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.
Last I checked, life definitely starts at conception. A fertilized egg has the ability to grow and divide. I suppose the U.S. government has sidestepped the issue of taking a life by redefining when life begins, but that doesn't change the fact that abortion is the murder of a living being.
With that being said, the government also has the power to establish when it is legal to take a life (ie capital (capitol?) punishment). Even if laws were passed stating that life starts at conception (which it does) the government would still have the ability to declare abortion legal, although it would look a lot worse.
More on topicish: Herman Cain is pretty fucked now with all these sexual harassment complaints. Republicans seem increasingly desperate to find a suitable candidate whose name is not Mitt Romney but appear unable to do so.
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.
I'm not talking about the suffering of the Jews, I'm talking about the suffering of the Other Germans. The Nazis worked to minimize that suffering (they dehumanized the Jews and the process so "Other Germans" wouldn't suffer empathically)
btw, Why does it not seem ethical to end the lives of millions of people? (the original point of this tangent) .......
or to the OP what type of politician says ... I oppose murdering people/hate crimes/slavery/theft/fraud but it's your choice.
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.
I'm not talking about the suffering of the Jews, I'm talking about the suffering of the Other Germans. The Nazis worked to minimize that suffering (they dehumanized the Jews and the process so "Other Germans" wouldn't suffer empathically)
btw, Why does it not seem ethical to end the lives of millions of people? (the original point of this tangent) .......
or to the OP what type of politician says ... I oppose murdering people/hate crimes/slavery/theft/fraud but it's your choice.
What are you guys talking about? Take it to PM unless it has something to do with Cain.. This thread needs to die, everyone knows Cain is a joke when you get into the real issues..
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.
I'm not talking about the suffering of the Jews, I'm talking about the suffering of the Other Germans. The Nazis worked to minimize that suffering (they dehumanized the Jews and the process so "Other Germans" wouldn't suffer empathically)
btw, Why does it not seem ethical to end the lives of millions of people? (the original point of this tangent) .......
or to the OP what type of politician says ... I oppose murdering people/hate crimes/slavery/theft/fraud but it's your choice.
I believe in a principle of pleasure maximisation and suffering minimisation while maintaining a necessary (but conditional) respect for 'personhood' (or, to extend to animals, the capacity for meaningful suffering). I believe that killing millions of people would be an act of maximised suffering (maybe a little good could come from it, but the sum would be negative) and would deny a respect for personhood. Of course scenario may dictate that 2 million need to die for the sake of 1 billion, then I have no problem with that.
To apply this to abortion: Abortion doesn't deny personhood, they're not autonomous or 0aware of anything. Their destruction will be a relatively quick 'flash' of pain which they may or may not be actually aware of. The positive is that a mother unwilling or incapable of correctly raising a child may continue to live her life on her own terms and eventually, when ready, have a child in a situation where she can truly cherish and nourish it. I perceive no problem with this unless you impose an unfounded sacredness onto human life.
On topic: From my understanding the whole set of candidates are very sketchy at best. Ron Paul is the only person I believe to have a shred of honesty and capability in properly participating in the political process. Then again from what I understand is he's an unleashed voice of dissent to any kind of govt. spending and has exceptionally backward views on science and politics. Obama seems to be the only reasonable choice, I guess not much more can be asked for in American politics.
He will get eaten up by this sexual abuse allegation, I guarantee it. Besides, he's bat shit crazy just like most of the Republican candidates, and not to mention in the pockets of the Koch Brothers.
I was so wrong about jokingly comparing him to Bill Cosby in his seriousness. As days go by I could only probably be surprised if Ving Rhames came popping out of his trunk all tied up with the ball-in-mouth(Pulp) at his next press conference. What a circus. I'll bet it was Cain backstage, not Justin Beiber(sarcasm and a dash of salt)
With Perry's whatever-the-hell that was in New Hampshire, it's become the akward moment...
Alone..
With Romney..
He looks at you and says Hello... and you can't even believe he even means it. Lol
Cain should get someone to pay a woman to accuse Cain of sexual harassment. Then get her to admit that it was a lie and she did it for publicity / tv offers. It would destroy the credibility of all the other women accusing Cain.
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).
Uh oh, according to Godwin's Law its about time to shut her down boys.
On November 08 2011 08:20 BlackJack wrote: Cain should get someone to pay a woman to accuse Cain of sexual harassment. Then get her to admit that it was a lie and she did it for publicity / tv offers. It would destroy the credibility of all the other women accusing Cain.
On November 08 2011 08:20 BlackJack wrote: Cain should get someone to pay a woman to accuse Cain of sexual harassment. Then get her to admit that it was a lie and she did it for publicity / tv offers. It would destroy the credibility of all the other women accusing Cain.
EPT
