The Political Discussion Thread

[Ukko]

Paints MG orange with a number 3 brush

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

Hypothetical:

You see Person A about to accidentally do something that will kill both himself and Person B. You happen to have it in your power to prevent this, but only at the cost of killing Person A. There is nothing you can do that will save them both.

What do you do? Do you:

1) Kill person A in order to save Person B, figuring that at least one life saved is better than nothing?

2) Do nothing, figuring two deaths are even better than one?


I know which one I'd pick, and probably most other people as well. In fact, I'd consider it a moral imperative to act, even though the situation is less than ideal (as in, ideally, I'd want to save both, but saving one is better than saving none, according to the moral teachings of my tradition).

Oh, and as for the argument that a single-celled organism can never become a human being? Hogwash. A fertilized egg is a single cell. We ALL start out as single-celled organisms.

First of all I have the view that every human life is equal so I would consider taking one life to save two but my friend thinks each human life is worth infinite amount so would not take anyones life no matter how many people are at stake, unless in self defense.

In English Law you can't murder a fetus it has to have taken independent breath by itself. I wouldn't like say life starts conseption but wouldn't like to see abortions at nine months.

[mad_gater]

Hypothetical:

You see Person A about to accidentally do something that will kill both himself and Person B. You happen to have it in your power to prevent this, but only at the cost of killing Person A. There is nothing you can do that will save them both.

What do you do? Do you:

1) Kill person A in order to save Person B, figuring that at least one life saved is better than nothing?

2) Do nothing, figuring two deaths are even better than one?


I know which one I'd pick, and probably most other people as well. In fact, I'd consider it a moral imperative to act, even though the situation is less than ideal (as in, ideally, I'd want to save both, but saving one is better than saving none, according to the moral teachings of my tradition).

Oh, and as for the argument that a single-celled organism can never become a human being? Hogwash. A fertilized egg is a single cell. We ALL start out as single-celled organisms.

I could swear that sperm and egg counted as 2 separate cells....cuz if we started as single cell organisms we'd never develop the complex cellular structure we possess....single cell organisms stay single cell organisms....multi-cell organism remain as multi-cell organisms and since already a multi-cell organism can develop more and more complex cellular structure.....if we were single cell organisms our method of reproduction would be mitosis

and if the lives of both A & B are in peril and you are in a position to act then your moral imperative is to do what you can to save both lives.....and again it goes back to intent....the good of saving a life can never be justified by the cold-blooded murder of another person

[mad_gater]

First of all I have the view that every human life is equal so I would consider taking one life to save two but my friend thinks each human life is worth infinite amount so would not take anyones life no matter how many people are at stake, unless in self defense.

In English Law you can't murder a fetus it has to have taken independent breath by itself. I wouldn't like say life starts conseption but wouldn't like to see abortions at nine months.

what about people on oxygen? they can't take an independent breath....so by that argument people on oxygen could be deprived of that necessary gaseous diatomic molecule

by that same token it is morally repugnant to justify the murder of an unborn child at any stage.....consider an infant....this infant, save for oxygen is still dependent on his mother for all other aspects of his livelihood....so what makes it OK to justify the murder of an unborn infant simply because there is a more physically real sign of that dependence on the mother for food, drink, and use of the mother as an oxygen tank when inside the womb?

[SF_and_Coffee]

So... much... wrong...

Okay, let's start with the biology:

I could swear that sperm and egg counted as 2 separate cells....cuz if we started as single cell organisms we'd never develop the complex cellular structure we possess....single cell organisms stay single cell organisms....multi-cell organism remain as multi-cell organisms and since already a multi-cell organism can develop more and more complex cellular structure.....if we were single cell organisms our method of reproduction would be mitosis

Nope. A human sperm and a human egg are each a cell, each with only 23 chromosomes, which is HALF the number required to form a zygote but once they join (fertilization), they become one cell with a full complement of 46 chromosomes. So we start out as a single cell, which then divides over and over during gestation.

and if the lives of both A & B are in peril and you are in a position to act then your moral imperative is to do what you can to save both lives.....and again it goes back to intent....the good of saving a life can never be justified by the cold-blooded murder of another person

No, my moral imperative is to ensure that at least SOMEBODY survives. Remember, I don't believe what you believe; my faith tradition teaches me something different from what yours teaches you. Lovely thing about living in a free country, which I do and I'll assume you do as well -- neither of us is nor should be required by law to live our lives by each other's faith teachings. I can do what mine requires of me, and what it allows me to do, and you can choose to be as constrained by yours as you want to be. What I can't do is force you to do everything mine allows me, and what you can't do is force me to be constrained by yours. See how nicely that works?

what about people on oxygen? they can't take an independent breath....so by that argument people on oxygen could be deprived of that necessary gaseous diatomic molecule

You've never known anyone who uses oxygen, have you? I assure you, they breathe independently. They simply have an extra supply of oxygen being delivered to them to increase their intake. So your argument is a strawman.

by that same token it is morally repugnant to justify the murder of an unborn child at any stage

Until birth, that is, right? Especially if she turns out to be female and then gets pregnant? In my view, it is morally repugnant to justify allowing the death of a woman simply because she is pregnant. Becoming pregnant does not rob a woman of her independent personhood, NOR OF HER OWN RIGHT TO LIFE. Nor should it ever.

Also... "murder"... you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

consider an infant....this infant, save for oxygen is still dependent on his mother for all other aspects of his livelihood....so what makes it OK to justify the murder of an unborn infant simply because there is a more physically real sign of that dependence on the mother for food, drink, and use of the mother as an oxygen tank when inside the womb?

This has nothing to do with dependence. This has to do with not making the lives of the unborn more valuable than the lives of the already-born.

Simple solution: If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one. Same for anything else. Just don't tell me that because I'm female, I have less of a right to life than anyone else, just because it might be possible for me to get pregnant. The born always trump the unborn in any civilized society.

Try being married someday, having a wife whom you love, and perhaps even already a couple of kids with her, and then have her get pregnant again, and her life while pregnant be threatened BY that pregnancy. Then come back and tell me that you would prefer to have both your wife and the fetus die, leaving you a widower and your children motherless, than to allow the fetus to die, so that your wife, who is the mother of the children you already have, may be spared.

THAT is what this particular issue boils down to in the end.

[mad_gater]

So... much... wrong...

Okay, let's start with the biology:



Nope. A human sperm and a human egg are each a cell, each with only 23 chromosomes, which is HALF the number required to form a zygote but once they join (fertilization), they become one cell with a full complement of 46 chromosomes. So we start out as a single cell, which then divides over and over during gestation.


No, my moral imperative is to ensure that at least SOMEBODY survives. Remember, I don't believe what you believe; my faith tradition teaches me something different from what yours teaches you. Lovely thing about living in a free country, which I do and I'll assume you do as well -- neither of us is nor should be required by law to live our lives by each other's faith teachings. I can do what mine requires of me, and what it allows me to do, and you can choose to be as constrained by yours as you want to be. What I can't do is force you to do everything mine allows me, and what you can't do is force me to be constrained by yours. See how nicely that works?



You've never known anyone who uses oxygen, have you? I assure you, they breathe independently. They simply have an extra supply of oxygen being delivered to them to increase their intake. So your argument is a strawman.



Until birth, that is, right? Especially if she turns out to be female and then gets pregnant? In my view, it is morally repugnant to justify allowing the death of a woman simply because she is pregnant. Becoming pregnant does not rob a woman of her independent personhood, NOR OF HER OWN RIGHT TO LIFE. Nor should it ever.

Also... "murder"... you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.



This has nothing to do with dependence. This has to do with not making the lives of the unborn more valuable than the lives of the already-born.

Simple solution: If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one. Same for anything else. Just don't tell me that because I'm female, I have less of a right to life than anyone else, just because it might be possible for me to get pregnant. The born always trump the unborn in any civilized society.

Try being married someday, having a wife whom you love, and perhaps even already a couple of kids with her, and then have her get pregnant again, and her life while pregnant be threatened BY that pregnancy. Then come back and tell me that you would prefer to have both your wife and the fetus die, leaving you a widower and your children motherless, than to allow the fetus to die, so that your wife, who is the mother of the children you already have, may be spared.

THAT is what this particular issue boils down to in the end.

and that is the argument that causes societies to implode on themselves.....because the human race continues through our children.....Planned Parenthood was founded by a blatant eugenicist you know as a way to control the population of "undesireables"......another of our greatest gifts as human beings is that for both kinds of love, platonic and non-platonic.....they share this in common.....for this love we would give of ourselves, even our lives, to ensure that our children, friends, family, etc. can live......by holding your own life greater than that of your child you have forsaken that unique love mother has for her child.....rather decidedly UN-civilized if you ask me.....If I had a wife whose life was in jeopardy then while I would grieve for the loss....I know I do not have the right to play God and decide who lives and who dies.....I could not intentionally murder another innocent person....not even to save the life of my wife........that would require me to deny my own humanity.......my own propensity for compassion for all life

[SF_and_Coffee]

And where would children be without their parents? Sorry, but you can't take only one side of that equation and make a workable society. And I really do believe that if you were ever faced with the hypothetical situation I described to you... which I sincerely hope you are not... but if you were, I can almost 100% guarantee you would change your tune in a hurry.

Bottom line: Abortion should be safe, legal, accessible, and very rare. Because if you remove the first three, people will still need it and still seek it, and so since we do NOT live in a perfect world, nor will we ever, the best we can do is seek to minimize the death toll. No woman should ever have to die from a preventable problem for the sake of the unborn. I can just about bet that if men could also get pregnant, most of this type of argument would fall away, because it is almost always argued this way by the gender who cannot get pregnant and therefore will never be the ones to die as a result of it. Pretty easy to argue in favor of something that you (I'm using general "you", not personal "you" here) can't be the victim of.

[mad_gater]

and no human being should be so devoid of love that they would kill their own child to save their own skin

[SF_and_Coffee]

I wouldn't kill my child, but as far as I'm concerned, a fetus isn't a child yet, especially in the early stages of pregnancy. See, that's the difference. Your beliefs say one thing, mine say another. Which is fine, as long as we're both free to live by our beliefs. Currently, that's how it is, and that's how it should stay, until/unless it is someday PROVEN that a fetus or an embryo or a zygote is a full-fledged human being. I'm really not concerned about that happening, any more than I'm concerned about needing a butterfly net to acquire my next slab of spareribs.

And before anyone tries to take this there: when it can be proven that a fetus is capable of holding beliefs, THEN you can try to argue it from that angle.

Oh, and for those arguing from a biblical perspective (which I'm not, since for me it isn't a holy text), in the OT, human life is actually defined as beginning at birth.

[s09119]

and no human being should be so devoid of love that they would kill their own child to save their own skin

Isn't that what Abraham was going to do to Isaac...?

But seriously, if it's "kill fetus and die" or "don't kill fetus and it and I die," I think the eventual-child would have wanted his mother to save herself. I know that if my mother's life had been in danger during my childbirth, and aborting me was the only way to save her, I can honestly say I would have wanted them to do that. The consequences of her death on the rest of the living would be infinitely greater than the consequences of my not eventually being born. Since the latter would be nothing at all.

[SoulReaver]

doesn't have to be a "either it dies or both die" scenario either. even if it comes down to one or the other - ie. if she does not abort, then it lives but she doesn't - even then her life is the most sensible option (of course the choice should be left to her)
that's not murder, it's basically self-defense

same thing if "only" her health but not her life is at stake. especially if it could result in irreversible injury, some fates are a looot worse than death (if she risks permanent paralysis, blindness etc.)

[SoulReaver]

btw wasn't there already a politics thread ? over 100 pages of it too iirc

[s09119]

btw wasn't there already a politics thread ? over 100 pages of it too iirc

People on GateWorld resurrect the same thread topics endlessly to the end of time, you know that. The entire forum is like a sarcophagus, the Goa'uld would love it here.

[shipper hannah]

The problem of abortion is unique; it involves something with the potential to be a person growing inside a person. In that case the person's rights have to trump any potential rights of the potential person. Add to that all the other argument such as bodily rights and unsafe 'backstreet' abortions, then it is clear to me that abortions should be legal, accessible and freely available.

[shipper hannah]

Planned Parenthood was founded by a blatant eugenicist you know as a way to control the population of "undesireables"....

Even if that is true, it could not be more irrelevant. I don't think anyone has even mentioned Planned Parenthood and the beliefs of its founder have no relevance to the debate on the ethics of abortion.