption system is a joke and rife with throw-away children as is. Is it the result of morally-questionable acts? Sometimes. Do I know if the fetus qualifies as a human? No. Do I presume in my ignorance that I'd know enough to legislate what they should do in that circumstance? Hell, no.

I suppose that's why women are more likely to vote Democrat than GOP.
They just love being oppressed, don't they?.

Oh, let me guess: You think the female brain is too weak and scatty to deal with difficult concepts like voting and politics. It just can't understand that the evil Democrats and Liberals are mad-keen on oppressing women, whereas noble GOP is truly wanting the best for them.
Same no doubt goes for Blacks and other minorities.

Well, it's obvious isn't it? The more women stay at home with traditional values, with less education and no say in their legal matters, life will be a breeze!

Psh, silly liberals want women to think for themselves and get caught up in all sorts of legal hoobajoob. Best leave the thinking to the men!

/sarcasm

because the white people are rich, on the average, me must give the black people an advantage because being of a higher class is wrong and puts us in the position of restoring equality by taking from the already rich.

either white or black or asian or filipino or russian, et al. explain to me why you think that affirmative action works so well in colleges when we are trying to promote ethnic equality without racial basis.

I think that we should help the poor, no matter what race they are or are not. We should not be giving help to those who do not need it. How can you justify an upper income minority getting affirmative action? It is insane.

Because we love to hear their death screams. It makes grinding them up and coating their remains on our ice cream at night so much more satisfying.

Oh crap, I accidentally spilled the details of the secret liberal sacrement. . .

Seriously, dude, there are a lot of different reasons why abortion happens. Not all of them good reasons, but most of them understandable: most people simply can't afford the pregnancy, couldn't manage a child, and with even the most cursory research would discover our adoption system is a joke and rife with throw-away children as is. Is it the result of morally-questionable acts? Sometimes. Do I know if the fetus qualifies as a human? No. Do I presume in my ignorance that I'd know enough to legislate what they should do in that circumstance? Hell, no.
So money and feelings come before human life. And if a fetus is not a human why destroy it?

Okay, enough of the "If you take..." comparisons, because they are flawed. youre talking about picking between a majority and a minority.

say 10% of this country was composed of black people, and 8% of them are poor, and the remaining 90% of the population is white, and 5% of them are poor.

in a sample of 1000, 8 of the 100 black people are poor, while 45 of the 900 white people are poor. you have more poor white people than black people, but on the average, there are more poor black people in their race than poor white people in their race.

and this is precisely where affirmative action goes wrong. it neglects to represent percentages in american culture and only looks at averages among races.

because the white people are rich, on the average, me must give the black people an advantage because being of a higher class is wrong and puts us in the position of restoring equality by taking from the already rich.

either white or black or asian or filipino or russian, et al. explain to me why you think that affirmative action works so well in colleges when we are trying to promote ethnic equality without racial basis.

Exactly how does affirmative action involve "taking from the rich"?

All poor people both white and black should be given affirmative action, nobody else.

Idiotic. Life begins at conception. Go back to school and take biology 101.

Heh. I could get into a lengthy explanation of why Biology 101 would generally teach no such thing, but I'm tired, so I'll simply point out that whether a fetus is "life" is entirely irrelevant to the topic of abortion. You kill various forms of life every day, and I'm sure you don't mind. Bacteria are just as alive as (one could easily argue that they're actually more alive than) a human zygote.

But doesnt poverty affect 100% of those who are in poverty? Why not simply help those who are in poverty and take race out of it so that we can be fair?

Your argument is a bit like claiming that we should simplify our medical system by treating every heart-attack patient with the same regimen of open-heart surgery. For some people this might work, but ignoring the root causes of heart disease and adopting a one-surgery-fits-all method is foolish: some people need gene therapy to permanently fix the problem, some people need diet and exercise, and some people need stress-reduction, and in many cases the actual prescribed treatment would be at best indifferent if not directly harmful.

Similarly, a one-size-fits-all poverty program is a next to useless program, because a single white mother in Appalachia faces a very different economic circumstance from a married white farmer in Kansas or a unemployed young black man in Compton. Proper treatment of poverty, like treatment for heart disease, means tailoring the treatment to the cause. Insofar as being a minority seems to lead to poverty far more often than normal, it ought to be considered as one avenue for treatment.

Heh. I could get into a lengthy explanation of why Biology 101 would generally teach no such thing, but I'm tired, so I'll simply point out that whether a fetus is "life" is entirely irrelevant to the topic of abortion. You kill various forms of life every day, and I'm sure you don't mind. Bacteria are just as alive as (one could easily argue that they're actually more alive than) a human zygote.

I thought human life was regarded as on a higher plate than other life...

Heh. I could get into a lengthy explanation of why Biology 101 would generally teach no such thing, but I'm tired, so I'll simply point out that whether a fetus is "life" is entirely irrelevant to the topic of abortion. You kill various forms of life every day, and I'm sure you don't mind. Bacteria are just as alive as (one could easily argue that they're actually more alive than) a human zygote.


I do not kill people everyday. Abortionists do. And if you do not think a fetus is a human life why are you destroying it?

So money and feelings come before human life. And if a fetus is not a human why destroy it?

Your question makes no discernible sense. I often destroy things which are not human. Just today, I cut my finger. I put antibiotic on it, destroying lots of things which are not human. When a friend of mine travelled to South America, he got amoebic dysentery. He seemed to feel that the amoebas were worth getting out of his gut even though they weren't human.

Your argument is a bit like claiming that we should simplify our medical system by treating every heart-attack patient with the same regimen of open-heart surgery. For some people this might work, but ignoring the root causes of heart disease and adopting a one-surgery-fits-all method is foolish: some people need gene therapy to permanently fix the problem, some people need diet and exercise, and some people need stress-reduction, and in many cases the actual prescribed treatment would be at best indifferent if not directly harmful.

Similarly, a one-size-fits-all poverty program is a next to useless program, because a single white mother in Appalachia faces a very different economic circumstance from a married white farmer in Kansas or a unemployed young black man in Compton. Proper treatment of poverty, like treatment for heart disease, means tailoring the treatment to the cause. Insofar as being a minority seems to lead to poverty far more often than normal, it ought to be considered as one avenue for treatment.

So what you are saying is affirmative action would help a black man in compton but not poor white people in rural areas? Why is that?

Your question makes no discernible sense. I often destroy things which are not human. Just today, I cut my finger. I put antibiotic on it, destroying lots of things which are not human. When a friend of mine travelled to South America, he got amoebic dysentery. He seemed to feel that the amoebas were worth getting out of his gut even though they weren't human.

You're talking about microbes and not human life. Stick to the subject.

Is a baby a human before or after birth?!

Your question makes no discernible sense. I often destroy things which are not human. Just today, I cut my finger. I put antibiotic on it, destroying lots of things which are not human. When a friend of mine travelled to South America, he got amoebic dysentery. He seemed to feel that the amoebas were worth getting out of his gut even though they weren't human.


my point is that the reason that you support the legalized destruction of fetuses is because you know they are human. There is no reason to destroy the fetus if you do not believe it is a human.

Okay, enough of the "If you take..." comparisons, because they are flawed. youre talking about picking between a majority and a minority.

say 10% of this country was composed of black people, and 8% of them are poor, and the remaining 90% of the population is white, and 5% of them are poor.

in a sample of 1000, 8 of the 100 black people are poor, while 45 of the 900 white people are poor. you have more poor white people than black people, but on the average, there are more poor black people in their race than poor white people in their race.

and this is precisely where affirmative action goes wrong. it neglects to represent percentages in american culture and only looks at averages among races.

Look. I'm gonna throw this out there again. Read it.

On the average, there are more poor black people in their race than poor white people in their respective race. But there are statistically more poor white people than poor black people on the whole.

Why are we bandaging the minorities when the whole economic structure of America needs to be fixed?

So money and feelings come before human life. And if a fetus is not a human why destroy it?

Not to burst your idealistic bubble with a large dose of realism, but no shit, Sherlock.

The world we live in is one of finite resources and irregular distribution. A human being requires a set minimum amount of investment to raise, below which is simply intolerably cruel if not fatal. Given the material facts presented above, it seems fairly likely that there will be people facing the possibility of raising human beings for which they lack the set minimum amount of funds to do so. In that case, demanding that they raise those human beings anyway is both cruel and stupid, the former for inflicting needless suffering and possible death, the latter for failing to recognize reality when it pops out of a woman's uterus and smacks you in the face.

Look. I'm gonna throw this out there again. Read it.

On the average, there are more poor black people in their race than poor white people in their respective race. But there are statistically more poor white people than poor black people on the whole.

Why are we bandaging the minorities when the whole economic structure of America needs to be fixed?

Because some political parties get 90% of the black vote and want it to stay that way.

by the way Christmahanikawanzikah, you are very articulate. Well done.

I thought human life was regarded as on a higher plate than other life...

Most people do indeed consider a person's life a great deal more significant than a bacterium's life - which is why the relevant question regarding a fetus is not "Is it alive?" but "Is it a person?" No biology class in the world can answer that; that comes down to personal belief. Most people, however, feel that something needs to contain at least a few of the attributes we normally encounter in human beings - such as, for an easy example, a brain - before it constitutes a person in any reasonable sense.

So what you are saying is affirmative action would help a black man in compton but not poor white people in rural areas? Why is that?

Because prudence dictates you have other programs to help poor white people in rural areas. You tailor the treatment to the disease.

Most people do indeed consider a person's life a great deal more significant than a bacterium's life - which is why the relevant question regarding a fetus is not "Is it alive?" but "Is it a person?" No biology class in the world can answer that; that comes down to personal belief. Most people, however, feel that something needs to contain at least a few of the attributes we normally encounter in human beings - such as, for an easy example, a brain - before it constitutes a person in any reasonable sense.

I'm talking American culture, not Biology 101.

How many Pro-Lifers do you see touting signs that whine about microbial genocides?

Not to burst your idealistic bubble with a large dose of realism, but no shit, Sherlock.

The world we live in is one of finite resources and irregular distribution. A human being requires a set minimum amount of investment to raise, below which is simply intolerably cruel if not fatal. Given the material facts presented above, it seems fairly likely that there will be people facing the possibility of raising human beings for which they lack the set minimum amount of funds to do so. In that case, demanding that they raise those human beings anyway is both cruel and stupid, the former for inflicting needless suffering and possible death, the latter for failing to recognize reality when it pops out of a woman's uterus and smacks you in the face.

Sounds familiar. Who was it that used to talk about the surplus population. Was his first name Ebenezer? And who used to talk about life unworthy of life.....hmmm he was into eugenics too....what was that guy's name..it will come back to me later....I am sure.

Why are we bandaging the minorities when the whole economic structure of America needs to be fixed?

because the black population is poor for reasons beyond the mere fuckedupitude of capitalism itself, and thus we must address those issues in addition to the general issues of poverty.

Most people do indeed consider a person's life a great deal more significant than a bacterium's life - which is why the relevant question regarding a fetus is not "Is it alive?" but "Is it a person?" No biology class in the world can answer that; that comes down to personal belief. Most people, however, feel that something needs to contain at least a few of the attributes we normally encounter in human beings - such as, for an easy example, a brain - before it constitutes a person in any reasonable sense.

What other species would it be?

Because prudence dictates you have other programs to help poor white people in rural areas. You tailor the treatment to the disease.

I have no idea where you are going with this. If you can explain why a middle class black person should get affirmative action whereas a white person living in poverty should not, you get the prize in rhetoric, because logic tells us otherwise.

What other species would it be?

the claim is not that it is a different species, but that it is not a person. sorta like how after you are dead, your remains remain homo sapiens but we don't let you vote anymore.

my point is that the reason that you support the legalized destruction of fetuses is because you know they are human. There is no reason to destroy the fetus if you do not believe it is a human.

...again, you make no discernible sense. I support one's legal right to remove tapeworms, too, and there's plenty of obvious reasons to destroy them. I support one's legal right to control of one's own body, which involves the legal right to remove unwanted organisms from one's body, whatever the species of those organisms might be.

because the black population is poor for reasons beyond the mere fuckedupitude of capitalism itself, and thus we must address those issues in addition to the general issues of poverty.

"the black population is poor"

the wider a man's statements the narrower his mind. (old Russian proverb)

the claim is not that it is a different species, but that it is not a person. sorta like how after you are dead, your remains remain homo sapiens but we don't let you vote anymore.

What it has already been established that it is alive. Every living being has a species. What species would it be?

because the black population is poor for reasons beyond the mere fuckedupitude of capitalism itself, and thus we must address those issues in addition to the general issues of poverty.

if you read my argument about poverty by class and minority percentages, youd see that that theres more fuckedupitude for the whites because 45 out of the 53 poor people in that example were whites.

thats roughly 89% or so.

...again, you make no discernible sense. I support one's legal right to remove tapeworms, too, and there's plenty of obvious reasons to destroy them. I support one's legal right to control of one's own body, which involves the legal right to remove unwanted organisms from one's body, whatever the species of those organisms might be.

Comparing humans to animals.......sounds familiar........

I'll ask again...

Is not, in American society, a human life more worthy than a microbial or animal's life?

I'll ask again...

Is not, in American society, a human life more worthy than a microbial or animal's life?


A moral relativist will wriggle like a worm on a hook to slip out of answering that question.

Comparing humans to animals.......sounds familiar........

Humans are animals. What did you think we were, plants?

if you read my argument about poverty by class and minority percentages, youd see that that theres more fuckedupitude for the whites because 45 out of the 53 poor people in that example were whites.

thats roughly 89% or so.

no, assuming capitalism itself isn't racist, then they are equally fucked by it. and that is a problem that requires addressing. but at the same time we have this on-going legacy of racism that won't just go away if we pretend it doesn't exist. the disproportionate impoverishment is but a symptom of the racism.

Humans are animals. What did you think we were, plants?

Let me rephrase.....dehumanzing certain human beings......sounds familiar....

no, assuming capitalism itself isn't racist, then they are equally fucked by it. and that is a problem that requires addressing. but at the same time we have this on-going legacy of racism that won't just go away if we pretend it doesn't exist. the disproportionate impoverishment is but a symptom of the racism.

So why not help all the poor people no matter who they are?

So why not help all the poor people no matter who they are?

who ever suggested doing otherwise?

no, assuming capitalism itself isn't racist, then they are equally fucked by it. and that is a problem that requires addressing. but at the same time we have this on-going legacy of racism that won't just go away if we pretend it doesn't exist. the disproportionate impoverishment is but a symptom of the racism.

So because of this ongoing stigma of racism, we further allow the same stigma by approving the disproportionate distribution of public favor to minorities. This almost becomes an argument looking like "rule by the minority."

You're saying that it is okay to give to the minorities, poor or not, because of past injustices by our ancestors from long or short times ago. That's not equality, just preference.

What it has already been established that it is alive. Every living being has a species. What species would it be?

homo sapiens. what of it?

Let me rephrase.....dehumanzing certain human beings......sounds familiar....

I'm quite certain I'm not dehumanizing anyone. I'm quite insistent on the fact that all people should be treated as people. This can be evidenced by such traits as not believing that women should be forced to be pregnant against their will. :)

who ever suggested doing otherwise?

You did. No affirmative action for white people.

So because of this ongoing stigma of racism, we further allow the same stigma by approving the disproportionate distribution of public favor to minorities.

what are you talking about?

You're saying that it is okay to give to the minorities, poor or not, because of past injustices by our ancestors from long or short times ago. That's not equality...

...that's justice

also, the injustice is ongoing, not just history.

homo sapiens. what of it?

You support murdering living human beings. congrats here is your humanitarian award.

I'm quite certain I'm not dehumanizing anyone. I'm quite insistent on the fact that all people should be treated as people. This can be evidenced by such traits as not believing that women should be forced to be pregnant against their will. :)

Well that is where we part. I value all human life as sacred.

You did. No affirmative action for white people.

affirmative action is not meant to solve the problems of capitalism. it is meant to right the wrongs of racism. this is not a difficult concept.

You did. No affirmative action for white people.

...which precludes helping the poor how?

Haha, I am arguing over human rights with a person who's name on this forum includes a reference to an ideology that killed more people then Nazism.

I'm quite certain I'm not dehumanizing anyone. I'm quite insistent on the fact that all people should be treated as people. This can be evidenced by such traits as not believing that women should be forced to be pregnant against their will. :)

And is a baby a person or a fetus? And what kind of classification refers to a fetus? A parasite?

You support murdering living human beings. congrats here is your humanitarian award.

are human blood cells human beings in your conceptual map? 'cause genetically they too are homo sapiens.

...which precludes helping the poor how?

All poor people should get affirmative action. Nobody else. You support affirmative action based on race while the majority of minority people are not in poverty in the USA.

Well that is where we part. I value all human life as sacred.

Simply out of curiosity, does that stance apply to the death penalty as well?

what are you talking about?

I'm saying that you approve giving poor people favor because of racism, which begets racism.

...that's justice

also, the injustice is ongoing, not just history.

How is the injustice ongoing? Because they are poor?

affirmative action is not meant to solve the problems of capitalism. it is meant to right the wrongs of racism. this is not a difficult concept.

It is meant to keep the Democrat party in power.

What the hell does that have to do with your previous claim?
Nothing of course, but it just means now he's ben shown up, he can manufacture an excuse to help him ignore his previous claim.

are human blood cells human beings in your conceptual map? 'cause genetically they too are homo sapiens.

False. Look it up.That is a human organ not a human being. Duh?

All poor people should get affirmative action. Nobody else. You support affirmative action based on race while the majority of minority people are not in poverty in the USA.

you seem to be confused as to what affirmative action is, and what it was created to do.

Simply out of curiosity, does that stance apply to the death penalty as well?

Yes.

you seem to be confused as to what affirmative action is, and what it was created to do.

It was created in an era of segregation and civil rights abuse. Today you can't even say certain words or your career is ruined. Big change. As long as affirmative action exists Martin Luther King's dream of a day in which his children will be judged on their character and not their skin color will never come true.

you seem to be confused as to what affirmative action is, and what it was created to do.

It was created to help poor minorities. And?

I live in California, in the Los Angeles County. I'm now a minority, Mexican immigrants (people of Hispanic origin, if you honestly prefer... I don't mind) now being the majority. If I was poor, must affirmative action apply to me or not?

And is a baby a person or a fetus? And what kind of classification refers to a fetus? A parasite?

Technically, a fetus could be considered a parasite, yes. A baby is clearly a person. A zygote, to me at least, is clearly not a person. Where in the developmental process "personhood" occurs is obviously debatable, as it's a question purely of philosophy.

It was created to help poor minorities. And?

I live in California, in the Los Angeles County. I'm now a minority, Mexican immigrants (people of Hispanic origin, if you honestly prefer... I don't mind) now being the majority. If I was poor, must affirmative action apply to me or not?

Right on.

Technically, a fetus could be considered a parasite, yes. A baby is clearly a person. A zygote, to me at least, is clearly not a person. Where in the developmental process "personhood" occurs is obviously debatable, as it's a question purely of philosophy.


A person a parasite? What like the jews in Poland?

I'm saying that you approve giving poor people favor because of racism, which begets racism.

evidence? affirmative action has been in effect for, what, about 45 years or so - over that time have the tell-tale signs of racism increased or decreased? are there more or less people of color in positions of power and prestige in society now than there were before? has there been any change in the relative levels of education achieved between groups? etc.

How is the injustice ongoing?

because every study done has shown that it is, in every relevant area of concern. when it stops being the case that people with identical qualifications except that one is white and has a criminal record and the other is black and doesn't, but the white guy is still more likely to get called back, then maybe we can talk.

False. Look it up.That is a human organ not a human being. Duh?

A blood cell is an organ? You might want to follow your own advice and take Biology 101. :p

A person a parasite? What like the jews in Poland?

Erm...no? I think this may be one of the strangest Godwins I've ever seen...

As long as affirmative action exists Martin Luther King's dream of a day in which his children will be judged on their character and not their skin color will never come true.

you are aware, of course, that affirmative action was something that mlk actively fought to implement and argued the necessity of, yes?

A blood cell is an organ? You might want to follow your own advice and take Biology 101. :p

Blood is a highly specialized connective tissue that is in technical terms an organ. The point is that saying that a blood cell is human life is like saying a fender is a car.

you are aware, of course, that affirmative action was something that mlk actively fought to implement and argued the necessity of, yes?


Yeah he also died while George Wallace was running for President. How is that even slightly relevant?

evidence? affirmative action has been in effect for, what, about 45 years or so - over that time have the tell-tale signs of racism increased or decreased? are there more or less people of color in positions of power and prestige in society now than there were before? has there been any change in the relative levels of education achieved between groups? etc.

First of all, the concept of affirmative action only since started in recent years. The action on the 20th century was known as desegregation, not affirmative action. The two ideas are different. Desegregation implies the importance of minority races, while affirmative action imposes the same idea.

And yes, there have been changes. Black people were more concentrated into black "ghettos" before desegregation, for starters.

because every study done has shown that it is, in every relevant area of concern. when it stops being the case that people with identical qualifications except that one is white and has a criminal record and the other is black and doesn't, but the white guy is still more likely to get called back, then maybe we can talk.

Then you're saying that letting the minority with the same qualifications into college while barring the majority. You are also implying that the majority is in an upppermore class of America than the minority.

I'm a minority in my county. Does affirmative action apply to me, a white male, if I'm poor?

http://limewoody.wordpress.com/files/2006/04/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

The point is that saying that a blood cell is human life is like saying a fender is a car.

You stated earlier that life begins at conception. At conception, what is present is a single cell, featuring DNA which identifies it as Homo sapiens. A blood cell is a single cell, featuring DNA which identifies it as Homo sapiens. Please explain how the former is human life and the latter is not.

http://limewoody.wordpress.com/files/2006/04/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

Thats pretty funny. :p

I like it.

A baby is clearly a person. A zygote, to me at least, is clearly not a person. Where in the developmental process "personhood" occurs is obviously debatable, as it's a question purely of philosophy.

everyone who isn't a monster would agree that a zygote isn't a person, if they thought about it. because if they do hold it to be a person, then that individual is committing themselves to saving a petri dish with two zygotes on it over an unconcious toddler in a burning building situation.

You stated earlier that life begins at conception. At conception, what is present is a single cell, featuring DNA which identifies it as Homo sapiens. A blood cell is a single cell, featuring DNA which identifies it as Homo sapiens. Please explain how the former is human life and the latter is not.

One is an embreyo. The other is not. One is designed to grow and be born and live for decades. The other is a component part of a person.

Then you're saying that letting the minority with the same qualifications into college while barring the majority.

How does affirmative action "bar" white people from attending college?

You stated earlier that life begins at conception. At conception, what is present is a single cell, featuring DNA which identifies it as Homo sapiens. A blood cell is a single cell, featuring DNA which identifies it as Homo sapiens. Please explain how the former is human life and the latter is not.

Conception involves two cells. Hence the term multicellular. The blood cell is a monocellular structure and therefore not a human life, but part of it.

everyone who isn't a monster would agree that a zygote isn't a person, if they thought about it. because if they do hold it to be a person, then that individual is committing themselves to saving a petri dish with two zygotes on it over an unconcious toddler in a burning building situation.

has that come up recently for you? Fascinating.

How does affirmative action "bar" white people from attending college?

By racially identifying minorities and accepting them first.

There's a reason for that Race box on American Standardized Tests.

How does affirmative action "bar" white people from attending college?

Replacing a qualified white candidate with an unqualified black candidate.

everyone who isn't a monster would agree that a zygote isn't a person, if they thought about it. because if they do hold it to be a person, then that individual is committing themselves to saving a petri dish with two zygotes on it over an unconcious toddler in a burning building situation.

Indeed!

Replacing a qualified white candidate with an unqualified black candidate.

Hey, I'm a republican, and I'd take Barack Obama over John Kerry any day.

Indeed!

Good thing it wasnt you in that petri dish.

Hey, I'm a republican, and I'd take Barack Obama over John Kerry any day.

you deserve a high five.

everyone who isn't a monster would agree that a zygote isn't a person, if they thought about it. because if they do hold it to be a person, then that individual is committing themselves to saving a petri dish with two zygotes on it over an unconcious toddler in a burning building situation.

You aren't defining a zygote. You're saying that an unconscious toddler is more important than two zygotes.

The question isn't which is more important but whether the zygotes are human or not.

We observe the liberal in its natural habitat.
It will say or do anything to avoid admitting that abortion is the robbing of a human being's life.;)

First of all, the concept of affirmative action only since started in recent years.

wow. that's so incorrect that's it's coming 'round to right again from the other side.
Executive Order 11246, 1965 (http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/ofccp/eo11246.htm)
"...The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin..."

why is it that opponents of affirmative action never know the slightest thing about it?

Then you're saying that letting the minority with the same qualifications into college while barring the majority.

and illiterate too?

One is an embreyo. The other is not. One is designed to grow and be born and live for decades. The other is a component part of a person.

It's "designed" to do that? I'm going to dodge the whole "design" issue, simply because this thread doesn't need yet another topic that has already been beaten to death on these forums a thousand times, but if you think fertilization is in any way a guarantee of successful pregnancy, you're very far wrong indeed. Look up the stats sometime. A great many fertilized ova are "designed" to never get implanted at all. Another very large number are "designed" to be miscarried. It's not as if fertilization occurs and then bam! there's a baby.

It's "designed" to do that? I'm going to dodge the whole "design" issue, simply because this thread doesn't need yet another topic that has already been beaten to death on these forums a thousand times, but if you think fertilization is in any way a guarantee of successful pregnancy, you're very far wrong indeed. Look up the stats sometime. A great many fertilized ova are "designed" to never get implanted at all. Another very large number are "designed" to be miscarried. It's not as if fertilization occurs and then bam! there's a baby.

Then those unfertilized, unplanted and miscarried ovum are natural deaths. Death isn't just the loss of life but also the loss of cellular reproduction. When you get older and start "dying," it is primarily because your body has lost the ability to cellularly reproduce, as in the case of osteoporosis - the cells in the bones have started to stop reproducing.

And yes, a zygote is genetically designed to reproduce its cells and grow.

Conception involves two cells. Hence the term multicellular. The blood cell is a monocellular structure and therefore not a human life, but part of it.

The two cells fuse, making one cell. That cell soon starts dividing, but it's one cell first. Of course, your unicellular/multicellular distinction is rather amusing. Presumably you'd put a tumor in the same category as an embryo, then?

It's "designed" to do that? I'm going to dodge the whole "design" issue, simply because this thread doesn't need yet another topic that has already been beaten to death on these forums a thousand times, but if you think fertilization is in any way a guarantee of successful pregnancy, you're very far wrong indeed. Look up the stats sometime. A great many fertilized ova are "designed" to never get implanted at all. Another very large number are "designed" to be miscarried. It's not as if fertilization occurs and then bam! there's a baby.

Obviously. But if you do not value your own offspring more than a single cell of your own blood I must question your thought process. Warped a bit maybe?

Then those unfertilized, unplanted and miscarried ovum are natural deaths. Death isn't just the loss of life but also the loss of cellular reproduction. When you get older and start "dying," it is primarily because your body has lost the ability to cellularly reproduce, as in the case of osteoporosis - the cells in the bones have started to stop reproducing.

And yes, a zygote is genetically designed to reproduce its cells and grow.

As is a tumor. :)

As is a tumor. :)

Ironic.

You aren't defining a zygote. You're saying that an unconscious toddler is more important than two zygotes.

The question isn't which is more important but whether the zygotes are human or not.

more morally important.

persons are morally equal, at least in broad strokes. if zygotes were persons, then the choice would be between saving two persons or saving one. the clear answer in that case is to save the petri dish rather than the toddler. but anyone who did so choose would rightfully be called a monster, because nobody sane thinks that zygotes are morally equivalent to toddlers.

in fact, no matter how many thousands of zygotes there are in a stack of petri dishes, the only moral option will remain to save the toddler rather than the thousands of zygotes. so we don't even think zygotes have significant fractions of the moral value of actual persons.

more morally important.

persons are morally equal, at least in broad strokes. if zygotes were persons, then the choice would be between saving two persons or saving one. the clear answer in that case is to save the petri dish rather than the toddler. but anyone who did so choose would rightfully be called a monster, because nobody sane thinks that zygotes are morally equivalent to toddlers.

in fact, no matter how many thousands of zygotes there are in a stack of petri dishes, the only moral option will remain to save the toddler rather than the thousands of zygotes. so we don't even think zygotes have significant fractions of the moral value of actual persons.

I disagree.

The two cells fuse, making one cell. That cell soon starts dividing, but it's one cell first. Of course, your unicellular/multicellular distinction is rather amusing. Presumably you'd put a tumor in the same category as an embryo, then?

Yes, a tumor does exhibit embryonic qualities. It grows and divides on its own. Yet it is simply mass composed of millions of the same kind of cell, whereas an embryo develops hundreds of different types of specialized cells.

I disagree.

With what?

more morally important.

persons are morally equal, at least in broad strokes. if zygotes were persons, then the choice would be between saving two persons or saving one. the clear answer in that case is to save the petri dish rather than the toddler. but anyone who did so choose would rightfully be called a monster, because nobody sane thinks that zygotes are morally equivalent to toddlers.

in fact, no matter how many thousands of zygotes there are in a stack of petri dishes, the only moral option will remain to save the toddler rather than the thousands of zygotes. so we don't even think zygotes have significant fractions of the moral value of actual persons.

Zygotes develop into infants, which develop into humans. Infants develop into humans. So it follows that zygotes develop into humans. Does the fact that zygotes aren't infants make it any less human if it does develop into a human?

Obviously. But if you do not value your own offspring more than a single cell of your own blood I must question your thought process. Warped a bit maybe?

If I ever gave birth to a child, I have no doubt I would value it infinitely more than a drop of my blood. I admit to not feeling quite the same way about a zygote, given that it's not, by any reasonable definition, a person.

(Just to confuse you a little, I'll note that I actually would almost certainly never get an abortion myself. However, I do not believe that it is in any way my place to make that decision for someone else. Hence the term "pro-choice".) :)

With what?

Your entire premise.

If I ever gave birth to a child, I have no doubt I would value it infinitely more than a drop of my blood. I admit to not feeling quite the same way about a zygote, given that it's not, by any reasonable definition, a person.

(Just to confuse you a little, I'll note that I actually would almost certainly never get an abortion myself. However, I do not believe that it is in any way my place to make that decision for someone else. Hence the term "pro-choice".) :)

I would never kill a person. And I will not reserve judgement on others who make the wrong choice.

Zygotes develop into infants, which develop into humans. Infants develop into humans. So it follows that zygotes develop into humans. Does the fact that zygotes aren't infants make it any less human if it does develop into a human?

the fact that a fluep might go through a long process and eventually become a trando does not mean that flueps are trandos.

Time for bed.

May God bless you all.

Yes, a tumor does exhibit embryonic qualities. It grows and divides on its own. Yet it is simply mass composed of millions of the same kind of cell, whereas an embryo develops hundreds of different types of specialized cells.

Okee doke. Organs contain many specialized cells. Is the small intestine analogous to an embryo, then?

Zygotes develop into infants, which develop into humans. Infants develop into humans. So it follows that zygotes develop into humans. Does the fact that zygotes aren't infants make it any less human if it does develop into a human?

I believe I already explained that a very, very, very large number of zygotes do not develop into infants. That said, argument from potential is silly. Does the fact that that two-year-old over there could someday grow up to be a musical genius mean that I should consider that two-year-old as good a musician as Mozart? Does the fact that a zygote could grow up to be a person mean I should consider it equivalent to an actual, real, tangible person?

the fact that a fluep might go through a long process and eventually become a trando does not mean that flueps are trandos.

No. Flueps aren't trandos. But they exhibit trando development and become trandos.

In the same sense, we aren't (necessarily, I hope) old people, but in the same sense we develop into old people.

No. Flueps aren't trandos. But they exhibit trando development and become trandos.

In the same sense, we aren't (necessarily, I hope) old people, but in the same sense we develop into old people.

and maybe when flueps become rapshus, we start treating them as if they were slightly closer to being trandos, with all the benefits and responsibilities that implies. and when those rapshus become quomas we start treating them as if they were slightly closer still, with the additional benefits and responsibilities that implies. etc.

Okee doke. Organs contain many specialized cells. Is the small intestine analogous to an embryo, then?

Does a small intestine contain many different types of organs? Does a small intestine contain a central nervous system?

I believe I already explained that a very, very, very large number of zygotes do not develop into infants. That said, argument from potential is silly. Does the fact that that two-year-old over there could someday grow up to be a musical genius mean that I should consider that two-year-old as good a musician as Mozart? Does the fact that a zygote could grow up to be a person mean I should consider it equivalent to an actual, real, tangible person?

That's a lazy comparison. Saying not all babies will become Mozart is related to talent and not humanity.

Where, to you, does human life begin then, if not at the zygote? At the blastula? Gastrula? The first beat of the heart? Development of the eyes?

No. Flueps aren't trandos. But they exhibit trando development and may become trandos.

Fixed. :)

[QUOTE=Free Soviets;12088719]snipQUOTE]

Development and responsibilities aren't the same.

WHERE does human life begin, then?

I would never kill a person. And I will not reserve judgement on others who make the wrong choice.

Never say never. You have absolutely no idea what life will hold for you. None.

And it may be the wrong choice in YOUR opinion. The viability of a fetus is not able to be proved. Science cannot say without a doubt when a fetus becomes viable, equating it to being a full human. Up to whatever that point may be, then, the fetus is a POTENTIAL life. Period. Anything beyond that lies in personal belief.

YOU may believe life begins at conception. YOU may believe that there is no possible situation which condones abortion.

Luckily, however, YOU do not get to dictate morality for everyone else. YOUR opinion does not trump anyone else's.

I disagree.

how so?


i think i'd like to take this opportunity to quote myself just to get this idea laid out more fully - as far as i'm aware, this scenario is my own (and if anybody thinks they know where else i might have heard it, please let me know).
suppose you found yourself in this situation:

you are in a fertility clinic for some reason. in this fertility clinic there is a petri dish on the table, a petri dish which you know has two blastocysts on it, ready to be implanted. also in the room is a 5 year old child. oh, and the fertility clinic is on fire and you can only save one of the two - petri dish or kindergartener.

now if you hold the idea that your statement, "a new human being is created at fertilization", has moral implications such as making abortion wrong, then you must be saying something like "personhood begins at fertilization" (along with a bunch of related moral statements about the rights and obligations of persons). and if that is what you are saying, then in my burning fertility clinic you would be morally obligated to rescue the petri dish rather than the kindergartener as then you would be saving two persons rather than just one. but i strongly doubt that your moral intuition agrees with that - in fact, if it is anything at all like mine it strongly objects to the idea.

now suppose you agree, but think that maybe this only shows that blastocysts do not have full personhood, but still hold moral value - perhaps at slightly lesser levels depending on level of development. in that case i would modify the situation so that now there are 1,000 blastocysts in a convenient stack of petri dishes (luckily, they are very small little guys, so this works out). now the choice is between saving one person or saving 1,000 sorta persons. but the choice is still clear, and i'm sure you can already imagine the loud and public condemnation that would be expressed for a person who would choose to save a stack of petri dishes over a 5 year old child.

in fact, it is difficult to imagine a point at which saving a stack of petri dishes rather than a little kid would ever become morally praiseworthy. it looks to me like the petri dish rescuer would be rightfully blamed and morally condemned for it no matter how many blastocysts they saved. so if it is the case that blastocysts do hold some limited level of moral value as a result of their proto-personhood, that value is apparently so limited when placed in comparison to a full person that it might as well not exist at all. thus they are effectively not persons in any relevant sense.

and, of course, this doesn't get the abortion opponent off the possibly even worse hook that is exemplified in the forced kidney donation example, where the person who benefits is clearly and obviously a person, fully deserving of all relevant moral obligations...

Luckily, however, YOU do not get to dictate morality for everyone else. YOUR opinion does not trump anyone else's.

Whose opinion does?

Never say never. You have absolutely no idea what life will hold for you. None.

And it may be the wrong choice in YOUR opinion. The viability of a fetus is not able to be proved. Science cannot say without a doubt when a fetus becomes viable, equating it to being a full human. Up to whatever that point may be, then, the fetus is a POTENTIAL life. Period. Anything beyond that lies in personal belief.

YOU may believe life begins at conception. YOU may believe that there is no possible situation which condones abortion.

Luckily, however, YOU do not get to dictate morality for everyone else. YOUR opinion does not trump anyone else's.

When the hell did this become a debate about morals? Anyone?! This is an argument about opinion, not "moral" dictatorship.

If the fetus is considered a human, does it just go "POOF! I'm human!" or does it develop?

WHERE does human life begin, then?

my intuition says personhood begins at birth, if not a bit after - i think a kindergartener morally outweighs a couple newborns, for example.

NEWSFLASH, *genius*

The debate about abortion has ALWAYS been one of morals. HAD you actually read my post, you might have seen that.


So one more time for the slower members of our audience:

Viability can NOT be scientifically determined. Therefore, the BELIEF about when a fetus becomes a PERSON is SUBJECTIVE. Therefore, the belief about whether abortion is murder or not is a subjective, MORAL argument.


Get with the program.

Does a small intestine contain many different types of organs? Does a small intestine contain a central nervous system?

Does a zygote contain many types of organs? Does a zygote contain a central nervous system?


That's a lazy comparison. Saying not all babies will become Mozart is related to talent and not humanity.

I don't think either the chance of a zygote becoming an adult or a toddler becoming Mozart has anything to do with "humanity." One could reasonably attribute both to talent and luck.


Where, to you, does human life begin then, if not at the zygote? At the blastula? Gastrula? The first beat of the heart? Development of the eyes?

I've already been over this. "Human life" includes blood cells and tumors. I see nothing magical about "human life." Personhood is a different matter, and when and how it begins is for individuals to decide, since there is no obvious scientific way to determine personhood.

I've already been over this. "Human life" includes blood cells and tumors. I see nothing magical about "human life." Personhood is a different matter, and when and how it begins is for individuals to decide, since there is no obvious scientific way to determine personhood.

Though you then go on to tell me that I'm wrong. You speculate that, because embryos have a possibility of dying, then they have no "personhood." Still birth can also happen. The baby exists... but it is not alive. Does that make it human?

I don't think either the chance of a zygote becoming an adult or a toddler becoming Mozart has anything to do with "humanity." One could reasonably attribute both to talent and luck.

Which is exactly what I said.

Which is exactly what I said.

No, you said my comparison was lousy because it involved talent rather than humanity, which necessarily implies that the thing I was comparing it to involved humanity rather than talent.

NEWSFLASH, *genius*

The debate about abortion has ALWAYS been one of morals. HAD you actually read my post, you might have seen that.


So one more time for the slower members of our audience:

Viability can NOT be scientifically determined. Therefore, the BELIEF about when a fetus becomes a PERSON is SUBJECTIVE. Therefore, the belief about whether abortion is murder or not is a subjective, MORAL argument.


Get with the program.

Luckily, however, YOU do not get to dictate morality for everyone else. YOUR opinion does not trump anyone else's.

Oh. Sorry. I guess I must've missed your passage, then.

Like I said, this debate is of opinion, whether based on morals or not, and not simply a moral debate.

No, you said my comparison was lousy because it involved talent rather than humanity, which necessarily implies that the thing I was comparing it to involved humanity rather than talent.

I said your comparison was lousy because the example involved talent and not humanity, i.e. human development.

Oi.

Like I said, this debate is of opinion, whether based on morals or not, and not simply a moral debate.

*sigh* Which is exactly what I said. I never said it was a strictly moral debate. I said that when a fetus becomes human is based on personal opinion. I said that the ABORTION debate was a moral one - based on the premise that a fetus is already human, it is considered murder by some. Two totally different issues.

Though you then go on to tell me that I'm wrong. You speculate that, because embryos have a possibility of dying, then they have no "personhood." Still birth can also happen. The baby exists... but it is not alive. Does that make it human?

I find this post rather confusing. (The fact that it's 3 AM may have something to do with this...) Zygotes are not people because they meet very few of the conditions most people place on personhood. They are alive, yes. They have human DNA, yes. However, they lack things like brains and hearts, which most people would consider fairly necessary elements of being a living person. The fact that they might become people does not make them people, any more than the fact that you might take viola lessons makes you a violist.

As for your last two sentences, I simply don't have any idea what you're saying. Where did dead babies come into this?

When the hell did this become a debate about morals? Anyone?! This is an argument about opinion, not "moral" dictatorship.

...

I said your comparison was lousy because the example involved talent and not humanity, i.e. human development.

Oi.

"Humanity" isn't a synonym of "human development," to my knowledge. Nonetheless, both cases do involve human development. One involves embryonic development, and one involves childhood development. Both cases could reasonably be argued to be dependent upon some combination of "talent" (which admittedly takes on odd meanings when referring to a zygote) and luck.

I find this post rather confusing. (The fact that it's 3 AM may have something to do with this...) Zygotes are not people because they meet very few of the conditions most people place on personhood. They are alive, yes. They have human DNA, yes. However, they lack things like brains and hearts, which most people would consider fairly necessary elements of being a living person. The fact that they might become people does not make them people, any more than the fact that you might take viola lessons makes you a violist.

As for your last two sentences, I simply don't have any idea what you're saying. Where did dead babies come into this?

You brought up the lack of fertilization/implantation as an exemption from development, so I brought up a lack of living birth as an exemption from the broadly-accepted beginning of human life, birth.

I'm still pondering... where does human life begin?

I'm still pondering... where does human life begin?

When do you believe it begins? That's the best answer you're ever going to get, because their simply IS NO universal answer.

i.e. - that is. (Dictionary.com)

By your own definition, not all pianists are Mozarts. "Becoming" Mozart in no way is an example of human development but talent and determination.

i.e. - that is. (Dictionary.com)

By your own definition, not all pianists are Mozarts. "Becoming" Mozart in no way is an example of human development but talent and determination.

*sigh*

I know what "i.e." means, obviously. But as long as you're on Dictionary.com, would you like to look up the definition of "to develop"? :rolleyes:

Again, for a child to "become" Mozart involves luck and talent (and determination, if you like). For a zygote to "become" an infant involves luck and "talent," which term I already acknowledged takes on some rather different meanings when applied to a zygote, as well as a good deal of outside help. In both cases, the initial being has the potential to become the final being, but in neither case is the existence of the initial stage anything remotely close to a guarantee that it will achieve the final stage.

*sigh*

I know what "i.e." means, obviously. But as long as you're on Dictionary.com, would you like to look up the definition of "to develop"? :rolleyes:

Again, for a child to "become" Mozart involves luck and talent (and determination, if you like). For a zygote to "become" an infant involves luck and "talent," which term I already acknowledged takes on some rather different meanings when applied to a zygote, as well as a good deal of outside help. In both cases, the initial being has the potential to become the final being, but in neither case is the existence of the initial stage anything remotely close to a guarantee that it will achieve the final stage.

"Humanity" isn't a synonym of "human development,"

Leads me to believe otherwise.


develop (Dictionary.com)

1. to bring out the capabilities or possibilities of; bring to a more advanced or effective state
(snip)
6. Biology. a. to cause to go through the process of natural evolution from a previous and lower stage
b. to cause to progress from an embryonic to an adult form
(snip)
12. to grow into a more mature or advanced state; advance; expand
13. to come gradually into existence or operation; be evolved.


No mention of luck or talent.

Leads me to believe otherwise.

Disagreeing with you means I don't know the meaning of words? Oooookay. Though you seem to have difficulty with analogies, imagine that I said, "I said this had to do with cheese, i.e. bread." Would you not inform me that it was illogical to expect someone to deduce that I meant "bread" when I said "cheese"?

No mention of luck or talent.

You know, I'm really tempted to use the "headbang" smiley right now. Given that it's 4 AM and I no longer have a good reason to be awake, I think I shall instead content myself with sighing at our apparent inability to communicate even semi-reasonably and go to bed.

You support murdering living human beings. congrats here is your humanitarian award.

Let me ask you a question...

It is estimated that 30000 odd children die every DAY from waterborne disease, AIDS and starvation.

30000 deaths of children already born and alive. A day.

You are seemingly very passionate about the deaths of children.

What are you doing to to address this issue?

It seems to me that all you are interested in is controlling the right of women to control their own bodies. Otherwise you'd be raising this issue as well. Your silence pretty much condemns you.

Have you noticed that all the majority of liberals do is whine, yet they never do anything about it. They just sit their, on their computers whining about the most trivial matters and prioritising higher then important matters.

For instance they would probably care more about a picture of Jesus being hung up in school then a terrible terrorist attack killing thousands of people and causing despair for many.

Does anyone else notice this?

Yes I realise the irony of me also whining on the computer

Do you seriously think the majority of liberals (and those who actually have power & influence) are the same liberals who sit on their computers all day? If so, I have nothing else to say.

In two years the Democratic party will most likely win the White House.

Let's see what they do afterwards first.

When do you believe it begins? That's the best answer you're ever going to get, because their simply IS NO universal answer.

Well, there's the Bible that says human life begins when the baby is out up to the navel.

Once you accept that, the rest becomes window dressing because only the literalist bible bangers believe that it you can find a point at which a human becomes a human.

Replacing a qualified white candidate with an unqualified black candidate.

Two equal populations might look something like this.:
White
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
%Poor ------%Middle Class------%Rich
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Black

There are an equal percentage of white and black people at each demographic.

However due to a racist past the population spreads are not equal

They probably look something like:

White
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
%Poor ------%Middle Class------%Rich
1 5 9 13 17 19 15 11 7 2 1
Black

You are suggesting that you are going to somehow make these populations equal just by helping the poor?

You can help the poor whites and blacks equally as much as you like and the spreads will remain just as unequal… the past wrongs will never be righted.

When you can’t tell the difference between the white population and the black population in terms of socioeconomic status then you will have an equal society..
You can only do that by helping those in the community that has suffered in preference to those in the prosperous community.

If you help blacks and whites equally the distributions will always remain the same.

If however for every 1% of the white population you help 2% in the black population after a while it may look more like this

White
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
%Poor ------%Middle Class------%Rich
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1
Black

Eventually it might even be back to

White
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
%Poor ------%Middle Class------%Rich
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Black



Sure it seems rough that our generation has to suffer for the sins perpetrated in the past.. but unless the imbalance is redressed you can’t possibly have a non racist society .. because there is no equality between the races….

Have you noticed that all the majority of liberals do is whine, yet they never do anything about it. They just sit their, on their computers whining about the most trivial matters and prioritising higher then important matters.

For instance they would probably care more about a picture of Jesus being hung up in school then a terrible terrorist attack killing thousands of people and causing despair for many.

Does anyone else notice this?

Yes I realise the irony of me also whining on the computer

According to the right wing, liberals have managed to undermine the moral foundation of my country, completely strip away the "Christian values" upon which we were supposedly built, drag the nation down into sexual depravity, thwart Dear Leader's plans for victory in Iraq, destroy the economy, and brainwash an entire generation into believing that women and brown people are actual human beings.

Seriously, you haters are going to have to sit down and talk, so you can get your stories straight.

Either liberals are ineffectual (ooh, try "effeminate"!) and pointlessly whining, or they are deadly dangerous and destroying the country. You're going to have to pick one.

When do you believe it begins? That's the best answer you're ever going to get, because their simply IS NO universal answer.
Sure there is. There is a very easy and simple answer to "When does human life begin?"

Answer: It doesn't, at least not any more. There is no point at which non-human or non-living material magically becomes living human material. A living human egg may meet up with a living human sperm and fuse to create a living human fertilized egg, which may then become a living human zygote, an embryo, a fetus, an infant, a toddler, a child, a teen, and finally an adult. All of these stages are human life.

If you want to ask when human PERSONHOOD begins, that's an entirely different question, because first you're going to need to define what "personhood" is. This is going to end up being a philosophical question, because science can't tell you how you should define "personhood."

However, "alive" and "human" can be biologically defined, and thus the question of when human life begins can be answered very concretely.

There's an easy way of getting rid of unwanted children:
http://bear-blog.blogspirit.com/images/medium_child_catcher.jpg

Come on Zygotes arn't people! People not govt should decide what they do with their bodies. Where was all of this christian love of children when orphans had to go to awful orphanages and workhouses??????


My answer to Affrmiative Action/Welfare etc........Pass a Negative tax. Give everyone at least $600 a month. $1200 if you work at least 20hrs a week.(Tax free) Also have free college tuition. Open up online campuses and sattiite schools so everyone can get an education. Make it a goal that by 2020 everyone have at least a Diploma or Associates Degree.

There's an easy way of getting rid of unwanted children:
http://bear-blog.blogspirit.com/images/medium_child_catcher.jpg

Come on Zygotes arn't people! People not govt should decide what they do with their bodies. Where was all of this christian love of children when orphans had to go to awful orphanages and workhouses??????

You say that as though orphans don't face similar fates today.

Whenever I hear somebody bleating about "the unborn children," I feel like slapping them across the face. When every born child in the world has a home, enough food to eat and clean water to drink, and the medical care that they need to be healthy, THEN maybe I will be willing to consider listening to people bitch about the poor gestating zygotes. But until then, shut the fuck up and go adopt a kid who needs a home.

When do you believe it begins? That's the best answer you're ever going to get, because their simply IS NO universal answer.

on what grounds do you know that?

Well, there's the Bible that says human life begins when the baby is out up to the navel.


I don't believe in the bible. Not everyone in the world does. You can't use the religion of *some* to dictate what *everyone* can do.

on what grounds do you know that?


As I have ALREADY stated, there is NO definitive scientific way to determine at what point a fetus becomes viable. Until the point it can survive on its own, independently of the mother, it is only a *potential* life scientifically.

As I have ALREADY stated, there is NO definitive scientific way to determine at what point a fetus becomes viable. Until the point it can survive on its own, independently of the mother, it is only a *potential* life scientifically.

I have to agree with you there. As has been pointed out earlier in the thread there is a big difference between being alive and being an independant life.

The egg was alive, the sperm was alive (the sperm even independantly alive. The blastocyst when formed was also alive. Was it anymore an independant life as a blastocyst than it was as an egg... well I don't really think so. Without the mother the blastocyst has no independant life.... just the same as the mothers leg would have no independant life without the rest of her body. The foetus is physically part of the mother and gains all sustenance from her. The foetus becomes an independant life when if can survive without that link.

The idea of being upset for a potential life lost is bizarre to me. Every egg in a womans ovaries is a potential life. Each egg if fertilised could have been me.. or it could have been you. So is it criminal not to fertilise the egg? Is every period the woman has as bad as having an abortion because it was a potential life lost?

Until an actual independant life is formed the loss is of life.. not of a life.

You say that as though orphans don't face similar fates today.

Whenever I hear somebody bleating about "the unborn children," I feel like slapping them across the face. When every born child in the world has a home, enough food to eat and clean water to drink, and the medical care that they need to be healthy, THEN maybe I will be willing to consider listening to people bitch about the poor gestating zygotes. But until then, shut the fuck up and go adopt a kid who needs a home.

They do suffer the same. Kids in third world nations sent to sweatshops or forced into prostitution. I would love to adopt a kid when I find the right partner but right know it's illegal in my state. (as of 2006)

I think it's stupid not to let gay couples adopt but have millions of kids in foster care with sometimes abusive foster parents.

Because putting it in big letters makes it true!

:eek:

there are WMD in Iraq

yeah......
<.<
>.>

The whole time you have been here, you have only noticed the two threads ever made by me?

Wow, now thats a lame argument.

Your celebrity does not precede you; therefore the argument stands.

Your celebrity does not precede you; therefore the argument stands.

Also, this was his third or fourth thread, IIRC.

You say that as though orphans don't face similar fates today.

Whenever I hear somebody bleating about "the unborn children," I feel like slapping them across the face. When every born child in the world has a home, enough food to eat and clean water to drink, and the medical care that they need to be healthy, THEN maybe I will be willing to consider listening to people bitch about the poor gestating zygotes. But until then, shut the fuck up and go adopt a kid who needs a home.

Whenever I hear somebody bleating about "saving all the children in the world before saving anyone else first," I feel like slapping them across the face. When every person in the world is rendered the respect of being a fellow human being regardless of class and situation, with a right to their own life regardless of some artificial hierarchy standard implemented by the people that think it is okay for them to implement a pecking order standard of who should be saved first and who is going to have to wait to be serviced next, THEN maybe I will be willing to consider listening to people bitch about why we shouldn’t try to help who ever we can whenever we can all of the time regardless that we can’t help everyone all of the time. But until then, shut the fuck up and go adopt a kid who needs a home.

Fixed.

They do suffer the same. Kids in third world nations sent to sweatshops or forced into prostitution. I would love to adopt a kid when I find the right partner but right know it's illegal in my state. (as of 2006)

I think it's stupid not to let gay couples adopt but have millions of kids in foster care with sometimes abusive foster parents.

Perhaps single parent adoptions are not impossible in your state. But as to restrictions on who can and who cannot adopt and recommendations of who is best and who is less good choices, do you not agree with such standards at all?

What about Race, Religion and Culture favortisms is assiging children to families that are like themselves whenever possible, do you not agree that these goals serve a honorable goal? Should Jewish children go to Jewish homes whenever possible? Should Hmong children go to Hmong homes whenver possible? Should African-American Children go to African-American homes whenever possible, first, before they are then adopted to other homes if none of their type are available first?

...
The egg was alive, the sperm was alive (the sperm even independantly alive. The blastocyst when formed was also alive. Was it anymore an independant life as a blastocyst than it was as an egg... well I don't really think so. Without the mother the blastocyst has no independant life.... just the same as the mothers leg would have no independant life without the rest of her body. The foetus is physically part of the mother and gains all sustenance from her. The foetus becomes an independant life when if can survive without that link.
...

It seems to me you are confusing living cells with live organisms... Living and Alive, are two different things. Consciousness has nothing to do with it. A tree is not conscious, but it is a living tree. My hair root is a living cell and it grows a hair, but it is not alive.

It seems to me you are confusing living cells with live organisms... Living and Alive, are two different things.

Maybe according to you but not in its common usage:
Alive adj.
1. Having life; living. See Synonyms at living.

Consciousness has nothing to do with it. A tree is not conscious, but it is a living tree. My hair root is a living cell and it grows a hair, but it is not alive.
However assuming we do use your bizarre and somewhat arbritary distinction.

How about a bacterium? Is it alive or living? It doesn't reproduce sexually...

How about a sperm cell? Is it alive or living? It doesn't reproduce but it can live apart from the human body.

How about an individual slime mold? Its a single celled organism that joins with other single celled organisms to form a slug complete with differentiated components. Each living cell was happily living by itself previous to it becoming a multicellular organism. The organism makes a fruiting body and from the spores individual single celled organisms grow...

How about something like lichen. Its made up of yeast cells and fungal cells. Is the lichen alive? What about the yeast cells? What about the fungal cells?

What about a cancer. Is it alive or living? Hela cells are used for human testing. They grow on a petridish and will essentially live forever. They contain all of Helen Lanes genetic information though they were originally just a few cerviacal cells. There is more living, reproducing material from Helen Lane stored around the world in labs now (probably tonnes) than there ever was when she was alive (though I hear she was a big lady)

The point is your distinction between alive and living is meaningless.. it only matters whether they are dependant or independant.

A foetus is dependant.. a baby is independant. Its a much more practical definition.

As I have ALREADY stated, there is NO definitive scientific way to determine at what point a fetus becomes viable. Until the point it can survive on its own, independently of the mother, it is only a *potential* life scientifically.

that sounds suspiciously like a universal answer to me

Have you noticed that all the majority of liberals do is whine, yet they never do anything about it. /me doesn't whine and is involved in government, so there you go.

Wow.. never would have guessed this would turn into an abortion debate.

It seems to me like pretty much europe, much of south america, and most of the other democratic governments around the world are run by parties whose political orientation is to the left of the US democratic party. Seems to me like they are you know, participating in government and stuff.

How many US supported authoritarian regimes have been overthrown in the last 30 years? quite a few, seems like those liberals are getting stuff done. Chavez isnt whining he's acting, Mandela acted a democracy right into South Africa over the protests of the United States. Well, shit. Looks like those liberals have, on a global scale, got thier shit together.

Whiny liberals is redundant. That's their entire ideology.

Have you ever taken a look into, say... global politics?

Whiny liberals is redundant. That's their entire ideology.

Yeah. Whining about gays getting married. Whining about minority culture becoming a part of the mainstream. Whining about made up efforts to destroy Christmas. Whining about taxes. And disrespect of their religion which orders them to pay taxes that they say as Christians, they don't want to pay.

Whiny liberals make me puke.

No. Wait. Who am I thinking of again? Oh right, whiny cowardly conservative hypocrites.

Maybe according to you but not in its common usage:

However assuming we do use your bizarre and somewhat arbritary distinction.

How about a bacterium? Is it alive or living? It doesn't reproduce sexually...

How about a sperm cell? Is it alive or living? It doesn't reproduce but it can live apart from the human body.

How about an individual slime mold? Its a single celled organism that joins with other single celled organisms to form a slug complete with differentiated components. Each living cell was happily living by itself previous to it becoming a multicellular organism. The organism makes a fruiting body and from the spores individual single celled organisms grow...

How about something like lichen. Its made up of yeast cells and fungal cells. Is the lichen alive? What about the yeast cells? What about the fungal cells?

What about a cancer. Is it alive or living? Hela cells are used for human testing. They grow on a petridish and will essentially live forever. They contain all of Helen Lanes genetic information though they were originally just a few cerviacal cells. There is more living, reproducing material from Helen Lane stored around the world in labs now (probably tonnes) than there ever was when she was alive (though I hear she was a big lady)

The point is your distinction between alive and living is meaningless.. it only matters whether they are dependant or independant.

A foetus is dependant.. a baby is independant. Its a much more practical definition.


Nice try, but you came up short in the end there. Parasitic existence does not disqualify one of being an independent living organism...

A fetus passes all the tests of life and living organism, whereas a living section of an organism is incomplete and does not. The seven "signs of life": 1) living things have highly organized, complex structures; 2) living things maintain a chemical composition that is quite different from their surroundings; 3) living things have the capacity to take in, transform, and use energy from the environment; 4) living things can respond to stimuli; 5) living things have the capacity to reproduce themselves; 6) living things grow and develop; and 7) living things are well-suited to their environment.

American liberalism is hypocritical madness.

Support the soldiers but not the mission.
Claim to be humanitarian but support infanticide.
Want to help the poor but pick the most inefficient method to do it.
Support equality by giving more opportunities to a person because of their race
use the donations of billionaires to preach class warfare

It all seems rather absurd.
To be fair, American conservatism is just as bad, or worse.

Support the soldiers by sending them needlessly to death.
Oppose abortion because it kills innocent people, but support the Iraq war.
Want to help the poor but oppose the most successful method yet devised in history.

Conservatives are anti-muslim-tents, liberals are pro. End of story.
So you think this is the ultimate defining issue in Western politics?

Assuming you're attempting to refer to abortion here, my answer is no, they claim to be humanitarian, and actually believe that women are human, too!
There is no human right to get an abortion, but there is a right to live. Abortion is manslaughter, if not murder.

Oddly enough, part of being equal is helping those who are at a disadvantage. Funny how that works.
The poor should be aided regardless of race. Race should have nothing to do with it.

Well, that one does sound absurd, since I haven't the faintest clue what you're referring to.
Probably George Soros, but the campaigns he supports can't really be described as socialist, or supportive of class warfare.

Their are many hypocritical conservatives. But the liberal ones are worse because they are the ones who have been fooling people forever with promises of equality, justice, and compassion that they can never seem to deliever.
The American conservatives promised peace and democracy in Iraq, and restoration of morality in America. They will clearly not achieve either.

Or, y'know, I could claim that, on average, black people are at a disadvantage because the facts back me up. Discrimination manifestly exists; admitting that to be the case and working to fix it is rather obviously not racist.
It's better to aid the poor based on their income figures, which is colour-blind, and more solid than wondering if they're "a real black person".

Yes.
Do you live in America?

You stated earlier that life begins at conception. At conception, what is present is a single cell, featuring DNA which identifies it as Homo sapiens. A blood cell is a single cell, featuring DNA which identifies it as Homo sapiens. Please explain how the former is human life and the latter is not.
At conception, that is the only cell that the future person has.

It's much more important than the cell which just rubbed onto my keyboard, which was just one of trillions.

There is no human right to get an abortion, but there is a right to live. Abortion is manslaughter, if not murder.

1) yeah there is - a person has the right to control their own body, especially when it comes to excluding others from using it against their wishes. in fact the right to abortion actually renders the entire debate about personhood moot, because it would be perfectly just to abort your grandmother should she wind up in somebodies uterus somehow.

2) i've got a dollar that says you personally actually believe that blastocysts and embryos aren't persons.


It's better to aid the poor based on their income figures, which is colour-blind, and more solid than wondering if they're "a real black person".

it is better to deal with the fact that racism actually exists and has actual measurable impacts than to pretend it doesn't and hope it goes away on it own. has there ever been a case where ignoring a problem really made it go away?

you deserve a high five.
Why, for not being a racist?

We observe the liberal in its natural habitat.
Weren't you just talking about dehumanising certain groups of people?

It will say or do anything to avoid admitting that abortion is the robbing of a human being's life.;)
Sadly, they really believe what they're saying.

1) yeah there is - a person has the right to control their own body, especially when it comes to excluding others from using it against their wishes. in fact the right to abortion actually renders the entire debate about personhood moot, because it would be perfectly just to abort your grandmother should she wind up in somebodies uterus somehow.

2) i've got a dollar that says you personally actually believe that blastocysts and embryos aren't persons.
1. The right to live is the ultimate right, it comes first even when it conflicts with other rights.

2. No, I don't think that they are. I don't believe that abortion is the killing of a living person, but I think it is the killing of a person that will live. That's why I consider it to be more like manslaughter than murder. It's just the reckless ending of a life.

it is better to deal with the fact that racism actually exists and has actual measurable impacts than to pretend it doesn't and hope it goes away on it own. has there ever been a case where ignoring a problem really made it go away?
But race-based, rather than class-based affirmative action serves to needlessly help rich black people when it should be helping poor white people.

Class-based affirmative action helps negate the effects of both racism and capitalism at the same time.

needlessly help rich black people

Why "needlessly"?

1. The right to live is the ultimate right, it comes first even when it conflicts with other rights.

so forced live kidney donations from everybody then?

At conception, that is the only cell that the future person has.

It's much more important than the cell which just rubbed onto my keyboard, which was just one of trillions.

Conservatives have an accounting scam in which they record projected profits in calculating the value of their company. Meaning if they make a nickel a year for the next infinite number of years, they calculate the value of their company as priceless.

The same is equally bullshit with a zygote.

1. The right to live is the ultimate right, it comes first even when it conflicts with other rights.

2. No, I don't think that they are. I don't believe that abortion is the killing of a living person, but I think it is the killing of a person that will live. That's why I consider it to be more like manslaughter than murder. It's just the reckless ending of a life.


If you consider abortion analogous to manslaughter, let me add my own analogy. When someone forces an unwanted item into a woman's body against her will, we call that rape. Forcing a woman to keep an unwanted item in her body against her will is thus reasonably similar to rape, yes?

So, a question for you - which do you consider to be a worse crime, manslaughter or rape?

No one is suggesting that abortion is a wonderful, perfect solution. (Well, some people might suggest that - there are crazy people on these forums. I'm certainly not suggesting such, anyway.) The point of the pro-choice argument is not "yay! killing fetuses is fun!" The point is simply, as the name suggests, that whether or not to carry a fetus to term is the choice of an individual, and no one has the right to dictate that choice. Nor is the point of the pro-life movement really what you stated in your point #1. The right to life trumps an awful lot of things, but it does not trump other people's rights to control of their own bodies and lives. If you really believed that it did, you would have to consider it perfectly reasonable for hospital employees to kidnap a man off the street, tie him up, and remove his left kidney, so long as they gave that kidney to someone who needed it to live. Do you? Or would you object if this were done to you?

To me, it's not about life, but about personhood. The fetus is obviously alive, but is not obviously a person. If it is not a person yet, than the only difference between an abortion and abstaining from sex or using birth control is a medical one.

If the fetus is a person, then it become a question of whether one person should, under any circumstances, have to live with another person living effectively as a parasite inside them for nine months.

Nice try, but you came up short in the end there. Parasitic existence does not disqualify one of being an independent living organism...

A fetus passes all the tests of life and living organism, whereas a living section of an organism is incomplete and does not. The seven "signs of life": 1) living things have highly organized, complex structures; 2) living things maintain a chemical composition that is quite different from their surroundings; 3) living things have the capacity to take in, transform, and use energy from the environment; 4) living things can respond to stimuli; 5) living things have the capacity to reproduce themselves; 6) living things grow and develop; and 7) living things are well-suited to their environment.

Nice try, but you don't know the qualifications for life.

1. Internal regulation
2. Composed of one or more cells
3. Metabolism
4. Self-replicating
5. Stimulus-response
6. Growth
7. Capable of evolution

Nothing more, and #1 and #7 are arguable.

Perhaps single parent adoptions are not impossible in your state. But as to restrictions on who can and who cannot adopt and recommendations of who is best and who is less good choices, do you not agree with such standards at all?

What about Race, Religion and Culture favortisms is assiging children to families that are like themselves whenever possible, do you not agree that these goals serve a honorable goal? Should Jewish children go to Jewish homes whenever possible? Should Hmong children go to Hmong homes whenver possible? Should African-American Children go to African-American homes whenever possible, first, before they are then adopted to other homes if none of their type are available first?


I hope I can adopt a kid as a single person.

As far as race, i'm bi-racial(White/East Indian). I hope maybe I could adopt a girl from India. They generally are not wanted by families cause of the dowries. I think a person should be able to adopt a child as long as the person respects the child's heritage.

Yes, a fetus is alive, and it is a 'homo sapiens'. However, it is not a human as such. To be human, you really need a reasonably developed mind. The mind is what makes a human 'human'- nothing else. If you took a brain out of a human and kept it alive in a jar, then it's still a human as it has a human mind. I'd say that an artificial intelligence that functions in the same way to a human mind is human, despite its lack of human DNA. By contrast, if you took the brain out of a body but kept the body alive, it is not human by any stretch of the imagination, as it can't think. Fetuses don't have a developed brain = not 'human' and therefore not requiring rights of personhood.

By the way, before anyone starts with 'ZOMG EUTHANASIA!', I fully support the right for a guardian to kill a severely mentally disabled charge.