The irrationality of Liberals

this whole debate is hard for me, because i agree in part on different issues with both parties. on the other hand you got to realize the politicians on the left and the right are both a bunch of scumbags and neither serve the american people. so really arguing over petty differences is pointless because we are all being screwed by these people.

We should be able to abort babies post-pregnancy. They are parasites, always relying on their parents or someone else for sustenance. If they were human they should be able to manage themselves. Also, with the global population the way it is, killing babies is morally justifiable. And why stop there, why not permit killing children, they are also parasites and a potential financial risk? So are homeless people, disabled people, and illegal immigrants. Kill them all or permit killing them for a better society.

Originally posted by Whiffer Nippets
I have SOLVED this issue!

If you believe that a fetus or clump of cells is a person and abortion is "killing" it - just think of Buddhism - Buddha can just reincarnate it into somebody else!

PROBLEM SOLVED.

1. Buddha reincarnates no one. He was at the mercy of his own karma as we are.
2. Although sometimes necessary, when you kill something you are:
a. Linking yourself via karma to that person
b. Interfereing in their path.

reply to post by ugmold


Liberals support murder? Cool story bro, u mad?

reply to post by Monts


Monts, i really thought that your thread on abortion was an abomination of human intelligence. For me, the way you think is perfectly displayed in your avatar.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

It doesn't matter if you call it a "person" or not. "Person" is a subjective term. Science can only say whether it's alive, human, or the heart's beating, etc. They cannot say it's a person. "Personhood" is the stage at which people gain rights. That's a legal issue, not a scientific one.

How can then be law based on something you cannot even exactly define? If law defined that personhood starts from 2 years, would it be right to kill infants? The law must have exact definitions what separates a person from non-person, and this definition must be logical and based on science. Otherwise the law is wrong.

Person A and Person B both have equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Person A's rights drastically INFRINGE upon Person B's rights.
Person B has the right to STOP the infringement.
If Person A wants to exercise their rights, they have to do it WITHOUT infringing on Person B's rights.

Person A is not acting voluntarily, but is FORCED to infringe upon person B rights, and it was person B who caused this situation, by voluntarily concieving person A, thus forcing person A to involuntarily infringe upon its rights.

Person B has the right to stop infringement using violent means only if she didnt voluntarily agreed and directly caused and forced other person to do so. You cannot force someone to aim a weapon at you and then stop the infringement by violent means, claiming you are innocent because it was self-defense.

Originally posted by Maslo
How can then be law based on something you cannot even exactly define?

It can't. That's why abortion cannot be made illegal. The hypothetical situation I gave was for argument's sake. It was hypothetical. A hypothesis is an assumption for argument's sake only. A fetus is NOT a person. Trying to define a womb-dweller as a person is a fool's game. The 14th Amendment says that all PERSONS BORN or naturalized are citizens and have equal protection under the law. Not all persons conceived. All persons BORN. That's the only legal definition we have of person.

Show me where science has defined "person".

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

All persons BORN. That's the only legal definition we have of person.

So do you support late term abortions...since legally they are not a "person" yet?


And why continue with terms like "womb dweller"? It just shows that you are thinking of a fetus as less than human...why do you continue to do that?

Again...I don't understand why some liberals change to conservative tactics on this issue...push fear of government (conservatives with the healthcare and gun debate)...call the "fetus" names to de-humanize it (anchor baby?).

I don't understand it...and it illustrates the OPs point perfectly. On any other issue liberals would be appauld by tactics like this...but for abortion...they willingly use it instead of just debating. Let's call the fetus a clump of cells, a parasite, a womb dweller, a growth...let's call it anything except a developing human...because that would make it killing a human...and it's easier to just think of it as "removing a parasitic growth".

It is sad to me.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
So do you support late term abortions...since legally they are not a "person" yet?

I don't support ANY abortions.
I support a woman making the decision about what happens in her body at all times.
I support HER being autonomous - self-governing.
I do NOT support the government telling her what she can and cannot do with HER body.

And why continue with terms like "womb dweller"?

Because I get tired of typing fetus and I have an imagination. You're reading into something that isn't there. If my personal experience didn't convince you that I believe life and humanity begin at conception and that I would never get an abortion myself, I don't know what else to say. You're going to think what you think of me and I really don't care what that is. I don't particularly care what you think about my choice of words, but you're WRONG (again) to think that my motivation behind my choice of words is to dehumanize the fetus.

why do you continue to do that?

Because I want to. If you don't like my choice of words, that's really too bad. But to assign meaning that isn't there is YOUR problem and does not reflect on me.

Again...I don't understand why some liberals change to conservative tactics on this issue...push fear of government (conservatives with the healthcare and gun debate)...call the "fetus" names to de-humanize it (anchor baby?).

I am not a liberal. I have a healthy concern of government taking over our lives and telling us what we can and cannot do with our bodies. Government is already FAR too big and intrusive into our PERSONAL lives. That's a conservative value and one that I hold dear. Just because you want to box me into being a liberal doesn't mean it's true.

I don't understand it.

I don't understand how conservatives can tout personal liberties and smaller government but then change their tune with it comes to drug use, a woman's choice and who someone marries. That's why I am not a conservative OR a liberal. I support personal liberties ALL across the board, be it gun ownership, choice, drug use, gay marriage or religion. I don't jump the fence depending on the issue. I'm a Libertarian at heart.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

The 14th Amendment says that all PERSONS BORN or naturalized are citizens and have equal protection under the law. Not all persons conceived. All persons BORN. That's the only legal definition we have of person.

That definition of a person is wrong and immoral, because late term abortions, which are considered murder by overwhelming majority of people are allowed by it. The baby just before birth is qualitativelly the same as baby after the birth, and all atributes that define a person according to wikipedia are also present before birth, so its obvious that definition of personhood based on birth is completely ad hoc and illogical, its just an artefact of the historical law based on insufficient knowledge at a time.

Show me where science has defined "person".

From wiki:

A person (from Latin: persona, meaning "mask")[1] is most broadly defined as any individual self-conscious or rational being, or any entity having rights and duties; or often more narrowly defined as an individual human being in particular.

In philosophy, "person" may apply to any human or non-human agent who is regarded as self-conscious and capable of certain kinds of higher-level thought; for example, individuals who have the power to reflect upon and choose their actions.[6]

Boethius gives the definition of "person" as "an individual substance of a rational nature" ("Naturæ rationalis individua substantia").[1]

Peter Singer defines “person” simply as being a conscious thinking being.

Philosopher Thomas I. White argues that the criteria for a person are as follows: (1) is alive, (2) is aware, (3) feels positive and negative sensations, (4) has emotions, (5) has a sense of self, (6) controls its own behaviour, (7) recognises other persons and treats them appropriately, and (8) has a variety of sophisticated cognitive abilities

The beginning of human personhood is a concept long debated by religion and philosophy. In contemporary global thought, once humans are born, personhood is considered automatic. However, personhood could also extend to late fetuses and neonates, dependent on what level of thought is required. With respect to abortion, 'personhood' is a term used to describe the status of a human being vis-a-vis his or her individual human rights. The term was used by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade.[citation needed] However, the distinction in ethical value between currently existing persons and potential future persons has been questioned.[8] Subsequently, it has been argued that contraception and even the decision not to procreate at all could be regarded as immoral on a similar basis as abortion.[9]

While some tend to be comfortable constraining personhood status within the human species based on basic capacities (e.g. excluding human stem cells, fetuses, and bodies that cannot recover awareness), others often wish to include all these forms of human bodies even if they have never had awareness (which some would call pre-people) or had awareness, but could never have awareness again due to massive and irrecoverable brain damage (some would call these post-people). The Vatican has recently been advancing a human exceptionalist understanding of personhood theory, while other communities, such as Christian Evangelicals in the U.S. have sometimes rejected personhood theory as biased against human exceptionalism. Of course, many religious communities (of many traditions) view the other versions of personhood theory perfectly compatible with their faith, as do the majority of modern Humanists (especially Personists).

As you can see, all atributes that all definitions of a person require are products of a nervous system (or equivalent system if we cosider non-biological persons) according to science. Therefore the most logical criterion for determining if something is a person should be presence of sufficiently complex NS. The point when these qualities appear can be determined fairly exactly in humans (4-5th month) using EEG scans.
Just as death of a person is determined in medical science by the functional status of the NS, the begining of a person should also logically be defined by the functional status of the NS.

Originally posted by Maslo
That definition of a person is wrong and immoral,

I disagree, but if you have an issue with it, speak to the founding fathers.

The baby just before birth is qualitativelly the same as baby after the birth,

Agreed. Except for the fact that before birth, it is INSIDE another person.

I have read the wikipedia entry for person, so there was no need to add it here. That does not include a scientific definition of person. It gives various opinions on what a person is.

I don't have any issues with what I think a person is. But it's all opinion. There is no scientific definition of "person" that I am aware of. You can give me your definition and I can give you mine, but those are just our opinions and they don't matter anyway where the law is concerned.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by intrepid

 

How come everyone forgets about the option of giving their baby up for adoption? Every mother has that choice. There are plenty of orphanages that will take these children that are not wanted by their irresponsible parents. With so many options available I don’t see how murder is at the top!?

So dump all unwanted children into orphanages that makes sense but here is something to think about. Where will the money come from to build these new orphanages? Where will the money come from to clothe, feed, and cover the cost of paying people to supervise the children? Conservatives won't even pass a vote to help our disabled vets do you think they would vote to give the money to a bunch of orphans? And due to the laws regarding adoption people have started going overseas to adopt because it's cheaper.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by maybereal11

 

In this argument you are continuing to define murder by the actor. Heart attack - nature/Stabbing-murder.

I am defining murder by the qualification of "life".

And you have to create special cases and create different definitions for your qualification of "murder".

I do not...it is very simple for me. Death by another human....accident, self defense, murder.

Outcast...I agree with your definition 100%.

A fetus during the first trimester is not "human life". Both definitions, yours and co-exist. Where we differ is in our definition of when life begins.

I provided statistical evidence that strongly supports that nature/God does not consider it "life" in the the first ruimester. Does it represent a more evolved life form than a swimming sperm? Yes. "human life? No.

With the big questions I tend to skip idealogy, religion and other intellectual foundations that are colored by emotion and the arrogance often displayed by people and take a basic look at nature/creation and examine how that force might behave for clues as to the truth.

If spontaneous abortions (misscarriages) happen nearly 50% of the time in the first trimester (half the time the woman being unaware and thinking it is a heavy period)...if nature is willing to cancel a pregnancy in the first 13 weeks for the slightest of reasons...if 95%+ of all spontaneous abortions/misscarriages occur in those first 13 weeks...and then suddenly falls to less than 3% for the remainder of the pregnancy...To me that is very strong evidence as to when life begins...right aaround the begining of the 2nd trimester.

Originally posted by maybereal11

A fetus during the first trimester is not "human life". Both definitions, yours and co-exist. Where we differ is in our definition of when life begins.

I provided statistical evidence that strongly supports that nature/God does not consider it "life" in the the first ruimester. Does it represent a more evolved life form than a swimming sperm? Yes. "human life? No.

A brand new human life begins at conception. This is not opinion, this is a scientific fact that you can read about in the first ten pages of virtually any biology textbook.

In addition, a fetus is not part of the Mother's body. If that were the case pregnant women would have 20 fingers, 20 toes, 2 heads, 4 arms, 4 legs (and maybe even a penis) - do women pregnant with a boy have a penis (no they don't, their Son has a penis).

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Agreed. Except for the fact that before birth, it is INSIDE another person.

According to that logic would it be justifiable for a conjoined twin to kill their attached sibling (assuming it could be done w/o killing themselves)?

Afterall, if you think carrying around an unborn baby is rough, try having to carry around another adult all the time.

And in the case of a conjoined twin they did absolutely nothing to create the situation of someone else depending on their body (not so with a pregnant woman).

Originally posted by SevenBeans
According to that logic would it be justifiable for a conjoined twin to kill their attached sibling (assuming it could be done w/o killing themselves)?

No, because they are persons born (See the 14th Amendment) and as such, they have the same rights given to all people, including the right to life.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

No, because they are persons born (See the 14th Amendment) and as such, they have the same rights given to all people, including the right to life.

Sigh... really? The law defines personhood only after birth? I didn't know that! Thanks for your contribution!

I didn't ask if it was legal, I asked if it was justifiable.

A conjoined twin is as much, "HER BODY", as a fetus is...

Originally posted by SevenBeans

A brand new human life begins at conception. This is not opinion, this is a scientific fact that you can read about in the first ten pages of virtually any biology textbook.

Again...you are playing fast and loose with the term "life". Each human body contains thousands of various life forms in the manner of virus's, bacteria etc. A single sperm can be defined as life...Monty Python? Catholic Church? every sperm is sacred?



So to me the question of "human life" requires a little more thought than simply declaring it.

Originally posted by SevenBeans
In addition, a fetus is not part of the Mother's body. If that were the case pregnant women would have 20 fingers, 20 toes, 2 heads, 4 arms, 4 legs (and maybe even a penis) - do women pregnant with a boy have a penis (no they don't, their Son has a penis).

edit on 1-11-2010 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

Right. A fetus contains genetic information seperate and new from the woman's genes. Agreed.

So do tumors, bacteria, viruses etc. So that by itself doesn't not constitute or define a living human life in my opinion.

I am not contesting that the fetus does not at some stage takes on sufficient qualities and charachteristics to be defined as legitimate "human life"...it certainly does...I am contesting that by examing tons of data and statistics on spontaneous abortions/misscarriages that we can reasonably determine that "human life" occurs around the begining of the second tri-mester. There is a clear threshhold that is crossed between the first and second trimester. That is why 95% of misscarriages occur in the first trimester at a rate between 30-50% of the time, while after the first trimester that rate drops to 3% or so...and then by birth, it is possible for the mother to actually die to deliver a new life. Nature loves life...and the stats show "nature" treating a first trimester fetus vastly differently than a second trimester fetus.