Slashdot Mirror
Libertarian Badnarik an Election Spoiler?
Mr. Slippery writes "The New York Sun points out that Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik could tip the balance in this year's presidental election, like Ralph Nader is accused of having done in 2000. Bush's policies may be driving some traditional conservative Republican voters into the Libertarian camp. Rasmussen polls have put him as high as 5% in New Mexico and 3% in Nevada, which could make a difference in which major party candidate takes those states."
I would say who cares, I am a Republican and support Bush, but if some one wants to vote for Michael Dadnarik then let them vote for him they have all the right to, he has just as much right to run, just as Nadar does. Even if he "costs"* Bush the election, there are things higher in principle then victory at all cost.
I for one don't care who runs, and how many people, I have looked at some of the other candidate, I even looked at http://www.peroutka2004.com/ I like his pro-life stance, but he fails to do separation of church and state, and as a devout Lutheran that scares me, so I can not vote for him, and leaves be back at the only other pro-life candidate Bush, unless any one can give me another one to look at.
* I put costs in quoats, because in a republic like we have a politician does not own another persons vote, the person gives a vote as a gift to a candidate. I will be giving mine to Bush, but Bush does not own it.
Even though the constitutional party candidate will definately get fewer votes- I see him as being a bigger danger to Bush than Badnarik. You see, unlike Bush, who is lying about being a social, political, and financial conservative, Peroutka's the real deal. And of all of the third party candidates- he's the only one who is the real deal (save maybe the Prohibitionists- but they haven't been on the ballot in even a reasonable number of states since the 21st Ammendement, IIRC, which one repealed the 18th anyway?). That makes Peroutka the obvious choice for the social conservative who doesn't want to vote for Bush the Betrayer of the Unborn- or the political/fiscal conservative who hates what is going on with the growth of government and therefore cannot vote for either Kerry or Bush.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
It's generally assumed that Libertarians draw from Republicans, but this isn't really true--I think they draw about 50-50. Libertarians have the small government philosophy associated with Republicans (although Bush has been anything but 'small governmetn'), but they also have the social liberties that are associated with Democrats (Who thinks the Libertarians want a Constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage?) So unlike Nader and the Greens, the Libertarians draw from both parties. They might have 5% of the vote in NM, but that doesn't mean they'll have any effect on the outcome of the election.
"My girlfriend's got sodium laureth sulfate hair."
I agree with Peroutka on a lot of things, but he is extremely Biblically based. I am planning on running for a public office someday, and my decisions are also influenced by Biblical things but I do not run around saying I chose to do X because God said we should do that all the time. I am heavily considering voting for Peroutka this year. Also remember that Seperation of Church and State was to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around. We have it so that the state does not control the church as Europe had for years, religious views are supposed to be encouraged in the political realm but it's become politically incorrect to do so since the 1940's/50s and has grown ever since.
the Political Inquirer
My consern is will he try to make it so you have to be a chirstian to be a full citizian? is he going to have forced pray in schools? Well that is "great" for the christians, but what happens if lets say some one who wants all this, but is not a christian but say a muslum? if we want God in public school, ok "great" but which god? you are right seperation for church and state is not freedom from religion, but it is still freedom OF religion, and my fear is that Peroutka may not understand this aka all regiogions are equaly protected, be it christians, muslumes, jews, athiasts, satinists, what ever.
Depends- what kind of Lutheran are you? Do you accept the recent (well, 5 year old now) Joint Declaration with the Roman Catholic Church on Justification? If so- I would urge you to strongly consider changing from being legally pro-life to functionally pro-life legally pro-choice; in which case Kerry would fit your view (seeing as how Kerry believes that life begins at conception, and simply disagrees with the idea that legality will control, or even can control, how many abortions actually happen- and would instead seek other good works that would reduce abortion). The problem with Kerry's point of view though is that it's based on reducing abortion due to works (such as universal health care and other direct support of the mother) as opposed to reducing abortion based on faith in the goodness of the American People (to follow law regardless of where it leads).
Oddly enough, Kerry brought up the same faith vs. faith and works argument in the first debate on foreign policy- as a major difference between his strategy and the President's strategy on the War on Terror (it helped that the President kept repeating, over and over and over, that he had "Faith" that we will prevail in Iraq and elsewhere).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I don't want to be associated with that, myself.
IMO, the only way a third party is really going to get launched is if a couple of high profile guys from the two major parties decide they've had enough and walk. I wouldn't waste a vote on Badnarik just to "send a message" (especially after being so forcefully reminded that there is a pretty big difference between the republicans and the dems), but I'd give serious consideration to a party running one of the men in Washington who I have real respect for.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
I mean, is it too much to hope that Badnarik could win a state? Or two? or 50? :P
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Yeah, and every illegal download would be a valid purchase.
Maybe those people voting for a third party would like to make a point. Instead of voting for Bush or Kerry they still have the possiblity of not voting, which they'd even prefer to both.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
The LCMS which I am a member of does not support the "joint declaration"
which could make a difference in which major party candidate takes those states.
... I'm saying that because anything that makes enough difference to point out that the 2 parties of today don't address a large portion of the needs of the public is a Good Thing.
Good.
And I'm not saying that because I am a Libertarian, I think Badnarik is full of it too
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
[SARCASM]After 9-11, do we really want muslims to feel welcome here at all?[/SARCASM]
The real answer is yes- as long as they are tolerant of other religions. Prayer in school, if done proberly, can teach tolerance in the secular realm. Freedom of religion should not be construed to mean freedom FROM the religion of others.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Republican Bob Barr (of all people) just wrote this article here is the last couple of paragraphs :
"Bush's problem is that true conservatives remember their history. They recall that in recent years when the nation enjoyed the fruits of actual conservative fiscal and security policies, a Democrat occupied the White House and Congress was controlled by a Republican majority that actually fought for a substantive conservative agenda.
History's a troublesome thing for presidents. Even though most voters don't take much of a historical perspective into the voting booth with them, true conservatives do. Hmmm. Who's the Libertarian candidate again?"
If someone like bob barr endorses Badnarik, this could get REALLY interesting.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
From my understanding, the electoral college is made up of electors from the Democratic and Republican parties, and the winner of a state gets to send its electors to vote.
How does this work with non-duopoly candidates? Do the Libertarian/Green/etc parties have their own set of electors too? What about "non-aligned" candidates like Nader, who claim no party affiliation at all? How would it work if by the grace of god one of them captures a state?
I never said freedom from religion, I am just talking against force pray, I have no problem, infact it should be alowed, and even incoraged, for students to pray, and if some students what to put a religous group together at school they should not be prevented.
Ok- in which case Bush is still the right answer- and here's why: He believes VERY strongly in Sola Fide (which Peroutka, as a Catholic, does not) and in Once Saved Always Saved (the same idea that Zwingli came up with during the reformation, that Christ's promises are good once and forever). Faith can move mountains- said Christ and Luther- and while I'm a Catholic who will be voting for Kerry, I've got to admit my faith in faith and works is moral, not absolute, certainty. For all I know, Bush's faith will pull off a miracle yet. I see no signs of such a miracle- but it might.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Seperation of church and state is meant to go both ways. The state controlled the church in Europe, but the church also controlled the state for long periods of time. If a monarch didn't do what the Pope wanted the Pope would have him excommunicated. Go re-read your history because you clearly seem to have forgotten that. One of the things to remember is that at the time the Constitution was written you had many members of many differant religions and many people remembered the lack of religious tolerance in England (and other European nations, often state sponsored) just a 100 years previously. Religious influence on the state can be harmful to those of other religions hence it's a good idea to seperate religious doctrine from state decisions, any state decisions.
Just because your religion says abortion is wrong doesn't mean that mine agrees with you. Hence the government should stay out of the way as it can often come down to a religious belief. I'm not saying that a politician can't or shouldn't allow thier religion to influence thier decisions or morality, but they have to keep in mind that not everyone shares thier religious beliefs. With that in mind they should do what is best for the majority, not just what is best in the eyes of thier church.
One note, on the abourtion statement, if life starts at conseption (the crux of the issue) then no one, even a non-religous person could support abortion because to end a life is murder, go ask any one (outside of jail or mental instutions, and then even some of them might say the same thing) MURDER IS WRONG.
The problem with the debate is people do not deal with the crux of the issue, the one that every ones arguments will stand or fall on, is the baby/fetuse (use what ever term you want) alive?
Why should prayer be allowed or encouraged? In most cases it seems to be an issue of prayer being allowed during class time, or having a moment of prayer at the start of the first class. This isn't the right time or place for that. It's time to start class and get to work. Students should be allowed and encouraged to do their prayer (if they want) before or after school or classes. I think that's the issue really. School resources should be used to educate our children. After school is another issue. I personally never attended a school where religous groups (of students) were not allowed to use the classes or what not to meet. Occassionally you read about some school where that has happened, but they seem to be in the minority and I think if you evaluate them you'll find it's some overzealous adminstrator making that bad decision.
I will vote libertarian this year. I will vote libertarian and hope that the libertarian vote costs Bush the election. Why? For the same reason why not all Democrats were unhappy when Gore lost to Bush. The idea is that if you make the next closest guy to your ideals lose, then next time around they will lean more your way. If the libertarian vote was to cost the Republicans the election, it might very well get them to put forward a candidate who isn't as eager to spend my money as any other democrat. As far as I can tell, Bush is a democrat who is pro life. That sure as shit isn't going to get my vote.
That's really interesting, because the booklet I read last week (printed this year) from the Catholic Church disagrees with this supposed "Joint Declaration." It lists five non-negotiable issues to consider when voting, and the very first one was abortion. It stated that you absolutely cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate if you plan on voting according to Catholic morals.
I think it ironic that you want the govt to be pro-life to suit your religious sensibilities yet want seperation of state and religion.
Bush and Blair ate my sig!
What if my religion said murder was ok? Should the federal government force the states to legalize murder?
Abortion is not just a religious issue. It's an issue of human dignity. A human's first right is the right to life. Without this, no other rights have any meaning.
The moment the sperm meets ovum, it is a life, and a human life, and that life has all of the same rights as he/she will after birth nine months later. He/she has 46 chromosomes, distinct from either the mother and the father. He/she begins to divide on its own. His/her gender, blood type, hair color, eye color, and all other genetic physiological traits are determined. And this person should be treated with the rights and dignity of a human person from birth to natural death.
As the pre-born cannot speak for themselves, we must speak for them.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
I am not saying pray before class.
and how can we encouraged pray, and not force it? hard to do, but I would think that maybe if there is a student that is muslum, and wants to pray at lunch time, well maybe there could be a room where the muslums could go to and pray in quite, I belive that at lunch good muslums have a pray they are to pray that has actions they have to take, and need a mate. Well we could have rooms for this kind of stuff. For the christian, I don't know how this would be done, but maybe some kind of simulare thing. For the Jew, there could be more of a consern to provide koser food (ok not really pray, but I belive in the same vain)
Many claim that by voting for someone with a tiny chance of winning, you "waste" your vote by not using it to vote for one of the top two. However, if you vote for a third-party candidate, you send a very clear message with your vote that your candidate best represents your ideals.
In past elections, I have always voted my conscience, and that has always been for a third-party candidate. This year, though, I'm not so sure. I'm no Kerry fan, but another four years of Bush scares the hell out of me. And since this election looks like it will be very close I am almost inclined to vote for Kerry "just in case". On the other hand, I live in Massachusetts. Massachusetts almost always elects the Democrat, and Kerry is from Massachusetts. So, I may vote for Badnarik, figuring that my vote for Kerry won't help that much anyway.
I didn't get into that in detail because I didn't think it was terribly important to the original topic. So to go a little off topic here... When life begins is a much more philosophical than scientific issue. Often this philosophical issue is determined by religion. I have several very religious friends that believe at the moment of conception there is "life" in the womb. I have several non religious friends who don't believe it's life until it has consiousness and/or can survive outside the womb. Their opinions (and my own) are highly influenced by our beliefs.
So how can the government possibly make any decision when philosophy is shaping the debate more than science?
Who says I am only saying this for religious reasons? see this post I did
Again, this is a misunderstanding. We can vote for pro-choice candidates in some cases:
1) All the candidates are pro-choice
2) There are SIGNIFICANT other issues that counterbalance this.
3) Predicted results.
2 and 3 are a bit fuzzy. 3 is easier to explain: if one candidate is pro-life, but has a history of doing nothing to stop abortion, and the other candidate is pro-choice, and doesn't look likely to further the cause of abortion, it's effectively a non-issue. Many argue that Bush has not done enough against abortion (very true -- he signed a bill that gave something like $48 million to planned parenthood, and gave more to some international population control organization that advocates abortion.)
The crux of number 2 is defining what "significant" is. In order to be significant, it has to be another important life issue. For instance, if one candidate was pro-abortion but had nothing else against him, and another candidate was anti-abortion, but wanted to kill all blacks, we could vote for the pro-abortion candidates.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
The real answer is yes- as long as they are tolerant of other religions. Prayer in school, if done proberly, can teach tolerance in the secular realm. Freedom of religion should not be construed to mean freedom FROM the religion of others.
In general I agree, but prayer in school will amount to cooersion. Try telling the one kid who is an athiest (or simply non-christian in certain areas) that he doesn't have to pray while all his peers pray, and see how many bruses he has the next day. I say this having been struck by another student in a public school after I declared that I believe in evolution.
The only way to have freedom of religion is to keep those public institutions which require everyone's attendance free from religion.
Voluntary after/before school prayer meetings/groups are entirely different and should be allowed.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
I would ask the ones that do not think it is life is there, when does life begin? At birth, how about premature babies, what is the diffence between a 2 month premature baby and a 7 month unborn child?
That booklet was printed by Catholic Answers, not by the Magisterium. Some Bishops agree with it, some disagree- and quite a few say that the non-negotiables only matter if you're voteing for the candidate AGAINST one of the non-negotiables. My vote for Kerry is actually FOR one of the non-negotiables, abortion, because the so-called "pro-life" major party candidate has a rotten record on the subject (having paid for an abortion himself in 1971, and having the number of abortion procedures done in this country go up every year since he took office, after three years of constantly falling during the Clinton administration).
Sometimes a surface label like "pro-choice" or "pro-life" simply does NOT tell the whole story. Unfortuneately there are a few ultraorthodox and ultramontanist organizations both within, and recently excommunicated from, the Roman Catholic Church that are not quite thinking as deeply- and that's where the scandal of Kerry taking communion comes from.
Even in Church teaching- while that booklet is correct that abortion is always an objectively evil moral sin- there's a theological concept called the Principle of Double Effect. The classic case of the Principle of Double Effect is a medical condition known as Ectoptic Pregnancy- where the fetus is implanted in a fallopian tube instead of the womb. Under that circumstance, the choices for the doctor are:
1. Lose both mother and child when the fallopian tube bursts and the mother bleeds to death.
2. Perform an abortion and save the mother.
Due to the nature of ectopic pregnancy, the doctor MAY only have seconds to make the decision if the fallopian tube has already burst and the mother is unconscious in the wating room unaware that she was even pregnant. The Principle of Double Effect says that while the abortion will still be objectively evil and a sin- letting the mother die is a greater objective evil and ALSO a sin.
I would make the argument that reducing funding for medicare so that fewer poor mothers are covered, thus forcing them into the "choice" between a $6000 birth and homelessness due to bankruptcy and a $400 abortion, is objectively evil and makes a pro-life candidate no longer pro-life, based on the non-negotiable of abortion being always and forever an objective evil.
So as you can see- based on the principle of double effect, one can indeed vote for a pro-choice candidate; IF one is doing so with an informed conscience to church teaching and IF one is doing so for pro-life reasons.
To do otherwise, once having informed your conscience to the extent I have, is to support another 144,000 abortions a year, minimum (based on Priests For Life website, which states that someplace between 12% and 21% of abortions are done for economic reasons).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
First the Church did control the state, but there is no one organized all ruling religion in the United States. I am not Catholic, and the Catholic church has reformed. Plus it is anti-biblical to force Christianity on others.
When the constitution was written you said there were tons of people of different religions--are you referring to denominations of the Protestant Christians or actual religions? Probably 95% or more of the nation would profess themselves as Christians, albeit not all were religious at the time. (Yes there is the so called rise of some non-Christian religions in the US at the time, but the main reason that this happened was because so many people were spread out that organized Christiantiy was declining at that time.)
And our founding fathers did not intend for us to be a Christian nation, but a Christian-influenced nation. I have books on this and there are plenty out there on this subject. Washington, Adams, and many others were professed Christians. I almost think that Jefferson even became a Christian in his later years from some quotes he mentioned about Christ.
John Adams declared, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
the Political Inquirer
2nd reply: If Kerry holds the current 10% lead and a lock on all 7 of Oregon's electoral votes, my vote WILL be going to Peroutka based on the same reasoning as the first post. It's a evil of two lessers choice if you're in a swing state, I reason, but if you're not in a swing state, this argument no longer exists because your vote will NOT affect the outcome in any way shape or form.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Since when is there an absolute right to life? Capital punishment and war are both legal actions of the government, and they result in the death of living, sapient human beings.
West of the Rockies, and in the mountain West in particular, the core political ideology of the region tends to revolve around a small-government, non-interference, live-and-let-live perspective -- real believers in rugged individualism. There are many historical reasons as to why this is that go back a century or two. While the people that live there are often conservative as individuals, they generally are not socially conservative in that they try and legislate the behaviors of society. A built-in distrust of government is stronger than their desire to control what other people do. East of the Rockies, big government social conservatism is deeply embedded in the culture.
Libertarians and similar have long held relatively strong positions in the mountain West due to the fact that Eastern conservatives often control conservative politics, primarily because of population differences. People like Bush reflect only the conservative issues that are unique to Eastern conservatives while not reflecting the issues shared by Eastern and Western conservatives. When more extreme examples of this come down the road in the Republican party, it tends to lead to defections to the Libertarian party out West. It is an old political and ideological tug-of-war.
In fact, if you look at the core philosophical components of Western conservatism, it is essentially libertarian. Which is why there are far fewer restrictions on what you can do and what you can own in the "conservative" mountain West than in "liberal" states, ironically. Nevada makes California look like a socially conservative police state by comparison if you actually compare laws, and they are next door.
No. Murder is, in legal terms, the unlawful killing of a human being; in moral terms, it is the killing of a human being (or perhaps other sentient creature) without just cause.
No, that's not the crux of the issue. An E. coli bacterium is alive; that doesn't mean that it has moral or legal rights.
As George Carlin once observed, life doesn't start at conception - life is an continous process that's been going on for billions of years.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
They result in the death of non-innocent people who deserve the ultimate punishment. It gets the people who cause the msot harm to society out of here, and if hell is real then they suffer a lot of punishment there.
the Political Inquirer
What if my religion said murder was ok? Should the federal government force the states to legalize murder?
The majority has decided that murder infringes on anothers right to life, of course this leads right into your next point and I'm sure that's why you made it.
The moment the sperm meets ovum, it is a life, and a human life, and that life has all of the same rights as he/she will after birth nine months later. He/she has 46 chromosomes, distinct from either the mother and the father. He/she begins to divide on its own. His/her gender, blood type, hair color, eye color, and all other genetic physiological traits are determined. And this person should be treated with the rights and dignity of a human person from birth to natural death.
Ah yes and at that moment this "life" cannot survive outside the mothers womb. Should something happen to the mother the "life" in her womb dies also. This isn't true further along in the pregnancy. Also, is there conciousness at this point? Can you prove it? If I fertalize an egg in a test tube is that life? It certainly won't survive without being moved into a womb. If it dies does that make me a murderer? It's only a few cells? Again, your answer will probably differ from mine based on differances of opinion, philosophy, or religion. This is a highly philosophical issue, not scientific and is completely off topic.
You do not have the right to be protected from such cooersion at all. Sorry- the athiest point of view does not hold any more protection than I as a Catholic recieved at a public school full of German Apostolic Christians- and they stoned me for being evil and having a TV set. Kids will be cruel- but they will be less cruel if exposed to other biases than their parents encourage.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I think you need to re-read what I wrote. I'm not disagreeing that there aren't ways that religious can be handled within schools without infringing someone elses rights. I'm pointing to the issue of prayer during class which seems to be where the argument usually lies.
Heh, well from what I understand, the Catholic church also disagrees with the death penalty, which Bush is very zealous over, and the church was against the war in Iraq, which most Catholic Bush supporters I know never really talk about, or are supportive of interestingly enough.
not saying John Kerry is better on any of these issues, but I don't understand how catholics can support Bush in light of this
Monstar L
Really? How about the hundreds, if not thousands, of civilian deaths? What about their right to life?
Are their deaths an acceptable price to pay for destroying the evil, evil terrorists? If so, why isn't the death of your hypothetical unborn child an acceptable price to pay for protecting the potential mother, keeping them and their potential child off the welfare rolls and out of jail, etc.?
It's a religious issue. No one else cares. Abortion will continue, whether it's legal or not. So please leave your sentimental bullshit at home, along with your ugly cross and all the other morbid crap that Christianity has foisted upon the world.
I believe that was already answered in my post. To many people life doesn't begin until the fetus/baby could survive outside the mothers womb. Can a two month old fetus live outside the womb?
The Death Penalty and War are not a part of the five non-negotiables, because unlike abortion, there are times when both are moral. The Death Penalty is the objectively moral choice for a government with the duty to protect society but without the funding or technology to actually do so with a sentence of life in jail. War is a moral choice when it confirms to the Just War Theory- which the war in Iraq arguably does not, but not certainly does not. (if you can follow the triple negative, then you're well on your way to understanding basic Catholic theology).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
When the constitution was written you said there were tons of people of different religions--are you referring to denominations of the Protestant Christians or actual religions?
I was of course referring to the various Christian denominations though it would be foolish to ignore Judaism as a prominant religion at the time. It certainly wasn't a large portion of the population but it was a portion.
And our founding fathers did not intend for us to be a Christian nation, but a Christian-influenced nation.
This is one interpretation. Another interpretation is that they realized that religions change and that people are influenced by differant religions at differant times. They realized that religious influence was not a bad thing, but a state sponsorship of any one religion was (be it a denomination of Christianity or another religion entirely). There are of course books that profess this point of view.
Your "non religious" friends are demonstrateably wrong. It's a biological and scientific fact that life begins as soon as a unique DNA sequence is created. And thanks to advances in cyrogenic techniques, hundreds of fertility clinics every day have that life surviving outside of the womb in suspended animation.
So no- philosophy has no place left in this corner of the debate. Move on to legal personhood like everybody else.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Ok I guess you are right, and I misread what you wrote, and I would agree with you, pray should not be in the class room unless a student says it silently and does not disturb others, and does not take away from class time.
The point is, there has to be a serious justification for the ending of human life. "The condom broke" doesn't cut it.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Were Badnarik to take a state or two, the Democrat and Republican parties would start taking actual action on those parts of their own platforms (repeal of drug prohibitions, actual fiscal responsibility) that are the linchpins of the Libertarian position.
Who cares what the party label is on the candidate, if he actually represents your views? Ron Paul ran as the Libertarian candidate for President, but is in the US House as a Republican. His views haven't changed. He still is the most consistently socially liberal, fiscally conservative, voter in the House.
Look at the Socialist party platform from prior to FDR's reign. Practically the entire party platform has been enacted, by both Democrats and Republicans. Party label is irrelevant once the candidate is elected.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
well not now, but we are pushing the bounds of medical science, and a baby can survive that could not survive 5 years ago, even a year ago. I hope that some day we could get even a 1 week old unborn baby to live outside of the womb.
I remember readding about a baby that was (I think) 4 (maybe it could have been 5) months premature and was predicted to do fine, and that baby was considered to be the earlest to be survive
Ah yes and at that moment this "life" cannot survive outside the mothers womb. Should something happen to the mother the "life" in her womb dies also. This isn't true further along in the pregnancy. Also, is there conciousness at this point? Can you prove it?
Can you prove there is no consciousness? Nope. Err on the side of caution. Viobility does not life make. What if I was handicapped and could not survive without care from others. Would it be justifiable to kill me?
If I fertalize an egg in a test tube is that life? It certainly won't survive without being moved into a womb. If it dies does that make me a murderer? It's only a few cells? Again, your answer will probably differ from mine based on differances of opinion, philosophy, or religion. This is a highly philosophical issue, not scientific and is completely off topic.
Yes, it is a life in the same exact way. If you ferilize an egg in a test tube and let it die, that does in fact make you a murderer.
This is about truth, not philosophy or opinion or religion. If you are not seeking truth, you're doing something wrong. Perception does not dictate reality.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Yes- in suspended animation. It's between 12 and 26 weeks that dependency on the mother's womb is absolutely required- and I expect, that will change as time goes on and technology increases.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Perhaps I should have said intrusive moralism, and big corporate support. I do not like the constitution party because I think they want to force their version of morality on everyone. That being said I do respect their right to their beliefs. I come down on the side of Jefferson who said "all religions are good which teach man to be good"
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Secondly, (and I am saying this as an atheist), there is absoultely no conflict with believing in separation of church and state and voting according to your religious principles.
I am pro-life (somewhat), and an atheist (and a Libertarian). I see the fetus (though not until later stages of development) as a viable entity and as deserving of the same protections of Life, Liberty, and Property as anyone else.
It is in fact an issue of Human Rights. Given the recent insight that life begins at conception, scientifically validated, Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states unequivocally that discriminating against someone due to birth is not allowed. The current law of not protecting the unborn discriminates against the unborn- and is as evil, according to the UDHR, as any other form of discrimination.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
You're half right. The Church recognizes that it is possible for the state to institute a death penalty in cases where it is necessary to maintain order. The church also states (in the most recent publication of the Catechism) that in modern society in a civilized nation, the death penalty is unnecessary, and is therefore wrong.
Also, the issues you brought up weren't non-negotiables like most of the core life issues (abortion, euthenasia, etc).
And please don't think I'm endorsing Bush. I'm not. I'm voting for Petrouka. He's truly pro-life (Bush really isn't), he's 100% against the war, and for small government. I don't know his stance on the death penalty.
Also, the presidential oppinion on capital punishment is meaningless; that's a state issue, not a federal issue.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Not if you take away the other reasons abortion is done it won't. But then you could point out that abortion wouldn't be done- regardless of whether it is legal or not.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I am one of those the article it talking about. I tend to lean conservative, but I've been totally turned off by Bush. In fact, I made the decision early on not to give my vote to Bush.
So now what? Do I vote for Kerry? Well, that is no better. That leaves me with Badnarik.
What people don't realize, though, is that Badnarik will not cost Bush the election. Bush already lost my vote. My choice is only between Kerry and Badnarik. That is the irony of the whole thing. Do I vote for a liberal or a libertarian, even though I might lean conservative?
It is an odd election. That is for sure.
It's a religious issue. No one else cares. Abortion will continue, whether it's legal or not. So please leave your sentimental bullshit at home, along with your ugly cross and all the other morbid crap that Christianity has foisted upon the world.
Really? I guess you should tell that to the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-life League.
Though I am currently a Roman Catholic, I believed abortion was unilaterally wrong before I believed God existed, much less actually became Catholic. Abortion is an abomination that is in direct violation of the natural law (as taught by the likes of Plato and Aristotle, and MUCH later, the Roman Catholic Church).
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Major time! After suffering 4 years of Bush, one of the things I have been calling for (though not here on slashdot until this post) is splitting the nation in two along the rockies!
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
No where would you ever get that idea? The constitution guarentees any natual born American citizenship and the constitution. This nothing but scare tactics.
my fear is that Peroutka may not understand this aka all regiogions are equaly protected, be it christians, muslumes, jews, athiasts, satinists, what ever.
And this fear is based on..
As I've said other places (not actually the best summary but the only one I can find right now), simply acknowledging God as a civic leader does not mean you're establishing a theocracy. Watch this interview (\. screws up the direct link), you'll see he says the same thing. Rather, I believe you'll see your 1st Am. freedoms better defended by someone who sees it as a religious obligation to do so.
"Separation of church and state" is a misstatement of what our freedom is. That phrase was used by Jefferson, IIRC, only as an analogy. The 1st Am. actually says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [...]". The Founders were religious people of diverse denominations. It was because of their religious beliefs, and their acknowledgment of God as the giver of liberty, that we have a Constitution that protects those freedoms. Peroutka will not establish any one religion as official nor compel anyone to worship any special way or even worship at all. I believe he would, however, remove many of the restrictions gov't has placed on religious groups.
To summarize, the "wall of separation" only means that gov't is not going to dictate your beliefs to you, nor is any church going to run the government. There is no direct influence from one to the other. It does not mean a complete divorce of God from one's civic service. These indirect effects, such as a leader's personal attempts to govern in a moral and godly way, are completely permissible.
Constitutionally Correct
I've voted for both Republicans and Democrats in the past. I usually vote for the candidate who is most moderate, which I define as being least likely to try to forcibly remove my personal decisions and property from my hands and place them in the hands of his Chosen Ones.
Usually the Republicans win this judgment. They violate it in many ways (telling gays they can't marry, people they can't smoke pot even at home, protesters that they can't burn the flag, etc.), but their overall tendency has been to try to restrict growth in government, while Democrats tend to think that all human problems require a corresponding federal agency whose task is to force reality to fit liberal theory.
Sometimes the Republicans lose this contest though. Such is the case this time, with Bush losing out massively due to his dragging us into a stupid war.
But this time, I'm not going for the Democrat, as I have in the past. This time, the Libertarians are going to take my vote away from the Democrats. Without the Libertarian option, Kerry would have gotten my vote. He still would have if it weren't for the Democrats' relentless "if you vote for me, I'll confiscate *their* stuff and give some of it to *you*" approach to governance.
There are a lot of things I like about the Democrats, the Bush administration is not even a consideration for me, and I think the Libertarians are often too extreme in their rejection of government. Even so, the Democrats' class warfare, "confiscate your way to prosperity", and "a federal agency should make your decisions, not you" attitude has driven my vote to the Libertarians.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Libertarianism is tempting to geeks, but I say it's place in the future post-singularity when we exist as a cyberthalamus. In the meantime, I'd rather not have to doge bullets on the way to the lab, and would like health care. I'd like less druggies on the streets too--transhumanists aren't completely at home with the dems.
-I am an elective eunuch.
Are their deaths an acceptable price to pay for destroying the evil, evil terrorists? If so, why isn't the death of your hypothetical unborn child an acceptable price to pay for protecting the potential mother, keeping them and their potential child off the welfare rolls and out of jail, etc.?
First, I'm not voting for Bush, mostly for the reason you outline. I'm also not Voting for Kerry. There's other parties out there.
If it were to protect the LIFE of the mother with a high degree of medical certainty, it is permissable. You're comparing apples to goats. Right to life trumps right to an enjoyable life. Without life, there is nothing. My parents had a pretty shitty life, partially because they were poor and had to struggle to raise two kids. Does that mean they should have aborted my brother and I? Nope. They are finally happy, taking pride that both of thier children have left the nest and made something of themselves.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Why does there have to be "serious justification" for the ending of human life?
What's more, since when is "the condom broke" a justification anyway? That's absurd. More accurate justifications for abortion are: the life of the mother; the economic status of the mother; the social effects of unwanted children; the economic and social effects of families with children they cannot support; the social consequences of children born out of wedlock; the consequences of marriages entered for the specific purpose of not bearing a child out of wedlock. There are many more.
How are those any less valid than the political goals of war?
What makes me think this here are a few links to his sight
t ion=itemview&event_id=388 t ion=itemview&event_id=377 t ion=itemview&event_id=260
t ion=categorylist&category=God
http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?ac
http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?ac
One question to him on this one, where the heck in the Bible does God say you have gun rights. I am not against guns, it is just not in the Bible! And with Roy Moore he disobayed the law he should be removed (but that is another argument
http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?ac
These links were found here http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?ac
there is probably more but I don't want to speed all night on this
And this makes that point in time completely dependent on constantly changing technology. Fifty years ago no one would have dreamed that we'd be saving babies born 20 weeks premature. What happens when we get to the point when babies can be grown in test tubes, no uterus needed? Does that change the definition of when life begins?
Conception is the only definitive time we can point to. Anything else is arbitrary. Morality and ethics should not shift with time, technology, or opinion polls.
Constitutionally Correct
That's fine for you. On the other hand, what would you have lost if you'd been aborted?
There's a difference between being 'poor and struggling' and being unable to raise a child. For every success story of someone who was able to rise to the occasion, there's a childbeater, a drunk, an addict, a deadbeat. This doesn't only affect the parent; it also affects the other parent, the child, and those who know them.
On a broader level, these personal tragedies turn into higher crime rates, dissolving families, and the collapse of the inner city. All because of the dogmatic belief that possessing unique human DNA makes something intrinsically more valuable than anything else.
Often, race politics is rearing its ugly head. A Hispanic moderator will mod down articles supporting the deportation of illegal aliens. Indian moderators will mod down articles opposing H-1Bs.
These moderators hate people like Bill O'Reilly because he calls the situation for what it is (most of the time). Don't allow the moderators on Slashdot to bother you. Do what I do. I call talk shows and write letters to journals. These moderators cannot shut you up in those forums.
If you hate[1] what is happening to our nation, the USA, then write the following on the November ballot.
president: Bill O'Reilly
vice-president: Tammy Bruce
[1] The best way to fight race politics is to vote against any politician who brings his "ethnic" identity into the race. You often hear Indian politicians start by saying, "As a person with a proud Indian heritage..."
Can you prove there is no consciousness?
This is like the whole, prove God doesn't exist argument, it's bogus. Generally speaking, it is impossible to prove a negative, thus it generally falls for those on the positive side to provide proof. Granated, one can simply go on faith, but that is a poor way to convince people.
Nope. Err on the side of caution. Viobility does not life make. What if I was handicapped and could not survive without care from others. Would it be justifiable to kill me?
This is often done, ever hear of "unplugging" someone? It's little more than killing a person who is no longer able to care for themselves. This often involves removing a feeding tube and allowing the person to starve do death. Would it be OK then to deliver a fetus and put it on a bed and allow it to die?
Also, what is your view on normally terminated preganancies; otherwise known as miscarriages. When the woman's natural biological functions abort a fetus, should she be held responsible?
Yes, it is a life in the same exact way. If you ferilize an egg in a test tube and let it die, that does in fact make you a murderer.
See previous paragraph.
This is about truth, not philosophy or opinion or religion. If you are not seeking truth, you're doing something wrong. Perception does not dictate reality.
And, as is usually the case in people who say they are searching for "truth" they have no clue what they are doing. Truth is relative based on belief. Realistically, we have no way to prove at what point a fetus is concious. Murder is a made up concept, it's simply something which society, at large, has decided is a good idea to hold society together. Your, and everyone else's, rights are also made up concepts. You do not have a "right to life", if you did there would be more to stop someone killing you than a piece of paper and a general agreement. You can be killed at any time, it is just because a lot of people agree that stading for this would be bad that anything happens to the person who kills you. "Liberty" is the same thing, even in American history we have plenty of proof that this is another right which someone has because of a general agreement.
What I am getting at here is that any rights which are assigned to people exist only because of broad agreement. Considering the wide range of opinions on when life begins, there is no absolute "truth" as you so quickly claim to your side. The only things that exist are facts.
We know some sort of biological process begins at conception, which often results in a viable organism. Other than that, we don't have proof of anything.
Now, should abortion be allowed? Well, this is a philosophical question. Since we cannot prove to any extent that consiousness has taken hold at any stage of the preganacy this is something we have to take on faith; which puts us firmly in the realm of religion and philosophy.
Please quit pushing your views are truth, when they are just as unfounded as any other views.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
I'm pro-choice, and I have no problem with people saying that life begins at conception. Of course the fetus is "alive". So were the sperm & egg before conception. It's still wrong for the government to take away people's control over their own bodies.
So no, that is not necessarily the crux of the issue.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
The problem is that the people that grew the goverment more than ever were both Republicans: Reagan and GB Jr, the branch of goverment they grew great gusto was the military.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So what? A tapeworm can't survive outside of its host... is it alive? A fish can't survive out of water... is it alive? You can't survive outside of a breathable atmosphere... are you alive?
Also, is there conciousness at this point? Can you prove it?
Are you conscious? Can you prove it? You can't even prove you exist (to me).
The bottom line is this: we don't know when life begins... but we do know it happens sometime after conception and before birth. So shouldn't we give the fetus the benefit of the doubt to make sure we're not killing an innocent?
I know god exists. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
You do have the right to be free from the coersion, when the prayer is school/state/government sponsored.
As others have said, before school, after school, and even on breaks is fine. If a student feels the need to pray, they can do so silently without taking up the time of others during educational instructional.
Also realize, not everybody prays the same way. Some are much more vocal than others, worship different gods, have different customs. Once you open the floodgates, how do you give all individuals equal protection? The only fair way is for the school to remain neutral.
But of course what is at stake here is not control over one's own body, but control over another's body. One's rights do not extend to the deprivation of another's rights.
Just because your religion says abortion is wrong doesn't mean that mine agrees with you. Hence the government should stay out of the way as it can often come down to a religious belief. I'm not saying that a politician can't or shouldn't allow thier religion to influence thier decisions or morality, but they have to keep in mind that not everyone shares thier religious beliefs.
The flaw in your idea of "not everyone has the same religious beliefs so you should be able to do whatever you want" attitude is that it fails to qualify that sentiment with "as long as you aren't hurting anybody else". The problem with abortion is that if the would-be victim is an entity that has rights, you're committing a horrible atrocity, and if they don't, what you're doing is fine. And while you may be okay with unilaterally deciding whether they do or not, this gets into a dangerous area of where the authority to make such decisions comes from.
One person might decide animals have no rights, and puree live kittens in a blender. Another might decide some ethnic group have no rights, and keep some of them as slaves. If someone objects to this behavior, even though their different viewpoint about the rights of the purported victims might stem from a religious perspective, are they really imposing their religious views?
To tell you the truth, I'm not certain that its terribly important what the founding father's thought. It is basically irrelevant, except that one might respect their opinions. It certainly wasn't right that the founding father's counted blacks as 3/5 of a person in the constitution.
Logic, macros, and more
yes so lets go and shoot all the poor, drunks, and worthless people out there. Oh, and yeah, the inner city is the way it is because they're having too many babies, oh and their all crack heads. Lets go shoot them too, problem solved. What and idiot.
Since when is consciousness important in this regard? Individuals suffering various kinds of brain damage are no longer conscious, but justification for terminating their lives seem less compelling.
Logic, macros, and more
how about the mother that not getting sleep because her new born is cring? Can she exersize controle over her body and not get up, or get up and kill that thing waking her up? are those not control over her body?
Another question, why is suaside wrong (I am not talking about assisited suaside, but I am against that too)
If a teen wants to kill him/herself, why do we try to prevent that, don't they get control over their body? How about drugs (not just hash, but all drugs) should all drugs be leagal? are not just drugs users exersizing their right over their body?
I agree completely... how dare the government take away my right to punch you in the face! Stop trying to control what I do with my body, you damn gubmint bureaucrats!
I know god exists. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
IMHO, some of what you're really looking at is population density. The rights of my fist end just before they touch your nose. The further away you are, the more rights my fist have - and yours, for that matter. Pack us in tighter, and there just isn't that much space to swing my arms.
Conversely, pack people looser and you're put more on your own - if you don't do it, there's nobody for more miles to help you. Self-sufficiency takes on a greater value.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
That's hardly surviving and it's hardly a person. Take away the cryogenics and it won't survive.
...because in a republic like we have... Since when are we a REPUBLIC?
I as one, probably the only conservative, am against the death penalty. for the main reason, as long as some one is alive there is hope. Hope that they will repent of their ways, and maybe become a positive influence on society. another important reason, what if you got the wrong guy, how would you like to find out that you as a jury sentenced some one to death to only find out that he was innocent, I rather error on the safe side. and finally (unimportant to me but works on some people so I will though it in since the gravity of the issue) it cost more to put some one to death then to keep them alive for a long long life (read cheaper on the tax payers)
Keep in mind that if human life begins at conception...
I keep hearing that low-dosage birth control pills work by preventing implantation into the lining of the utereus. In other words, spontaneous abortion. Does the low-dosage Pill need to be taken off the market? The old high-dosage Pill worked by suppressing ovulation, but had long-term side-effects. So is the answer no birth control pills - and would there be a corresponding rise in illegal abortions?
I've also heard in recent years that the number of spontaneously aborted fertilized eggs is higher than anyone would have ever guessed. (Learned through fertility/sexuality studies, etc.) Shall we try a woman when the egg fails to implant? It's a silly question, but it reflects a greater medical question - when do we quit trying to save a life?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Thanks, you summed up most of what I would have responded with anyway.
We are a consitutional republic. or I will point to wikipedia since people here like that more
Remove suspended animation/cryogenics and don't provide a mother for that embryo... As far as changes in technology it becomes a question of should you do such a thing at all. In cases where parents can't have children on thier own (biological reasons) I'm sure you will see such technology used. I'm sure that will raise a furor also. However those are people that WANT to have children and are taking extroidanairy steps to have those children. It really has little basis on what would happen without that technology and the will of someone that doesn't want to have a child and is in the early stages of pregnancy.
So what? A tapeworm can't survive outside of its host... is it alive?
No it can't, and in some respects an unwanted fetus could even be likened to a parasite. It requires the mothers womb to survive and without the womb it dies. Of course part of development changes that so it can survive, and of course technology allows us to cheat nature and preserve "life" beyond a point that it might not have otherwise survived. Why should the decision be taken away from the "host" before that time?
The idea is that if you make the next closest guy to your ideals lose, then next time around they will lean more your way. If the libertarian vote was to cost the Republicans the election, it might very well get them to put forward a candidate who isn't as eager to spend my money as any other democrat.
That almost happened in 1997. Christie Whitman, rumored to be a closet Republican, ran against McGreevey. Murray Sabrin, the LP candidate, nearly cost her the election. (He had a lot of pro-life voter support.)
Notice how the NJ GOP got noticeably less "eager to spend my money as any other democrat", or how they moved in a pro-life direction?
Neither did I.
One's rights do not extend to the deprivation of another's rights.
I'm glad we agree.
My point was simply that the grandparent poster was incorrect: Many people believe that fetuses are alive and yet still oppose the illegalization of abortion.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
....The problem with abortion is that if the would-be victim is an entity that has rights, you're committing a horrible atrocity, and if they don't, what you're doing is fine. And while you may be okay with unilaterally deciding whether they do or not, this gets into a dangerous area of where the authority to make such decisions comes from.
It's a matter of proving to everyone that a fertalized egg is indeed life. So far I've yet to hear a convincing argument for that. Arguments that technology can sustain it without the mother really don't mean much. Technology will always change the bounds of what we can/can't do.
As far as the authority issue goes we are talking about a woman with something growing inside her. Without the technological advances we have this "entity" (as you call it) has no chance of survival without her. So we are talking about taking the rights/wishes/will of this woman away for something that depends utterly on her.
One person might decide animals have no rights, and puree live kittens in a blender. Another might decide some ethnic group have no rights, and keep some of them as slaves. If someone objects to this behavior, even though their different viewpoint about the rights of the purported victims might stem from a religious perspective, are they really imposing their religious views?
I actually covered this is another post as you pointed out I missed the "as long as you aren't hurting anybody else" part in my original post. Not that I didn't/don't think that, it's just knowing you think something and remembering to put it in words every time doesn't always happen. Having made that extention we come back to the problem of getting everyone to agree that life begins at conception and that an embryo has the same basic rights as the woman bearing it.
What a fascinating and persuasive analogy. Why, that is completely analogous to an unwanted pregnancy.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
That was then of course changed to reflect modern thinking. Research also shows that not all of them thought this was right, it was one of many compromises to get the constitution ratified at all.
While what the founding fathers thought or did may not be relevant what they wrote in the constitution is. It's logical to take a look at American society and based on that note not everyone is Christian and changing the views of our government to reflect Christian ideals doesn't do anything to represent the people. Christianity is the majority religion in the US (at least the last time I checked) however that may not be the case forever as our population changes in other ways. Putting Christian ideals before what's best for everyone is a bad thing. That's basically what I was trying to get at.
If people don't support Kerry or Bush, how is voting for a different candidate spoiling the election? The 2 large parties don't own the vote.
No, I do not believe that suicide or drug use should be criminal offenses. Depression and drug addiction are health problems.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Excellent points, I'll have to look into the spontaneously aborted fertilized eggs issue as I hadn't read that.
so you are saying these people should be force to have health care, if I break my leg I should be force to go to the hospital?? what if I don't want to it is my body (as you would say "keep your laws of my body")!!! so why not let suicide and drugs be legal, of some one wants help they can go to the doctors.
1) What about her?
2) No, she can't.
3) No, they aren't.
Glad I could clear up the confusion for you.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
As does justification for keeping them alive when they can't survive without medical intervention (respirators etc).
This is a popular myth, a misconception based on dividing the population over the entire State or region, the vast majority of which is completely unpopulated due to Federal encroachment.
It surprises most people to find out that the mountain West is one of the most urbanized regions of the United States, ~80% urban (also the youngest population). Because the Federal government continues to acquire all the land in those States, the amount of land people can actually live on is quite small, and so everyone lives in a couple urban areas in those States. If you look at a list of US cities ordered by population, you'll find that many of the larger cities are actually in the mountain West. Basically, you have States the size of countries like Germany, while only being allowed to use an area more the size of New Jersey or New England states.
In fact, as State populations go, the mountain West States are right around the median for the country, and several very large metros (read: well over 1M people) are located there, e.g. Phoenix or Las Vegas.
The difference doesn't have to do with the amount of people in the space -- Westerners are actually packed into cities more than most people east of the Rockies -- but a fundamental difference in attitude. As I mentioned in the original post, the Federal government has had a long history of antagonizing and exploiting the Western States, which has made those States culturally and institutionally anti-government. Combined with certain historic economic realities of the mountain West, a very libertarian outlook evolved and became a part of the culture. The government used to get away with it because at one time those States really did have tiny populations. Now, those States have millions of people in them (though this fact hasn't caught up with the politicians back east), and the culture has a long memory.
so why not let suicide and drugs be legal
That's what I just said, Jackass.
Do you think that illegalization is a deterrent to suicide?
Do you consider the war on drugs to be a successful policy?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
So could a newborn baby. It requires outside help (feeding/cleaning/other care) to live, and without such help it dies.
But you yourself admitted that a tapeworm/parasite/fetus was alive, by your admission that without the "host" it would die... and how could it die if it wasn't alive? So ultimately, this debate comes down to the following question: what is the value of a fetus' life?
Why should the decision be taken away from the "host" before that time?
If it's your position is that a fetus is a parasite, then I think it's a valid one. It directly answers the question about the value of a fetus' life. Reasonable people can disagree about the value of life, of course, just like people disagree about the value of convicts' lives, etc. I think that you're wrong, though, simply because a fetus has more potential than a tapeworm. Given the proper environment, a fetus will grow into the most advanced life form that we know about. OTOH, given the proper environment, a tapeworm will still be a tapeworm.
I know god exists. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
failure to implant is like failure to thrive, that is not a act of the parent. Or should we put parents in jail if their child suffers from SIDS? failure to thrive is not an (unless purposely caused by the parent) act of murder.
You are mixing your arguments you are crossing natural with man forced.
so why not? what is the difference????????????? please enlighten me? Why is the baby in the womb so less deserving of our protection then the baby outside of the womb, both are equally depended on other just to live?
success of a program does not detriment if the idea behind it is right or wrong. Lets say a doctor decided to operate on a child that is going to die, the operation is a failed and the child still dies, was the doctor wrong for trying to save said childs life, should the doctor not have done anthing, the child would have die anyways? There are things that are right or wrong outside of us.
Success of a program does not detriment if the idea behind it is right or wrong.
I think it does.
Lets say a doctor decided to operate on a child that is going to die, the operation is a failed and the child still dies, was the doctor wrong for trying to save said childs life, should the doctor not have done anthing, the child would have die anyways?
That is completely unrelated to anything we are discussing. Yes, the doctor should have operated. However, if a plastic surgeon accidentally kills 20% of the people he tries to give breast augmentations to... he should fucking stop. So?
There are things that are right or wrong outside of us.
Drugs aren't one of those things.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Also it is illegal to download music and movies, and they are trying to stop it, but there are more down-loaders then ever before, should we just junk all of those laws too???
>You are mixing your arguments you are crossing natural with man forced.
Yes, I was, and deliberately. IMHO the intersectionof the Legal community with the Medical community is where all of this stuff comes to rest, and both are partly to blame for the ensuing problems. Doctors want to exercise their craft to the fullest extent, and save/prolong life as much as possible. Sometimes that's possible, but not wise. Lawyers (aside from wanting their commission) want to nail down everything with precision in black and white, and that just doesn't correspond to the Universe.
Hence part (but only part) of the mess we have with medicine, today. Look for it to get worse, as we learn about new stones to look under.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
so why not? what is the difference????????????? please enlighten me?
There are many, many differences. A woman that does not want to be pregnant but is legally forced to carry her child to term must be pregnant for nine months and then give birth. A mother that does not want to take care of her child must give her child up for adoption. I consider forced pregnancy & birth to be an unconscionable imposition. I see no unconscionable impostion on the mother who does not want her child.
There are many other differences. I don't think I'm about to convince you, so I don't know if it's really worth discussing.
Why is the baby in the womb so less deserving of our protection then the baby outside of the womb, both are equally depended on other just to live?
They are obviously not equally dependent. And I realize you may disagree with this, but I simply do not consider a fetus to be as important as a baby: If my newborn died in their crib, I would be beside myself with grief. I imagine that it would be extremely upsetting for the rest of my life. However, if I had a miscarriage after only two weeks of a wanted pregnancy, I would be merely disappointed. I doubt that I would mourn at all.
Do you understand this discrimination? Can you understand why I might feel this way? Do you consider it completely beyond the pale? How greivously would you mourn a miscarriage after two weeks of pregnancy? One week? One day?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Thats been my analysis for a while. I guess great minds think alike :-)
I do see a scenario where this breaks down. While I am sure that Bush will lose votes, the real question is whether they will get more electoral votes. And critical states like Florida and Missouri, to my knowledge, have been become a bit more conservative based on certain trends. Combine that with the Nader factor, and it will definitely make for an uncertain election.
Also it is illegal to download music and movies, and they are trying to stop it, but there are more down-loaders then ever before, should we just junk all of those laws too???
Um, I didn't mean that in the way that you seem to be interpretting it. But that's a bad example. Yes, I think that we should junk lots of intellectual property law.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Ok haveing anti DUI laws does not seam to be working, so we should get ride of them?
I'm not sure what you mean. Are DUI laws really not working? If you can convince me that DUI laws do not decrease the number of people killed in automobile accidents, or have any other positive effect, then I could be convinced that we should scrap our DUI laws. But I think that they do have an effect.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
I'm not going to another extreme. The libertarians have some great ideas for right now--like simplifying tax code. #1 is to get to the singularity, and strong government support for basic science may be needed.
-I am an elective eunuch.
I have a daughter that was born two months premature. She's now a healthy 11 year old. She did require help when born (if you've ever seen your kid hooked to a respirator, you'd know how rough it is), but if you saw her now you'd never know how rough she had it when she was born.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Beautiful statement, an just my point, I am so happy to hear your daughter is doing fine.
IF the church is put into the state then the State will end up in the Church. So yes it was meant to keep the State out of the Church but the other way around still puts the State in the Church.
The State blurs and corrupts all it touches. For a Church to seek contact with the State is for a Church to seek dispersion. Look at how much faith all those European countries have with their ex-state controlled religions, they very low church attendance.
I'd do something interesting, but my server can't handle a slashdotting.
Thanks. Sometimes that kind of discussion kind of gets under my skin.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
what is the difference?????????????
At first I didn't agree with your point of view, but the sixth, and especially the ninth, question marks really turned me around.
When the subject of spoilers comes up... why do we alway refer to Nadar? Perot took 19% of the vote in 1992. He was the ultimate spoiler.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
For the miscarriage, I have heard of miscarriages have just as a major devastating impact on people( are these people just being irrasional?), there have been marriages that broken up because of it(first I would say we should try to prevent such a tragedy of a devoice over the lost of a child) But so you are say if some one is completely dependent on some one else to the point where separation would be death for them they are not worth the same as some one that is not 100% depended on 1 and only one person?
Exactly how does Peroutka fail to do the separation of church and state? As a principled constitutionalist, he can be trusted to protect, defend, and enforce the constitutional proscription against establishment of a church by the state. Personally, I'm quite comfortable with that. I'm sure he's offensive to the reactionary antichristians, but to atheists, muslims, and jews who believe that document, genuously applied, is their best defense against a right-wing Christian dominion, Petrouka is *exactly* the kind of right-wing Christian they would like to see in power.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
There is one candidate that routinely wins a larger number of votes than the margin between the two major-party candidates--none of the above. I'd guess that a good portion of Badnarik's support is drawn from potential voters that would otherwise steer clear of the voting booth on election day. It is ridiculous to claim that minor-party support is somehow leeched from the two major parties when there is a vast, vast pool of voters that prefer making no selection at all to picking between Republican and Democrat.
"This quote is a product of the Frobozz Magic Quote Company."
How is that Ironic? And why do you think that he votes pro-life because of his religious sensibilities?
I think most people who vote pro-life do it for one of two reasons independent of religious sensibility: Either they want the government to protect the weak, because they don't want to live in fear for their own lives and the lives of their less able loved ones, or they regard killing people as morally repugnant. Admittedly, moral repugnance for killing is often derived from a religious belief, but it's not by any means restricted to people with identifiable religious affiliations.
I don't think its in any way inconsistent to want the state to protect both life AND liberty. The two goals might at some point come into conflict, but I have never seen it happen in practice.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Absolutely! Where would your religious liberties be safer, under a Robertson or a Peroutka?
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Yes.
Spoiler (neutral analysis of reality): a third-party candidate who draws support predominantly from one major-party candidate, helping the other major-party candidate to win a plurality.
Spoiler (New York Times + CBS News): a socialist who steals votes from a Democrat, "spoiling" the election. Note: Buchanan, Perot, Peroutka, cannot possibly be "spoilers", as any election won by a Democrat is by definition not spoiled.
My own preference: Libertarian. But I'm really getting tired of Liberal media that let their bias get in the way of neutral analysis.
I was not trying to convince you that all miscarriages are inconsequential. I was trying to explain that I personally consider a fetus to be less important than a human being.
I can certainly identify with someone being devastated by a miscarriage. No, these people are not being irrational. You have misunderstood my point.
I do not think that this opinion of worth is influenced by a fetus' dependence on its womb. I was making two points, both in response to your question "Why is the baby in the womb so less deserving of our protection then the baby outside of the womb, both are equally depended on other just to live?"
First is that you incorrectly state that both are equally dependent on others just to live. They are not. Second, I think that a fetus is actually less important than a baby. I wasn't sure how to explain that, except to tell you how I think I'd feel about a miscarriage. Do you understand what I said in my last post?
Please also consider that this opinion of relative worth is only one of many reasons that I am opposed to the illegalization of abortion. Much more important to me is that the illegalization of abortion requires women to bear children when they do not want to. This, to me, is completely barbaric. Should the government prevent women from aborting fetuses conceived due to rape?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
so a child should be punished for the fathers sin? And no you have not made your case to me.
I admit I am not sure, got into a debat with some one else over this, I desided, the best person to anser this is him so I found a form to ask him a quesiton, lets see what he says. if indeed I am wrong, and part of me really hopes I am wrong, then i have some thinking to do in the next few weeks (see my blog, the web link in my sig, or above under my login name)
First let me say for the record that I think abortion is a thorny, difficult issue, and I don't claim to have an answer one way or the other. That being said, I find your argument unconvincing. The crux of the issue is here:
"The moment the sperm meets ovum, it is a life, and a human life, and that life has all of the same rights as he/she will after birth nine months later"
You're presupposing your conclusion. Even the most ardent support of the death penalty would concede that it's morally wrong to kill an innocent child. And certainly no one is arguing that a child that hasn't even left the womb could possibly have done anything to deserve being killed. But you've assumed that a one-celled glob of nucleic acid is in fact a child without offering any sort of reasoning to support that assertion. This is the central issue that is really at debate when we talk about abortion: what does it mean to be a human being? It's one of the most fundamental religious/philosophical questions.
You say "Abortion is not just a religious issue. It's an issue of human dignity. A human's first right is the right to life". All well and good. But your assertion presupposes that we all know and agree on what a human being is. This is patently not the case! And the if only argument you can give to convince me that one becomes a person "The moment the sperm meets ovum" is based on religious dogma, then all of a sudden this has ceased to be a wholly secular issue.
Abortion may not be a religious issue per say, but the definition of what makes a human being certainly is, and that question is inexorably tied up with the morality of abortion.
Did I say that?
Way to thrash that straw man. Is he bleeding? You might want to get him to a hospital.
The difference between the quote "poor, drunks, and worthless" and an embryo is conscious thought and experience. That is what makes humans special, not a particular assortment of nucleic acids.
The straw is everywhere, man! You're totally merciless.
What was that bill that you referred to? I'd like to look into it. And was the international organization in the same bill, or a different one? Thanks.
could tip the balance in this year's presidental election, like Ralph Nader is accused of having done in 2000
One of the least corrupt and most consistent politicians devotes his life to public service and makes sacrifices in order to run for public office and people make it sound like he is a criminal.
Folks, if you can't figure out who to vote for and what the consequences of your choices are, that's your problem. The problem in 2000 was not that a few percent chose Nader, the problem in 2000 was that nearly half the voters chose an obviously incompetent candidate that immediately dragged us into a lengthy and costly war and proceded to empty people's pockets and, perhaps more importantly, that the other half of the population chose to stay at home. Don't blame Nader for the stupidity of three quarters of the US population.
You sound like a schizophrenic*, but I'm basically in the same boat. =) I commonly describe myself as a a conservative or a fiscal conservative, but political labels really seem to fail, especially when they get misused and abused by the power hungry (i.e., the cabal that has usurped the GOP).
Socially, I'm fairly liberal (or libertarian, however you want to spin int). I'm even for social welfare programs if we can afford them, i.e., pay as you go. This does not mean committing to expensive programs during prosperous years that will unduly burden us during lean years.
Although it sounds like an oxy moron, if there were a moderate libertarian party, I'd sign up in a heart beat.
-
-
*Yes, I realize that the true definition/diagnosis of schizophrenia is different than that of multiple personality disorder.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
I submit that George W. Bush is the "spoiler" in this election year, as without his candidacy, Michael Badnarik would be sure to get most of the conservative vote. His limited-government politics are what a true Republican platform is supposed to stand for. It is a pity that the Republican platform has allowed itself to wander so far from its calling in the first place, or we wouldn't need a third party to represent this country's political conservatives in teh first place.
sorry to jump in here, but i wanted to get this out
http://badnarik.org/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1346
The question can be asked both ways!! Ontological questions aren't soluble. That's why we have philosophers. If it's when they're conceieved. Then when is conception? When the first sperm touches the egg? When the first sperm starts to break into the egg? When it's inevitable the sperm will reach the egg? When the sperm releases its DNA into the egg? When the one set of chromosomes combines with the other chromosomes? When is it considered combined? What if it combines unusually? Is it still a human if it's so unusual that it could never develop into even a foetus? How ridiculous to start asking ontological questions...
Anyway. What does it matter if someone aborts their baby? How does it affect you? Chill out go home, don't worry about. It will never harm you except for perhaps your moral beliefs, but if you are so stressed out because your moral beliefs that you have to go around enforcing laws on what people to do shit that is gestating inside them, then maybe you should reconsider your beliefs.
http://badnarik.org/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1346 and http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/n ews/nation/9872659.htm
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
Depression is not a health problem. It's purely social. Depression is considered bad because the depressed tend to not function within society. It's just their personality, some people are that way. It causes no physical pain in itself. It doesn't even cause mental pain as may be thought. It just makes people see things for how they are: shitty. The depressed are disillusioned, and should be revered for their insights, instead of treated with insulting comiseration. Depression is not something, it's a lack of something. A lack of illusionment. It's the happy which have something. They don't need your help, you need there's. And that's why everyone tries to institutionalize them, because they're afraid of their nihilism.
The concept of natural law is only one perspective of many. It is claimed to be totalising, but it is not. Who would enforce natural law except for humans?
It is official; Netcraft confirms: the Republican Party is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered republican community when IDC confirmed that republican voters have dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all voters. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that the Republican Party has lost more members, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. The Republican Party is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent poll of registered voters.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict the Republican Party's future. The hand writing is on the wall: the Republican Party faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for the Republican Party because the Republican Party is dying. Things are looking very bad for the Republican Party. As many of us are already aware, the Republican Party continues to lose members. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
Log Cabin Republicans are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% their homosexual fiscal conservatives. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Log Cabin Republicans Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: the Republican Party is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Republican leader Theo states that there are 7000 members of the Republican Party. How many members of the Log Cabin Republicans are there? Let's see. The number of Republican Party versus the Log Cabin Republican posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Log Cabin Republicans. Wacko right wing christian posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Republican Party posts. Therefore there are about 700 crazy right wing christians. A recent article put insane religious fanatics at about 80 percent of the Republican Party constituency. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 Republican voters. This is consistent with the number of Log Cabin Republican Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, the Republican Party of California went out of business and was taken over by RNC who sell another troubled platform. Now RNC is also dead, their corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that the Republican Party has steadily declined their constituency. The Republican Party is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If the Republican Party is to survive at all it will be among platform dilettante dabblers. The Republican Party continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, the Republican Party is dead.
Fact: the Republican Party is dying
We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
but he fails to do separation of church and state
And bush doesn't?
Interesting ideas, but you don't account for the infusion of the Dixiecrats, our very socially conservative religious brethren from the south. Their ideals seem to be what most informs the Bush Program, and the alliance that the GOP formed with Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority now can be seen for what it was, a deal with the Devil. I don't know which would be worse, if Bush is pandering to these people or if Bush is one of them.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Then why am I conserned about murder, if I stay home it does not affect me, right? How about suiside? It does not affect me if I stay home. DUI? if I stay home it does not affect me. Drugs? if I stay home it does not affect me. I am going to assume you are against the war. if you stay in the US how does a war affect you? Bad idea, and when does life start, moment sperm meets egg.
Bush did he inact a state sponsered church?? when did this happen? what denomonation is it??? I must have missed that, I am sure that would have been all over the news.
If the 2000 election was a statistical tie, and Bush can only lose votes since then...how could he win?
Two words: Electronic voting.
There won't be a recount in Florida this year, for obvious reasons. The fix is in. The only purpose of the Bush campaign is to keep the poll numbers up, so it won't be too obvious.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
I think the founding fathers had this train of thought exactly in mind when they build the United States. The original idea was states are pretty much distinct countries with a loose federal government to give the benefits of a larger union. Some policies make sense to aggregate (such as military, currency, and disallowing interstate tariffs to encourage trade). Everything else they should stay the hell out of.
The disturbing part of the last century is the rise of the federal government. We've gone from no income taxes and a single government program (the military), to thousands of pork policies and transfer payments. Each policy now has a tendency to piss off different parts of the country since everyone gets stuck with the outcome even though different regions have different cultures.
My view is to be completely libertarian on the federal government level and completely agnostic on the state and local level. If a state wants to implement socialism, they have the perfect right to. If they want to go lassez-faire, let em knock themselves out. The best policies will sort themselves out. People vote with their feet. When states compete, you win.
Jonah Goldberg has written some eloquent articles on this philosophy if you care to look them up. I think being a conservative or liberal, this idea of limiting the federal government makes sense so people will have real choices about their government, not just with their votes, but where they choose to live.
"I am going to assume you are against the war." Huh? I don't give a shit about "the war". It's beyond intelligibility; completely meaningless and not worth analysing. Why even mention that? Why go to the length to assume that? And why would you come to that conclusion: do you have some sort of secret knowledge? But hey, I'm going to assume you like the Beatles, I don't know why, for fun! How about we trade bootlegs!? Phssh.
Are you saying the war is bad, because people die? Is this some sort of moral call to arms? Ha. If you care so much about people dying, how about you jump on to the next Medicins Sans Frontieres boat to Darfur? They could use your help saving thousands of lives. These are little children dying sir, why aren't you going to go help them? You have the chance, people will die without your help! But you aren't going, and do you know why? Because you don't give a shit about things that you believe won't affect you in anyway. And neither do I.
So, you say it's when a sperm meets an egg. Again, just within that, ontological questions could be raised. So, asking ontological questions against someone else's belief of when life begins as to say that the insolubility of those questions somehow prove your belief is ridiculous: such can be equally waged against your's.
I consider myself a green liberal democrat. I won't be voting for republican candidates, as I don't side with their general views. However, I'll say this. I'll vote for Greens, Democrats, and Libertarians (yes, I know liberal doesn't mean Libertarian). Why Libertarians? http://www.lpws.org/nlanddocs/docs/platform.htm states "We hold that the only moral use of force is in self-defense. Thus, the initiation of force is immoral -- whether committed by individuals or by governments." I believe if we had a Libertarian President, the $400-500 billion DoD budget would be heavily slashed, and perhaps even get a fairer tax system.
You do not have the right to be protected from such cooersion at all.
You do have the right to not have the state take part in the cooersion.
Sorry- the athiest point of view does not hold any more protection than I as a Catholic recieved at a public school full of German Apostolic Christians- and they stoned me for being evil and having a TV set.
How did they find out you were a catholic with a TV? Did the teacher have some class event that exposed the fact you were not like them?
Just to clarify my last post: I don't blaim my school for the fact that the other students were cruel to me. But if the actions of my school had brought the cruelty I would...
Kids will be cruel- but they will be less cruel if exposed to other biases than their parents encourage.
I am not so convinced that they will be less cruel. I think that result would require a critical percentage of different students. Did the apostolics in your school treat the next catholic less cruelly?
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
"The moment sperm meets ovum" isn't based on religious dogma. Catholic religious dogma has, in the past, supported abortion through to the second week AFTER birth, through to the time of quickening, etc. It's only after MODERN SCIENCE and knowledge of GENETICS showed that the entire biological plan for an individual was present at conception, that the rules changed once more. It's not based on religious belief, it's based on science.
Beyond that- it's a matter of human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and policed by Amnesty International, demands in Article 2:
Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.(Emphasis mine)
This means that yes, you can't discriminate against HUMAN BEINGS based on whether they've been BORN or not. To do so is a violation of their human rights. Therefore, abortion being legal is a human rights violation- as nasty and evil of one as China running over protestors with tanks in Tinamen Square.
So we have BOTH a scientific fact on when life begins, and an international law arugment defining when one becomes a person. Do you have any backing for the fetus NOT having the right to life?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
You do have the right to be free from the coersion, when the prayer is school/state/government sponsored.
The coersion quoted before was coming from STUDENTS, not the STATE.
As others have said, before school, after school, and even on breaks is fine. If a student feels the need to pray, they can do so silently without taking up the time of others during educational instructional.
My point is that by censoring the teacher from teaching that religions and beliefs exist- you're actually failing to educate at all.
Also realize, not everybody prays the same way. Some are much more vocal than others, worship different gods, have different customs. Once you open the floodgates, how do you give all individuals equal protection? The only fair way is for the school to remain neutral.
Gee, maybe by actually teaching kids to be more tolerant of other religions instead of censoring and protecting them from other religions?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Take away the ambulance from a car accident and many people won't survive either- we call that criminal negligence. NO difference. Sorry, you can't discriminate on quality of life any more than you can discriminate on birth.
BTW- take away the cryogenics properly, with implantation into a womb- and you have a human being after a few months.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Remove suspended animation/cryogenics and don't provide a mother for that embryo...
That would be murder- just as if you pulled the plug on Grandpa in the hospital to get your inheritance early.
It really has little basis on what would happen without that technology and the will of someone that doesn't want to have a child and is in the early stages of pregnancy.
So you agree that in-vitro adoption may soon make abortion unneccessary?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
You do have the right to not have the state take part in the cooersion.
True enough- but the state isn't taking part in the coersion- the children are. Teach the children tolerance for other points of view, and that coersion goes away. Contribute to the censorship- and the children will continue to be cliquish and intollerant.
How did they find out you were a catholic with a TV? Did the teacher have some class event that exposed the fact you were not like them?
They all left the room when the teacher brought in a TV as a science class exhibit for the 1978 solar eclipse. I didn't.
Just to clarify my last post: I don't blaim my school for the fact that the other students were cruel to me. But if the actions of my school had brought the cruelty I would...
I don't. I blame censorship for the problem. If the teacher had explained beforehand that TV's are just tools, like the tractors all the GAC kids drove- it wouldn't have been a problem.
I am not so convinced that they will be less cruel. I think that result would require a critical percentage of different students. Did the apostolics in your school treat the next catholic less cruelly?
Yes they did- after a time. In that time, the school board got a little bit smarter and actually included a section on the history and evolution of belief structures in the cirriculum (dumbed down to age, but just the same), and ended the stupid censorship- at least until an athiest child moved into the district and their parents, being just as intollerant as any other religion- sued.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
There's a difference between being 'poor and struggling' and being unable to raise a child. For every success story of someone who was able to rise to the occasion, there's a childbeater, a drunk, an addict, a deadbeat. This doesn't only affect the parent; it also affects the other parent, the child, and those who know them.
Yes... I guess there's no option other than killing the child. Putting the child up for adoption is not practical, is it? I mean, there's only a 10-15 year waiting list for parents who want to adopt american babies... Ending abortion would just flood the market with babies that wouldn't be provided for.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
"unplugging" someone prematurely, if there is hope that they could retain consciousness and live on, unless keeping them on such systems is impractical is wrong. If a mother has a miscarriage to no fault of her own, she is not a murderer. It's part of the natural process. There's nothing remotely natural about sticking a pair of forcepts into a woman's uterus and pulling the child partially out and sucking his/her brain out of the skull with a vaccuum.
And the statement that truth is relative is bullshit. Facts are part of the absolute truth. My belief does not define reality, and niether does yours. If I believe that a glass full of pure chlorine is apple juice, that does not make it so. If I drink it, I will still die, regardless of what I believe.
And yes, our nation has in fact abused the term Liberty. If they stuck to the founders' definition, we wouldn't be in a lot of the mess we have today.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Recently, many "pro-lifers" heaped voluminous praise upon Mr. Bush when he decided to withhold a miniscule (by comparison) $34 million in federal funds from UNFPA (a UN abortion agency in China). What these ignorant (or deluded) "pro-lifers" failed to notice was that Bush redirected that $34 million to USAID Child Survival Health Program Fund. This fund includes money for "forecasting, purchasing, and supplying contraceptive commodities and other materials necessary for reproductive health programs."
If you find links to specific bills online, posting it here or emailing it to me would be appreciated.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Can it "live"
Think about that statement
The previous has been a secret message to my comrades.
I browsed http://www.lp.org/issues/ and the ideas seem like they would work. Yes, it does seem to go opposite the Green Party or other parties, but the way the ideas are set up, would work in my opinion.
Like their idea of ending welfare, but replacing it with a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charity. It's my guess that people benefit more from private charities than the government. Whether it's food vouchers from churches, or simply a t.v. news station asking viewers to help out a family that may need more money for an expensive surgery for a rare illness.
I think their ideas have to all be done, or not at all, for it to work. If they were to do some of it, and not all of it, it would probably fail. But I'm not going to discuss this as I need to research more.
Hypothetically speaking, if I chose to vote for a Libertarian candidate (not going to, at least this time around), and if enough people did it, the top two parties are going to have to change their views if they want to compete still.
The law is still the law whether or not it is enforced or not. Much like 2+2==4 even if you believe otherwise.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
The complications involved in pregnancy are endless. Many can result in the death or permanent injury of the mother, the baby, or both. In the end, it's safer and more merciful simply to abort the pregnancy -- it's not like we need any more children.
You're an idiot if you think you can speak for all depressed people. You certainly don't speak for me.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
The complications involved in pregnancy are endless. Many can result in the death or permanent injury of the mother, the baby, or both. In the end, it's safer and more merciful simply to abort the pregnancy -- it's not like we need any more children.
And possible complications justify ending a human life? That's bullshit. First, there are many risks to abortion -- increase in risk for uterine cancer, various potential psychological problems, sterilization, and death. Probably more too.
Here's something: how about NOT GETTING PREGNANT. Approximately 1% of abortions are because of rape or incest. That means 99% are due to irresponsibility. If abortion on demand were not available as a method of birth control, I think people would think before they act a little bit more. Sex is a serious thing, and has consequences, and should be treated as such.
As far as not needing more children -- the US (and most of the civilized world) is in a state of population decline. The birth rate in the US is about 2.0 children per woman. Replacement rate is 2.2. Spain and Italy are having a population shortage crisis. Most of Europe will follow next, as will we if this keeps up.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
This is why I hate debating abortion online. You are responding to things that I have not said, and you are ignoring things that I have said. If we ever meet in person, I'll be happy to discuss the issue. No, I do not believe that children should be punished for their parents sins. And yet, I that has no bearing on my opposition to the illegalization of abortion. I understand why you feel that this is a related question, but to me it is a complete non sequitor. This conversation is going nowhere.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Actually, the sperm and the egg are just as alive before and after fertilization. And if life is so important, then why is it ok to kill an animal that is clearly alive and can clearly feel pain but not kill a organism with only a couple of cells that can't even feel pain or think?
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
So are we all Diebold lovers here now?
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
If he follows the party line, he'll be enthusiastically in favor of it. They've edited their party platform page, but it just recently declared their support of the death penalty for drug-related offenses:
Scary stuff.
I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
Of course you said that. The fathers sin would be rape. The baby is being punished for it by being killed. Is any of it the baby's fault? Obviously not, nobody would argue that since it didn't exist yet.
Nevertheless, it's wrong to make a case out of the extreme. It would be possible to make the law state that in cases of rape and medical necessity (ie high risk of death to the mother) the baby could be aborted.
I feel that it would still be wrong... but nevertheless unavoidable.
What a fucking stupid thing to say. You go ahead and feel sad about everthing until you die. I'll have a good time before I die.
Who's the fool? The one who enjoyed a short life, or the one who didn't enjoy his (shorter) life?
Life is what you make of it. So go ahead and live your shithole of a life.
Most of the rest of the depressed people out there are going to try to go fix their problems.
He didn't want you... but for a more relevant analogy...
How about a man caring for his elderly mother. She doesn't do much, she takes a lot of effort to care for, she doesn't talk much, she spends most of her time sleeping and sitting around. She doesn't want to die. If not for her son, she would die quickly. She's a huge burden on him. There's a nine month waiting list to get into a care home.
Would he be justified in killing her if he couldn't pass off the burden for another nine months? Doesn't he have a right to his own life
No, I did not say that abortion should be legal in cases of rape. I said that abortion should be legal in all cases. I asked whether you idiots thought it was right to force a woman to carry her child to term, even in cases of rape. Your answer is "Yes".
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
No, that is also a completely irrelevant analogy. Off the top of my head, she is not inhabiting his body. Also, he could stop caring for her and yet not kill her.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Yes, I would weigh possible complications as being justification for ending the life of a fetus. Until very late in gestation, a human fetus has none of the features that make it specially human -- conscious thought, language, reason and learning. I would choose decades of human experience and the health of a society over a prehuman fetus in a heartbeat.
If raising a child was a totally personal responsibility, I'd understand where you're coming from. It isn't. The birth of a child, especially an unwanted one, sends ripples. I'm pretty sure I outlined the myriad consequences of an unwanted child before (in a post which you did not deign to respond to).
I fail to see how making a mistake should doom you and those around you to that fate.
It's shortsighted to look only at the US. Population is still increasing worldwide, and immigration will keep distribution steady -- or it would, if nations would drop their draconian border restrictions.
By the way, in most states, the adoption waiting time you cite is not for American babies, it's for WHITE American babies. Statistically, the waiting time for white adoptive parents who are willing to adopt minority children is much lower. It's super-hard to get blond, blue-eyed baby girls, but there's still a glut in especially black boys. Recently, the Canadians have been adopting black children from the US, but there's still a glut.
There is no shortage of children to adopt. There's a shortage of 'desirable' children that racist white parents aren't afraid are crack babies. Putting more children into the system will only skew things further, with the extra white kids getting snapped up, but even more black kids growing up without a parent.
So, yes. The death of numerous prehuman fetuses is acceptable to me in exchange for protecting society and individuals from the problems caused by unwanted children.
A better way of phrasing that triple negative would've been "it can be argued that the war in Iraq doesn't conform to the Just War Theory, but not conclusively", or something along those lines.
As someone who's known several depressed people, and been mildly depressed myself, bullshit. It is mental pain, not an outlook on life.
I find it horrible that anyone can sink so low in debate. This is like saying "Operation Iraqi Freedom (a US genocide in the Middle East)" when debating the Iraq war.
This fund includes money for "forecasting, purchasing, and supplying contraceptive commodities and other materials necessary for reproductive health programs."
What does that have to do with being pro-life or not? I don't see anything about abortions in there.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
So if it is the expert opinion of the woman's doctors that carrying the fetus to full term will result in the death of the woman or severe injury to her, does she have any right of self-defense, or do the rights of the fetus extend to the deprivation of her rights?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
No, that is fair. It's what the UNFPA is. They ENFORCE the one-woman, one-child rule to the point of FORCING abortion on a women who gets pregnant after having a child.
That's what the fund is billed as, but the organization in question agressively pushes abortion on demand.
Also, most forms of chemical birth control are abortifacients, which cause the induce abortion in early stages of pregnancy. No one who is truly pro-life would support such things. And the pro-life moniker implies more than just anti-abortion. At its purest, it implies being against abortion, euthenasia, embrionic stem-cell research, cloning, and a myriad of other dignity of life oriented issues.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
You will have to provide some evidence rather than just assertions. I tried to research the issue myself. The only actual information I found was that the British investigated and found no evidence that there were forced abortions supported by UNFPA. A pitifully small investigation, admittedly. The only actual evidence the other way is a couple of interviews that I find very unconvincing.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
The main problem I as a foreigner can see is the election process itself.
Where I live (Austria) there usually are 4 to 7 candidates. At the first election run all candidates can be voted for, if anyone reaches more than 50% this candidate immediately wins. If none reaches more than 50% in the first run, there will be a second run where only the two candidates with the most votes are candidates.
This ensures that every candidate gets coverage in the press as the chances to win are much higher for third row candidates. In this way more political ideas are presented, less cementation in a 2 - Party system occures
Yes, the plain evidence is thin. But personally hearing a Chinese couple who immigrated to the US speak of her experience was what really got me.
And even without the forced abortion, the fact that they support abortion is bad enough. The UN political agenda includes making abortion on demand legal in all nations.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
So argue about that, instead of name-calling without evidence.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
I see... so if an oppresive government and a shady organization covers up all evidence except for a handful of testimonies from eyewitness who escaped, we should just ignore it rather than trying to bring light to a problem...
I'm sorry, but the horrific testimony I recieved was enough to move me, and it is not inconsistent with the Chinese government treats its people.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
I'm sure the Chinese government is quite nasty. However, you are specifically complaining about UNFPA, which is anything but shady. And that you are being "moved" by testimony is all well and good for you, but it doesn't convince me. For one thing, I haven't heard/read the testimony.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
I'm pro-choice, dude. The italics was a quote of grandparent poster. I don't think the fetus has any rights.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
"the entire biological plan for an individual was present at conception, that the rules changed once more. It's not based on religious belief, it's based on science."
I'm still unconvinced. There's still an implied philosophical (if not, as you say, religious) opinion underlying this "scientific fact". Put it this way, by your logic I can scientifically prove that an acorn is an oak tree. I don't know about you but I would imagine there a lot of scientist who would beg to differ with that sort of glib analysis. You've assumed (correct me if I'm misinterpreting you) that the single defining characteristic that makes a human a human, in an ontological sense, is their genetic makeup. This is certainly a valid opinion, one perhaps that is shared by many scientists. But I would still contented that it is a philosophical opinion not an incontrovertible fact.
Beyond that I don't think we're actually in disagreement about anything. Certainly human beings should have the right to live without fear of being arbitrarily murdered. Although in all fairness I would have interpreted "social origin, property, birth or other status" to mean that I can't withhold the aforementioned rights based on when/where/to whom (not if) someone was born. But since I wasn't involved with writing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (and I'm willing to bet that neither were you) such interpretations are purely conjecture on both our parts.
"So we have BOTH a scientific fact on when life begins, and an international law arugment defining when one becomes a person. Do you have any backing for the fetus NOT having the right to life?" Well as I said in my original post, no not really. I think it's a thorny issue with no clear answers. I guess if I had to offer an argument (for the sake of the debate) I would say that we in fact don't have a scientific fact on when life begins, nor an international law argument defining when one becomes a person. All we have is philosophical/religious opinion, and it would be immoral for us to try and force our philosophical opinions on other people by fucking with the law.
I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
I'm still unconvinced. There's still an implied philosophical (if not, as you say, religious) opinion underlying this "scientific fact". Put it this way, by your logic I can scientifically prove that an acorn is an oak tree.
Yep- the acorn is the same species as the oak tree. I've got no problem with that. Different stages of the life cycle makes no difference when you're talking about species- for that matter, the larva is the same as the bee, or the catapillar is the same as the butterfly.
I don't know about you but I would imagine there a lot of scientist who would beg to differ with that sort of glib analysis.
I don't imagine that because I've actually paid attention as the understanding has changed in the last 30 years.
You've assumed (correct me if I'm misinterpreting you) that the single defining characteristic that makes a human a human, in an ontological sense, is their genetic makeup.
Yep- and differ it by 2% and you have a chimpanzee. Human is the name of a SPECIES- and Human Rights is the application of law to provide all members of the species equal protection.
This is certainly a valid opinion, one perhaps that is shared by many scientists. But I would still contented that it is a philosophical opinion not an incontrovertible fact.
Then you'd better abandon your support of any rights based on species- because it is an incontrovertible fact IF you accept the idea of speciation.
Beyond that I don't think we're actually in disagreement about anything. Certainly human beings should have the right to live without fear of being arbitrarily murdered. Although in all fairness I would have interpreted "social origin, property, birth or other status" to mean that I can't withhold the aforementioned rights based on when/where/to whom (not if) someone was born. But since I wasn't involved with writing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (and I'm willing to bet that neither were you) such interpretations are purely conjecture on both our parts.
True enough- you need to read a good biography of Elaenor Roosevelt if you want to know more (she was the principal author of that document of principles- just to get my spelling straight in my own head). She intended Article 2- and it's companion, Article 3- to be read as a support of anti-abortion laws. It took until 1990, though, and the Human Genome project, to change our point of view on speciation once again, to prove that the fetus is the same species as the adult. Before that, the inclusion of birth could be safely ignored based on the idea that in it's earliest stages a human fetus does not physically resemble the adult- any more than your hypothetical acorn resembles the oak tree.
An argument for the other side for a moment (and the reason I'm STILL voting for Kerry on this issue): The converse is also true. If the UDHR is the inalienable rights by which we judge governments, then a muderer does NOT automatically give up his Article 2 and Article 3 rights without some other need to protect society.
Well as I said in my original post, no not really. I think it's a thorny issue with no clear answers. I guess if I had to offer an argument (for the sake of the debate) I would say that we in fact don't have a scientific fact on when life begins, nor an international law argument defining when one becomes a person. All we have is philosophical/religious opinion, and it would be immoral for us to try and force our philosophical opinions on other people by fucking with the law.
It's more than that- we have the opinion of the framers on what the law meant, and we have something we can point to (the genetic code) to back up the scientific fact of speciation. This, against nothing more than a philosophical argument about a woman's body being hers and hers alone- when it's proveable that a second being is using it for that 9 months. You truly have no scientific backing for your philosophy, while those who believe in t
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
There's no substiture for actual data -- this Poll shows different. Those who voted for Ed Thompson, the Libertarian candidate for Governor of Wisconsin, were asked who they would have voted for if Ed had not been on the ballot. They responded with:
I know this subject is almost dead, but I just have to visite it again, Drugs are not wrong?????????? I have a friend who dauter (age 18) died of an OD on drugs, why dont you go to him and tell him drugs are not wrong, lets see how long you live after tell him that!!!!!! IMO this girl commited suiside, drugs (heroin most notably, and this is what it was) will *KILL* the user in time. even the libertarian's belovid hash, it is a gateway drug and will lead to other drugs that will KILL the user.
1) Since they were now the majority, they could persecute the other minorities, as they had been discriminated against themselves.
2) They could choose to be the bigger man, and not commit the wrongs that had been committed against them.
I prefer to think that in their deliberate separation of church and state, that they intended a culture of tolerance, unlike the society from which they fled.
If you choose to think that they really meant to establish no state religion, but to support any faith as long as it's Christianity, I believe that you are mistaken as to the intent of the Founding Fathers.
The profound ignorance of the above statement boggles the mind.
Third ammendment relevant portion This clearly addresses both Organized church involvement in state Respecting an establishment ie The church or xyz is the official religion of this nation and all citizens must be members or not be citizens AND state involvement in church prohibiting free exercise thereof the church of satan is verboten any members of this church shall be jailed and their citizenship revoked...
this ammendment clearly recognizes and addresses both the abuses of the medieval Roman church and the medieval English church and states that they shall not formally go to bed together regardless of which one gets to be on top.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
I think that the separation of church and state was about not establishing state religion and allowing the free expression of religion by ANYBODY- even "agents of Congress" which aren't mentioned in the Constitution. The first Ammendment reads:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nothing about preventing "agents of Congress" from the free exercise of personal religion, in fact, Congress can make no law RESPECTING establishment of religion OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That means that Congress can't make any laws preventing school prayer either- a strict reading of the Constitution shows that the intent of the Founding Fathers with separation of Church and State was freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM the religion of your fellow citizens. Thus yes, tolerance was EXACTLY what they wanted.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I know this subject is almost dead, but I just have to visite it again
No problem. I really didn't want to begin a flame war. The only reason that I posted originally was to point out that some pro-choice people don't care that the fetus is alive. When you replied in follow up, I had a lengthy response in which I explained that I was not willing to debate abortion online, because it always winds up going in circles, and no one ever listens.
Then I deleted it, wrote a million responses, and called you a jackass. I'm sorry about that. Whether or not you actually are a jackass.
Drugs are not wrong?????????? I have a friend who dauter (age 18) died of an OD on drugs, why dont you go to him and tell him drugs are not wrong, lets see how long you live after tell him that!!!!!! IMO this girl commited suiside, drugs (heroin most notably, and this is what it was) will *KILL* the user in time.
You are probably right. Most ODs are suicide. But obviously this girl's life was not saved by the illegalization of heroin. It might have been saved if she had access to the proper counselling, although maybe not. Also, bear in mind, I'm not talking about legalizing drugs for children.
Anyway, I honestly don't know enough about heroin in order to say that it should be legalized. It seems to me like Oxycodone being prescription over the counter is about as close as we should come to the legalization of heroin. But iduno. This is really, really far afield from our original topic of discussion.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
No problem on calling me a jackass, in the heat of a debate things get said that we should not say, and I am probably at times a jackass.
Well her father did have her at counselling as offten as he could, he even tried to get the courts to order her there (being she was 18, he could not legaly really force her there)
I also feel sorry for him, life has been shitting on him alot latly
last year his wife left him for another women
begining of the year his mother died
and 2 months ago his best friend died
so you can only immagin what he is going though now, with this
Thank you! I've been trying to make this argument, too. Drugs should be legal, as should assisted suicide.
Prescription drugs can kill you if you take too many of them. There are many drug users in the world; a lot of the successful, responsible people you deal with on a regular basis are probably drug users and you don't even know it. My father killed himself with an overdose of legal, perscription medication that he had been given. I certainly don't think that nobody else should be allowed to use that kind of medication because my father decided to take his life with it.
Secondly, if weed/hash can be confirmed to be a "gateway drug," (which I don't believe anyway) that to me is a compelling argument for the legalization of weed. Obviously, it's not the doing of drugs which leads people to shoot heroin (because then alcoholics, smokers and caffeine junkies would all be shooting up too), it's the fact that once you're accustomed to breaking the law, it's that much easier to break the law in other ways. Not to mention that some of the people who deal weeed also peddle other, harder drugs, which would not be the case if you could buy a pack of joints down at the convienence store.
I still feel like I'm failing to understand something of the definition of a human that you are using. Are you saying that all it takes to be human is the requisite genetic code? If so then answer me this: why is a fertilized ovum a human and a red blood cell is not? Both are single cells that contain human DNA.
;-)
;-)
"Yep- and differ it by 2% and you have a chimpanzee. Human is the name of a SPECIES - and Human Rights is the application of law to provide all members of the species equal protection"
Yes. But we've had the concept of a species much longer than we've known about genetics. When we talk about genetics species has a very particular meaning. But it is a meaning arbitrarily assigned to it by geneticists. Other people may disagree with the definition. The question is, are we in law using the same definition of species as we are in science. Should we be? For the record having given the bill a cursory search I don't believe they once use the word species. But now I'm drifting into semantic waters so I will move on.
"Then you'd better abandon your support of any rights based on species- because it is an incontrovertible fact IF you accept the idea of speciation."
But my whole point is that some people DON'T accept the idea of genetic speciation at least in so far as defining the essential nature of a human. If I accept the idea of genetic speciation then the whole debate is a non-issue. The question is, why should we accept genetic speciation over any (every) other proposed definition, and who are we to make that determination for everyone?
"True enough- you need to read a good biography of Elaenor Roosevelt if you want to know more (she was the principal author of that document of principles- just to get my spelling straight in my own head). She intended Article 2- and it's companion, Article 3- to be read as a support of anti-abortion laws"
I actually didn't know that about Eleanor Roosevelt. That's very interesting. I wouldn't have thought that abortion would have been as big of an issue in 1948, but then as you can no doubt tell, I'm no history major either
"The converse is also true. If the UDHR is the inalienable rights by which we judge governments, then a muderer does NOT automatically give up his Article 2 and Article 3 rights without some other need to protect society."
That's an excellent point. It always astonishes me how some people can extol the virtues of the death penalty in the same breath they're decrying abortion. It always struck me as somewhat hypocritical. If a right to life is indeed a universal human right then it should apply regardless of whether or not the human in question has committed an act we don't approve of.
"You truly have no scientific backing for your philosophy"
Well that's certainly true. That's what makes it philosophy
"while those who believe in the seemless garment of life are attracting both law (philosophy) and fact (scientific genetic evidence of speciation) in their favor. When faced with physical evidence, philosophy must bend. Always"
I think what I'm really driving at here is that resorting to the letter of science to answer every question is as much a philosophical decision as anything else. Science places importance on some aspects of nature and down plays others. Who's really to say that the scientific answer is the right one?
Beyond that I'd like to thank you for sharing you thoughts with me. I've found it enlightening and intellectually stimulating. I hope I haven't offended you with any of my ramblings.
I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
The Death Penalty and War are not a part of the five non-negotiables, because unlike abortion, there are times when both are moral.
One reason that Americans mostly support legalized abortion even though they're the most churchgoing modern nation is the belief that abortion is sometimes moral.
The litmus test is to ask a hypothetical question about a 15-year old girl who was raped by her own brother. Very few career politicians will admit to opposing abortion in that instance.
But once someone agrees that abortion is justified in one instance, they've crossed the line into saying it isn't the murder of a child, and slip along into permitting it in many other circumstances.
Most ODs are suicide. But obviously this girl's life was not saved by the illegalization of heroin.
Many ODs are also accidental, because the potency of unregulated heroin is quite variable. If it were a legal drug, then the dosage in every hit would be the same, and accidents would be less common.
Also, if heroin were legal, addicts would be less likely to use it alone in hiding. More of them would use it in the company of others, or in clinic or cafe environments, where prompt medical response will be called if someone collapses.
Often this philosophical issue is determined by religion. I have several very religious friends that believe at the moment of conception there is "life" in the womb.
They're not very orthodoxly religious, then. Because according to Biblical tradition, life begins only at baptism (including any kind of birth-ceremony, like circumcision), or 30 days after birth.
that life has all of the same rights as he/she will after birth nine months later.
Begging the question. That's the conclusion you want to reach, not a going-in assumption.
Contrary to popular rehtoric, rights are given by man, not God.
I still feel like I'm failing to understand something of the definition of a human that you are using. Are you saying that all it takes to be human is the requisite genetic code? If so then answer me this: why is a fertilized ovum a human and a red blood cell is not? Both are single cells that contain human DNA.
;-)
I'm saying that what it takes to define a human is the genetic code- and what it takes to define a human INDIVIDUAL is different genetic code than the parent. The fertilized ovum becomes an individual once fertilization by the sperm changes the genetic code. Before that, every sequence can be found in the mother's DNA. Likewise, with sperm- every sequence can be found in the father's DNA. Unfertilized ova and sperm belong to the parent organism. But once fertilized, the cell belongs to the child, not to the parent, because it no longer has the genetic code of the parent.
Yes. But we've had the concept of a species much longer than we've known about genetics. When we talk about genetics species has a very particular meaning. But it is a meaning arbitrarily assigned to it by geneticists. Other people may disagree with the definition.
Absolutely- but in so doing those other people are ignoring a scientific fact. You might disagree that gravity exists, but that doesn't stop the physics from being true.
The question is, are we in law using the same definition of species as we are in science.
No- we're not. The species of the fetus is not in question at all- the personhood is.
Should we be? For the record having given the bill a cursory search I don't believe they once use the word species. But now I'm drifting into semantic waters so I will move on.
The legal aspect is personhood rather than species- and by making somebody a non-person on circumstances of birth, the government is violating the human rights of that individual. Persons are protected by law- the UDHR is saying that all human individuals deserve personhood. The current laws of the United States discriminate against the unborn on this point.
But my whole point is that some people DON'T accept the idea of genetic speciation at least in so far as defining the essential nature of a human. If I accept the idea of genetic speciation then the whole debate is a non-issue. The question is, why should we accept genetic speciation over any (every) other proposed definition, and who are we to make that determination for everyone?
Not quite true- some people don't accept the idea of genetic speciation in so far as defining the essential nature of a PERSON. But to deny it defining the essential nature of a human- is ridiculous on it's face.
I actually didn't know that about Eleanor Roosevelt. That's very interesting. I wouldn't have thought that abortion would have been as big of an issue in 1948, but then as you can no doubt tell, I'm no history major either
If you bother to check her out, also check out the founders of the feminist movement in the 1920s- they had a great deal to say on the subject of abortion (then, like today, the grand majority of abortions were a phenomenon of spousal abuse, where the father refuses to take care of the child and forces the woman into an abortion. I personally say that if we make abortion illegal, then the fathers should be charged with equally with the women. In other words, President Bush for paying for an abortion in Texas in 1971 should have gone to jail).
That's an excellent point. It always astonishes me how some people can extol the virtues of the death penalty in the same breath they're decrying abortion. It always struck me as somewhat hypocritical. If a right to life is indeed a universal human right then it should apply regardless of whether or not the human in question has committed an act we don't approve of.
It's very hypocritical- that's why the Pope has been pushing the Seamless Garment philosophy. In so doing, of c
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
One reason that Americans mostly support legalized abortion even though they're the most churchgoing modern nation is the belief that abortion is sometimes moral.
Actually, most Americans do not support completely legalized abortion- latest polls show that over 71% of Americans support some form of restrictions on the "right" of abortion. But it's never been put up to a vote- and even those who support restrictions do not do so as a single issue for the most part.
The litmus test is to ask a hypothetical question about a 15-year old girl who was raped by her own brother. Very few career politicians will admit to opposing abortion in that instance.
Career politicians are not the people- in fact, most of them are out of touch with the people.
But once someone agrees that abortion is justified in one instance, they've crossed the line into saying it isn't the murder of a child, and slip along into permitting it in many other circumstances.
Which is where the principle of double effect comes in. One need not stop calling it murder in situations where a greater evil will happen without the abortion (a second murder).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Americans do not support completely legalized abortion- latest polls show that over 71% of Americans support some form of restrictions on the "right" of abortion.
"Completely legalized" and "restricted" are both subsets of "legalized". Someone against "partial birth abortion" may still be in favor of early-stage procedures.
But it's never been put up to a vote
There's a vote on it next month. Bush has promised (using the codeword "Dred Scott") to select Supreme Court Justices willing to override Roe-Wade. (And the current bench is really aging!)
Ironically, if that were to happen, the silent majority pro-abortion position of USA voters would become apparent, and within 3 years Congress would specifically legalize it. After this years of legalized abortion, the public is simply addicted to it (although they many addicts, they might not admit it until facing withdrawal)
I'd say it's far more likely that it would be specifically restricted. BTW, there's no real need to overturn RoeV.Wade- current scientific evidence can be construed as to support a nearly complete abortion ban within the RoeV.Wade decision (based on life of the mother and the newfound correlation between abortion and death of the mother).
Plus- next month's vote is bound to be far more of a referendum on the actual performance of the President than about a single issue. What I meant by a vote on the topic would be an EXPLICIT nationwide referendum to completely legalize abortion without restrictions- and that, would never pass.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I'd say it's far more likely that it would be specifically restricted.
And as I just said, "restricted" is a kind of "legal".
Issues like partial-birth abortion or parental consent are just sideshows*.
e an EXPLICIT nationwide referendum to completely legalize abortion without restrictions- and that, would never pass.
A nationwide vote to legalize weapons without restrictions would never pass either. But guns will still be legal.
* Speaking of sideshows, maybe I should've mentioned that although Republican politicians are anti-abortion, that's only because it gets them votes. (GWB has been demonstrable pro-abortion in his personal life). They don't actually want to outlaw it, because then a block of energetic supporters would declare victory and lose interest in politics. They prefer abortion as a persistent boogieman, to distract poor voters from economic issues.
And as I just said, "restricted" is a kind of "legal".
Well, then, I should ask- would you support a limitation of abortion to medical (both physical and mental) conditions only? Here's the *only* thing I see is wrong with the current state: people are using abortion for birth control. That's WAY to trival of a reason to have abortion available- we're supposed to be human beings not animals, and there are other forms of birth control available to us. Heck- we don't even HAVE to have sex- it's an option unlike with some lower life forms, we can choose to abstain. I think you could get near unamity on the concept of limiting abortion to medical reasons only. Parental consent isn't quite the sideshow you think it is- parental consent these days is required for just about any medical procedure.
A nationwide vote to legalize weapons without restrictions would never pass either. But guns will still be legal.
So, would the pro-choice side be satisfied with restrictions to protect the life of the mother, and when reasonable, require doctors to treat the fetus as a second patient? Because from my understanding of the Catholic Principle of Double Effect- that'd be a law that it would be a sin NOT to vote for. Abortion would still be legal- heck, it'd even be required in some cases under the medical philosophy principle of triage. Kind of like murder is allowable in cases of self defense- or how a doctor is allowed to let one patient die, so that they can take an aorta graft to save a second patient. And best of all- PAD would be treatable just as any other form of depression is today, as opposed to being hidden away and women scorned for being depressed after an abortion.
I completely agree on the Republican part- they're just using this as an issue to get people to vote against their own pocketbooks. Oddly enough- Kerry has been demonstratably pro-life in his personal life- a lot more than Bush the Betrayer of the Unborn has been (especially when it comes to his own progeny; Kerry has stated that a daughter of his will NEVER be allowed to get an abortion, where Bush has paid for the abortions of both daughters and an old girlfriend).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I think you could get near unamity on the concept of limiting abortion to medical reasons only.
I really don't think so. It seems that very few of the public would deny a rape victim the right to an abortion. (As I already mentioned) The thought of the rapist being (Darwinistcally) rewarded as the woman is forced to bear his child is basically repugnant.
That's certainly not a medical reason. And anyone who takes that viewpoint has already moved away from the "abortion is murder" position, and agreed that sometimes it is acceptable only according to the desire of the mother. Then it's a question of degree, not kind.
or how a doctor is allowed to let one patient die, so that they can take an aorta graft to save a second patient
That is absolutely not allowed in the USA today. It's just as illegal as euthanasia (which is to say, some doctors can and do get away with it)
Kerry has stated that a daughter of his will NEVER be allowed to get an abortion
No. It's not up to him anymore. He would allow his daughters (and their male counterparts, and their doctor+priest) to make that decision, even though he'd advocate against it himself. Arguing against is separate from disallowing.
However, I doubt he'd hold to that position in every possible case. As always, there is the example of his daughter becoming impregated by a rapist.
where Bush has paid for the abortions of both daughters and an old girlfriend
I wish we had proof of that. But he's too well-respected in certain circles for such evidence to survive.
However, Bush's supporters have demonstrated a willingness to ignore any non-recent behavior, especially if it's before his Christian awakening. (Then again, they ignore actions during his time in office too...)
I really don't think so. It seems that very few of the public would deny a rape victim the right to an abortion. (As I already mentioned) The thought of the rapist being (Darwinistcally) rewarded as the woman is forced to bear his child is basically repugnant.
But it's covered under MENTAL reasons for a medical abortion- preventing the suicide of the mother.
That's certainly not a medical reason. And anyone who takes that viewpoint has already moved away from the "abortion is murder" position, and agreed that sometimes it is acceptable only according to the desire of the mother. Then it's a question of degree, not kind.
I originally said physical and mental medical reasons- but not economic. An abortion in response to a rape is a non-economic and non-birth control reason; it's a response to the mother's mental stability.
That is absolutely not allowed in the USA today. It's just as illegal as euthanasia (which is to say, some doctors can and do get away with it)
Euthanasia is not illegal in the USA today (unfortuneately) but also, conversely, this form of triage isn't illegal either- in fact it's quite common in accident, natural disaster, and battle medicine. I see NO difference between an abortion to save the life of the mother (whether due to a mental condition caused by rape or incest, or a physical condition such as ectopic pregnancy) and this form of triage. The abortion is still an objective evil and objectively murder; but no blame can be assigned to either the woman or the doctor for saving the mother's life, for not saving that life is a greater objective evil.
No. It's not up to him anymore. He would allow his daughters (and their male counterparts, and their doctor+priest) to make that decision, even though he'd advocate against it himself. Arguing against is separate from disallowing.
He's stated that he will pay anything, make any sacrifice, to see the baby born- that's a great deal more than arguing.
However, I doubt he'd hold to that position in every possible case. As always, there is the example of his daughter becoming impregated by a rapist.
Depends on the mental stability of the daughter- many Catholic families choose to raise the child themselves in rape cases, seeing the child as a separate moral entity from the rapist. If it was my daughter, I'd take a very carefull look at how she was handling the rape first though- lest we lose both her and the baby to suicide.
I wish we had proof of that. But he's too well-respected in certain circles for such evidence to survive.
Yes, sadly. All witnesses seem to have been threatened into submission at this point (but not the journalists).
However, Bush's supporters have demonstrated a willingness to ignore any non-recent behavior, especially if it's before his Christian awakening. (Then again, they ignore actions during his time in office too...)
With their form of Christianity (Once Saved Always Saved, Health and Wealth is proof of Faith, and Faith Alone will see us through any trial) what he has done in office has been in keeping with that mutant sect of Christianity. Unfortuneately, I see that form of Christianity as being the equivalent of the Islamic Death Cults. Which makes 20% of Americans into terrorists from my point of view.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
But it's covered under MENTAL reasons for a medical abortion-
If so, then that's too fuzzy to be the basis of an law. Imagine if some other illegal act, like buying heroine, was permitted if a doctor certified it as mentally healthful.
Very few women would actually suicide if forced to bear a rape-child... in fact, they'd probably be more likely to blame & punish themselves if the pregnancy was an avoidable accident (and thus genuinely her own fault). Many people can spin vicitimization into social capital.
It's almost Catch-22: a woman not wanting a child for social or economic reasons would be incentivized to appear unstable, so she can have an abortion for mental health... but not wanting to raise an unaffordable child is a sign of sanity... so you can only have an abortion if you don't want one...
and non-birth control reason;
All abortion is birth control, by definition.
this form of triage isn't illegal either- in fact it's quite common in accident, natural disaster, and battle medicine.
That you called it "common" suggests that you're unaware of what you actually wrote (or what the words actually mean). It's not "triage" by any stretch of definition. If it's truely common, you'd be able to provide a citation of it ever happening.
Note that the USA has not engaged in any large-scale battles conducive to extensive triage since the surgical technique for aortic grafting was invented...
Which makes 20% of Americans into terrorists from my point of view.
That's a lovely quote. Just lovely. Be careful writing like that, if you want anyone to take you seriously ever again (slashdot subscribers can dig up very old comments... even ones you thought were forgotten deep in threads)
If so, then that's too fuzzy to be the basis of an law.
Only for Americans- did you read my JE on the Principle of Double Effect? It's quite common in Europe to have laws that are this fuzzy (and worse) and quite normal in Natural Law, Canon Law, and God's Law (the three laws of the Church) to have laws this fuzzy. It's only in America that we try to be legalistic and have our laws written out to cover every situation. And since not every situation is forseeable; such laws often fail.
Imagine if some other illegal act, like buying heroine, was permitted if a doctor certified it as mentally healthful.
I've got no problem with methadone clinics- nor with the use of morphine in hospitals. The key is the opinion of the outside party, here.
Very few women would actually suicide if forced to bear a rape-child... in fact, they'd probably be more likely to blame & punish themselves if the pregnancy was an avoidable accident (and thus genuinely her own fault). Many people can spin vicitimization into social capital.
These days, true enough- in most cases. But it's exactly those outlandish cases that abortion HAS to remain available for. Before abortion was legal, back when an illegal abortion was very much an assisted suicide, we lost MANY young women to the after effects of rape-inspired abortions. What I'm saying is that we don't have to go all the way back to those days- the law doesn't have to be black and white.
It's almost Catch-22: a woman not wanting a child for social or economic reasons would be incentivized to appear unstable, so she can have an abortion for mental health... but not wanting to raise an unaffordable child is a sign of sanity... so you can only have an abortion if you don't want one...
Exactly! That's the point. There are very real cases where abortion is unavoidable- and must remain legal for those cases. BTW- back to the UDHR- if we'd actually implement ALL of the UDHR, Article 25 makes sure that such economic circumstances SIMPLY DON'T EXIST. It's another place where the laws of the United States as currently written fail women- this time in a conspiracy with private industry.
All abortion is birth control, by definition.
No- it isn't. That's the point I'm trying to get at. Yes, the majority of abortion as currently practiced is indeed birth control- but it doesn't have to be that way. The reason given in Roe V. Wade for legalizing abortion has nothing to do with birth control at all- it has to do with saving women's lives. In fact, if we ever get to the point where it is proveable that abortion is more dangerous than pregnancy- which it already is in some cases- Roe V. Wade does NOT stand in the way of regulating such abortions at all.
That you called it "common" suggests that you're unaware of what you actually wrote (or what the words actually mean). It's not "triage" by any stretch of definition. If it's truely common, you'd be able to provide a citation of it ever happening.
Sure- in the 1996 SF Earthquake it happened when a surgeon had to do a field surgery on a man whose chest had been pierced with a rebar. The competing patient, while still technically alive, had his head crushed by a falling chunk of concrete. It was the surgeon's duty to save the man that he could- and let the other one die. That's the very DEFINITION of triage- and the same case holds true even if abortion is held to be murder when an ER surgeon is faced with a woman who didn't know she had an ectopic pregnancy and whose fallopian tube has already burst. Yes- he has two patients, the woman and the fetus. NO, he doesn't have the ability to save the fetus- but if he works fast enough, does a cesarian abortion, he can save the woman.
Note that the USA has not engaged in any large-scale battles conducive to extensive triage since the surgical technique for aortic grafting was invented...
Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Gulf War II, the invasions
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
It's quite common in Europe to have laws that are this fuzzy
And what else is quite common in Europe? Legal abortion.
And since not every situation is forseeable; such laws often fail.
Correct. Overly simplistic laws cause unfairness. And "Abortion is murder, unless it's self-defense" is a simplistic standard.
for legalizing abortion has nothing to do with birth control at all- it has to do with saving women's lives.
Saving lives by preventing (or "controlling") a risky birth. Birth control.
The reason given in Roe V. Wade for legalizing abortion has nothing to do with birth control at all- it has to do with saving women's lives.
Completely wrong. Jane Roe's health was in no way endangered by her pregnancy. If it had been, then she could've gotten an abortion easily, without the need for the lawsuit.
It was the surgeon's duty to save the man that he could- and let the other one die. That's the very DEFINITION of triage-
Yes, that's "triage" alright. Which just confirms my suspicion that you had NO IDEA what you typed earlier. You said a doctor could KILL one man to TAKE HIS ORGANS and give them TO ANOTHER.
Apparently you didn't mean to say that, but you did. (Here's the clause again, for reference: "a doctor is allowed to let one patient die, so that they can take an aorta graft")
Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Gulf War II, the invasions of Grenada and Panama- we've been in plenty of large scale battles in the last 50 years. Where have you been?
Aortic grafting techniques were not available to emergency physicians until after the Vietnam war concluded. (They had been used as an experimental technique by occasional specialists, but not in urgent situations).
Post-Vietnam, the USA military has not engaged in any large battles- if you define "battle" as a two-sided conflict, instead of a turkey-shoot like some of the 800:1 ratio engagements of ODS.
(There have been occasional incidents where large numbers of US troops have been killed/wounded in a short time, but those were based on a large explosion or airplane crash, which unlike small arms fire, are unlikely to produce treatable cardiac damage)
I've been quite strong about pointing out that there are only two ways out of this war Bush has gotten us into: Genocide and surrender.
I read that journal. It is based on a completely different definition of "surrender" than used in the English language. (Hint: Although the USA didn't win in Vietnam, they didn't surrender either)
And what else is quite common in Europe? Legal abortion.
Yes- under strict regulation that keeps the deaths of women down to only 252% of pregnancy- less than 3 in 10,000. That's the whole point- saving life.
Correct. Overly simplistic laws cause unfairness. And "Abortion is murder, unless it's self-defense" is a simplistic standard.
I thought you were arguing that it was too fuzzy of a standard...which is it?
Saving lives by preventing (or "controlling") a risky birth. Birth control.
And I'd argue for limiting birth control too- to a risky birth situation.
Completely wrong. Jane Roe's health was in no way endangered by her pregnancy. If it had been, then she could've gotten an abortion easily, without the need for the lawsuit.
Not in Texas in 1973 she couldn't- and read the majority opinion of SCOTUS sometime- it clearly states that the states have the right to regulate when abortion is riskier than birth.
Yes, that's "triage" alright. Which just confirms my suspicion that you had NO IDEA what you typed earlier. You said a doctor could KILL one man to TAKE HIS ORGANS and give them TO ANOTHER.
I see no difference between the two morally- when one patient is less likely to survive than the other, it's perfectly legal to remove life support from the one (killing him) to give organs to the other.
Apparently you didn't mean to say that, but you did. (Here's the clause again, for reference: "a doctor is allowed to let one patient die, so that they can take an aorta graft")
LET one patient die- I didn't say take a gun out and murder him.
Aortic grafting techniques were not available to emergency physicians until after the Vietnam war concluded. (They had been used as an experimental technique by occasional specialists, but not in urgent situations).
Actually- in urgent situations they were used in Korea- but you said that there have been NO major battles, and that's false.
Post-Vietnam, the USA military has not engaged in any large battles- if you define "battle" as a two-sided conflict, instead of a turkey-shoot like some of the 800:1 ratio engagements of ODS.
The turkey shoot even creates triage situations- if only from friendly fire incidents. And yes, I'd consider any battle where the combined casualties were greater than 100 to be a major battle.
(There have been occasional incidents where large numbers of US troops have been killed/wounded in a short time, but those were based on a large explosion or airplane crash, which unlike small arms fire, are unlikely to produce treatable cardiac damage)
Ever hear of Shrapnel?
I read that journal. It is based on a completely different definition of "surrender" than used in the English language. (Hint: Although the USA didn't win in Vietnam, they didn't surrender either)
True enough- and today we're still having problems with Vietnam and North Korea, both of which are well on their way to having nuclear arsenals.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I thought you were arguing that it was too fuzzy of a standard...which is it?
Why do you bother typing so much if you won't even pay a little attention to the posts you're responding to? (I'm reminded of Karl Rove's fondness for willfully misunderstanding Kerry to attack him on positions he doesn't even hold)
As I PLAINLY stated, classifying mental health as a medical risk that can justify abortion is excessively fuzzy.
Not in Texas in 1973 she couldn't- and read the majority opinion of SCOTUS sometime-
Funny, that's exactly what I just read to make sure I was right that her abortion was not needed for her own health.
I see no difference between the two morally- when one patient is less likely to survive than the other, it's perfectly legal to remove life support from the one (killing him) to give organs to the other.
You may think it's moral, but it is 100% illegal.
Ever hear of Shrapnel?
Yes, I'm quite familiar with his influential career. There have been no large-scale serious shrapnel casualties suffered by US troops since the pullout from Vietnam.
And I'd still really enjoy seeing a citation of any incident where a doctor allowed one victim to die so his veins could be grafted into another.
I thought you were arguing that it was too fuzzy of a standard...which is it?
And to expand:
You justify a medically-necessary abortion as similar to a killing in self-defense. That's fine reasoning that almost no one will dispute.
But to say that mental health also qualifies as a medical necessity implies that I can kill a man if he's driving me crazy ("Sherrif, I had to kill him, to defend my fragile ego").
Why do you bother typing so much if you won't even pay a little attention to the posts you're responding to? (I'm reminded of Karl Rove's fondness for willfully misunderstanding Kerry to attack him on positions he doesn't even hold) As I PLAINLY stated [slashdot.org], classifying mental health as a medical risk that can justify abortion is excessively fuzzy.
And yet- that's exactly what they do in Europe- it's either too fuzzy of a standard, or too legalistic.
You may think it's moral, but it is 100% illegal.
So it's legal to let both patients die rather than save the one you can?
Yes, I'm quite familiar with his influential career. There have been no large-scale serious shrapnel casualties suffered by US troops since the pullout from Vietnam.
I can even think of one on US soil- the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing had plenty of shrapnel wounds from flying bits of mortar and Ryder Truck, even among the ATF- but I suppose that wouldn't be US Troops, would it?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Insanity has always been a legal defense in court- one would have to go to court to prove it though after the fact, and/or have a doctor attest to it beforehand. But since a woman is highly unlikely to give herself an abortion- I doubt it would be that big of a problem.
The question becomes, do we lose the baby, or do we lose mother *and* child do to a sucicide? It's back to triage- save the patient that it is possible to save.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.