Political Roundtable - Part VII

[popper]

With respect Pine, I'm not aware of any scientist that doesn't know that life begins at conception. I'd be happy to debate anyone that believes otherwise. Regarding your point that toxins, produced and marketed by Dow or any other company, do sometimes result in the death and or injury to humans, I say, it is undeniable. We have a judicial system that's set up to adjudicate such injury. In fact, trial lawyers make billions per year doing so. If the injury caused by the toxins involves criminal intent on the part of company executives, then we also have thousands of govt prosecutors to adjudicate such injury. It's a shame that 700,000 innocent human fetuses haven't the same right to representation.

I know of nobody who thinks that a zygote is a life.

And if life begins at conception, then the Dow CEO is guilty of murder. The judicial system is not "set up to adjudicate such injury. In fact trial lawyers make billions per year doing so." (Nice insert of the conservative boogie man "trial lawyers", they're almost as bad as....egads...TEACHERS). BUT trial lawyers aren't involved on the prosecution side....it is the state that must prosecute the Dow CEO for murder under your scenario. Those prosecutors are governmental officials who could (physically, not under the law) prosecute the Dow CEO FOR MURDER at any time. So why don't they -- including directly elected prosecutors who are, themselves, quite conservative.

Because the LAW does not recognize a zygote as a "life". And your sincere *belief* that it is so does not make it so under the law.

We know that organisms exist when we demonstrate that they consume nutrients. Only living organisms do so. Therefore they are then demonstrably alive. All zygotes consume nutrients so therefore your comment that a zygote is not a life is false.

[Zonkerbl]

Over the past 11 years, 28,000 children and teens have been killed by guns.

http://gunwars.news21.com/2014/at-least-28000-children-and-teens-were-killed-by-guns-over-an-11-year-period/

How many children's lives are your gun rights worth?

What's idiotic is supporting the manufacture, sale, and ownership of child murderers.

Most of those "children" were young adults age 16-19 dying in gang violence. According to that article, only 2700 died who were age 15 and younger and presumably much more innocent. For comparison, in the same time period, about 8000 kids age 15 and younger died in accidental drowning incidents.

SWIMMING POOLS MUST BE BANNED!!!

Anyone who owns or operates a swimming pool is a MURDERER! Why can't you idiots understand this!!!!!!!

OMG such BS!!! Two thirds of the teenage deaths are by suicide. Did you even bother to read the article or did you just reflexively spew your NRA talking points?

[Zonkerbl]

With all due respect, a zygote is a parasite that would not survive independent of its host.

Bacteria are alive and yet we do not prosecute doctors for administering penicillin. Life is not the issue. [Edit: Ok, it's not the issue as far as legal protections go. Of course it makes perfect sense for you to make a decision based off of your religion that human beings are human beings from the moment of conception and to refuse to undergo an abortion on those grounds. However, the separation of church and state means you're not allowed to impose that religious interpretation legislatively.]

At what point does a zygote distiinguish itself from a bacteria enough to be considered a human being protected by the Constitution?

You can't use sentience because sentience doesn't actually develop until a baby is a year or two old. The best standard we can find is can the baby survive on its own? Which it can in the last trimester.

Why is it ok to kill cows with tools specifically designed to kill cows while it's not ok to kill people with tools specifically designed to kill people? Is this a serious question?

[dckingsfan]

Oh and **** farms. I grew up in a farm town and all I have to say is, move to the city.

Wow Zonk, that is pretty acerbic toward small towns and their way of looking at things. Small towns and their lifestyles have a lot to offer.

I suppose we should just revoke their right to vote and be done with it...

[dobrojim]

^

Because not everyone thinks that life begins at conception. And just because YOU do doesn't make it so.

Accordingly, you are trying to advance an argument based on a premise that not everyone shares.

---------

And if you DO subscribe to life begins at conception, think about the fact that there are proven links to alcohol, tobacco and environmental toxins to causing miscarriage. Since toxins cause the "killing of an innocent life", will you now, at least figuratively, agree that we should try Andrew N. Liveris, Chairman of Dow Chemical, for multiple counts of murder and subject to the death penalty?

As over-the-top as that sounds, it's the logical extension of your position.

With respect Pine, I'm not aware of any scientist that doesn't know that life begins at conception. I'd be happy to debate anyone that believes otherwise. Regarding your point that toxins, produced and marketed by Dow or any other company, do sometimes result in the death and or injury to humans, I say, it is undeniable. We have a judicial system that's set up to adjudicate such injury. In fact, trial lawyers make billions per year doing so. If the injury caused by the toxins involves criminal intent on the part of company executives, then we also have thousands of govt prosecutors to adjudicate such injury. It's a shame that 700,000 innocent human fetuses haven't the same right to representation.

Some form of life does begin at conception. I agree, I don't think anyone argues that. The problem with your position,
as you surely ought to understand, is saying that a single cell fertilized egg ought to have the same protections
and status as a living breathing person outside of the womb.

2 thoughts - one I believe I have posted before and is not original with me-

Burning fertility clinic. You have time to save either an infant child in a stroller
or roll out a freezer containing hundreds of fertilized eggs. The logic of your position
would appear to dictate that you save the hundreds of frozen embryos. A huge number
of other people would be horrified at that choice. I think this makes clear that
most people do make a distinction between a developing embryo and a living
breathing person outside of the womb.

2nd thought - define conception - Is it when the sperm and egg cell membranes fuse?
Is it when the haploid nuclei fuse to form a diploid cell? Is it when the cell actually
starts to divide? When the fertilized egg implants in the womb? Some other time?
What part of the bible do you reference to inform your conclusion about this? And
why should your personal finding on this subject be imposed on others who make a
different conclusion?

[Cramer]

Oh and **** farms. I grew up in a farm town and all I have to say is, move to the city.

Thanks for reminding me why I moved on from the board. It became overrun with **** idiots.

[popper]

^

Because not everyone thinks that life begins at conception. And just because YOU do doesn't make it so.

Accordingly, you are trying to advance an argument based on a premise that not everyone shares.

---------

And if you DO subscribe to life begins at conception, think about the fact that there are proven links to alcohol, tobacco and environmental toxins to causing miscarriage. Since toxins cause the "killing of an innocent life", will you now, at least figuratively, agree that we should try Andrew N. Liveris, Chairman of Dow Chemical, for multiple counts of murder and subject to the death penalty?

As over-the-top as that sounds, it's the logical extension of your position.

With respect Pine, I'm not aware of any scientist that doesn't know that life begins at conception. I'd be happy to debate anyone that believes otherwise. Regarding your point that toxins, produced and marketed by Dow or any other company, do sometimes result in the death and or injury to humans, I say, it is undeniable. We have a judicial system that's set up to adjudicate such injury. In fact, trial lawyers make billions per year doing so. If the injury caused by the toxins involves criminal intent on the part of company executives, then we also have thousands of govt prosecutors to adjudicate such injury. It's a shame that 700,000 innocent human fetuses haven't the same right to representation.

Some form of life does begin at conception. I agree, I don't think anyone argues that. The problem with your position,
as you surely ought to understand, is saying that a single cell fertilized egg ought to have the same protections
and status as a living breathing person outside of the womb.

2 thoughts - one I believe I have posted before and is not original with me-

Burning fertility clinic. You have time to save either an infant child in a stroller
or roll out a freezer containing hundreds of fertilized eggs. The logic of your position
would appear to dictate that you save the hundreds of frozen embryos. A huge number
of other people would be horrified at that choice. I think this makes clear that
most people do make a distinction between a developing embryo and a living
breathing person outside of the womb.

2nd thought - define conception - Is it when the sperm and egg cell membranes fuse?
Is it when the haploid nuclei fuse to form a diploid cell? Is it when the cell actually
starts to divide? When the fertilized egg implants in the womb? Some other time?
What part of the bible do you reference to inform your conclusion about this? And
why should your personal finding on this subject be imposed on others who make a
different conclusion?

It's an interesting debate. I never referenced the bible though nor do my arguments have anything to do with it. Not sure why you and Zonk bring it up (in Zonk's response I believe it was religion). In my mind the argument is centered around which members of the human species are worthy of legal protection. I think the Supreme Court ruled that fetuses are not worthy of the same protections as out-of-womb babies because fetuses have not yet achieved the threshold of person-hood or self-awareness (my memory is not that good anymore so if I'm distorting the basis of their decision then please correct me).

I'm troubled by the court's decision for two reasons. First, it is an odd argument to make that an in-womb fetus at the age of 8.999 months is any less a person than it would be an hour later outside the womb. When exactly does a fetus achieve the necessary status for awareness and person-hood to warrant protection. Is it 7 months and four days or 8 months and 28 days? As far as I know, the Supreme's aren't saying, and I believe the reason they aren't saying is because they have no idea. It seems to me that their decision is illogical in the extreme. And second, the SCOTUS, through the Roe vs Wade decision, makes clear that it is claiming for itself the right to define person-hood. One can easily imagine that a 90 year old Alzheimer patient is no longer a person, or is not self-aware enough to qualify as a person, and should therefore be stripped of protection. One can further deduce that climate-deniers are so illogical that they no longer qualify as persons worthy of protection.

I don't claim to know the answers to these questions but if I were on the court I would avoid rulings that are logically indefensible.

[Ruzious]

Oh and **** farms. I grew up in a farm town and all I have to say is, move to the city.

I laughed. Somebody needs to watch a few episodes of "Green Acres".

[Severn Hoos]

I had the same thought, with this mental image of Mr. and Mrs. Cramer:




Except I didn't laugh at zonk's misanthropy to his more rural neighbors...

[Cramer]

That about sums things up.

[dobrojim]

With respect Pine, I'm not aware of any scientist that doesn't know that life begins at conception. I'd be happy to debate anyone that believes otherwise. Regarding your point that toxins, produced and marketed by Dow or any other company, do sometimes result in the death and or injury to humans, I say, it is undeniable. We have a judicial system that's set up to adjudicate such injury. In fact, trial lawyers make billions per year doing so. If the injury caused by the toxins involves criminal intent on the part of company executives, then we also have thousands of govt prosecutors to adjudicate such injury. It's a shame that 700,000 innocent human fetuses haven't the same right to representation.

Some form of life does begin at conception. I agree, I don't think anyone argues that. The problem with your position,
as you surely ought to understand, is saying that a single cell fertilized egg ought to have the same protections
and status as a living breathing person outside of the womb.

2 thoughts - one I believe I have posted before and is not original with me-

Burning fertility clinic. You have time to save either an infant child in a stroller
or roll out a freezer containing hundreds of fertilized eggs. The logic of your position
would appear to dictate that you save the hundreds of frozen embryos. A huge number
of other people would be horrified at that choice. I think this makes clear that
most people do make a distinction between a developing embryo and a living
breathing person outside of the womb.

2nd thought - define conception - Is it when the sperm and egg cell membranes fuse?
Is it when the haploid nuclei fuse to form a diploid cell? Is it when the cell actually
starts to divide? When the fertilized egg implants in the womb? Some other time?
What part of the bible do you reference to inform your conclusion about this? And
why should your personal finding on this subject be imposed on others who make a
different conclusion?

It's an interesting debate. I never referenced the bible though nor do my arguments have anything to do with it. Not sure why you and Zonk bring it up (in Zonk's response I believe it was religion). In my mind the argument is centered around which members of the human species are worthy of legal protection. I think the Supreme Court ruled that fetuses are not worthy of the same protections as out-of-womb babies because fetuses have not yet achieved the threshold of person-hood or self-awareness (my memory is not that good anymore so if I'm distorting the basis of their decision then please correct me).

I'm troubled by the court's decision for two reasons. First, it is an odd argument to make that an in-womb fetus at the age of 8.999 months is any less a person than it would be an hour later outside the womb. When exactly does a fetus achieve the necessary status for awareness and person-hood to warrant protection. Is it 7 months and four days or 8 months and 28 days? As far as I know, the Supreme's aren't saying, and I believe the reason they aren't saying is because they have no idea. It seems to me that their decision is illogical in the extreme. And second, the SCOTUS, through the Roe vs Wade decision, makes clear that it is claiming for itself the right to define person-hood. One can easily imagine that a 90 year old Alzheimer patient is no longer a person, or is not self-aware enough to qualify as a person, and should therefore be stripped of protection. One can further deduce that climate-deniers are so illogical that they no longer qualify as persons worthy of protection.

I don't claim to know the answers to these questions but if I were on the court I would avoid rulings that are logically indefensible.

discussing 8.999 vs 9 months is a long way from where you started with saying life begins at conception.

I think many people are troubled by late term abortion. I suspect those instances are pretty
rare and brought about by horrific circumstances that would lead people who believe in
autonomy to pause carefully before saying the govt should be intruding into these decisions.

[Severn Hoos]

Good to have you drop in, Cramer. Glad to hear life is treating you well and hope you can continue to enjoy life on the farm.

And in a few months, there will be a thread that goes like this:

"What ever happened to Cramer?"
"He bought the farm."
"aah, oh well. He was a good poster. We'll miss him."

[dckingsfan]

hehehe - HOF Severn

[Ruzious]

I had the same thought, with this mental image of Mr. and Mrs. Cramer:




Except I didn't laugh at zonk's misanthropy to his more rural neighbors...

Which side is Cramer on?

[fishercob]

Racial imbalances do not always disfavor minorities. At various times in history, “racial or ethnic minorities . . . have owned or directed more than half of whole industries in particular nations.” Sowell 8. These minorities “have included the Chinese in Malaysia, the Lebanese in West Africa, Greeks in the Ottoman Empire, Britons in Argentina, Belgians in Russia, Jews in Poland, and Spaniards in Chile—among many others.” Ibid. (footnotes omitted). “In the seventeenth century Ottoman Empire,” this phenomenon was seen in the palace itself, where the “medical staff consisted of 41 Jews and 21 Muslims.” Ibid. And in our
own country, for roughly a quarter-century now, over 70 percent of National Basketball Association players have been black.

TURKISH DOCTORS IN THE 1600s WERE JEWISH AND BLACK GUYS ARE GOOD AT BASKETBALL SO THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS RACIAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION YOU GUYS.

LOL

[popper]

Some form of life does begin at conception. I agree, I don't think anyone argues that. The problem with your position,
as you surely ought to understand, is saying that a single cell fertilized egg ought to have the same protections
and status as a living breathing person outside of the womb.

2 thoughts - one I believe I have posted before and is not original with me-

Burning fertility clinic. You have time to save either an infant child in a stroller
or roll out a freezer containing hundreds of fertilized eggs. The logic of your position
would appear to dictate that you save the hundreds of frozen embryos. A huge number
of other people would be horrified at that choice. I think this makes clear that
most people do make a distinction between a developing embryo and a living
breathing person outside of the womb.

2nd thought - define conception - Is it when the sperm and egg cell membranes fuse?
Is it when the haploid nuclei fuse to form a diploid cell? Is it when the cell actually
starts to divide? When the fertilized egg implants in the womb? Some other time?
What part of the bible do you reference to inform your conclusion about this? And
why should your personal finding on this subject be imposed on others who make a
different conclusion?

It's an interesting debate. I never referenced the bible though nor do my arguments have anything to do with it. Not sure why you and Zonk bring it up (in Zonk's response I believe it was religion). In my mind the argument is centered around which members of the human species are worthy of legal protection. I think the Supreme Court ruled that fetuses are not worthy of the same protections as out-of-womb babies because fetuses have not yet achieved the threshold of person-hood or self-awareness (my memory is not that good anymore so if I'm distorting the basis of their decision then please correct me).

I'm troubled by the court's decision for two reasons. First, it is an odd argument to make that an in-womb fetus at the age of 8.999 months is any less a person than it would be an hour later outside the womb. When exactly does a fetus achieve the necessary status for awareness and person-hood to warrant protection. Is it 7 months and four days or 8 months and 28 days? As far as I know, the Supreme's aren't saying, and I believe the reason they aren't saying is because they have no idea. It seems to me that their decision is illogical in the extreme. And second, the SCOTUS, through the Roe vs Wade decision, makes clear that it is claiming for itself the right to define person-hood. One can easily imagine that a 90 year old Alzheimer patient is no longer a person, or is not self-aware enough to qualify as a person, and should therefore be stripped of protection. One can further deduce that climate-deniers are so illogical that they no longer qualify as persons worthy of protection.

I don't claim to know the answers to these questions but if I were on the court I would avoid rulings that are logically indefensible.

discussing 8.999 vs 9 months is a long way from where you started with saying life begins at conception.

I think many people are troubled by late term abortion. I suspect those instances are pretty
rare and brought about by horrific circumstances that would lead people who believe in
autonomy to pause carefully before saying the govt should be intruding into these decisions.

Your point is well taken and I agree that late term abortions are rare. I just wish that in this particular matter of life and death, that the SCOTUS (hellbent on usurping the decisions from the individual states where it previously resided) would re-write the ruling so that it could be defended with logic and reason. And if that's not possible then maybe it's a subject better left to the states.

[fishercob]

Your point is well taken and I agree that late term abortions are rare. I just wish that in this particular matter of life and death, that the SCOTUS (hellbent on usurping the decisions from the individual states where it previously resided) would re-write the ruling so that it could be defended with logic and reason. And if that's not possible then maybe it's a subject better left to the states.

Like slavery!

[popper]

Your point is well taken and I agree that late term abortions are rare. I just wish that in this particular matter of life and death, that the SCOTUS (hellbent on usurping the decisions from the individual states where it previously resided) would re-write the ruling so that it could be defended with logic and reason. And if that's not possible then maybe it's a subject better left to the states.

Like slavery!

No, like assisted suicide.

[fishercob]

Your point is well taken and I agree that late term abortions are rare. I just wish that in this particular matter of life and death, that the SCOTUS (hellbent on usurping the decisions from the individual states where it previously resided) would re-write the ruling so that it could be defended with logic and reason. And if that's not possible then maybe it's a subject better left to the states.

Like slavery!

No, like assisted suicide.

To hell with state's rights. I live in DC and have no rights.

[Ruzious]

Like slavery!

No, like assisted suicide.

To hell with state's rights. I live in DC and have no rights.

But at least we let you pay taxes! One thing at a time.