|
|
On October 25 2012 12:16 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:14 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:09 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:05 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? And that is simply contingent on the belief that fetuses aren't people. Lots of people disagree. Actually, as I argued a few pages back, it doesn't matter. Even if you accept that fetuses are people, it's a violation of a person's rights to force them to serve as an incubator. Just as you're not forced to donate blood/bone marrow/organs/etc to sustain other's lives (not even your family members), women should not be forced to (temporarily) donate their uteruses/blood/nutrients/etc to sustain another life. But is forcing someone into slavery better then murdering an innocent life? For one person its a huge problem and a large inconceivably bad situation. For the other its purely a death sentence. If you can't understand where the other side is coming from you shouldn't fight so hard against them on the issue. Is forcing you to donate one of your kidneys better than letting someone die? No, but it's better than killing someone.
If someone as hooked up to your bloodstream and needed to stay attached to stay alive, disconnecting them is more accurately described letting them die rather than killing them, for the same reason that doctors are not considered to be committing murder or assisted suicide when they are given consent to disconnect patients from life support.
|
On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off. No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges. Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alone is the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate.
Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child.
|
On October 25 2012 12:14 nevermindthebollocks wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 11:54 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:50 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 25 2012 11:42 xDaunt wrote:On October 25 2012 11:37 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:29 xDaunt wrote:On October 25 2012 11:26 ey215 wrote:On October 25 2012 11:22 Jaaaaasper wrote:On October 25 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:Are we feeling the imminent blowout yet? Foster McCollum White Baydoun (FMW)B, a national public opinion polling and voter analytics consulting firm based in Michigan and representing the combined resources of Foster McCollum White & Associates (Troy Michigan) and Baydoun Consulting (Dearborn Michigan) conducted a telephone-automated polling random survey of Michigan registered and most likely November 2012 General election voters for Fox 2 News Detroit to determine their voting and issue preferences for the presidential election.
An initial qualifying statement was read to respondents asking them to participate only if they were very likely to vote in the November General Election.
Thirty five thousand (35,000) calls were placed, and 1,122 respondents fully participated in the survey. The margin of error for this total polling sample is 2.93% with a confidence level of 95%.
The 2012 United States Presidential election will be held on November 6, 2012. Who are you most likely to vote for in the election?
President Barack Obama 46.92%
Republican Nominee Mitt Romney 46.56%
another candidate 2.30%
Undecided 4.23% Source. The fact the it came from fox makes it look unreliable to my eye, but Obama has a lead even in their poll And there it is... RCP has the polling firm listed as (D) next to it's name. That does mean what I think it means right? Reading comprehension isn't so good around here. Not only did Fox News not do the poll, but Fox News did not release the story.... Yep, I just knew someone would see "Fox" and assume it's FNC and claim bias. I am curious as to the internals of the poll though, can't seem to find them anywhere. Most of the polls that I have seen still have party-ID internals way out of whack in favor of Obama. I have seen the arguments suggesting that this shouldn't matter, but I really am not convinced, if for no other reason than Romney has been crushing Obama among independents for months. Hell, I don't even really buy that there has been a 15-point swing towards Romney as these polls reflect. I simply can't imagine that there are really that many people who haven't made up their minds. so let me get this right, a poll that shows more support for obama must therfore be flawed? Many polls in August/September were using models that either had the same or larger margin of Democrats than the actual voting difference in the 2008 election. 2008 was an unprecedented turnout/wave election for Democrats and skeptics don't think that the difference will be as large this year. The "voter intensity" polling data points to that being the case. Whether or not it skews the polls outside the margin of error is debatable. i hear all this talk about less enthusiasm this election but i think more people will vote for obama this time because we have to protect his health care reform and the only real reason people had last time to not vote for him was because he didn't have the typical decades of experience in government but people have now seen him as president
Every metric I've seen has voter enthusiasm going in the Republicans favor. I'd be surprised if it eclipses the Democratic turnout of 2008 but the gap is for sure going to be smaller. It's a big reason that this election is going to be as close as it is. Specifically, the youth vote is expected to be considerably smaller.
Granted, the enthusiasm gap has closed since the second debate but there's still an edge to Romney. Don't underestimate how much conservatives don't like the President.
I guess we'll see how the vaunted "Obama Turnout Machine" does.
|
On October 25 2012 12:19 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:15 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Thats not a valid comparison at all. By being an organ donar or not doesn't directly but instead indirectly effect the chance that you can save someone else's life. By choseing abortion you are directly making the effort to end the chance that a person has to live. If someone was hooked up to your bloodstream and needed to stay attached to continue living, you have no obligation to continue sustaining them. Forcing you to keep sustaining them would be a violation of your rights. Yes, unplugging them ends their chance to live, but it's not your responsibility to keep them alive at cost to you in the first place.
Yes it is. You have (should have) a moral and civil duty to your fellow man and citizen that you won't directly take part in an action that kills them. yes the person could tell you that its okay for you to unplug them but by this they have consented to some degree for you to do it. An unborn child can't say or make known their wish's in any way and therefore shoudn't be held to the same standard as a fully grown adult.
Would it be any difference to you if it was a child that was connected to you in this analogy? would it make a difference to you if it was your own child that would die if you disconnected yourself from them and were the reason that they died?
|
On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives?
Not at all.
I'm for any and all methods to prevent fertilization. But once fertilization's happened, in my opinion it's a human life and human efforts to kill it are wrong.
On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off. No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges. Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alone is the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate. Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child.
Tell us how you can separate the two. Is the child the same organism you call a fetus, at one point in time?
|
Another thing to consider is that if you're poor enough that you need help getting contraception then you're probably poor enough to need government assistance raising a child. One is much much cheaper than the other.
|
On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:
If someone was hooked up to your bloodstream and needed to stay attached to continue living, you have no obligation to continue sustaining them. Forcing you to keep sustaining them would be a violation of your rights. Yes, unplugging them ends their chance to live, but it's not your responsibility to keep them alive at cost to you in the first place. Yeah, if you aren't responsible for their need for blood. There's a slightly big element of the situation you're leaving out here.
So if I stab someone in the kidney, I'm responsible for donating mine to replace it? Government should force me to do so?
Sorry, responsibility doesn't work that way in our legal system.
|
On October 25 2012 12:24 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:20 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:16 BlueBird. wrote:On October 25 2012 12:14 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:09 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:05 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? And that is simply contingent on the belief that fetuses aren't people. Lots of people disagree. Actually, as I argued a few pages back, it doesn't matter. Even if you accept that fetuses are people, it's a violation of a person's rights to force them to serve as an incubator. Just as you're not forced to donate blood/bone marrow/organs/etc to sustain other's lives (not even your family members), women should not be forced to (temporarily) donate their uteruses/blood/nutrients/etc to sustain another life. But is forcing someone into slavery better then murdering an innocent life? For one person its a huge problem and a large inconceivably bad situation. For the other its purely a death sentence. If you can't understand where the other side is coming from you shouldn't fight so hard against them on the issue. wait, but the woman (except in cases of rape) agreed to get pregnant. you could look at that as sort of a deal b/w her and the potential baby as "if i get pregnant, i will carry you to completion". wouldnt that mean that the woman is violating that biological agreement/ killing someone through omission or w/e? That's not true, if your using contraception correctly, I'm pretty sure your disagreeing with getting pregnant. And rape is the obvious example where your not agreeing to fucking anything like you pointed out. However, what if we fixed this, by spreading sex education, and how to have safe healthy sex? I'm pretty sure we had this exact discussion two days ago. The problem is many conservatives are against sex education cause it promotes sex, as if it's some sin or something. 0.o i agree with sex ed... contraception is a bit more grey for me far as prevention goes. i mean, i know its cheap but i don't really want to be paying for what is essentially somebody's... recreation. with proper education, people should know contraception is not 100%. however, by using it properly and doubling up (pill + condom), the chances are really, really low. the risk is there, you accept it and have sex knowing its there if you've been educated. in the case you do get pregnant, that was a risk you were willing to take, and the great RNG in the sky got you. Yet funding contraception for everyone might bring down abortions. If abortions are really that evil, wouldn't that help? Your tax dollars go towards other recreational things, like the olympics, or local stadiums, etc. In this case your tax dollars would go to preventing unwanted pregnancy, therefore preventing the "Murder" of "fetuses"(i completely disagree, but whatever) So in your context, you'd prefer to just not pay taxes?
well, i don't think the olympics, local stadiums, etc. are comparable to birth control. those are big ticket items which take the resources of many and the organization of the government to make happen. birth control you can pick up from your local drug store on the cheap. also, those things help many (and i'm all for that, the government making things that help everyone) by providing entertainment, jobs, etc., while paying for a couple's birth control really only benefits them. its true that unwanted children can/generally are a burden on society, but... idunno. thats where my thought process ends. maybe two negatives dont make a positive? i got nothing. 
im studying for my orgo test tomorrow, so im not thinking things out (or typing them out) as nicely as i usually do.
|
On October 25 2012 12:12 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:05 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? And that is simply contingent on the belief that fetuses aren't people. Lots of people disagree. Actually, as I argued a few pages back, it doesn't matter. Even if you accept that fetuses are people, it's a violation of a person's rights to force them to serve as an incubator. Just as you're not forced to donate blood/bone marrow/organs/etc. to sustain other's lives (not even your family members), women should not be forced to temporarily donate their uteruses to sustain another life. It's a matter of conflicting rights. I put the fetus' right to life above the right of the woman to not have to temporarily donate her uterus. Far, far above it. The only way your position could be so airtight as you're presenting it would be if you said the fetus has no rights at all, which you aren't saying. So let's say the government puts the right of citizen's lives above the right of citizens to not donate parts of their body. Are you okay with the government demanding that you donate blood, bone marrow, and spare organs to save lives?
Not quite the same. The government didn't force the woman to get pregnant. Someone else did.
So, suppose someone steals my kidney. That kidney is then used in a transplant to save someone else's life. Can I demand it back?
|
]On October 25 2012 12:28 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Not at all.
I'm for any and all methods to prevent fertilization. But once fertilization's happened, in my opinion it's a human life and human efforts to kill it are wrong.
[/B]
Then you should be Planned Parenthood's #1 fan. It's the country's most effective institution for contraceptive distribution and sexual planning.
|
On October 25 2012 12:23 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Lets put it this way, where exactly does the Constitution grant you bodily autonomy? If it did then all of those things would not be allowed, but they are.
As argued by the Supreme Court's opinion in Roe v Wade (and subsequent cases), this right is implicit.
That's why even though you don't have an explicit Constitutional right to protect you from the goverment forcing you to donate parts of your body to save others, most people (and legal scholars) will agree that this right exists.
|
On October 25 2012 12:28 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives? Not at all. I'm for any and all methods to prevent fertilization. But once fertilization's happened, in my opinion it's a human life and human efforts to kill it are wrong. Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off. No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges. Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alo the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate. Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child. Tell us how you can separate the two. Is the child the same organism you call a fetus, at one point in time?
Child: sentient, intelligent, developed nervous system, individual, birthed.
Fetus: not
|
On October 25 2012 12:32 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:28 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives? Not at all. I'm for any and all methods to prevent fertilization. But once fertilization's happened, in my opinion it's a human life and human efforts to kill it are wrong. On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off. No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges. Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alo the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate. Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child. Tell us how you can separate the two. Is the child the same organism you call a fetus, at one point in time? Child: sentient, intelligent, developed nervous system, individual, birthed. Fetus: not
With all due respect, this argument is very weak to anyone who actually believes a fetus is life. It's a morality thing, and throwing figures at it doesn't change morality.
|
On October 25 2012 12:26 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:19 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:15 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Thats not a valid comparison at all. By being an organ donar or not doesn't directly but instead indirectly effect the chance that you can save someone else's life. By choseing abortion you are directly making the effort to end the chance that a person has to live. If someone was hooked up to your bloodstream and needed to stay attached to continue living, you have no obligation to continue sustaining them. Forcing you to keep sustaining them would be a violation of your rights. Yes, unplugging them ends their chance to live, but it's not your responsibility to keep them alive at cost to you in the first place. Yes it is. You have (should have) a moral and civil duty to your fellow man and citizen that you won't directly take part in an action that kills them. yes the person could tell you that its okay for you to unplug them but by this they have consented to some degree for you to do it. An unborn child can't say or make known their wish's in any way and therefore shoudn't be held to the same standard as a fully grown adult.
Wrong. If there was a person dying on your front lawn, it's not your legal responsibility to attempt to save their lives. It might be the morally right thing to do, but government should not compel you to do so barring extraneous circumstances (the fact that you are a doctor and agreed to do so in return for medical training, for example).
On October 25 2012 12:26 Sermokala wrote:
Would it be any difference to you if it was a child that was connected to you in this analogy? would it make a difference to you if it was your own child that would die if you disconnected yourself from them and were the reason that they died?
It would make the act despicable, but that doesn't mean that government can force you to stay connected.
Similarly, it's despicable not to donate a kidney to save the life of your child, but that doesn't mean that government can force you to make that donation.
|
On October 25 2012 12:35 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:32 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:28 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives? Not at all. I'm for any and all methods to prevent fertilization. But once fertilization's happened, in my opinion it's a human life and human efforts to kill it are wrong. On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy.
Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off. No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges. Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alo the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate. Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child. Tell us how you can separate the two. Is the child the same organism you call a fetus, at one point in time? Child: sentient, intelligent, developed nervous system, individual, birthed. Fetus: not With all due respect, this argument is very weak to anyone who actually believe a fetus is life.
But then what is the definition of a life because if a fetus meets it then theres a lot of things we kill everyday that would also meet that definition?
|
See? Conservatives want big government after all.
|
On October 25 2012 12:35 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:32 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:28 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives? Not at all. I'm for any and all methods to prevent fertilization. But once fertilization's happened, in my opinion it's a human life and human efforts to kill it are wrong. On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy.
Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off. No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges. Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alo the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate. Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child. Tell us how you can separate the two. Is the child the same organism you call a fetus, at one point in time? Child: sentient, intelligent, developed nervous system, individual, birthed. Fetus: not With all due respect, this argument is very weak to anyone who actually believes a fetus is life. It's a morality thing, and throwing figures at it doesn't change morality.
Id say the argument that a fetus is a life in the same way as a child is weak since there is no rational argument I know of in its favor. Morality can be rational, and should be especially if it's going to determine the choices someone has who's just been raped.
|
On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives?
I would say I'm against it on the grounds of people thinking that because they use contraceptives that means they can't become pregnant (which is a big problem for teenagers. Sex ed has statistically shown that it lowers the teenage pregnant rate so yes I do support it.
On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off. No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges. Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alone is the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate. Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child.
Simply because they are going to become a person.
Because from the moment of conception (which is a really gray area when this happens but for the sake of arguing lets just say when the fetus is developing in the womb) That fetus starts developing all the things (a brain a heart fingerprints ect.) and the only way that this doesn't happen if the fetus is physically killed by medical or in the case of abortion a physical action. There is no random chance for that fetus to not become a person, something physically has to happen for this fetus to not be born. The same things that would kill a fetus would kill a child or adult human being.
I'm no great wordsmith or debater so I tend not to really try and speak for a lot of people on something but thats my attempt at explaining it.
|
On October 25 2012 12:32 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:28 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives? Not at all. I'm for any and all methods to prevent fertilization. But once fertilization's happened, in my opinion it's a human life and human efforts to kill it are wrong. On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution. Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule. Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights? Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off. No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges. Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alo the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate. Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child. Tell us how you can separate the two. Is the child the same organism you call a fetus, at one point in time? Child: sentient, intelligent, developed nervous system, individual, birthed. Fetus: not
You can make a scientific argument that a fully grown human is not an individual organism.
The traditional view is that a human body is a collection of 10 trillion cells which are themselves the products of 23,000 genes. If the revolutionaries are correct, these numbers radically underestimate the truth. For in the nooks and crannies of every human being, and especially in his or her guts, dwells the microbiome: 100 trillion bacteria of several hundred species bearing 3m non-human genes. The biological Robespierres believe these should count, too; that humans are not single organisms, but superorganisms made up of lots of smaller organisms working together.
It might sound perverse to claim bacterial cells and genes as part of the body, but the revolutionary case is a good one. For the bugs are neither parasites nor passengers. They are, rather, fully paid-up members of a community of which the human “host” is but a single (if dominating) member. This view is increasingly popular: the world’s leading scientific journals, Nature and Science, have both reviewed it extensively in recent months. It is also important: it will help the science and practice of medicine (see article).
Link
Just trying to demonstrate that multiple views / opinions can be equally valid.
|
On October 25 2012 12:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 12:12 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:05 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 12:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On October 25 2012 12:01 sunprince wrote:On October 25 2012 11:55 Romantic wrote:
Hahaha, yeah: France, Spain, Germany, UK. They know how to pick their leaders alright; not having any trouble there at all. I'd listen to their voting advice any day.
Not that I care or anyone should care about the poll numbers of foreigners on your election, but winning Pakistan is arguably the most important of the lot. Well, not losing Pakistan as badly. Doesn't look like Pakistan likes America at all.
Abortion - Roe vs Wade was crap, people like to have opinions and demand their opinions be recognized as "rights" as if they cannot be violated. There isn't any conversation if that is happening. People have a right to bodily autonomy. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term is a form of slavery, which violates that right to bodily autonomy. Unless, of course, you disagree that the Constitution guarantees a right to bodily autonomy? And that is simply contingent on the belief that fetuses aren't people. Lots of people disagree. Actually, as I argued a few pages back, it doesn't matter. Even if you accept that fetuses are people, it's a violation of a person's rights to force them to serve as an incubator. Just as you're not forced to donate blood/bone marrow/organs/etc. to sustain other's lives (not even your family members), women should not be forced to temporarily donate their uteruses to sustain another life. It's a matter of conflicting rights. I put the fetus' right to life above the right of the woman to not have to temporarily donate her uterus. Far, far above it. The only way your position could be so airtight as you're presenting it would be if you said the fetus has no rights at all, which you aren't saying. So let's say the government puts the right of citizen's lives above the right of citizens to not donate parts of their body. Are you okay with the government demanding that you donate blood, bone marrow, and spare organs to save lives? Not quite the same. The government didn't force the woman to get pregnant. Someone else did. So, suppose someone steals my kidney. That kidney is then used in a transplant to save someone else's life. Can I demand it back?
This is a slightly different case because the thief is not the end user, but yes, you could demand restitution for it, the same way that if someone stole your car and sold it to someone else you could demand restitution for it.
In a more linear example, if someone steals your kidney and keeps it to keep themselves alive, you could certainly demand it back even if that would result in the death of the thief.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011
60
39
EPT
