Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Not Me]

[i] The real focus should be whether the human being is alive and hence, would be killed by the procedure.

A plant is alive. My cat is alive. A fetus is alive. Do you mean a sentiant human being perhaps? And if you do mean a sentiant being, what is your definition of sentiant human being? I would go with sentient human being as a good point to draw the line.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
A plant is alive. My cat is alive. A fetus is alive. Do you mean a sentiant human being perhaps? And if you do mean a sentiant being, what is your definition of sentiant human being? I would go with sentient human being as a good point to draw the line.

No, I mean alive. Whether it is satient or not is irrelevant. Otherwise, it would be acceptable to kill many human beings born with severe birth defects.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't get your first point, but it's probably not important.

If I said that I thought science would tell us whether it's human, I misspoke. I've been pitching that at some point science will be able to tell us definitively when life begins, because many pro-choicers do not believe, as you correctly do, that life begins at conception.

All of that said, I still think it is a difficult issue, but it's one that I think should be done honestly in that I think the left should realize that we are balancing the rights of 2 lives, not 1.

Because the hairs in my head are human, but they clearly are not a human. Though these days, you could even clone them and turn them into a human if you wanted to.

The embryo is clearly human in having human dna, but is the embryo a human? I'm suspicious, but am not ready to buy into any one definition of a human based on what I know.

The embryo and the hair are clearly alive, yet I really don't care whether the hair survives or not (maybe I will some day, but I'm not yet losing enough to care). With respect to embryos, frankly, I will not even know when many of them die, and I think there is great variation among women as to how many embryos may normally come to exist before a viable one implants and matures. Embryos die all the time.

But at some point, the embryo develops to a much more precious point. I don't know when.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
A plant is alive. My cat is alive. A fetus is alive. Do you mean a sentiant human being perhaps? And if you do mean a sentiant being, what is your definition of sentiant human being? I would go with sentient human being as a good point to draw the line.

My god.

You're starting to make sense.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I've been pitching that at some point science will be able to tell us definitively when life begins, because many pro-choicers do not believe, as you correctly do, that life begins at conception.

But you're still stuck with the same problem: defining "life" is inherently philosophical. Is Terry Schiavo alive? (not to mention, if so, whether she's human). Human life is not a scientific definition--it's a collection of certain attributes which, if you have enough of each or in total, you're considered human and entitled to certain protections.

I would be frightened by any scientist who presumed to declare when "life" begins.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
But you're still stuck with the same problem: defining "life" is inherently philosophical. Is Terry Schiavo alive? (not to mention, if so, whether she's human). Human life is not a scientific definition--it's a collection of certain attributes which, if you have enough of each or in total, you're considered human and entitled to certain protections.

I would be frightened by any scientist who presumed to declare when "life" begins.

I disagree. I think life is the easy question. The hard question comes when you attempt to balance 2 lives.

Terry Schiavo is alive and human. We can debate all day long whether or not her family should have the right to kill her, but the important thing is to have that debate on honest terms. In this regard, I think suicide should be legal, but I'm not sure on whether someone else should have the right to pull my plug without my prior consent.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No, I mean alive. Whether it is satient or not is irrelevant. Otherwise, it would be acceptable to kill many human beings born with severe birth defects.

Well, what is your definition of alive then?

I think if you still factor in the weighing of the mother's rights to control her own body against the fetus' rights you can draw the line at sentient human being without making it acceptable to kill humans born with severe birth defects. You don't have the issue of the mother's right to control her own body with a human born with severe birth defects. The person is already born so the mother's rights to control her own body aren't a factor.

This is why the focus really has to be on the weighing of the rights of the mother and the fetus if you ask me. I think that the point at which the fetus becomes a sentient human being, the fetus' rights should be more important than prior to that point. The problem is that modern medicine hasn't yet developed the sophistication to determine that point.

[Say_hello_for_me]

I think I'm sending more money.

Anyone have a decent dem running against a contemptible-as-Daschle Repub? Santorum up for election against, well, anyone? Anyone else? Anyone?

How bout this. Who is the absolutely worst, meanest, most hypocritical Republican running for reelection this year?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I think I'm sending more money.

Anyone have a decent dem running against a contemptible-as-Daschle Repub? Santorum up for election against, well, anyone? Anyone else? Anyone?

How bout this. Who is the absolutely worst, meanest, most hypocritical Republican running for reelection this year?

Tom DeLay. (see above post for his current polling data, and send money to Richard Morrison at http://www.richardmorrisonfordistrict22.com)

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I still think it is a difficult issue, but it's one that I think should be done honestly in that I think the left should realize that we are balancing the rights of 2 lives, not 1.

Your comments about the "dishonesty" of the left are getting a little tiresome given your lack of knowledge about the issues, let alone about the left's position on the issues.

For example, you suggest that the left's opposition to the death penalty is based on a "sanctity of human life" argument. That may be true for some people, but it's hardly true for all, and your suggestion that no person of integrity can be anti-death penalty and pro-choice is absurd. My own opposition to the death penalty is based more on a recognition of the fallibility of the legal system than on anything else. I'm fairly certain that if a woman decides that she cannot handle raising a child, and therefore that she wants to get an abortion, she is unlikely to abort the wrong fetus. She is unlikely to make that decision based on the race of the fetus. She is unlikely to have been swayed by misleading arguments. All of these issues and more are present in death penalty cases, and there is a fundamental difference between having the state decide who should live and die and having an individual decide whether she can be a mother.

Your postulates above -- that the fetus is absolutely certainly a human being -- are similarly faulty. If you believe that, then surely you believe that women should be prosecuted for child endangerment if they drink while pregnant, right? Or if they work near chemicals? I mean, after all, you're not on the left so all of your positions must be completely honest and integral with each other, right?

If you want to explore your views on abortion here, fine. But enough with the sanctimonious "right is good, left is bad and dishonest" bullshit. That's beyond annoying even when it comes from someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Because the hairs in my head are human, but they clearly are not a human.

Oh, I see now. The distinction, however, is that if left undisturbed they will never become human.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I disagree. I think life is the easy question.

Why do you need scientists then?

Other than for political rhetorical reasons, do even the pro-choicers claim that a fetus is not a life of some sort, just not one that should be protected when the mother doesn't want to?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Oh, I see now. The distinction, however, is that if left undisturbed they will never become human.

I'm pretty sure that if left undisturbed in the freezer, the embryos won't be human either.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm pretty sure that if left undisturbed in the freezer, the embryos won't be human either.

We aren't talking about ESC research now, we are talking about abortion.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Your comments about the "dishonesty" of the left are getting a little tiresome given your lack of knowledge about the issues, let alone about the left's position on the issues.

I don't mean dishonest in a malicious way. I mean it in a way that it ignores certain objective facts. And "left" is just a term of convenience. I am not suggesting that everybody who is left of center holds the same view.

For example, you suggest that the left's opposition to the death penalty is based on a "sanctity of human life" argument.
That may be true for some people, but it's hardly true for all, and your suggestion that no person of integrity can be anti-death penalty and pro-choice is absurd.

My own opposition to the death penalty is based on the same reasoning, so I'm not sure why you are attributing this to a left/right split. And I wasn't attacking anybody's integrity, I just noted that there are inconsistencies on both sides.

Your postulates above -- that the fetus is absolutely certainly a human being -- are similarly faulty. If you believe that, then surely you believe that women should be prosecuted for child endangerment if they drink while pregnant, right? Or if they work near chemicals? I mean, after all, you're not on the left so all of your positions must be completely honest and integral with each other, right?

If they drink or work with chemicals that are reasonably likely to cause harm to the child? Yes, I do.

If you want to explore your views on abortion here, fine. But enough with the sanctimonious "right is good, left is bad and dishonest" bullshit. That's beyond annoying even when it comes from someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

Where did I say right is good, left is bad? On the abortion issue, I have said on several occaassions that I haven't even been able to settle on a position. If you are just bored, and in the mood to argue, that's cool, I get that. Fuck You too.