|
On November 03 2011 11:41 Harbinger631 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 06:08 Amaroq64 wrote:
A fetus is a potential life. A woman is an actual life. Eighteen years of toil shouldn't be forced on an unwilling human being for the sake of something that isn't even a life of its own yet. Once the baby is capable of living outside of the human body, then and only then does it have the same rights as other living humans.. I wonder how common the view is that the fetus isn't alive. Of course it's alive, it executes metabolism and growth just like the rest of us! Nothing changes at birth, the fetus just changes location and uses a different modality to get oxygen into the bloodstream. That's it, nothing magical there.
Sure, I am fine with you defining life this way. But now i want to see you preaching for the abolition of disabling respirators for brain-dead patients. These "alive" human beings have just as much cognitive capability as a fetus, the only real difference is they use a different modality to get oxygen into the bloodstream... oh yeah and their location.
|
On November 03 2011 11:41 Harbinger631 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 06:08 Amaroq64 wrote:
A fetus is a potential life. A woman is an actual life. Eighteen years of toil shouldn't be forced on an unwilling human being for the sake of something that isn't even a life of its own yet. Once the baby is capable of living outside of the human body, then and only then does it have the same rights as other living humans.. I wonder how common the view is that the fetus isn't alive. Of course it's alive, it executes metabolism and growth just like the rest of us! Nothing changes at birth, the fetus just changes location and uses a different modality to get oxygen into the bloodstream. That's it, nothing magical there.
Plants also execute metabolism and growth. Does it mean that plants are sentient and able to develop self-awareness?
|
On October 27 2011 19:39 fenix404 wrote:
^^ that's what people said about obama... at least the articulating part...
It's different when the principles you believe are practical timeless ones and not socialist theorycrafting that creeps into popularity once every generation until people realize how bad it is.
|
http://jezebel.com/5855895/third-woman--two-witnesses-accuse-hermain-cain-of-sexual-harassment
ouch...horrible week for a shitty candidate =D
Self-incriminated himself too? His inexperience with actual elections is showing.
Also, for everyone talking about his stance on abortion, he's been flip flopping on that damn thing for a while now.
"I am against it but think it's each women's personal choice"
Get flak on it from the right
"I AM AGAINST ABORTION! ALL FORMS OF ABORTION! LIFE STARTS AT CONCEPTION!"
(Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.)
|
On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote:
(Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.)
Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them)
The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention.
The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties))
.............
lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see)
........
but back on topic, that statement of his was incredibly wierd. (although it was in a classic Republican tradition, Lincoln thought slavery was wrong, but he wasn't going to up and outlaw it necessarily.)
|
On November 03 2011 13:16 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote:
(Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.) Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them) The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention. The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties)) ............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see)
Psst, I'm talking about life at conception aka egg meeting the sperm, not fetuses. Ectopic pregnancies happen enough that hundreds of women will die each year if stupid shit like "life starting is defined as when conception occurs" is put into law. Doctors won't be able to operate on women to try to take the fertilized egg out and "kill it" to save the woman's life since they'd be murdering the "new life". Also most forms of birth control will be illegal since they work to "kill" the fertilized fetus.
But hey, what do I know? I'm just in medical school.
|
On November 03 2011 13:23 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 13:16 Krikkitone wrote:On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote:
(Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.) Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them) The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention. The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties)) ............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) Psst, I'm talking about life at conception aka egg meeting the sperm, not fetuses. Ectopic pregnancies happen enough that hundreds of women will die each year if stupid shit like "life starting is defined as when conception occurs" is put into law. Doctors won't be able to operate on women to try to take the fertilized egg out and "kill it" to save the woman's life since they'd be murdering the "new life". Also most forms of birth control will be illegal since they work to "kill" the fertilized fetus. But hey, what do I know? I'm just in medical school.
I always thought it was fairly agreed upon that if the mother's life is in danger, it is okay to abort the fetus / egg.
|
On November 03 2011 13:23 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 13:16 Krikkitone wrote:On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote:
(Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.) Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them) The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention. The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties)) ............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) Psst, I'm talking about life at conception aka egg meeting the sperm, not fetuses. Ectopic pregnancies happen enough that hundreds of women will die each year if stupid shit like "life starting is defined as when conception occurs" is put into law. Doctors won't be able to operate on women to try to take the fertilized egg out and "kill it" to save the woman's life since they'd be murdering the "new life". Also most forms of birth control will be illegal since they work to "kill" the fertilized fetus. But hey, what do I know? I'm just in medical school.
An activity to save one life at the expense of another is defendable (particularly if the other one would die anyways... ie cojoined twins, if they are both in danger of dying you can perform an operation that would kill one to save the other.) I'm not sure of any case where the mother is going to die but you can save the baby that early in the pregnancy [later on then it becomes a possibility, and it gets to be a complicated judgement call]
It would prevent many forms of birth control if conception was the line.
That makes conception an inconvenient line, just like plantation economies made all humans an inconvenient line for emancipation.
|
I don't even see how conservatives could like this guy when he flip flops like a fish out of water. Conservatives should be the ones that are most suspicious of him because it seems like he is just trying to abuse what is the flavour of the month among conservative circles. There are other republican candidates that are far more consistent and articulate.
|
On November 03 2011 13:25 Mysticesper wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 13:23 chaoser wrote:On November 03 2011 13:16 Krikkitone wrote:On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote:
(Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.) Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them) The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention. The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties)) ............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) Psst, I'm talking about life at conception aka egg meeting the sperm, not fetuses. Ectopic pregnancies happen enough that hundreds of women will die each year if stupid shit like "life starting is defined as when conception occurs" is put into law. Doctors won't be able to operate on women to try to take the fertilized egg out and "kill it" to save the woman's life since they'd be murdering the "new life". Also most forms of birth control will be illegal since they work to "kill" the fertilized fetus. But hey, what do I know? I'm just in medical school. I always thought it was fairly agreed upon that if the mother's life is in danger, it is okay to abort the fetus / egg.
Not with new laws that are in place to be passed in Mississippi and a few other states. They're trying to get past Roe v Wade by trying to redefine when life actually starts. By saying life starts at conception they can throw away Roe v Wade since all abortions will be considered murder. This means life threatening pregnancies and even rape/incest pregnancies will be illegal. As some of the supporters of Prop 26 in Ol' Miss like to say, "Even if you get a baby from being raped, it's a gift from God and you should cherish it"
Bush is smiling, too, in the video she made to support as restrictive an abortion ban as any state has voted on, Initiative 26, or the Personhood Amendment, which faces Mississippi voters on Nov. 8. "It doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor, black or white, or even if your father was a rapist!" she trills.
Most forms of hormonal birth control such as the Pill would also be illegal if this is passed since they work by destroying the fertilized egg's chances of implanting. And Cain supports it given his most recent statements on abortion.
|
On November 03 2011 13:16 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote:
(Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.) Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them) The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention. The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties)) ............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) ........ but back on topic, that statement of his was incredibly wierd. (although it was in a classic Republican tradition, Lincoln thought slavery was wrong, but he wasn't going to up and outlaw it necessarily.)
Policy should be written such that we minimise any potential suffering involved in the abortion of a fetus. However to endow human life as something sacred is to allow religion to seep into politics. We are nothing more than clever mammals who seem to have very little complaint causing or allowing the suffering of other animals, of which we know are far more capable of suffering and distress than a fetus.
|
On November 03 2011 13:34 koreasilver wrote:
I don't even see how conservatives could like this guy when he flip flops like a fish out of water. Conservatives should be the ones that are most suspicious of him because it seems like he is just trying to abuse what is the flavour of the month among conservative circles. There are other republican candidates that are far more consistent and articulate.
Agreed, it may be due the the fact that he is an extreme political novice, but the fact that he can't clearly articulate a plan or position (besides 9-9-9) means that he is unlikely going to be able to Do anything. (and if he is actually incredibly good at getting stuff done, its not quite certain what that would be)
|
On November 03 2011 13:34 koreasilver wrote:
I don't even see how conservatives could like this guy when he flip flops like a fish out of water. Conservatives should be the ones that are most suspicious of him because it seems like he is just trying to abuse what is the flavour of the month among conservative circles. There are other republican candidates that are far more consistent and articulate.
You obviously don't know how America's political system works. Its a theatre to the maximum degree.. talking points and constant debate about issues that carry no weight in one of the worlds most serious economic periods in history.. it's completely whack.. Cain is a joke, Bachman is a joke, Romney is a joke, Perry is a joke, Gingrich is a joke, Huntsman is a joke and Johnson is a joke. If you catch my drift..
edit: also
On November 03 2011 13:37 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 13:34 koreasilver wrote:
I don't even see how conservatives could like this guy when he flip flops like a fish out of water. Conservatives should be the ones that are most suspicious of him because it seems like he is just trying to abuse what is the flavour of the month among conservative circles. There are other republican candidates that are far more consistent and articulate. Agreed, it may be due the the fact that he is an extreme political novice, but the fact that he can't clearly articulate a plan or position (besides 9-9-9) means that he is unlikely going to be able to Do anything. (and if he is actually incredibly good at getting stuff done, its not quite certain what that would be)
9-9-9 raises the tax burden on the lower and middle class, that sounds like a sick joke considering what's going on right now.
|
On November 03 2011 13:37 Dali. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 13:16 Krikkitone wrote:On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote:
(Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.) Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them) The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention. The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties)) ............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) ........ but back on topic, that statement of his was incredibly wierd. (although it was in a classic Republican tradition, Lincoln thought slavery was wrong, but he wasn't going to up and outlaw it necessarily.) Policy should be written such that we minimise any potential suffering involved in the abortion of a fetus. However to endow human life as something sacred is to allow religion to seep into politics. We are nothing more than clever mammals who seem to have very little complaint causing or allowing the suffering of other animals, of which we know are far more capable of suffering and distress than a fetus.
Why minimize suffering?
or rather... why minimize Something else's "suffering"? [other than the empathy factor... if you can avoid empathy with something else, then why should you care about its "suffering"]
Nazi policy minimized suffering from the Holocaust (they didn't butcher the Jews in the street, at least not often).
|
On November 03 2011 13:42 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 13:37 Dali. wrote:On November 03 2011 13:16 Krikkitone wrote:On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote:
(Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.) Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them) The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention. The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties)) ............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) ........ but back on topic, that statement of his was incredibly wierd. (although it was in a classic Republican tradition, Lincoln thought slavery was wrong, but he wasn't going to up and outlaw it necessarily.) Policy should be written such that we minimise any potential suffering involved in the abortion of a fetus. However to endow human life as something sacred is to allow religion to seep into politics. We are nothing more than clever mammals who seem to have very little complaint causing or allowing the suffering of other animals, of which we know are far more capable of suffering and distress than a fetus. Why minimize suffering? or rather... why minimize Something else's "suffering"? [other than the empathy factor... if you can avoid empathy with something else, then why should you care about its "suffering"] Nazi policy minimized suffering from the Holocaust (they didn't butcher the Jews in the street, at least not often).
Wait... what? Nazi policy minimized suffering? I'm not sure you're talking about the same Nazi Germany that the rest of us are familiar with.
|
On November 03 2011 13:42 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 13:37 Dali. wrote:On November 03 2011 13:16 Krikkitone wrote:On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote:
(Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.) Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them) The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention. The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties)) ............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) ........ but back on topic, that statement of his was incredibly wierd. (although it was in a classic Republican tradition, Lincoln thought slavery was wrong, but he wasn't going to up and outlaw it necessarily.) Policy should be written such that we minimise any potential suffering involved in the abortion of a fetus. However to endow human life as something sacred is to allow religion to seep into politics. We are nothing more than clever mammals who seem to have very little complaint causing or allowing the suffering of other animals, of which we know are far more capable of suffering and distress than a fetus. Why minimize suffering? or rather... why minimize Something else's "suffering"? [other than the empathy factor... if you can avoid empathy with something else, then why should you care about its "suffering"] Nazi policy minimized suffering from the Holocaust (they didn't butcher the Jews in the street, at least not often).
Because, for whatever reason, nature has given me the ability understand the suffering of others, human or otherwise. I am aware that in nature, pleasure is preferred over suffering in all beings. I feel that because I am capable of understanding these things I should act so that I cause the least suffering in others which will ultimately yield a better existence for both myself and others.
I won't respond to your Nazi analogy because it is ridiculous.
|
On November 03 2011 13:42 Krikkitone wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 03 2011 13:37 Dali. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 13:16 Krikkitone wrote:On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote:
(Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.) Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them) The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention. The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties)) ............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) ........ but back on topic, that statement of his was incredibly wierd. (although it was in a classic Republican tradition, Lincoln thought slavery was wrong, but he wasn't going to up and outlaw it necessarily.) Policy should be written such that we minimise any potential suffering involved in the abortion of a fetus. However to endow human life as something sacred is to allow religion to seep into politics. We are nothing more than clever mammals who seem to have very little complaint causing or allowing the suffering of other animals, of which we know are far more capable of suffering and distress than a fetus. Why minimize suffering? or rather... why minimize Something else's "suffering"? [other than the empathy factor... if you can avoid empathy with something else, then why should you care about its "suffering"]
It is official people. The internet has jumped the shark, I repeat the internet has jumped the shark!
I suspect a few million people would disagree with you, if they could. 
|
On November 03 2011 13:48 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 13:42 Krikkitone wrote:On November 03 2011 13:37 Dali. wrote:On November 03 2011 13:16 Krikkitone wrote:On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote:
(Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.) Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them) The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention. The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties)) ............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) ........ but back on topic, that statement of his was incredibly wierd. (although it was in a classic Republican tradition, Lincoln thought slavery was wrong, but he wasn't going to up and outlaw it necessarily.) Policy should be written such that we minimise any potential suffering involved in the abortion of a fetus. However to endow human life as something sacred is to allow religion to seep into politics. We are nothing more than clever mammals who seem to have very little complaint causing or allowing the suffering of other animals, of which we know are far more capable of suffering and distress than a fetus. Why minimize suffering? or rather... why minimize Something else's "suffering"? [other than the empathy factor... if you can avoid empathy with something else, then why should you care about its "suffering"] Nazi policy minimized suffering from the Holocaust (they didn't butcher the Jews in the street, at least not often). Wait... what? Nazi policy minimized suffering? I'm not sure you're talking about the same Nazi Germany that the rest of us are familiar with.
They minimized the suffering involved with killing millions of Jews. They made sure to dehumanize them so that other Germans wouldn't feel empathic suffering. They also rounded them up and did the killing in out of the way locations (so that the people didn't have to pay as much attention to what was going on), and they even mechanized+industrialized the killing process so that even the executioners would have minimized suffering. Now they didn't perfectly minimize the suffering involved, but they were in the middle of a war so their resources were limited. (and there will be some suffering involved when you destroy millions of entities that are almost exactly like you)
|
Was he the guy that took 8 seconds to smile and had a smoking ad?
|
On November 03 2011 14:00 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 13:48 shinosai wrote:On November 03 2011 13:42 Krikkitone wrote:On November 03 2011 13:37 Dali. wrote:On November 03 2011 13:16 Krikkitone wrote:On November 03 2011 12:16 chaoser wrote:
(Psst, if life started a conception then women's bodies have been committing murders for years what with all the eggs that doesn't implant correctly in the uterus.) Psst "Bodies" don't commit murders.. bodies can cause death, but they don't commit murder (otherwise a horribly large number of people have been murdered by their own bodies aging on them) The only difference between a pregnant woman and her child and pair of conjoined twin is the pregnant woman consists of 2 genetically different beings that will eventually separate without any medical intervention. The only difference between a fetus and a newborn is that one of them is detatched from someone else. (If a fetus doesn't qualify as "human life" due to low brain functioning, then neither does a newborn... and probably not a preschooler either, or many adult mentally handicapped, and possibly not adolescents (full reasoning ability isn't present until mid twenties)) ............. lines are necessary but "birth" is a really crappy one philosophically, scientifically, etc. (although it is good emotionally, it is harder to kill something you can see) ........ but back on topic, that statement of his was incredibly wierd. (although it was in a classic Republican tradition, Lincoln thought slavery was wrong, but he wasn't going to up and outlaw it necessarily.) Policy should be written such that we minimise any potential suffering involved in the abortion of a fetus. However to endow human life as something sacred is to allow religion to seep into politics. We are nothing more than clever mammals who seem to have very little complaint causing or allowing the suffering of other animals, of which we know are far more capable of suffering and distress than a fetus. Why minimize suffering? or rather... why minimize Something else's "suffering"? [other than the empathy factor... if you can avoid empathy with something else, then why should you care about its "suffering"] Nazi policy minimized suffering from the Holocaust (they didn't butcher the Jews in the street, at least not often). Wait... what? Nazi policy minimized suffering? I'm not sure you're talking about the same Nazi Germany that the rest of us are familiar with. They minimized the suffering involved with killing millions of Jews. They made sure to dehumanize them so that other Germans wouldn't feel empathic pain. (and they rounded them up and did the killing in an out of the way, and mechanized+industrialized the killing process so that even the executioners would have minimized suffering). Now they didn't perfectly minimize the suffering involved, but they were in the middle of a war so their resources were limited. (and there will be some suffering involved when you destroy millions of entities that are almost exactly like you)
The reason they did that is because it is much harder to torture someone incessantly until they die than to mass-suffocate hundreds. What you're saying is in some ways correct, indeed they could have maximised suffering as much as possible, but I don't feeling you're hitting on anything interesting. They still set out to end the lives of millions of people for the sake of an ideology with no rational excuse, doesn't seem ethical to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
