The irrationality of Liberals

reply to post by 547000

Is it okay to kill a Jew if we define them to not be humans?

Is it okay to protect bacteria as human persons, if we define them to be humans? The exact same twist of absurd logic.
There is no such thing as absolute morality, what is moral and what is not (and what is worth protecting and what is not) is ALWAYS a societal construct (agreement between majority of people). Even if people claim their morality is from god or higher powers, its the same, since all religions are societal constructs too. If majority of people decided jews are not humans, it would be perfectly moral by their version of morality for them to kill them. But why and how would such a thing happen in educated society? It probably wont, just as opposite extremism - defining bacteria as human persons - probably wont happen.

Just to clarify, nazis considered jews humans. Inferior, but still humans.

reply to post by Ptah-Hotep


Thank you for your concern. Yes, I'm pretty peaceful now - I found a good shrink

I was going to say something in general about Liberal views, but I noticed that recent posters have done a better job than I can (I consider myself to be a Liberal.)

reply to post by kingofmd

Simple logic

- Every part of your body has the same DNA.
- The "fetus" has its own unique DNA sequence.

Therefore It is not a part of the mother.

Excellent.

I would LOVE to see someone try to dispute this logic.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Hmm...killing replicating mass that could potentially be a baby one day is murder

so, is masturbation mass murder?

Are sperm replicating mass? No...it is not.

Do sperm contain full human DNA? No...it does not.

What is life..that is the question...sure, the replicating blob one day will be considered a lifeform, but so is an amoeba or virus...what seperates that life from a human life, why is one perfectly find to destroy and the other cause such a stir?

Another attempt to make the baby inhuman..."replicating blob".

And do you not understand what seperates a virus from a human? Honesetly...why do people become stupid and illogical on this topic?

Does a human fetus ever grow into some other than a human?

Has a virus ever grown into a human?

Has a ameoba ever grown into a human?

intelligence

and until there is a central nervous system developed, there is no experience..with no experience, there is no intelligence

Well that is a completely random point to pick.

My definition is much more simple...life is a process...going from conception until death. All the time between then is LIFE. Simple huh? Go ahead...someone please dispute that.

I am in favor of 3 months or before abortion...after that, only if it risks the mothers life.

If I would label an abortion murder, I would also have to label taking meds to rid the body of a virus murder.

Care to explain why killing a non-human virus and killing a human life are the same?

If you really think a virus is the same as a human fetus...you may want to revisit biology class.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by kingofmd

 

Simple logic

- Every part of your body has the same DNA.
- The "fetus" has its own unique DNA sequence.

Therefore It is not a part of the mother.

Excellent.

I would LOVE to see someone try to dispute this logic.

Many cells in the body have different DNA than original DNA in the mothers zygote or majority of cells, due to mutations. Cancer has different DNA than the rest of the body. Gametes have. Symbiotic bacterias have.

Are mutated cells or gametes different persons with rights? Is tumor a different person with rights? Are colon bacteria different persons?

Embryo has only a POTENTIAL to become different person in the future. But its not a person YET.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Pregnancy can be a killer so why should the mother risk her life and health for the sake of an unborn collection of cells? We're not talking about killing a living, thinking human being, and actually i will take the mothers rights as a real human over a lump of cells that has no conciousness.

I addressed this earlier when someone tried to claim abortion is "self defense".

You are claiming that the POTENTIAL for risk justifies the ending of a human life?

There are many times there is POTENTIAL risk to my life from other people...I can't just go kill them and claim it was because they could POTENTIALLY harm me.

Once that POTENTIAL turns into a REALITY and the mother's life is at risk...then that is the only time I agree that it becomes her CHOICE. End a life to save a life.

reply to post by Whiffer Nippets


Happy to hear that my friend I wish you all the best.

To the poster about using Ron Paul as an example (sorry, forget your your username, I do this on an iPhone, not easy to do on this sight lol):
I have much respect for Rep. Paul. I find it sad that he is shunned by his fellow GOP members in congress. They do everything to keep him down during presidential elections,leaving him out of debates, or allowing him minimal amount of time to speak. If the MSM allowed him the time before the Irag war to have an honest debate and airing of his opinions, maybe things would have been different. Instead the neocons and GOP silenced him so they could whip their supporters into frenzy into invading Iraq. This is off topic btw, but the conservative leaders have learned well how to use emotion to get their supporters to follow, they tell them what to think instead of thinking for themselves. They do this every election time by bringing up abortion to stir emotion and to divert you from their agenda, vote for me, I against abortion so I am the moral candidate and my opponent is unworthy, the use of group think. But as another poster stated, from Jan 2001 thru Jan 2007, the GOP (moral majority) were in control of the House, Senate, and White House, what to did they do to end abortion? Nothing. They use emotion for votes to gain power and then forget about you. Learn to think for yourself instead of following childish sloganeering.

I should state I personally do not approve of abortion (but agree with choice for abortion, I'm not here to judge others choices...), am against the death penalty and against war.
Killing is killing IMO, and feel my conscious is clear because I have used my brain to think through rationally unlike stated in the OP, liberals are irrational, call me liberal if you must, I call myself human first.
Peace and Love to ALL

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I think it's because you refuse to see the government making something illegal as making the choice for us.

It is removing the choice...not making the choice. Government does it all the time. Murder, Rape, Stealing, Smoking certain herbs, Growing certain plants, Owning certain guns....I could go on an on. Do you agree with all these "choices" that have been removed by the government?

Again...you are trying to use FEAR of government to push your agenda...that really is something I expect from conservatives...not you BH.

Here's an example. At one time, liquor was legal. People could CHOOSE whether or not to consume it. Then the government made it ILLEGAL. They took that choice away from the people. But then they gave it back again, making alcohol consumption legal. Then the people chose once more.

And in the scenario you gave...if we stay on prohibition...you were suggesting that the government could then FORCE people to drink alcohol...after they made it illegal.

Now tell me BH...does that sound logical to you?

I am not surprised you won't entertain this idea (and keep calling it illogical) because you don't want to admit that you want the government making this reproductive choice for women, but you don't want women making it either. I would not be willing to admit to wanting more government in our lives either.

Let me make it clear...I don't think it should be a CHOICE for anyone...just like murder and rape...it should not be a CHOICE that is to be made...it should be removed as a CHOICE.

I have no problem admiting I want more government in our lives. That is why I supported the healthcare bill...I wish they would of gone further with it. I also support more government regulation in banks and wall street...even airlines and the trucking industry.

Do you not support government involvement in some of the things above?

You'd be wrong. A fetus is NOT a person. It's a part of a woman. It's a fetus. And is not granted human rights until it IS a person.

Again BH...I know you don't like it...but you are trying to make this a sterile process and making the baby inhuman. You say it clearly right there...it is NOT a person...which to me is only to make it easier to justify the support of abortion.

reply to post by Misoir


And here we have a class a example of the typical woman-hating, holier than thou, conservative type, with nothing of substance or value to present to us. So much for an enlightening subject. Enjoy your tea-bagging parties.

reply to post by Misoir


Your position is logically consistent about abortion. Your position is also dreadfully wrong. Under a dictionary argument, murder could be defined as ending a human being's life. Before I explain why you're wrong let me give you much better arguments that I rarely hear and I don't know why. It is not disputed that bacteria are living things. If a 1-cell bacteria is a living thing, then too is a 1-celled human. The species of an animal can be best be determined by a DNA test. So DNA testing shows human and the 1+ cellular structure show a living entity. Its not a dolphin fetus. Its a human fetus. A human fetus is a living human. And if you are being a human at the moment, then you are a human being. Being human is human being.

The reasoning behind people like you and me not killing people is the same sort of reasoning about why its considered wrong to beat a dog with a chain every day for the fun of it. We've both got feelings. Dogs have feelings. People have feelings. That is why its wrong to beat a dog and that is why its wrong to murder people's loved ones. Now, if you don't think its wrong to beat a dog with a chain every day for fun then my argument does not work. Certainly there is a small fraction of Christian fundamentalists who believe such a thing.

Not only does murder hurt people's feelings, but it does so each and every time in nearly all cases. The fact that something hurts people's feelings each and every time in nearly all cases is ultimately the only possible grounds to make any given act illegal. 1-celled organisms have no feelings. Therefore, it is okay to beat a 1-celled organism with a stick and that is fine. But, if someone else is the owner of that 1-cell organism then it is not fine and if you beat that 1-celled organism with a stick then there will be problems equivalent to how much the person was hurt. In fact, you could even consider a teddy bear. If I sleep every night with teddy and you hit teddy with a stick and ruin him, you are going to have hell to pay. And if you hit my wife causing her 1-cell human being inside of her there will be an even greater hell. And that explains the stiff penalty for killing people's unborn children.

Yet, a woman's 1-celled human growing inside of her does not have feelings. She owns it, and she can kill it without anyone's feelings being hurt except perhaps the husband who may have an argument for joint custody. At some point, that fetus inside grows to have feelings, even before being born. It has both thoughts and feelings before emerging from the womb. So now you have a living human with thoughts and feelings. It is simply not possible to justify abortion at that point.

So, while it would be irrational for a liberal to call killing a 1-celled human being murder but claim abortion is not murder (in a dictionary sense), it would none the less be rational to call killing a 1-celled human being a terrible act that deserves a stiff penalty but killing one's own 1-celled human being a sad act that does not deserve a penalty. Hopefully the arguments I've laid out for you are consistent enough to change your mind, or if they are wrong please do correct me so that I can change my mind.

reply to post by Maslo

Are mutated cells or gametes different persons with rights? Is tumor a different person with rights? Are colon bacteria different persons?

Have mutated cells or gametes EVER grown into a seperate human being than the mother?

Embryo has only a POTENTIAL to become different person in the future. But its not a person YET.

Has an embryo EVER grown into something else besides a person in the future?


Two simple questions.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Are sperm replicating mass? No...it is not. Do sperm contain full human DNA? No...it does not.

I dont see how its relevant to our discussion, since the thing that makes us human persons is our nervous system (or analogous system in other sentient entities), not our DNA or our replication. That would enable you to kill eventual transhumans (extropians) or intelligent aliens, which would be not moral in my book. It would be speciesism.

And do you not understand what seperates a virus from a human? Honesetly...why do people become stupid and illogical on this topic?

What separates virus from a human? Many things. What separates entities or life that should not be protected (viruses, bacterias, plants, lower organisms, embryos..) from entites that should be protected (humans with functioning NS, aliens, extropians, sentient AIs..)? Consciousness, awareness, complexity of nervous system (or equivalent system if not carbon based intelligence). Only.

Does a human fetus ever grow into some other than a human?

Potential of a system to become a conscious in the future (if some conditions are met) is not enough, since we would have to protect all human gametes and supercomputers. If something is only going to become conscious in the future, by definition it is not in the present.

My definition is much more simple...life is a process...going from conception until death.

There is a difference between life of human body, and existence of human person. Life of human body starts at conception and ends when the plug of medical machinery is pulled (in many cases long after brain death). Human person begins to exist after the development of NS, and ends at the brain death.

Dont confuse life of human body with existence of a conscious entity inside.

Care to explain why killing a non-human virus and killing a human life are the same?

If that human life does not posess NS (consciousness), its the same. No person (intelligent entity) has died.

If you really think a virus is the same as a human fetus...you may want to revisit biology class.

Biologically no. But from the point relevant to our discussion (existence of intelligent entity inside, neuropsychological POV), they are the same.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Have mutated cells or gametes EVER grown into a seperate human being than the mother?

No. But gametes actually also have the potential, if certain conditions are met. And embryo does have the same potential, if certain conditions are met.

Has an embryo EVER grown into something else besides a person in the future?

No, if the conditions for its development are met. Just as human gametes have never grown into a dolphin or a dog, if the conditions for their development are met. Yet we dont protect them.

Potential is not enough. We should protect systems as conscious entities only AFTER they actually ARE conscious entities.

reply to post by Maslo

Have mutated cells or gametes EVER grown into a seperate human being than the mother?

I would just add that in the future, ALL cells would probably have the potential to become separate human persons (cloning). Should we then protect all our cells, like blood cells?

Terminating a certain process potentially leading to conscious human person in teh future cannot be considered murder of said person, because even anticoncepce would be considered murder. Prevention of existence of conscious person is NOT murder. Only what exists can die.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by technical difficulties

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Hey Fellas, you heard about the liberal gene being detected right?

Well get this - that means there is a chance that liberals can be aborted in utero, once their presence is detected.


Your move liberals.

edit on 30-10-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)

But I thought conservatives were against abortion. . .

What do you mean?

Are you referring to me? If so, why are you pretending to know my political views?


*Anyhow, if the birth of statists can be prevented, we would all benefit.

If people were told by the doctor, 'sure he'll be healthy, but when he gets older he will contribute to the loss of freedoms and he will help the state grow - it is in his genes'.

That might be reason to abort.

1. I'm pretty sure Liberals weren't supporting the Patriot act or the Arizona immigration Law.
2. Also, they're not trying to keep gay marriage, prostitutes, and drugs illegal.
3. Since we're on the subject of abortion, Liberals weren't trying to end abortion (or birth control/condoms).
4. They weren't trying get rid of the 14th amendment.
5. Or Mosques for that matter.
6. They are however, trying to control guns.
7. And they do support Affirmative Action.
8. I guess they are trying to do some things with private property, but I'm not so sure on that one.

So do Liberals contribute to the loss of freedom? Yes, but not as much as conservatives do. You should stop getting your information on liberals from right-wing sources. As for the growing state, I want to say you're referring to a nanny state, but I'm not so sure.

As for the subject at hand: One reason against being anti-choice is that abortions will happen regardless, whether or not it's illegal. The only difference is that it won't be as safe, and the money will most likely fuel actual crimes.

support murderers?
The burning bush started 2 wars based on the single principle that he wanted to be a war president, no other reason, every other rationalization was, and still is, a lie.
You think he doesn't support the army murdering innocent people that he deems unfit to live?

reply to post by Maslo

I dont see how its relevant to our discussion, since the thing that makes us human persons is our nervous system (or analogous system in other sentient entities), not our DNA or our replication. That would enable you to kill eventual transhumans (extropians) or intelligent aliens, which would be not moral in my book. It would be speciesism.

We kill other species all the time...it isn't considered murder.

We kill "intelligent" species all the time...it isn't considered murder.

Like I said before, picking the nervous system is random...there is a definate start to LIFE...it can be pinpointed...it is conception.

Are you going to argue that conception is NOT where the process of life begins?

What separates virus from a human? Many things. What separates entities or life that should not be protected (viruses, bacterias, plants, lower organisms, embryos..) from entites that should be protected (humans with functioning NS, aliens, extropians, sentient AIs..)? Consciousness, awareness, complexity of nervous system (or equivalent system if not carbon based intelligence). Only.

You didn't answer the question...all I got out of what you just said is that you might want to consider an alien a human????

Potential of a system to become a conscious in the future (if some conditions are met) is not enough, since we would have to protect all human gametes and supercomputers. If something is only going to become conscious in the future, by definition it is not in the present.

REALLY...is that the position you are going to take.

It was a simple yes/no question...and you compare it to supercomputers....unbelievable.

The queston was "Does a human fetus ever grow into some other than a human?".....care to try again...it is a yes/no question.

There is a difference between life of human body, and existence of human person. Life of human body starts at conception and ends when the plug of medical machinery is pulled (in many cases long after brain death). Human person begins to exist after the development of NS, and ends at the brain death.

Dont confuse life of human body with existence of a conscious entity inside.

I'm not confusing anything...but it sounds like you are ok with killing people who are in a vegatative state only surviving on life support...is that right?

They are no longer "human"...and should be able to be killed without it being murder...is that what you are saying?

You see what happens...with your "definition"...you have to make special cases, create definitions of what qualifies as "life" and not...you have to jump through a lot of hoops.

Mine is simple...from conception until death....end of story.

occam's razor?

If that human life does not posess NS (consciousness), its the same. No person (intelligent entity) has died.

So you are in fact saying people in vegatative states are OK to kill....disturbing.

Holding on to this random state of development in the human life is not logical...it is just an excuse.

Biologically no. But from the point relevant to our discussion (existence of intelligent entity inside, neuropsychological POV), they are the same.

That isn't the point of my discussion. Like I said before...we kill many intelligent entities...it isn't murder. We are talking about HUMAN LIFE...nothing else.

So let's stay on topic of HUMAN LIFE...and not try to compare HUMAN LIFE to a virus.

No. But gametes actually also have the potential, if certain conditions are met. And embryo does have the same potential, if certain conditions are met.

REALLY? so your answer is "No...but yes...maybe"???

An embryo almost ALWAYS develops into a human unless certain things go WRONG...outside of the NATURAL cycle. Do you care to dispute that also?

No, if the conditions for its development are met. Just as human gametes have never grown into a dolphin or a dog, if the conditions for their development are met. Yet we dont protect them.

Potential is not enough. We should protect systems as conscious entities only AFTER they actually ARE conscious entities.

So POTENTIAL is not enough for this situation...but the POTENTIAL of RISK is enough in peoples opinion to justify abortion??? Seems hypocritical.

All I hear from you are attempts to justify...to create a situation where abortion is NOT killing a human...because that is hard to say.

But you have to make a lot of special cases, definitions, and conditions for you to create this justifications.


Like it or not...abortion is killing a human life.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Misoir
The little whores who get themselves into that problem should also be taught a lesson that big brother won’t always be there for them when they make mistakes, so we should abolish every social service except Social Security to guarantee that these girls think twice before making irrational decisions.

What about, oh say, a 15yo girl that looks for love because she gets none at home and gets pregnant? 15yo's make irrational decisions. That's because they are 15yo.

There's a difference between love and making love, in other words, sex. What has been taken out of school is the lesson of abstinence and replaced by safe sex or if you get pregnant, abortion is an option.

And as for the irrational decisions a 15 year old can make, a 15 year old knows that having sex can lead to a pregnancy.

Besides, we live in a world where a judge says a 4 year old child can be sued for negligence.

4-Year-Old Can Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case

“A parent’s presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street,” the judge wrote. He added that any “reasonably prudent child,” who presumably has been told to look both ways before crossing a street, should know that dashing out without looking is dangerous, with or without a parent there.

Besides, at conception is really when life begins. An unfertilized egg is not capable of meiosis and neither is a single sperm cell. To say that a fertilized egg isn't life is the same as saying that amoebae, bacteria and viruses aren't lifeforms.

Just because a fetus can't talk or walk doesn't mean it never will.

If the woman were to recieve a full hysterectomy during the abortion procedures, then I would reluctantly agree to abortions.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

*Anyhow, if the birth of statists can be prevented, we would all benefit. If people were told by the doctor, 'sure he'll be healthy, but when he gets older he will contribute to the loss of freedoms and he will help the state grow - it is in his genes'. That might be reason to abort.

If you adhere to such faulty logic, it is your right to have your embryos checked and aborted if you want to. But dont force it on others, since...

Why are you pretending that you know I would force anything on anyone else?

Currently women have the right to abort babies, thus they have the right to abort genetic statists. No one said they should be forced, so please don't pretend that is the case.


*Do you imagine I would use force because you would use force in other things? Perhaps you are projecting, yes?

No, of course not. I thought that from the tone of your post. If they only have a choice to abort genetic statists (..liberals?! "statists" includes republicans), then of course I agree. Just as they should have a choice to abort their embryos because of any other genetic property they consider unacceptable.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Maslo

 

Have mutated cells or gametes EVER grown into a seperate human being than the mother?

I would just add that in the future, ALL cells would probably have the potential to become separate human persons (cloning). Should we then protect all our cells, like blood cells?

Terminating a certain process potentially leading to conscious human person in teh future cannot be considered murder of said person, because even anticoncepce would be considered murder. Prevention of existence of conscious person is NOT murder. Only what exists can die.

edit on 30/10/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

You are really reaching into the SCI-FI area to justify the murder of a baby.

Like I said...I'll keep it simple...human life is from conception until death.

My argument remains simple...you have to keep adding and modifying...it should tell you something is wrong.