You are arguing greater semantics. For your first example, yes people with Down Syndrome are people. They are limited in their capabilities, but I consider them people and as such, their life is valuable. Some people value their pets over other people, does that make it acceptable to kill people? Some people value money over people? Is that justification? What if individuals aren't important at all? Why shouldn't we do what's best for society (Utilitarianism)? Maybe if I kill you and it makes everyone else better off, that is good enough?
I never claimed that's where life begins, like you said, it's where *I* decided to draw the line. Which is why like everyone else seems to miss that I support legal abortions, despite the fact that *I* believe it is wrong.
I didn't say that more people would take drugs. I just said that there are secondary effects to drug usage. People currently drive high, and will continue to do so. That is the same with alcohol and prohibition, and it was the same with abortion and Roe v. Wade. The point is not that things will get worse, I agree things will get better with legalization. But there is still some negative societal cost to drug use. These costs are already inflicted on society and will not go away no matter what the laws are.
Citizens of a democracy is inductively weak as any reasoning individual would see that our nation was set up as a republic. In any case, pull your panties out of your ass and realize it was some sarcasm. But seriously, you can't deny having a balance sheet in the red is just plain bad policy regardless of your economic theories.
We currently grow food where the climate is right for growing food. If the earth got significantly warmer, we would have to move our cropland north (or south in the southern hemisphere) where there is MUCH MORE LAND AVAILABLE FOR FARMS. Food prices are at a 30 year high because the United States is one of the biggest producers of food and ETHANOL SUBSIDIES (which were partially justified by reducing global warming) force up the cost of food as they have to compete with fuel production.
Global warming has many negative consequences, I do not doubt that. However, food shortages are not among them, and anyone who claims they are has never looked at a globe. Might I show you Canada, Greenland, and Siberia as exhibits A-C as large masses of currently unusable land that would be perfect for farming in a warmer climate. Heck if it gets warm enough, Antarctica could be usable.
To the point of the other poster, yes the ocean level will rise, there is a maximum potential of about 2m (6ft) with a probable value of about half a meter (1.5ft). Not catastrophic as New Orleans continues to survive despite being about 2m (6ft) below sea level as it is.
Your last concept is what disturbs me. Who knows if the life will be valuable? I did not have value anywhere in my discussion. I based that on DNA as I stated. If it has a complete and unique human DNA, it is a person. Do we know what will become of it? No, but neither do we know when the baby is born. Maybe we should kill any disabled babies, after all how much real value do they contribute? They will likely be a parasite on their parents. The point is, future potential is not a consideration, it is only uniqueness. I don't know what a soul is, or how to define it, but I don't remember much before I was 5 or so, so maybe 5 years old should be the cutoff? And to your comment of forcing women to retrieve fertilized eggs, realize that death occurs naturally all over the world, and it is not considered murder. The same is true of miscarriages, we are not intentionally destroying unique DNA in that case.
If you don't believe that life begins at conception, then when did your life begin?
What you are referring to is called "Welfare" and yes it exists, and no my contributions are not voluntary. Once again, the problem is people not wanting to deal with the consequences of their decision. The solution is not to encourage that behavior by paying people to make mistakes.
What about my rights as a man? Just because I can't carry the fetus means that a woman should be able to kill what is biologically my child? If a woman wants to cut off her leg, let her. If she wants to kill herself, go ahead. But a fetus is not the same DNA as the mother. It is no longer her body at that point, despite being wholly contained and dependent on it. You just fail to see that distinction.
Positive from what baseline? Alcohol is legal, but how many innocent deaths occur from drunk driving? I would assume even if cocaine and heroin were legal, innocent non-users would have some ramifications due to that. I wholeheartedly agree that those consequences are far smaller than the drug war.
Right, the sin of killing a baby. There is nothing wrong with sex (you'll note that I mentioned birth control). There is something wrong with killing a baby to not have to deal with consequences of your decision. This to me is no different than getting drunk and killing somebody in an accident. You are allowed to drink, there is nothing wrong with it, but you must live with the consequences of the decision you made even if you didn't intend to kill somebody.
1) Rape should be the decision of the pregnant woman. I would highly encourage her to carry the baby to term, but if she is unable to support the pregnancy, abortion should be allowed. In addition, if she cannot or does not want to support the baby, adoption is a preferred alternative. Two wrongs don't make a right though, and killing a baby does not undo the crime of rape.
2) Sex ed is pitiful... I consider myself an atheist, but was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools. We were taught that masturbation was bad, sex is bad, and blah blah blah, you get the picture. The point is, teenagers aren't stupid, they know they are risking pregnancy, they just don't care. Let's face it, young men and women (and a lot of older men and women) don't think about long term consequences when it comes to short term pleasure. Sex ed should be encouraged and I think the internet is a great resource for that. I know that's how I got my sex ed (and no, I'm not referring to porn).
You are speaking in utilitarian respects, and I have to admit, it is a good point to examine. I think it would be better for society if people didn't engage in a child-producing activity until they were ready to produce a child. I am in the camp like your friends, I am a virgin but in the Bill Clinton definition where there is plenty of no penis on vagina action that can give pleasure without risk of pregnancy. And birth control is not 100% effective, and I realize that. But there are also plenty of parents who cannot bear children that would be happy to adopt. I never said people should be forced to RAISE the child, but they should be forced (in a more perfect world) to give birth to it and allow the child to survive. But again, as things are now, that is my belief, and I have chosen to not force it on others.
The second question is, yes I do have a moral problem with any destruction of unique DNA. Stem cells taken from my body I can do whatever I please with, but destroying fertilized embryos is wrong. I draw the line at DNA, because that is the only scientific line in the sand I can come up with to define a unique human.
You are right, I did not mention that, and your assumption is correct. In this situation, there is no outcome where both survive, so it is a tough decision deciding who lives. This should be a personal choice on the part of the mother, but in most cases, the options are an abortion or the death of both mother and child, which is really a no-brainer... But that doesn't make it an easy decision.
In both scenarios you're removing an unwanted being from your life at your own desire. The fact that the entity being removed is fully dependent on the mother sounds like a justification for killing born babies, and heck even kids up to an age where they can care for themselves.
Above I stated that abortions should be legal. However, maybe they should come with a hysterectomy, as they obviously decided they don't want children. Oh wait, pro-choice right now, pro-different-choice later. Sounds more like pro-convenience to me.
I guess my problem stems from the same argument as drug legalization. I know the ideal is that it only hurts yourself but it causes societal harm. However, the effects of making it illegal are worse than the effects of using the drug. I guess that is more utilitarian than anything else. But realize that my libertarian side says, hey just because I believe that life begins at conception, my neighbor does not. So since this is not a clear cut issue, they should decide based on their beliefs. Now if we had a good legal definition for life, and it was at conception, then definitely abortion would be murder. However, that legal definition appears to be at birth right now (or in the third trimester if late term abortions are illegal).
---This is a section break between calm, collected argument and outright flames.---
However, to touch on the AC's reply, I hate the term Pro-Choice. Unless it was rape (which is a separate issue), there was already a choice made. You don't want to get pregnant, then DON'T FUCK. I choose not to have sex because I don't want a baby. At the very least there is something called "birth control" that when used properly (i.e. not in a drunken horny state) works quite effectively. Don't whine and moan and kill a baby because you decided after the fact that you screwed up. An abortion is not pro-choice, it's pro-regret. I am not forcing you to be pregnant no more than I am forcing you to be in prison after committing a crime. What I am forcing on you is living with the consequences of the choices you already made. Women don't need a mulligan unless they haven't been taught the birds and the bees. Face it women know the dangers of having sex before engaging. Don't let them about face when shit gets real./flame
Oh really, everything that you said about evolution is true about global warming?
Evolution has been proven true, again and again, since Darmin formulated it in the 19th century, and only the brainwashed religious masses still contest it.
That isn't much of an argument in the first place. Second of all, we can see fossil records and trace out steps in between currently related species. We have also seen subtle changes in our own species over time. In addition, we can perform experiments in a petri dish to show that evolution does occur over time.
Ok, now can everything I just said about evolution apply to global warming? We can see steps in fossil records showing past global warming. So I guess that works out. We have seen subtle changes in our climate in recent times. We are 2 for 2 so far. We can show in a small environment that greenhouse gases can cause warmth. So for testing for global warming you have 3 for 3
But what about the effects of these things? What is the effect of evolution? What if we start devolving and turn into Idiocracy? Should we change our way of life to prevent it? What about global warming? Do we have any evidence that it will cause all the detriments people talk about? Is there an air of fear about it? Do people tend to irrationally argue about it? I think there might be some cause to question the knee-jerk reactions to it.
I believe in the greenhouse effect. However, it is a bit of a stretch to translate some greenhouse warming to doom and gloom. I don't believe global warming isn't happening. What I doubt is the effects of global warming. I think it will just make it warmer. That being said, I think politicians on both the left and right spout bullshit. Whether or not it's the right questioning the science behind global warming or the left questioning the benefits of an oil based economy.
Hey, Keynesian economics has plenty of evidence and economists suggesting it's wrong, but that doesn't stop both parties from pushing further away from free-market ideals...
Or if that is still too debatable. I don't think anyone with any math skills at all would disagree that spending more than you bring in is a bad long-term policy, yet Democrats and Republicans alike don't seem to agree with that.
I guess the real point is, Democrats and Republicans will say ANYTHING REGARDLESS OF FACTS if it will get them votes.
I'm not going to get into the politics or science, but just felt the need to comment that a post from an AC saying "Democrats never deny scientific fact" gets modded informative, while a post from someone who is logged in saying "both sides are full of shit" gets modded troll. Why can't I selectively metamod?
I agree with you. The definition of life is not very good. Especially in a human context. The real crux of the abortion issue is when does a mother separate from it's child into two lives? Is it at conception, birth, somewhere in between? That is not a scientific issue. Most people agree at what point the entity has for example: A complete set of unique DNA, a beating heart, the ability to feel pain, the ability to breathe on its own... Those items are scientific consensus. The part that isn't scientific at all, "when is it killing a baby?" is left for the philosophers.
My personal view is that life begins at conception, and as such, abortion is wrong. However, I am a libertarian, and I have a hard time saying abortion should be illegal. My real question is, what is the fundamental difference between abortion and murder?
I am a Constitutional fighter myself, and I hate to agree with you here, but the Constitution is enumerating the rights of the FEDERAL government. Indiana can have their own laws.
I don't know if you support the linked article or not, but seriously. That's the dumbest rant I've ever heard!
First, it compares lightbulbs to floppy disks. Some people do use floppy disks, but not on a large scale. The same is true of incandescent light bulbs. They will phase out as a new technology can replace them. The government has not needed to ban floppies. Why should it ban lightbulbs?
Then at the end it makes this statement: "The Constitution did not grant you the right to use up all the fucking resources just because you like yellow light and hate black presidents."
The constitution doesn't grant people any rights... It limits the rights of the government. Of which, banning consumer products is not included. In fact, since "using up all the fucking resources" is not mentioned at all, then per the 10th amendment, we DO have the right to use up all the fucking resources. Or maybe states can make a ban. But in no way do the feds have that power.
No, that does not remain to be seen. Cite constitutional authority for a ban on consumer products. I'll wait, the constitution is only 3 pages long... Hmm, struggling to find anything? Maybe you can try pulling out a loosely related clause like "necessary and proper" or maybe "common welfare" or even "interstate commerce"? Nope, this is not necessary, common welfare is in the preamble, with no actual power, and they are not even mentioning states in the ban.
Unless you can magically pull something else out of the constitution, there is no remaining to be seen. GP was correct, there is no constitutional authority to ban light bulbs.
First they came for my incandescent bulbs and I had moved to CFLs, so I did not complain... Then the came for my heating oil, but I used natural gas, so I did not complain. Finally they came for my natural gas, and I froze to death.
The government has NO AUTHORITY to dictate what I can buy and use in my own damn house.
That wouldn't be very american now would it? Remember being an american is about force. We force democracy on other nations. We force you to buy healthcare. We force you to bail out big banks. We force you to use CFLs. We force you to use ethanol. Pretty soon you won't be able to put your TP roll on so that it hangs from the back because the government decides hanging it from the front is so much better.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the fundamental reason why I am a libertarian and refuse to vote for a Republican, even if it means a Democrat victory.
You are arguing greater semantics. For your first example, yes people with Down Syndrome are people. They are limited in their capabilities, but I consider them people and as such, their life is valuable. Some people value their pets over other people, does that make it acceptable to kill people? Some people value money over people? Is that justification? What if individuals aren't important at all? Why shouldn't we do what's best for society (Utilitarianism)? Maybe if I kill you and it makes everyone else better off, that is good enough?
I never claimed that's where life begins, like you said, it's where *I* decided to draw the line. Which is why like everyone else seems to miss that I support legal abortions, despite the fact that *I* believe it is wrong.
I didn't say that more people would take drugs. I just said that there are secondary effects to drug usage. People currently drive high, and will continue to do so. That is the same with alcohol and prohibition, and it was the same with abortion and Roe v. Wade. The point is not that things will get worse, I agree things will get better with legalization. But there is still some negative societal cost to drug use. These costs are already inflicted on society and will not go away no matter what the laws are.
Citizens of a democracy is inductively weak as any reasoning individual would see that our nation was set up as a republic. In any case, pull your panties out of your ass and realize it was some sarcasm. But seriously, you can't deny having a balance sheet in the red is just plain bad policy regardless of your economic theories.
We currently grow food where the climate is right for growing food. If the earth got significantly warmer, we would have to move our cropland north (or south in the southern hemisphere) where there is MUCH MORE LAND AVAILABLE FOR FARMS. Food prices are at a 30 year high because the United States is one of the biggest producers of food and ETHANOL SUBSIDIES (which were partially justified by reducing global warming) force up the cost of food as they have to compete with fuel production.
Global warming has many negative consequences, I do not doubt that. However, food shortages are not among them, and anyone who claims they are has never looked at a globe. Might I show you Canada, Greenland, and Siberia as exhibits A-C as large masses of currently unusable land that would be perfect for farming in a warmer climate. Heck if it gets warm enough, Antarctica could be usable.
To the point of the other poster, yes the ocean level will rise, there is a maximum potential of about 2m (6ft) with a probable value of about half a meter (1.5ft). Not catastrophic as New Orleans continues to survive despite being about 2m (6ft) below sea level as it is.
Your last concept is what disturbs me. Who knows if the life will be valuable? I did not have value anywhere in my discussion. I based that on DNA as I stated. If it has a complete and unique human DNA, it is a person. Do we know what will become of it? No, but neither do we know when the baby is born. Maybe we should kill any disabled babies, after all how much real value do they contribute? They will likely be a parasite on their parents. The point is, future potential is not a consideration, it is only uniqueness. I don't know what a soul is, or how to define it, but I don't remember much before I was 5 or so, so maybe 5 years old should be the cutoff? And to your comment of forcing women to retrieve fertilized eggs, realize that death occurs naturally all over the world, and it is not considered murder. The same is true of miscarriages, we are not intentionally destroying unique DNA in that case.
If you don't believe that life begins at conception, then when did your life begin?
What you are referring to is called "Welfare" and yes it exists, and no my contributions are not voluntary. Once again, the problem is people not wanting to deal with the consequences of their decision. The solution is not to encourage that behavior by paying people to make mistakes.
What about my rights as a man? Just because I can't carry the fetus means that a woman should be able to kill what is biologically my child? If a woman wants to cut off her leg, let her. If she wants to kill herself, go ahead. But a fetus is not the same DNA as the mother. It is no longer her body at that point, despite being wholly contained and dependent on it. You just fail to see that distinction.
Positive from what baseline? Alcohol is legal, but how many innocent deaths occur from drunk driving? I would assume even if cocaine and heroin were legal, innocent non-users would have some ramifications due to that. I wholeheartedly agree that those consequences are far smaller than the drug war.
Right, the sin of killing a baby. There is nothing wrong with sex (you'll note that I mentioned birth control). There is something wrong with killing a baby to not have to deal with consequences of your decision. This to me is no different than getting drunk and killing somebody in an accident. You are allowed to drink, there is nothing wrong with it, but you must live with the consequences of the decision you made even if you didn't intend to kill somebody.
1) Rape should be the decision of the pregnant woman. I would highly encourage her to carry the baby to term, but if she is unable to support the pregnancy, abortion should be allowed. In addition, if she cannot or does not want to support the baby, adoption is a preferred alternative. Two wrongs don't make a right though, and killing a baby does not undo the crime of rape.
2) Sex ed is pitiful... I consider myself an atheist, but was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools. We were taught that masturbation was bad, sex is bad, and blah blah blah, you get the picture. The point is, teenagers aren't stupid, they know they are risking pregnancy, they just don't care. Let's face it, young men and women (and a lot of older men and women) don't think about long term consequences when it comes to short term pleasure. Sex ed should be encouraged and I think the internet is a great resource for that. I know that's how I got my sex ed (and no, I'm not referring to porn).
You are speaking in utilitarian respects, and I have to admit, it is a good point to examine. I think it would be better for society if people didn't engage in a child-producing activity until they were ready to produce a child. I am in the camp like your friends, I am a virgin but in the Bill Clinton definition where there is plenty of no penis on vagina action that can give pleasure without risk of pregnancy. And birth control is not 100% effective, and I realize that. But there are also plenty of parents who cannot bear children that would be happy to adopt. I never said people should be forced to RAISE the child, but they should be forced (in a more perfect world) to give birth to it and allow the child to survive. But again, as things are now, that is my belief, and I have chosen to not force it on others.
The second question is, yes I do have a moral problem with any destruction of unique DNA. Stem cells taken from my body I can do whatever I please with, but destroying fertilized embryos is wrong. I draw the line at DNA, because that is the only scientific line in the sand I can come up with to define a unique human.
You are right, I did not mention that, and your assumption is correct. In this situation, there is no outcome where both survive, so it is a tough decision deciding who lives. This should be a personal choice on the part of the mother, but in most cases, the options are an abortion or the death of both mother and child, which is really a no-brainer... But that doesn't make it an easy decision.
In both scenarios you're removing an unwanted being from your life at your own desire. The fact that the entity being removed is fully dependent on the mother sounds like a justification for killing born babies, and heck even kids up to an age where they can care for themselves.
Above I stated that abortions should be legal. However, maybe they should come with a hysterectomy, as they obviously decided they don't want children. Oh wait, pro-choice right now, pro-different-choice later. Sounds more like pro-convenience to me.
I guess my problem stems from the same argument as drug legalization. I know the ideal is that it only hurts yourself but it causes societal harm. However, the effects of making it illegal are worse than the effects of using the drug. I guess that is more utilitarian than anything else. But realize that my libertarian side says, hey just because I believe that life begins at conception, my neighbor does not. So since this is not a clear cut issue, they should decide based on their beliefs. Now if we had a good legal definition for life, and it was at conception, then definitely abortion would be murder. However, that legal definition appears to be at birth right now (or in the third trimester if late term abortions are illegal).
---This is a section break between calm, collected argument and outright flames.---
However, to touch on the AC's reply, I hate the term Pro-Choice. Unless it was rape (which is a separate issue), there was already a choice made. You don't want to get pregnant, then DON'T FUCK. I choose not to have sex because I don't want a baby. At the very least there is something called "birth control" that when used properly (i.e. not in a drunken horny state) works quite effectively. Don't whine and moan and kill a baby because you decided after the fact that you screwed up. An abortion is not pro-choice, it's pro-regret. I am not forcing you to be pregnant no more than I am forcing you to be in prison after committing a crime. What I am forcing on you is living with the consequences of the choices you already made. Women don't need a mulligan unless they haven't been taught the birds and the bees. Face it women know the dangers of having sex before engaging. Don't let them about face when shit gets real. /flame
Oh really, everything that you said about evolution is true about global warming?
Evolution has been proven true, again and again, since Darmin formulated it in the 19th century, and only the brainwashed religious masses still contest it.
That isn't much of an argument in the first place. Second of all, we can see fossil records and trace out steps in between currently related species. We have also seen subtle changes in our own species over time. In addition, we can perform experiments in a petri dish to show that evolution does occur over time.
Ok, now can everything I just said about evolution apply to global warming?
We can see steps in fossil records showing past global warming. So I guess that works out.
We have seen subtle changes in our climate in recent times. We are 2 for 2 so far.
We can show in a small environment that greenhouse gases can cause warmth. So for testing for global warming you have 3 for 3
But what about the effects of these things? What is the effect of evolution? What if we start devolving and turn into Idiocracy? Should we change our way of life to prevent it? What about global warming? Do we have any evidence that it will cause all the detriments people talk about? Is there an air of fear about it? Do people tend to irrationally argue about it? I think there might be some cause to question the knee-jerk reactions to it.
I believe in the greenhouse effect. However, it is a bit of a stretch to translate some greenhouse warming to doom and gloom. I don't believe global warming isn't happening. What I doubt is the effects of global warming. I think it will just make it warmer. That being said, I think politicians on both the left and right spout bullshit. Whether or not it's the right questioning the science behind global warming or the left questioning the benefits of an oil based economy.
Hey, Keynesian economics has plenty of evidence and economists suggesting it's wrong, but that doesn't stop both parties from pushing further away from free-market ideals...
Or if that is still too debatable. I don't think anyone with any math skills at all would disagree that spending more than you bring in is a bad long-term policy, yet Democrats and Republicans alike don't seem to agree with that.
I guess the real point is, Democrats and Republicans will say ANYTHING REGARDLESS OF FACTS if it will get them votes.
I'm not going to get into the politics or science, but just felt the need to comment that a post from an AC saying "Democrats never deny scientific fact" gets modded informative, while a post from someone who is logged in saying "both sides are full of shit" gets modded troll. Why can't I selectively metamod?
I agree with you. The definition of life is not very good. Especially in a human context. The real crux of the abortion issue is when does a mother separate from it's child into two lives? Is it at conception, birth, somewhere in between? That is not a scientific issue. Most people agree at what point the entity has for example: A complete set of unique DNA, a beating heart, the ability to feel pain, the ability to breathe on its own... Those items are scientific consensus. The part that isn't scientific at all, "when is it killing a baby?" is left for the philosophers.
My personal view is that life begins at conception, and as such, abortion is wrong. However, I am a libertarian, and I have a hard time saying abortion should be illegal. My real question is, what is the fundamental difference between abortion and murder?
I am a Constitutional fighter myself, and I hate to agree with you here, but the Constitution is enumerating the rights of the FEDERAL government. Indiana can have their own laws.
People like you are the ones destroying America. Go fucking start your own country.
I don't know if you support the linked article or not, but seriously. That's the dumbest rant I've ever heard!
First, it compares lightbulbs to floppy disks. Some people do use floppy disks, but not on a large scale. The same is true of incandescent light bulbs. They will phase out as a new technology can replace them. The government has not needed to ban floppies. Why should it ban lightbulbs?
Then at the end it makes this statement: "The Constitution did not grant you the right to use up all the fucking resources just because you like yellow light and hate black presidents."
The constitution doesn't grant people any rights... It limits the rights of the government. Of which, banning consumer products is not included. In fact, since "using up all the fucking resources" is not mentioned at all, then per the 10th amendment, we DO have the right to use up all the fucking resources. Or maybe states can make a ban. But in no way do the feds have that power.
No, that does not remain to be seen. Cite constitutional authority for a ban on consumer products. I'll wait, the constitution is only 3 pages long... Hmm, struggling to find anything? Maybe you can try pulling out a loosely related clause like "necessary and proper" or maybe "common welfare" or even "interstate commerce"? Nope, this is not necessary, common welfare is in the preamble, with no actual power, and they are not even mentioning states in the ban.
Unless you can magically pull something else out of the constitution, there is no remaining to be seen. GP was correct, there is no constitutional authority to ban light bulbs.
First they came for my incandescent bulbs and I had moved to CFLs, so I did not complain... Then the came for my heating oil, but I used natural gas, so I did not complain. Finally they came for my natural gas, and I froze to death.
The government has NO AUTHORITY to dictate what I can buy and use in my own damn house.
That wouldn't be very american now would it? Remember being an american is about force. We force democracy on other nations. We force you to buy healthcare. We force you to bail out big banks. We force you to use CFLs. We force you to use ethanol. Pretty soon you won't be able to put your TP roll on so that it hangs from the back because the government decides hanging it from the front is so much better.