Political philosophy

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Wayfarer


And what's you're stance on partial birth abortions? Don't you think that when you can see the baby flinch as it's killed that it's a little excessive?

If the mother's life is in danger, I believe her life is a priority. Unless she says otherwise.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
I disagree with you, bop.

Fair enough.

An embyryo has the potential to become an infant in the same way that an infant has the potential to become a child, a child has the potential to become an adolescent, and the adolescent has the potential to become an adult.

True. And it also has the potential to die - either via miscarriage or abortion.

So tell me-how is killing an embryo because it is not yet an infant any different from killing a infant because it's not yet a child.

Because in my opinion the embryo is not yet human, and chances are that it could be miscarried anyway. There are far more miscarriages than live births.

I'm also reminded of several cases in which a mother has delivered her baby and then left it to die.

That is cruel. And yet perhaps it could have been avoided if she'd considered abortion or adoption.

And what's you're stance on partial birth abortions? Don't you think that when you can see the baby flinch as it's killed that it's a little excessive?

What do you think?

There is a reason why the cut off date is at 3 months. Any later, and it's potentially harmful to the mother. And I say that it should only happen in extreme circumstances.

[Elvellon]

But, seriously. Taking potential into consideration, even an embryo has everything it needs to become a productive member of society.

true, but does that makes it a human?

Once that sperm and that egg get together, the genetic totality of a human being exists

It can also be found in most cells of any human being, so by itself it is quite irrelevant to define humanity.

An embyryo has the potential to become an infant in the same way that an infant has the potential to become a child, a child has the potential to become an adolescent, and the adolescent has the potential to become an adult.

So tell me-how is killing an embryo because it is not yet an infant any different from killing a infant because it's not yet a child.

potentiality does not equate with being, Wayfarer


If you consider that potentiality to become something is the same as being something, then you will have to change a lot of laws.
An example:
Consider a man with a story of violent behaviour. Consider that is possible that he may evolve into a murderer. Since this is a definite possibility he should be judge and condemned as a murderer before he commits the crime, if we apply the same principle you have defended earlier.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Wayfarer


So, you say that since the child is dependant on it's mother, she should have the choice to kill it?

She has the right to that choice more than anyone else. Like the government, for example. But I disagree with your wording there. . .

Another point to bring up is, even if abortions were illegal, that would not stop many young women from getting abortions. And that just makes it more dangerous and harmful to her life. I have read about some of the horrible things that have happened to young women as a result of illegal, unsafe abortions, ususally resulting in the loss of her life. I won't share those stories here, but keep that in mind.

[Wayfarer]

If the mother's life is in danger, I believe her life is a priority. Unless she says otherwise.

There is a reason why the cut off date is at 3 months. Any later, and it's potentially harmful to the mother. And I say that it should only happen in extreme circumstances

I hope you understand that I'm not talking about 'what if the mother's life is in danger'. If the mother's life is in danger during birth, wouldn't performing a cecearean be better than sticking a pair of scissors in the infant's skull? Anyone? We're talking about a mother who has carried a baby to term, only to have it's brains vacuumed out. Want to explain to me how justified at all?

True. And it also has the potential to die - either via miscarriage or abortion.

Children sometimes die as well-was anbdrea yates was ok in in killing hers?

in my opinion the embryo is not yet human

How is in embryo not yet human? It is a living organism owith a human genetic code. It is a member of the species Homo sapiens.

I wonder how you can say when an embryo becomes human? Birth doesn't work, because an ultrasound can clearly reveal a human infant for some time before that happens.

chances are that it could be miscarried anyway. There are far more miscarriages than live births.

Is that really an issue? Everybody dies, eventually. But even though we know that, we still consider murder to be wrong. Why is that?

The fact remains that it's a human embryo. And I say that, despite it's dependance on the mother, it has as much right to live as anyone else.

[BeardofPants]

How is in embryo not yet human? It is a living organism owith a human genetic code. It is a member of the species Homo sapiens.

Yes, it IS a member of the genus Homo, BUT it is not what I would consider "human" because that is more a cultural thing - and the indicators are not set in place until well after birth. I say it again, an embryo is potential life, and therefore a potential human. When does it make the transition from potential human, to actual human? After birth. When, in the first instances of life, it begins to learn and develop programmed cause and response reactions.

Children sometimes die as well-was anbdrea yates was ok in in killing hers?

Again, you're missing the point between potential and actual life. No, it's not okay, because that child was actual life. How hard is it to get? An embryo is potential life, if it makes it through birth without complications, then it becomes actual life. Is this clear enough for you?

Is that really an issue? Everybody dies, eventually. But even though we know that, we still consider murder to be wrong. Why is that?

Yes it is. Because to equate a woman who has aborted her child - for whatever reason - is hardly the same as someone like Charles Manson who murdered people for no good reason other than he felt like it.

It is the mother's right to chose what to do with her body, NOT the govt or any other person/institution. And as someone said earlier, there is no call for calling these women murderers. These women chose their decisions for a reason - not to have a happy abortion party fun day.

[Wayfarer]

Yes, it IS a member of the genus Homo, BUT it is not what I would consider "human" because that is more a cultural thing - and the indicators are not set in place until well after birth. I say it again, an embryo is potential life, and therefore a potential human. When does it make the transition from potential human, to actual human? After birth. When, in the first instances of life, it begins to learn and develop programmed cause and response reactions.

Tell me, Bop, how is humanity dependant on culture and learning?

How can you say that an embryo isn't alive? It grows and changes. It is not dead, and it is not inanimate.

It is the mother's right to chose what to do with her body

But an embryo is NOT part of the mothers body. Not any more than a nursing child is part of it's mothers body. That's the problem.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Tell me, Bop, how is humanity dependant on culture and learning?

Because that's what sets us apart from other animals. Culture, ideology, symbolism, abstract thought. Everything else is just biology.

How can you say that an embryo isn't alive? It grows and changes. It is not dead, and it is not inanimate.

Missing the point again. I said potential life, NOT inanimate life.

But an embryo is NOT part of the mothers body.

Yes it is. It's attached in the mother's womb via placenta, and feeds off the mother via fluids. How is this not being part of the mother's body? There is a reason why pregnant women are so tired all the time - because the baby is feeding off her.

[mirrille]

Part of the mother's body...well...it is and it isn't. You can take the tack that BoP is using. It is physically attached, shares body fluids, secretes hormones that have systemic effects on the mother and so on. Or you can take the tack that it's not, because it's genetically dissimilar, and in fact the mother's immune system would recognize it as "foreign" if it wasn't somewhat suppressed and the placenta didn't offer some protection. Then what you have is a very effective parasite feeding off the mother. Yup, it's an ugly image to use, but it is a valid analogy from a certain perspective. Either way...mother has a choice whether to keep it or not.

Now that everyone is COMPLETELY confused and muddled...but ethics is like that. So much depends on definitions that are not possible to pin down.

[Starr Polish]

Slightly to the left libertarian.

I don't think true anarchy can exist. My father says he was one of the 'original anarchists'. But that's just me being random.
---

But an embryo is NOT part of the mothers body. Not any more than a nursing child is part of it's mothers body.

Yes it is. It's attached in the mother's womb via placenta, and feeds off the mother via fluids. How is this not being part of the mother's body? There is a reason why pregnant women are so tired all the time - because the baby is feeding off her.

Have to agree with Wayfarer on this one. True, the unborn baby is feeding off of the mother, but so is a nursing child. You wouldn't call a nursing infant part of the mother's body simply because they are temporarily attached so the child can eat to grow and develop. Pregnancies are also temporary, and occur for the same reason.

[mirrille]

Yes, that's a lovely analogy, except that not all mothers nurse "nursing" children either. There's wetnurses (The analogous situation, transferring to surrogate mothers after implantation, is not possible under current technology, but that's a side interest). There's baby formula. And there's the option of leaving it in the forest for the tigers to get it, although this would be a very last resort in the absence proper adoption agencies and safe abortion clinics (please take your pick between the 2, and let others make their own choice). You can debate analogies, but it's not really going to make a difference to me. An embryo is an embryo. Not a newborn. Not a special kind of tumour. Not a tapeworm. Although it has characteristics of all these things. If you think of it as a newborn, you get one conclusion. You think of it like a tapeworm, you get another. Both analogies are valid, but only as shortcuts that break down when you really need them.
In the end, it has it's own classification, and we are just beginning to put that together. But there will always be differences of opinion. Not to mention extenuating circumstance that change the flavour of the situation. Hence the importance of maintaining choice.

Political philosophy: not sure. again, a problem with definitions. I like my social programs, but only if they are well run, so that makes me left. I like government to leave people to their freedoms, so that can be liberal, but it's also a characteristic of some right, but not too right. But i like when government does get involved to seek harmony. It should be an organizing influence, not a controlling one...that's all over the place. The problem with anarchy is that's it's just too messy for me.. Can't abide mess.

[Andúril]

Another (strange) view on potentiality.

An embryo has the potential to become an adult.
According to law, a baby receives rights once born.
Since the baby is not yet born, it has no rights.

An adult (non-specifically) has the potential to become a corpse.
According to law, an adult has rights only during its life (after birth).
A corpse has no rights, and an adult (non-specifically) is a potential corpse.

If you want to take the rights of the adult, and place it on the unborn baby, you must take the rights of the corpse and place it on the adult.

[EDIT: Deleted random nonsense]

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Interesting theory, Anduril. . .

Speaking of anarchy, I don't think it would ever work...but according to the test-thing, that is what I lean towards. But it wouldn't work.

Is it just me, or are the majority of non-pro-choice people here male?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
Is it just me, or are the majority of non-pro-choice people here male?

Shall I answer this rhetorical question?



And I don't know about the rest of the world, but a corpse over here has rights to not be dug up for 50 years or so. Does this mean that I should wave around my right to not have spades on me for 50 years? And if so, then what happens when I'm fifty? Am I going to have people spading me? And when I've had my fifty years of non-spading, does this mean that I will no longer be eligible for non-spading post-death?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


Shall I answer this rhetorical question?

Well, you know I have a sort of hobby of answering rhetorical questions...as I am doing now, so go ahead

[BeardofPants]

Okay, then it's not just you, EG - I'm having that delusion as well!

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Okay, then it's not just you, EG - I'm having that delusion as well!

That's what I thought.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf


That's what I thought.

That's what I thought you thought.

Lets impregnate them!

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


That's what I thought you thought.

Lets impregnate them!

Hear, hear!

[Cirdan]

I think I may become an anarchist. After years of various political philosophical daliances, I've come to the conclusion that we are on course for exponential population growth. It's not that I don't like crowds. I just don't want to spend my twilight years drinking recyled sewage. We need something big to turn this around.

First there was nuclear annihilation, but outside a skermish between India and Pakistan, and some far out Russian conspiracy theories, there seems little hope of that. Plagues have been looking pretty good, but medical science has done a pretty good job of keeping up, and is only getting better with genetic research.

I'm not saying it's completely hopeless. There are many bright and ethical people working hard to solve many of the problems we face as we move into the future. These people, however, have absolutely no power. While this may seem a minor problem (a little grassroots organizing, coalition building, etc) there is also the money thing. They probably don't have much. Now these to qualities are a virtual neccessity in politics. And, finally, even after theoretically gaining money and political backing, you must defeat very well organized political machines.

Here in the US the power is cleverly disguised as two almost indistinguishable parties. During the primaries each party works hard to convince the unruly radicals at either extreme that they matter and the other party is evil. Once the election is over, they maintain relatively similar policies, doling out minorpolitical favors to ameliorate party factions that otherwise have no voice. The big players (oil, agribusiness, banking, and developers) win no matter who is in office. They have enouch money to buy power from either "party".

So, while there is a theorectical possibility, it is highly unlikely that anything beyond responses to catastrophes in progrress, no real preventative measures will occur. I suspect that most large, populous countries operate on this level. Granting that this is a fairly accurate assumption, we can project a steady downward spiral into a pit of human waste. Take your pick... global warming, desertification, deforestation, endless regional wars, terrorism, stavation.

So, how can ancharchy help? Well, we all spend the next five to ten years arming ourselves, learning survival skills, teaching our children to kill (just let them watch cable). When the specific day comes we start blazing away (think Rawanda on a global scale).

I, for one should be taken out fairly early since I am large and getting slow in my old age. They family will for suite, most likely. Those that survive will be the stongest (defense and aquiring resources) and the cleverest (stealth and resource creation). Now, for this to truely work, all large groups should be primary targets. Uniforms are a good indicator (sports will be a casualty, unfortunately). Any consolidation of power will threaten the anarchism.

Eventually the thinning and disease and the general breakdown of society will make contact between people more limited. Once the machines of industry and society are rusted into uselessness then bands can start to reclaim the land and build simple societies that are self-sustaining.

It could work, it would smell really bad, though.