Confused

[M. Sage]

No, my point is that you should say what you mean without being vague. In my opinion, people who make that particular argument are hiding behind that vagueness.

 

[TheDan]

I've always been registered as independent... Sometimes I agree with those "damn liberals" and other times I agree with those "damn conservatives". Neither party has seemed adequate to me and I've always felt like I was an oddball because I couldn't "pick a team". Well, I'm finding out recently that there are more folks out there with the same dilemma. I think that both the Dems and the Reps are moving to far from center and are going to disenfranchise more and more people as they pull farther apart.

As for abortion and homosexuality... I'll hesitantly share my thoughts, but if you just want to hear my main point, skip the next two paragraphs.

I think abortion is killing babies. I don't have a clue when a baby gets a "soul" or if the human soul even exists. Honestly I never even think about that stuff. What I do know is that if you manage to draw out that debate for 9months, then the argument becomes moot. The end result is a new person. I don't even like babies! I don't want anything to do with one, but at the same time I think its very wrong to just throw them away. If you don't want your child, give it to someone who does. There are tons of people out there that are incapable of having children that want them. If there is a serious medical emergency where there's a choice between abort or let the mother die, then I'm ok with that. That'd be the only exception I'd make, however.

Now if you want to say two dudes getting it on is icky and gross, I don't have a problem with that, but a crime against nature? lol... I say nature doesn't give a crap. Same sex intercourse isn't confined just to humans. Personally I think gay people are funny. Which pobably offends most of them... but I still think it's funny.

The main issue for me is the federal legislation of issues like these. If local governments want to make laws about these things I have no problem with them doing so (just as long as the law doesn't restrict those inalienable rights listed in the constitution). The federal government needs to stay the frack out of local government.

 

[TheDan]

What about a couple of hot chicks?

That's ok if they allow me to join them, otherwise its abhorrent and gross.

 

[Texan2]

But by labeling an unborn fetus a child you are saying that it has a soul, which is a religious concept and cannot be proven through science. A bundle of cells is not a human being and the argument to be made is: At what point does the religious right believe that this bundle of cells magically has a soul? There has never been a discussion of the legality of abortion that religion did not influence, and making it illegal would only be done to appease the religious right.

I dont think this is the argument that the right always makes...quite often the arguement isnt whethter or not a fetus has a soul, but at what point can its life be sustained outside the womb. Soul or no soul...if it has a heartbeat and brainwaves and human DNA...its a person

 

[Dragonwycke]

Not wanting to start any cuss-fights, but term limits would be a great way to start taking back the Country. Gov. 'good-hair' for fourteen years?! Kay Bailey promised to resign if her attempt at the Governors office failed. Well, Kay, it's time...We have got to put an end to career politicians!

 

[deputy]

I thought about term limits.........the biggest problem there is again, the politicans are representing their respective party and agenda and not their voters. An ole' boy in office on his last term does not fear the voters, he has nothing to lose. He can support who-ever and what-ever he wants for the "big picture".

 

[Clockwork]

I dont think this is the argument that the right always makes...quite often the arguement isnt whethter or not a fetus has a soul, but at what point can its life be sustained outside the womb. Soul or no soul...if it has a heartbeat and brainwaves and human DNA...its a person

That's something that I can get behind. At a certain point when a bundle of cells actually becomes sentient then it can be classified as "life" and ending that life would be murder in my book, but it isn't immediate during a pregnancy. Obviously a mother-to-be in her third trimester has a fully-formed human being growing inside of her and it would be unconscionable to end that small life. Is that where the "term limits" concept comes from? Something like "abortions should only be allowable during the first trimester"?

If cells were lives then a man would be committing mass genocide any time he masturbates.

 

[ohhrico1969]

That's something that I can get behind. At a certain point when a bundle of cells actually becomes sentient then it can be classified as "life" and ending that life would be murder in my book, but it isn't immediate during a pregnancy. Obviously a mother-to-be in her third trimester has a fully-formed human being growing inside of her and it would be unconscionable to end that small life. Is that where the "term limits" concept comes from? Something like "abortions should only be allowable during the first trimester"?

If cells were lives then a man would be committing mass genocide any time he masturbates.

Let me state that I was under the assumption that we were all talking about early stage abortion. I think we all can at least agree that aborting a baby late term is unconscionable. (IMO) My thing is even that is unacceptable to the far right. Putting limitations on when they can be done is a reasonable compromise I think. After a certain point they should be given up for adoption if it is not wanted by the mother.(although the amount of kids in the adoption system and the strain its putting on us the taxpayer is a whole other issue) But again it should be a state decision not federal.

 

[M. Sage]

That's something that I can get behind. At a certain point when a bundle of cells actually becomes sentient then it can be classified as "life" and ending that life would be murder in my book, but it isn't immediate during a pregnancy. Obviously a mother-to-be in her third trimester has a fully-formed human being growing inside of her and it would be unconscionable to end that small life. Is that where the "term limits" concept comes from? Something like "abortions should only be allowable during the first trimester"?

If cells were lives then a man would be committing mass genocide any time he masturbates.

Sentient? I'm pretty doubtful that a child fits that definition for quite some time after birth.

 

[TheDan]

At a certain point when a bundle of cells actually becomes sentient then it can be classified as "life"

What if it's determined that we don't become sentient until around 18months? Still ok with it then? I don't think that'd be a stretch... I mean, you've seen newborns right? They operate on pure instinct and sensory input, and still cannot survive on their own without some type of "mother" until they develop alittle more. I think the whole concept of it being ok during certain periods of time is alittle silly becuase if you simply draw the debate out for a few more months then its unconscionable to anyone...

although the amount of kids in the adoption system and the strain its putting on us the taxpayer is a whole other issue

Yeah, there is definitely something that needs to be fixed in that system. I don't understand why it is some people sit on waiting lists for long periods of time when they are ready to adopt right away.

 

[Clockwork]

Sentient? I'm pretty doubtful that a child fits that definition for quite some time after birth.

Well, I'm no doctor and I could be way off here, but I'm pretty sure that a newborn is at least aware of their presence in a different environment than a womb even if they aren't asking themselves, "Why am I here?"

Edit: At what stage of development would it feel pain, for example?

 

[RPB]

Ok,
My particular view is that 1) I'm for HUMAN rights, and 2) I'm AGAINST age discrimination.

It's that simple, but explantion below.


1) At no point is a HUMAN fetus NOT a HUMAN. It never is or will be a canine, feline etc.

2) a) All Humans should have the right to continue aging, growing and developing whether they are elderly or young; and setting ANY "setpoint" at which it is "OK" is dangerous. Example: Humans under 6 weeks, Humans over 65 years, only Blonde humans, only certain Colored Humans, Only handicapped Humans etc etc
b) Age discrimination reminds me of some cultures which placed their elderly or girls, if they only wanted boys in the tribe, outside the camp or tent and allowed them to freeze to death, or die from starvation, because they were a burden to the others.
c) Age discrimination in health care whether cutting off the elderly or the young based upon age or stage of development is the same thing.

I don't know or care when it gets a "soul" nor when it is "viable" (can live on its own). Many elderly people can't live on their own either. Do we have the right to terminate their right to continue aging, growing (or shrinking) and developing further?

I don't care for the argument that a fetus isn't "fully developed" so it's OK to terminate their right to grow and develop further, neither is a 12 year old girl "fully developed"....do we have the right to terminate her right to continue growing and developing further?

Setting ANY arbitrary "setpoint" where it is "OK" to deprive a HUMAN the right to grow and develop and age further, based upon age discrimination, or any other ARBITRARY CRITERIA is dangerous.

All things are either 1) Alive 2) Dead or 3) Inert (like a rock)

I will NOT try to prove a fetus is "alive" but lets look ...

3) Inert: 1.
having no inherent power of action, motion, or resistance (opposed to active): inert matter.
Unable to move or act.
Synonyms
1.immobile, unmoving, lifeless, motionless.

Well, HUMAN fetuses do move, have heartbeats and some pregnant mothers say they kick. I guess they are not "INERT"


2) death: noun the act of dying; the end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism.

So, dead is the abscence of ALL vital functions, no heartbeat, no growth etc ... which a HUMAN fetus has..... I guess ALL signs of life are not absent, so it isn't "dead"

You decide for yourself if it is "1) Alive"

Even if it wasn't, it is still HUMAN, and all HUMANS should have the right to continue aging, growing, and developing with no outside interferance with those rights, no matter what the Human's age is, old or young. I'm AGAINST age discrimination and FOR Human rights..

RE: Womens' Rights ....
Women are HUMANS too, they have rights. Where a conflict of rights emerges, ...Oliver Wendall Holmes once said "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"
A woman's "right" to get rid of an inconvenient human, is equal to putting your elderly out to freeze. ASK the old person or fetus if it's OK with them, if it is, then proceed like Doctor Kevorkian did if you believe as he does....
Depriving ANY human of their rights without their consent is just wrong.....
If it isn't, I had a 12 year old not fully developed, daughter who burdened me, and she couldn't live on her own, and couldn't move real fast when told to clean her room, that I wanted to get rid of, oops, I mean terminate her right to continue growing aging and developing, a time or two ... But that would be wrong. Setting any arbitrary "setpoint" where it is considered "OK" is not good.

My dad was a Democrat all his life, and he died Sept 2008, before he got to vote Republican for his very first time, in the last Presidential Election.

To the OP, I'm neither a Republican nor Democrat. I'm just a human with very basic beliefs which are applied to every aspect of my life.. I try to Keep It Simple. Keeping it simple requires far less "justification"

When I vote, I ask one question ... "Do they have respect for HUMANS" ... that will tell a LOT about what kind of leader they will be, on all other issues concerning our rights.

Clockwork, at age 89, you may basically be a "bundle of HUMAN cells, many of which aren't all functioning properly, and not able to move real fast" You may even be not "viable" if you need oxygen or prescriptions to continue your right to continue aging. You may be on so many pain killers that you are impervious to pain. I have no idea if you have a soul or not and you may have Alzheimers so severe that you are mentally incapable of asking "Why am I here".... but if they set you outside to freeze, call me, I'll give you a coat and food. ...After all, you are a human, and I have respect for humans.
(I try to Keep It Simple. Keeping it simple requires far less "justification")

 

[Clockwork]

All things are either 1) Alive 2) Dead or 3) Inert (like a rock)

Schroedinger's Cat.

Sorry, I'm a fan of quantum physics.

 

[RPB]

LOL good response; ... that's why I ruled out Canines and Felines and focus on HUMAN rights (just kidding)


Seriously though, I was once told...
"Simple is easier, sometimes the simple path is the best path, Grasshopper"

As you know, (and even Erwin Schroedinger knew) ... Schroedinger's Cat doesn't track with reality.

I'm more a fan of Einstein, though I don't pretend to understand, nor agree with all he theorized, but then, his I.Q. was 2 points higher than mine, and I'm not interested in all he said anyway as it distracts from my kayak fishing time for which I retired.

I just try to keep it "real" and keep it simple. Keeping it simple requires far less "justification"

 

[TheDan]

As usual, someone articulated my argument far better than I did... and in color! Thanks RPB

 

[ohhrico1969]

Ok,
My particular view is that 1) I'm for HUMAN rights, and 2) I'm AGAINST age discrimination.

It's that simple, but explantion below.


1) At no point is a HUMAN fetus NOT a HUMAN. It never is or will be a canine, feline etc.

2) a) All Humans should have the right to continue aging, growing and developing whether they are elderly or young; and setting ANY "setpoint" at which it is "OK" is dangerous. Example: Humans under 6 weeks, Humans over 65 years, only Blonde humans, only certain Colored Humans, Only handicapped Humans etc etc
b) Age discrimination reminds me of some cultures which placed their elderly or girls, if they only wanted boys in the tribe, outside the camp or tent and allowed them to freeze to death, or die from starvation, because they were a burden to the others.
c) Age discrimination in health care whether cutting off the elderly or the young based upon age or stage of development is the same thing.

I don't know or care when it gets a "soul" nor when it is "viable" (can live on its own). Many elderly people can't live on their own either. Do we have the right to terminate their right to continue aging, growing (or shrinking) and developing further?

I don't care for the argument that a fetus isn't "fully developed" so it's OK to terminate their right to grow and develop further, neither is a 12 year old girl "fully developed"....do we have the right to terminate her right to continue growing and developing further?

Setting ANY arbitrary "setpoint" where it is "OK" to deprive a HUMAN the right to grow and develop and age further, based upon age discrimination, or any other ARBITRAY CRITERIA is dangerous.

All things are either 1) Alive 2) Dead or 3) Inert (like a rock)

I will NOT try to prove a fetus is "alive" but lets look ...

3) Inert: 1.
having no inherent power of action, motion, or resistance (opposed to active): inert matter.
Unable to move or act.
Synonyms
1.immobile, unmoving, lifeless, motionless.

Well, HUMAN fetuses do move, have heartbeats and some pregnant mothers say they kick. I guess they are not "INERT"


2) death: noun the act of dying; the end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism.

So, dead is the abscence of ALL vital functions, no heartbeat, no growth etc ... which a HUMAN fetus has..... I guess ALL signs of life are not absent, so it isn't "dead"

You decide for yourself if it is "1) Alive"

Even if it wasn't, it is still HUMAN, and all HUMANS should have the right to continue aging, growing, and developing with no outside interferance with those rights, no matter what the Human's age is, old or young. I'm AGAINST age discrimination and FOR Human rights..

RE: Womens' Rights ....
Women are HUMANS too, they have rights. Where a conflict of rights emerges, ...Oliver Wendall Holmes once said "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"
A woman's "right" to get rid of an inconvenient human, is equal to putting your elderly out to freeze. ASK the old person or fetus if it's OK with them, if it is, then proceed like Doctor Kevorkian did if you believe as he does....
Depriving ANY human of their rights without their consent is just wrong.....
If it isn't, I had a 12 year old not fully developed, daughter who burdened me, and she couldn't live on her own, and couldn't move real fast when told to clean her room, that I wanted to get rid of, oops, I mean terminate her right to continue growing aging and developing, a time or two ... But that would be wrong. Setting any arbitrary "setpoint" where it is considered "OK" is not good.

My dad was a Democrat all his life, and he died Sept 2008, before he got to vote Republican for his very first time, in the last Presidential Election.

To the OP, I'm neither a Republican nor Democrat. I'm just a human with very basic beliefs which are applied to every aspect of my life.. I try to Keep It Simple. Keeping it simple requires far less "justification"

When I vote, I ask one question ... "Do they have respect for HUMANS" ... that will tell a LOT about what kind of leader they will be, on all other issues concerning our rights.

Clockwork, at age 89, you may basically be a "bundle of HUMAN cells, many of which aren't all functioning properly, and not able to move real fast" You may even be not "viable" if you need oxygen or prescriptions to continue your right to continue aging. You may be on so many pain killers that you are impervious to pain. I have no idea if you have a soul or not and you may have Alzheimers so severe that you are mentally incapable of asking "Why am I here".... but if they set you outside to freeze, call me, I'll give you a coat and food. ...After all, you are a human, and I have respect for humans.
(I try to Keep It Simple. Keeping it simple requires far less "justification")

Well articulated and colorful. :-)

You are entitled to your opinion however I do fundamentally disagree. A zygote does not even have a heart or any other organ.And if we followed your definition..is inert. I'm not sure that your example of a 12 year old or senior citizen is relevant to the argument. We could go all day long about reasons why and why not but I respect your viewpoints however and truly respect your humanitarian outlook in being decent to all livings things.

Your points on women's rights are kind of odd I must say. I'm not sure how you can be an advocate of guns but recite a quote that could very well be used to argue more gun control. Imagine if someone said "Your right to shoot a gun ends where my body begins"? And since we would like to pull random quotes from this esteemed Supreme Court justice to support arguments I thought I would return the favor.

"...men make their own laws; that these laws do not flow from some mysterious omnipresence in the sky, and that judges are not independent mouthpieces of the infinite.The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky."

or how about this one

"It is very lonely sometimes, trying to play God."

I did not intend for my posting to be a debate on whether abortion is right or wrong. My initial intent was to ask some Republicans why they follow a party that says they believe in small government and the right for people to live their lives without be told what to do by politicians, when the party tends to "pick and choose" what issues they believe should be controlled and what is "big government." Now I have heard some arguments that have made sense as to why; the most impact-full to me was having two weak parties and one strong liberal Democratic party which would probably monopolize the government.

 

[Wolfwood]

What about a couple of hot chicks?

only cool if in in between them otherwise *boooring* IMHO.

2 girls one cup for the win!

 

[RPB]

The cells of the HUMAN zygote divide
The fertilized egg (HUMAN zygote) divides repeatedly as it moves
The HUMAN zygote moves with a swimming motion
Inert things do not move under their own power.
3) Inert: 1.
having no inherent power of action, motion, or resistance (opposed to active): inert matter.
Unable to move or act.
Synonyms
1.immobile, unmoving, lifeless, motionless.

I once knew a man with no nose, I've known of a person with no heart, just a mechanical one, I was born with no left hand; the absence of fully developed body parts or organs doesn't mean we aren't HUMAN. As a human, i have the right to continue to grow, age and develop further, even though I'm "defective" have birth "defects" and missing parts just because I, like a HUMAN zygote, am "incomplete" (an arbitrary "setpoint")

My viewpoint on ...

"I'm not sure how you can be an advocate of guns but recite a quote that could very well be used to argue more gun control. Imagine if someone said "Your right to shoot a gun ends where my body begins"?

is quite simple. A "bad person's" right to send a bullet into my body ends where my body begins .... I have the right to continue to grow, age and develop further AND when some "bad guy" tries to deprive me of that right, I have the right to to protect my right to continue to grow, age and develop further. Therefore, if a person with a knife, gun, axe or other object, attempts to end my right to continue to grow, age and develop further, by sending such knife, axe, bullet or otherwise into my "nose" I'm prepared to defend my own right to to grow, age and develop further, by whatever means are necessary. I do not see that as pro-gun or anti-gun particularly, but taking all the "bad guys'" guns would be a good idea theoretically, though impossible in reality, since they'd burglarize cars, homes of "good guys" and get more..or, manufacture their own "zip" guns.

Also, a HUMAN zygote is still human, and should be allowed, in my opinion, to continue to grow, age and develop further. (I'm sure you guessed I'd say that lol)

My quote was not random, but pertained to how to deal with a conflict of rights. I believe your other two random quotes are pertaining to laws, rather than rights or the conflict of rights, they are decent qoutes though.

As a bit of self-disclosure, in some societies, I would have been disposed of at birth as a defective being, because I have a birth "defect" as it is called even in today's society here currently. The aged elderly and 12 year old girl, the handicapped, the Hebrews, the Blacks or any other arbitrary "setpoint" was my reason for using the various illustrations of "setpoints" used in the past, to eliminate people justifiably at that time, not as an illustration of inertness, but of the danger of setting ANY arbitrary condition upon which it ok to eliminate a race, color, or type of a group of HUMANS, such as a HUMAN Zygote, Jew, Black, Cripple, Defect, Blonde, Albino, ...because of (whatever arbitrary reason).

I doubt anyone could argue that government doesn't need to be reigned in ...

 

[Clockwork]

.

2 girls one cup for the win!

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!! *gags* I've seen much, much worse actually...

 

[Wolfwood]

the Truther movement affiliation turned me off completely.
QUOTE]


yeah the TRUTHER movement is a horrible horrible thing.
who would want to get behind any group that supports truth?!
in a political discussion truth is a four letter word to the main two parties. but i digress.

the probelme witht eh left/right paradigm is that they are suimply two management teams employed by the same company, pusing their own agendas to acheiove the same goals.

IMHO...