Paul Ryan Discussion

[meltzerboy]

The question is: does something being human automatically make it a person? Again, on the face of it, you are capable of noticing that a collection of human skin cells, by themselves, are not a person. You can notice that a leg, or an arm, is not a person, even though there are plenty of human cells in them. Someone can even lose their legs and their arms and they could still be a person. Why? Obviously, there is something else that makes us into a person, and it seems like it is our minds. As long as the mind is there, there is a person there. This is why people are taken off life-support if brain-dead.

Now, in the early stages of pregnancy, the embryo does not have a brain, so we can presume that there is no person there to kill.

I do. After all, it is the central message. Be selfish and feel self-righteous about it. Still, the most important problem is the bad arguments.

Sure. Anti-intellectuliasm rears its ugly head again.

What is human nature then?

They fail. Ok. Let’s look at the evidence. I will give absolute poverty rates (1960-1991) (40% of U.S. Median household income) pre-welfare and post-welfare (relative poverty rates are similar):

Sweden: 23.7 to 5.8, Norway: 9.2 to 1.7, Netherlands: 22.1 to 7.3, Finland: 11.9 to 3.7, Denmark: 26.4 to 5.9, Germany: 15.2 to 4.3, Switzerland: 12.5 to 3.8, Canada: 22.5 to 6.5, France: 36.1 to 9.8, Belgium: 26.8 to 6.0, Australia: 23.3 to 11.9, United Kingdom: 16.8 to 8.7, United States: 21.0 to 11.7, Italy: 30.7 to 14.3

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare%27s_effect_on_poverty

You can also notice that the welfare states consistently perform at the top of every socioeconomic index that matters. Denmark has the highest welfare expenditure as GDP per capita, and has consistently been performing at the top of the newly developed indexes on happiness and well-being. Norway, with a similar, and perhaps even more generous system, has been topping both the HDI-index and the inequality adjusted HDI-index (which is probably more relevant to people’s well-being) for 9 out of the last 11 years, only beaten out by Iceland for two of those years (another generous welfare state).

I just did. But you are right. Even if it improves poverty rates, there are issues with welfare, and supporters will acknowledge this. They know very well that people are influenced by their environment. Conservatives love to say that liberals blame the environment for the misfortunes of individuals, when they want to be self-rightheous and blame individuals instead.

But what is the answer? You can try to improve welfare, but if you take it away, you lose the positive effects, which I have already alluded to with the numbers on poverty.

It could justify killing people in permanent comas, which we do already. Temporary? To much like sleeping. When it comes to mental impairments and dementia, it would depend on what we can reasonably conclude about their mental states. Even the mentally impaired and demented have mental states, and it can be difficult to judge the kinds of mental states they are capable of, so I don’t see this argument justifiying killing these people. But in reality, people with severe dementia and other severe impairments are sometimes allowed to die.

So you have looked into it then? I don’t think there is a person without a mind. I do think that the brain seats our mind. So when the brain is destroyed or haven’t developed yet, there is no person with a mind. This is pretty basic stuff, I would think.

I like your discussion of what it means to be human in the context of being a person. There are distinctions to be made here, despite the slippery-slope potential. Note that the personhood amendment, co-sponsored by Paul Ryan (I believe), was rejected by largely pro-life Mississippians because it went too far in declaring an embryo a person.

I’ll have to check those pre- and post-welfare poverty statistics as well.

 

[qui_est_ce]

So you have looked into it then? I don’t think there is a person without a mind. I do think that the brain seats our mind. So when the brain is destroyed or haven’t developed yet, there is no person with a mind. This is pretty basic stuff, I would think.

I happen to know a very lovely young lady whose brain never developed. She is 35 years old.

Spiritual people recognize the body cannot be separated from the soul until death.

 

[estesbob]

The question is: does something being human automatically make it a person? k.

Why does human life have to be labeled “person” to have the right to life?

 

[meltzerboy]

Why does human life have to be labeled “person” to have the right to life?

It doesn’t have to be. However, I think what Persuader is considering is asking the question what are we killing in the case of an embryo: is it a conscious human life or a group of human cells that has the potential to develop into a conscious human life? The slippery-slope argument still applies, however. And that is why the notion of the soul, as I discussed before, plays a role here; that is, when does the soul enter the human body?

 

[qui_est_ce]

It doesn’t have to be. However, I think what Persuader is considering is asking the question what are we killing in the case of an embryo: is it a conscious human life or a group of human cells that has the potential to develop into a conscious human life? The slippery-slope argument still applies, however. And that is why the notion of the soul, as I discussed before, plays a role here; that is, when does the soul enter the human body?

That is something we do not know.

 

[meltzerboy]

That is something we do not know.

But don’t Catholicism and Judaism have differing viewpoints? Judaism states the soul enters the human body at the moment of birth, whereas I believe Catholicism states the soul is pre-ordained. Or does Catholicism say nothing in this regard?

 

[stevegravy]

And Plantation owners didn’t believe Blacks were “people” and Sherman believed the “only good Indian was a dead indian” So I guess if you can rationalize evil its OK?

Sheridan made the statement after spending a summer in Texas chasing bands of Comanche hunting parties who went off the reservation. It was a specific retort to a proclamation of “Being a good Indian,” one of the hunting party made when returning to the reservation. Maybe Sherman agreed with the sentiment I am not sure.
Gaging Sheridan’s attitude at the time he also said, “If he had to choose between Hell and Texas, he choose Hell because he has been to Texas.”

 

[qui_est_ce]

But don’t Catholicism and Judaism have differing viewpoints? Judaism states the soul enters the human body at the moment of birth, whereas I believe Catholicism states the soul is pre-ordained. Or does Catholicism say nothing in this regard?

I’m not sure what pre-ordained means. The Church teaches abortion is wrong even if there is no soul. St. Thomas Acquinas has been quoted by Nancy Pelosi regarding ensoulment. We do not presume to know when ensoulment takes place.

 

[DeSanto]

Can’t wait to finally hear some specifics tonight as to Romney’s actual policies and details as to how he will carry them out. He has to get specific! Not impressed at all by all the Obama bashing it’s really getting old!

 

[rlg94086]

Can’t wait to finally hear some specifics tonight as to Romney’s actual policies and details as to how he will carry them out. He has to get specific! Not impressed at all by all the Obama bashing it’s really getting old!

You can read plenty of specifics on his site at mittromney.com/issues

It has a lot more information than can be contained in a single speech, and the speech is unlikely to be a dissertation. That isn’t how convention speeches work.

 

[LisaA]

The question is: does something being human automatically make it a person? Again, on the face of it, you are capable of noticing that a collection of human skin cells, by themselves, are not a person. You can notice that a leg, or an arm, is not a person, even though there are plenty of human cells in them. Someone can even lose their legs and their arms and they could still be a person. Why? Obviously, there is something else that makes us into a person, and it seems like it is our minds. As long as the mind is there, there is a person there. This is why people are taken off life-support if brain-dead.

Now, in the early stages of pregnancy, the embryo does not have a brain, so we can presume that there is no person there to kill.

Total strawman to equate a picked off scab with an embryo. A human embryo is a distinct human being with distinct DNA, different than the mother in whose body she is carried. The embryo will grow and develop into a baby with fingers and toes and yes a brain. Skin cells will not develop into a baby. So that knocks out the old “part of your body” argument that is often used.

The term embryo is a stage of development, it is not definitive of personhood. Would you call a newborn a human? A toddler? A teen? (well sometimes you wonder about aliens invading there!). When pro abortion spokesmen use terms,they carefully choose dehumanizing terms that could be applied to an animal. In fact we often transplanted equine embryos in our horse breeding operation. I assure you every embryo implanted became a baby horse not a baby tiger or a baby rat. Development of the fetus in mammals is essentially the same process and in all cases the embryo develops into the same species it was at the moment of conception. Nothing changes in the DNA during pregnancy. The same set of unique DNA at conception is present at birth.

As to brain function meaning human, “I think therefore I am” again you could use this argument to kill those wish significant mental impairment, dementia, head injuries or long term comas. I don’t think even the most militant abortion supporters would go that far thank heavens but there would be no justification for allowing such people to be given continued support and resources under that standard. It meansures humanity and human worth by usefullness–something we don’t even apply to our animals. I hope we have more concern for the helpless whether born, unborn, loved, unloved, conscious or unconscious.

Now don’t jump on the “Catholics want to keep people alive on machines” canard. Our standard is the ONLY standard with definitive points in time–life begins at conception and ends at natural death. I cannot see any other standard as having the same definitive rather than subjective points of reference.

Tell me how you could kill an unborn baby by determining the precise point at which the brain was formed and functioning? Would you then only allow abortions at that time?
All of the Pro Choice arguments are based on subjective standards…what is human life and in whose opinion? Our standard is clear and definitive. Yours is merely a matter of opinion.

T
They fail. Ok. Let’s look at the evidence. I will give absolute poverty rates (1960-1991) (40% of U.S. Median household income) pre-welfare and post-welfare (relative poverty rates are similar):

Sweden: 23.7 to 5.8, Norway: 9.2 to 1.7, Netherlands: 22.1 to 7.3, Finland: 11.9 to 3.7, Denmark: 26.4 to 5.9, Germany: 15.2 to 4.3, Switzerland: 12.5 to 3.8, Canada: 22.5 to 6.5, France: 36.1 to 9.8, Belgium: 26.8 to 6.0, Australia: 23.3 to 11.9, United Kingdom: 16.8 to 8.7, United States: 21.0 to 11.7, Italy: 30.7 to 14.3

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare%27s_effect_on_poverty

You can also notice that the welfare states consistently perform at the top of every socioeconomic index that matters. Denmark has the highest welfare expenditure as GDP per capita, and has consistently been performing at the top of the newly developed indexes on happiness and well-being. Norway, with a similar, and perhaps even more generous system, has been topping both the HDI-index and the inequality adjusted HDI-index (which is probably more relevant to people’s well-being) for 9 out of the last 11 years, only beaten out by Iceland for two of those years (another generous welfare state).

.

You make the mistake of equating small and relatively homogenous populations with the 300 million diverse pppulation in the United States. Do you think that Icelanders might have different issues than Americans? It’s a different climate, culture, geography than the US. You can even look within the US and see huge disparity in levels of poverty, crime, substance abuse. Culture matters and it matters most when discussing social problems.

However like most on the Left you posit an either/or set up that is fallacious. The Left insists that Conservatives want to remove ALL programs, let people die in the streets, have polluted air and water, and turn away starving children.

What my experience and understanding indicates is that we do need a safety net in this country. I think even the most Libertarian among us believes that. Jesus said the poor would be with us always and I suspect He had a good understanding of human nature. OTOH it’s not a choice between the huge, inefficient and ineffective programs in place now or nothing. It’s a choice between continuing on a path we can’t afford, that doesn’t work, (poverty rates have NOT decreased since the “War” was declared) and leaves people in a culture of dependence and I suspect despair and focusing on outcomes not investments.

Our Catholic teaching of subsidiarity can inform this choice. We know that the most direct assistance by, from and to the local community has the greatest impact. THe idea that trillions of dollars go to Washington to be administered and then returned to programs favored by the administration in power, will work defies logic.

Further there are many many duplicative and wasteful programs that have the same half life of nuclear waste. With our base budget model these programs have eternal life because they start with last year’s numbers and always manage to go UP not down.

And one more thing, does anyone believe that the Federal government has far over reached its mandate and its intended function? I do. I truly see no reason for the Federal government to weigh in on lightbulbs or auto gas mileage or toilet tank capacity. Did you know that between PBS and Planned Parenthood almost a billion dollars is spent? Do we think there should be other priorities? Or of course the often mentioned “green energy” programs…billions down the drain. What is the federal government doing investing in failing energy companies? Support research sure…but Uncle Sam is not a venture capitalist.

So it’s NOT a matter of sticking with this current system or letting millions starve to death. We need to go over the budget, line by line (sound familiar? Another broken Obama promise). We need to look at EVERY program and whether there are results. We need to quit spending tax dollars on expensive boondoggles, vacant buildings, and advertisments to get MORE people on food stamps and welfare. There would be a lot more money for the poor if we hadn’t wasted it on all this c**p don’t you think?

It’s a matter of priorities and doing the math. The Romney Ryan team has, I believe the right ideas, skill set and determination to tackle these problems. I’m voting for proven and earned success, not another four years of failure.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Can’t wait to finally hear some specifics tonight as to Romney’s actual policies and details as to how he will carry them out. He has to get specific! Not impressed at all by all the Obama bashing it’s really getting old!

Actually Romney has been criticized for being TOO specific. He has a 50+ point plan that has been part of his campaign for some time now. If you want to know what he plans just check the website. A couple of important elements: Repeal Obamacare and Dodd Frank. Energy independence. Lower tax rates through closing off certain deductions or preferential tax treatment.

I’ve been a long time supporter of Mitt Romney and pray for him every day. What he is taking on is a challenge beyond measure. As bad as it was when Reagan succeeded Carter, he didn’t have to deal with a $17TRILLION debt, the Middle East blowing up, and decades of repressing energy development in this country.

Lisa

 

[ProVobis]

The question is: does something being human automatically make it a person? Again, on the face of it, you are capable of noticing that a collection of human skin cells, by themselves, are not a person. You can notice that a leg, or an arm, is not a person, even though there are plenty of human cells in them. Someone can even lose their legs and their arms and they could still be a person. Why? Obviously, there is something else that makes us into a person, and it seems like it is our minds. As long as the mind is there, there is a person there. This is why people are taken off life-support if brain-dead.

Now, in the early stages of pregnancy, the embryo does not have a brain, so we can presume that there is no person there to kill.

You are right. However, the Church and many other Christians believe that a soul is created at the time of conception and that becomes the real factor in determining human life. One or two cells suffice.

 

[DeSanto]

You can read plenty of specifics on his site at mittromney.com/issues

It has a lot more information than can be contained in a single speech, and the speech is unlikely to be a dissertation. That isn’t how convention speeches work.

I will check out your post, thank you. Some of us like to compare with non bias sites that show the economic realities as it relates to how his ideas will actually play out. Although, when you can’t even be assured of the CBO analysis anymore it’s kind of hard to know where to turn. I like www.factchecker.com myself.

For instance, I was about to check a fact about Mitt’s wife’s past contributions to planned parenthood.

 

[rlg94086]

I will check out your post, thank you. Some of us like to compare with non bias sites that show the economic realities as it relates to how his ideas will actually play out. Although, when you can’t even be assured of the CBO analysis anymore it’s kind of hard to know where to turn. I like www.factchecker.com myself.

For instance, I was about to check a fact about Mitt’s wife’s past contributions to planned parenthood.

Why is that? What would Mitt’s wife’s past contributions to Planned Parenthood have to do with this election?

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Thanks. Judging from the convention so far, the GOP has made an excellent case for abandoning the deficit spending of the Obama admin and returning to fiscal sanity and economic growth. And freedom - economic and religious.

Ishii

Paul Ryans speech: The crowd cheered.

Our friends at fact Check have made a few comments I’d like to share. I’ve been saying that Paul Ryan was a true believer in what he was doing. As it pertains to his view of the budget, and a few other issues. But, now that I’ve had a chance to review. I report that he is just another phony Pol. But then, they crowd cheered.

portal.wowway.net/news/read.php?ps=915&rip_id=%3CDA0VH2J01%40news.ap.org%3E&news_id=19207928&src=most_popular_viewed

WASHINGTON (AP) — GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan took some factual shortcuts during the Republican convention when he attacked President Barack Obama’s policies on Medicare, the economic stimulus and the budget deficit. His running mate, Mitt Romney, was expected to speak later Thursday in the convention’s culmination.

A closer look at some of Ryan’s remarks Wednesday at the GOP convention in Tampa, Fla.:

RYAN: “And the biggest, coldest power play of all in Obamacare came at the expense of the elderly. … So they just took it all away from Medicare. Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama.”

THE FACTS: Ryan’s claim ignores the fact that Ryan himself incorporated the same cuts into budgets he steered through the House in the past two years as chairman of its Budget Committee, using the money for deficit reduction. And the cuts do not affect Medicare recipients directly, but rather reduce payments to hospitals, health insurance plans and other service providers.

In addition, Ryan’s own plan to remake Medicare would squeeze the program’s spending even more than the changes Obama made, shifting future retirees into a system in which they would get a fixed payment to shop for coverage among private insurance plans. Critics charge that would expose the elderly to more out-of-pocket costs.

RYAN: “The stimulus was a case of political patronage, corporate welfare and cronyism at their worst. You, the working men and women of this country, were cut out of the deal.”

THE FACTS: **Ryan himself asked for stimulus funds shortly after Congress approved the $800 billion plan, known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Ryan’s pleas to federal agencies included letters to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis seeking stimulus grant money for two Wisconsin energy conservation companies.

One of them, the nonprofit Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp., received $20.3 million from the Energy Department to help homes and businesses improve energy efficiency, according to federal records. That company, he said in his letter, would build “sustainable demand for green jobs.” Another eventual recipient, the Energy Center of Wisconsin, received about $365,000.**

RYAN: Said Obama misled people in Ryan’s hometown of Janesville, Wis., by making them think a General Motors plant there threatened with closure could be saved. “A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: `I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.’ That’s what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year.”

THE FACTS: The plant halted production in December 2008, weeks before Obama took office and well before he enacted a more robust auto industry bailout that rescued GM and Chrysler and allowed the majority of their plants — though not the Janesville facility — to stay in operation. **Ryan himself voted for an auto bailout under President George W. Bush that was designed to help GM, but he was a vocal critic of the one pushed through by Obama that has been widely credited with revitalizing both GM and Chrysler.**RYAN: Obama “created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report. He thanked them, sent them on their way and then did exactly nothing.”

THE FACTS: It’s true that Obama hasn’t heeded his commission’s recommendations, but Ryan’s not the best one to complain. He was a member of the commission and voted against its final report.

ATB

 

[ProVobis]

Why is that? What would Mitt’s wife’s past contributions to Planned Parenthood have to do with this election?

From a practical standpoint, it may get Romney votes from the pro-abortion side. I’m sure they won’t turn those votes down.

 

[rlg94086]

From a practical standpoint, it may get Romney votes from the pro-abortion side. I’m sure they won’t turn those votes down.

How? Is the campaign trumpeting her alleged donations in an effort to get votes from the pro-abortion side? I haven’t even heard the campaign mention it.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Can’t wait to finally hear some specifics tonight as to Romney’s actual policies and details as to how he will carry them out. He has to get specific!

not too impressed with Obama’s policies. I’m worse off than I was 3 years ago.

DeSanto:

Not impressed at all by all the Obama bashing it’s really getting old!

Yea, like “IT’S BUSH’S FAULT” was getting old.

 

[meltzerboy]

Why is that? What would Mitt’s wife’s past contributions to Planned Parenthood have to do with this election?

Mitt Romney stated he wants to close down Planned Parenthood. Of course, husbands and wives don’t always agree on such things: George and Laura Bush, Ronald and Nancy Reagan, for example.