Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

U.S Election 2016

Page 8 of 9 [ 136 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

08 Feb 2013, 11:31 pm

^this brings up Vexcalibur's 'shrodinger's abortion' argument.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

09 Feb 2013, 5:54 pm

Jacoby wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
But you are destroying someone's liberty if you don't allow them to have an abortion, whereas if they have the abortion then no life has been destroyed and their liberty has increased. If a woman wants an abortion, it is likely there will be greater utility in her having it than not having it.

J.S. Mill would be turning in his grave if he knew people were defending foetuses in the name of liberty.


Obviously I believe there is a life being destroyed as do most people, even ones that support abortion on demand. I believe the idea that an unborn child isn't a human life doesn't seem very pervasive in my experience. I will say tho that at least it is consistent, I don't understand how somebody can recognize abortion as immoral and the destruction of human life but still support it.

Conflation. Most people who support abortion recognise that a foetus is technically alive, but don't think it is a life to be valued (a person). I personally view a foetus as roughly equivalent to a bacterium- you should feel no worse about getting an abortion than about taking anti-biotics, or using hand cream, or having an immune system. Or they skin cells you shred every day, or the cheek cells that die every time you swallow.

What makes something a "human life"?



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

09 Feb 2013, 6:32 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
But you are destroying someone's liberty if you don't allow them to have an abortion, whereas if they have the abortion then no life has been destroyed and their liberty has increased. If a woman wants an abortion, it is likely there will be greater utility in her having it than not having it.

J.S. Mill would be turning in his grave if he knew people were defending foetuses in the name of liberty.


Obviously I believe there is a life being destroyed as do most people, even ones that support abortion on demand. I believe the idea that an unborn child isn't a human life doesn't seem very pervasive in my experience. I will say tho that at least it is consistent, I don't understand how somebody can recognize abortion as immoral and the destruction of human life but still support it.

Conflation. Most people who support abortion recognise that a foetus is technically alive, but don't think it is a life to be valued (a person). I personally view a foetus as roughly equivalent to a bacterium- you should feel no worse about getting an abortion than about taking anti-biotics, or using hand cream, or having an immune system. Or they skin cells you shred every day, or the cheek cells that die every time you swallow.

What makes something a "human life"?


Yeah, but the bacterium doesn't develope into a human being.
That is the difference.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

09 Feb 2013, 7:57 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
But you are destroying someone's liberty if you don't allow them to have an abortion, whereas if they have the abortion then no life has been destroyed and their liberty has increased. If a woman wants an abortion, it is likely there will be greater utility in her having it than not having it.

J.S. Mill would be turning in his grave if he knew people were defending foetuses in the name of liberty.


Obviously I believe there is a life being destroyed as do most people, even ones that support abortion on demand. I believe the idea that an unborn child isn't a human life doesn't seem very pervasive in my experience. I will say tho that at least it is consistent, I don't understand how somebody can recognize abortion as immoral and the destruction of human life but still support it.

Conflation. Most people who support abortion recognise that a foetus is technically alive, but don't think it is a life to be valued (a person). I personally view a foetus as roughly equivalent to a bacterium- you should feel no worse about getting an abortion than about taking anti-biotics, or using hand cream, or having an immune system. Or they skin cells you shred every day, or the cheek cells that die every time you swallow.

What makes something a "human life"?


Who decides what human lives are valued?



JNathanK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,177

09 Feb 2013, 8:53 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
David Duke might be in the running.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88AsArwYsTc[/youtube]


After watching Dave's campaign video with it's barely hidden racist and Antisemitic message, I have to ask: what exactly he a Doctor of, and what school gave him a degree?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


You'd find racism in a speech from Santa Claus.


Well he was the Grand Wizzard of the KKK. I don't think its all that absurd to think he might just have some racist views.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

09 Feb 2013, 9:08 pm

JNathanK wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
David Duke might be in the running.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88AsArwYsTc[/youtube]


After watching Dave's campaign video with it's barely hidden racist and Antisemitic message, I have to ask: what exactly he a Doctor of, and what school gave him a degree?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


You'd find racism in a speech from Santa Claus.


Well he was the Grand Wizzard of the KKK. I don't think its all that absurd to think he might just have some racist views.


:roll:
You're replying to something I said on 11/24.
I'm sure you can find all kinds of more recent horrible Raptor-isms to find fault with.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

13 Feb 2013, 2:36 am

Image


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

13 Feb 2013, 10:06 am

There is no real point in watching the SOTU, nothing of value gets said. Most people are saying Rubio didn't do particularly well in his response, was real awkward reaching for a drink mid-speech. Bias but I thought Rand did pretty well especially compared to Rubio.



Stefan10
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 18 Nov 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 61

14 Feb 2013, 3:53 pm

Jacoby wrote:
There is no real point in watching the SOTU, nothing of value gets said. Most people are saying Rubio didn't do particularly well in his response, was real awkward reaching for a drink mid-speech. Bias but I thought Rand did pretty well especially compared to Rubio.


Despite what progressive modern liberals and neoconservatives say, Rand does have electability. His father enabled (and continues to enable) the ideology of liberty to spread among many people who weren't sure what they wanted, and now it is Rand who will play politician. The biggest obstacle is not the people, but the leviathan state and media which will try to turn the people against him.


_________________
Your Aspie score: 157 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 47 of 200
You scored 112 aloof, 112 rigid and 115 pragmatic


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

14 Feb 2013, 4:47 pm

Raptor wrote:

Yeah, but the bacterium doesn't develope into a human being.
That is the difference.

Why does it matter if something develops into a human being?

We also don't know that it will develop- it may be "rejected" by the mother before it develops, it may die on delivery, it might be born without a brain...
Jacoby wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
What makes something a "human life"?


Who decides what human lives are valued?

I can't help noticing that you have dodged my question.

I would say that a conscious, self aware being is intrinsically worth valuing highly- this would include the vast majority of adult humans, even the severely mentally ret*d, in fact most humans over the age of 2, as well as many species of primates, rodents, and other mammals (I would specifically pick out horses, dogs and pigs as likely to be self aware), and probably some non-mammalian species.
That doesn't mean that other animals aren't worth valuing- a recently fertilised embryo may be valuable because it means a lot to a human, likewise a goldfish. Spiders might be valuable because they kill flies or mosquitoes. You might say that the "low level" of consciousness enjoyed by a 3 month old child or a cow is also intrinsically worth valuing.



Noodlebug
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jul 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 127

02 Apr 2013, 2:17 am

It really looks like the 2016 presidential race will be between Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Apr 2013, 8:34 am

Noodlebug wrote:
It really looks like the 2016 presidential race will be between Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul.


Hillary is getting on. I hope she is healthy enough to stand for office.

If we had to have a Democrat in office (and it looks like we did) I wish it had been Hillary rather than Obama is is a nasty man and will have one of the worst administrations since Jimmy Carter.

ruveyn



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

02 Apr 2013, 12:04 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Noodlebug wrote:
It really looks like the 2016 presidential race will be between Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul.


Hillary is getting on. I hope she is healthy enough to stand for office.

If we had to have a Democrat in office (and it looks like we did) I wish it had been Hillary rather than Obama is is a nasty man and will have one of the worst administrations since Jimmy Carter.

ruveyn


Hilary Clinton will be 69 years and a couple of weeks old on election day in 2016. Ronald Reagan was 69 years and 9 months old on election day in 1980.

I don't see that age will be a factor in 2016. What will be a factor is 3 years in the political wilderness.


_________________
--James


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,472
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

02 Apr 2013, 1:11 pm

Image

still recovering from the 2012, elections...


_________________
We won't go back.


Noodlebug
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jul 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 127

05 Aug 2013, 1:29 am

It seems to be a tie between Rand Paul and Chris Christie for the GOP nomination. It's interesting considering the war or words happening between the two.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

29 Jun 2016, 8:09 pm

Noodlebug wrote:
It really looks like the 2016 presidential race will be between Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul.

LOL