Paul Ryan Discussion

[qui_est_ce]

I am quite new at this. Honestly, this thread has moved so fast I haven’t had much time to check out all the features. I’ll work on it.

See there, you did it!

 

[qui_est_ce]

See there, you did it!

forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=97

Here’s the link to tips and tricks.

 

[meltzerboy]

On the Ed Show this evening, Ed Schultz featured some of the factory workers at the now-famous plant, who said Paul Ryan’s comment about the closing was inaccurate, that Ryan did not support them when they needed him, and that it was shameful Ryan used their plant as an anti-Obama political weapon for the benefit of the GOP. Many of the workers in the background appeared to be Obama supporters. Schultz called the workers at the plant the ultimate fact-checkers.

 

[oldcelt]

On the Ed Show this evening, Ed Schultz featured some of the factory workers at the now-famous plant, who said Paul Ryan’s comment about the closing was inaccurate, that Ryan did not support them when they needed him, and that it was shameful Ryan used their plant as an anti-Obama political weapon for the benefit of the GOP.

Oh no, a politician twisting the facts for political gain? I’m shocked, appalled, offended, and un-surprised.

Of course, someone will come back with the notion that people worked at that plant until the current President was in office. Yes, 57 out of 2000, or there about. So, 95% of the people at that plant lost their jobs under_____.

John

 

[LisaA]

Oh no, a politician twisting the facts for political gain? I’m shocked, appalled, offended, and un-surprised.

Of course, someone will come back with the notion that people worked at that plant until the current President was in office. Yes, 57 out of 2000, or there about. So, 95% of the people at that plant lost their jobs under_____.

John

John why in the WORLD are you and others attributing the closing of this plant to President Bush. What in the world did HE have to do with it? Far as I know that was back in the days when GM plants were not owned by we the taxpayers. Decisions for closing plants were made by GM management not President Bush. This Blame Bush for Everything is certainly tiresome.

As to the statement ONE MORE TIME WITH FEELING: Paul Ryan referred to the promises made by Obama to garner support that were forgotten once he was elected. I believe Luigi Daniele made the point that there WAS a GM bailout. If this plant was not included in the bailout THAT decision was made by the Obama administration, not Paul Ryan and not President Bush.

Further anyone who would quote that vulgar, hateful man is really bottom feeding. He has been reprimanded repeatedly for saying outlandish, hateful things about Republican women. Of course being on the Left he gets a pass. That he used the same word with respect to Laura Ingraham that had the Left demanding Rush Limbaugh’s head leads me to believe there is a teensy weensy double standard.

Now could we actually use some facts instead of claims of disgruntled workers, a disgraced talk show host with a tiny audience?

Lisa

 

[oldcelt]

Now could we actually use some facts instead of claims of disgruntled workers, a disgraced talk show host with a tiny audience?

Lisa,

I’m sorry, but it is you who need to look up the facts:

When did GM cease production at that plant? Dec. 23, 2008
Who was President at that time? G.W. Bush
How many employees were kept on to complete an Isuzu truck order? 57
When did GM announce its intention to close the plant? June 2008

etc., etc., etc.

Further, if you read the actual quote of then candidate Obama (Feb. 2008) you will find that he in no way promised anything.

Again, sorry, but these are the facts.

John

 

[LisaA]

Lisa,

I’m sorry, but it is you who need to look up the facts:

When did GM cease production at that plant? Dec. 23, 2008
Who was President at that time? G.W. Bush
How many employees were kept on to complete an Isuzu truck order? 57
When did GM announce its intention to close the plant? June 2008

etc., etc., etc.

Further, if you read the actual quote of then candidate Obama (Feb. 2008) you will find that he in no way promised anything.

Again, sorry, but these are the facts.

John

Will you quit arguing against points I didn’t make.

How was George Bush to blame for the plant closure? Did we own GM then? Was George Bush managing GM then?

Who was President when we enacted the GM Bailout? Could he have saved the plant? Why didn’t he?

Obama claimed that with government’s help the plant would be there 100 years hence. OK you say that wasn’t a campaign promise. I guess he had his fingers crossed? Basically he made claims he was unable to fulfill. Another empty promise to add to the rest of them.

It is IRRELEVANT to this point when the plant closed. It IS relevant that President Obama garnered the support of auto workers through enticement if not bribery. It IS relevant that Obama could have had some influence over distribution of the GM bailout. That this plant was not chosen for retooling was not up to Paul Ryan or George Bush.

You continue to blame the wrong people for no apparent reason other than it serves to demonize Republicans. Ryan and Bush had NOTHING to do with that plant closing.

Ed Schultz is a foul mouthed loser who is allowed to turn the air blue with vulgarities because they are directed at Republicans. Rush’s use of the same verbiage was greeted with threats, sponsors withdrawing (to their detriment) and calls for his removal.

Those John are facts.

Lias

 

[oldcelt]

Will you quit arguing against points I didn’t make.

How was George Bush to blame for the plant closure? Did we own GM then? Was George Bush managing GM then?

Then, how is President Obama to blame? We certainly did not own it in Dec. of 2008, when Mr. Bush was President and 1900 some workers were furloughed indefinitely. Nor did we own it when the final 57 were sent home. Nor does President Obama manage GM…doesn’t now…never has.
It might also interest you to check who voted for the auto bailout.

BTW, I didn’t quote Ed, I copied another’s post relative to Mr. Ryan’s appearance.

So, how about that “promise?”

John

 

[oldcelt]

Obama claimed that with government’s help the plant would be there 100 years hence. OK you say that wasn’t a campaign promise. I guess he had his fingers crossed? Basically he made claims he was unable to fulfill. Another empty promise to add to the rest of them.

Again, you really need to look up what he said…the full statement, in context.

John

 

[oldcelt]

It IS relevant that President Obama garnered the support of auto workers through enticement if not bribery. It IS relevant that Obama could have had some influence over distribution of the GM bailout. That this plant was not chosen for retooling was not up to Paul Ryan or George Bush.

Point one…I feel fairly confident that he already had the support of many in the UAW.

Point two: Why, assuming that he had any influence, and that’s a big stretch, would he (Obama) choose to retool a plant that GM had already decided to close? Remember, in Feb. 2008, when he said it was his belief that plants like that could be retooled, that decision had not been announced.

President Obama, along with many of both parties, decided that it was worthwhile to save GM and Chrysler. In fact, Ryan voted for a bailout under President Bush.

John

 

[Persuader]

You are creating and answering questions not asked and raising silly arguments. The point of the DNA discussion is that many use the “it’s part of the woman’s body” argument to provide support for her ability to be the ONLY decision maker with respect to the unborn child.

That is confused. Nobody is claiming that the embryo or fetus has the same DNA as the mother. Pro-choice can be argued in two different (and sometimes overlapping) ways: either you argue for the woman’s right to control her own body or you argue that the embryo/fetus is of lesser moral significance because it lacks the necessary properties.

The baby is a distinct human being from conception. If the fertilized egg splits and twins are born while they have the same DNA they are obviously two separate persons. So yes it does matter that one twin dies or is killed by his/her mother.

I know that you don’t think it’s fine to kill one twin, but it followed from the premises of your argument, so I made the counter-argument. Similarly, we can counter your new statements. A distinct human being A can split into two separate, but distinct, human beings B and C (monozygotic twins), or two distinct human beings D and E can fuse into F (chimera). But A cannot be identical with both B and C, since B and C are not identical with each other. And so we have that A is neither B or C, and is either dead/gone or didn’t exist as a distinct human being. In either case, B and C were not distinct human beings from conception.

Also, what happens to the distinct human beings D and E when they fuse into F? Is one lost? What is the math on that one?

I hardly think bacteria is equivalent to a baby but you do seem to belittle human life so maybe you believe our ability to manipulate bacteria means we also have the right to kill unborn babies?

Not the point, was it? The point is that DNA is not an organism, and has no value just because it might be unique.

Again you make up arguments that were not posed. A theoretical possibility is not a human. I am not talking about a theoretical or a potential baby baby. It’s a real baby in there, not skin cells in a Petri dish.

My arguments are counter-arguments to what you have written, so in that sense I made them up. But you didn’t seem to understand their relevance, so let’s review. You said: «Skin cells will not develop into a baby. So that knocks out the old “part of your body” argument that is often used.» The DNA-argument was not made to support the «part of your body»-argument. As I said above, there are different types of pro-choice arguments. You are confused.

For the third time you make up arguments never posed. I asked you to support the idea that certain human beings do not have the right to life because in your opinion, their brains are not sufficiently developed or functioning to deserve life. I did not ask if a fly or a chimp has the same rights. Totally irrelevant.

No, it’s not irrelevant. I have spoken about the requirements for moral value. If one does not have the ability to experience, if there is no minimal consciousness there, there is no moral signifance either. A dead universe has no moral value, for there is nothing there to value it.

You apparently don’t believe people who are under anesthesia, in a coma or maybe even in a very deep sleep are human since they are not “suffering, enjoying or thinking.” Have you ever been under anesthesia? I assure you not much thinking is going on and thankfully not much physical sensation either.

As I said, this is similar to the issue of sleeping and is relevant to the question of personal identity, an issue too extensive for this discussion. But very briefly, let me try to explain some of this.

So, it would be very strange to say that you were not a person at t1 (where t=time) because you didn’t suffer, or enjoy or were conscious just in that moment. Nobody is saying that. What I am saying is: if a being has certain mental capabilites at t1, they are a person at t1. The abilities don’t need to be exercised at all times (which would be inconsistent), but they must be properties or abilities that can be actualized by the being. And if a human being is brain-dead, he doesn’t have those mental properties and abilites anymore, so he is no longer a person. But of course, there’s a lot more to say. You could look at this article:

“But many philosophers define ‘person’ as something that has certain special mental properties. Locke, for instance, famously said that a person is “a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places” (1975: 335). Presumably this implies that something is a person at a given time if and only if it has those mental properties then. And neurologists say that early-term foetuses and human beings in a persistent vegetative state have no mental properties at all then. If anything like Locke’s definition is right, such beings are not people—not at that time, anyway.”

plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/

Here is the reality. In your opinion, informed by whatever “spiritual” tradition you claim informs your conscious, only people with a certain level of CURRENT brain function are granted human rights.

It’s a bit more complicated than that. Unconscious people who haven’t gotten their brain (and ability to actualize mental properties) destroyed, does not necessarily stop being a person, although this is strictly speaking not as clear cut as one would like (read the article I posted if you want to know more). However, we can recognize that a human being would be without something essential to personhood and humanity if it had the mental properties of a fly. And if mental properties doesn’t matter, then what about non-human animals?

So apparently you believe the person can be killed by those who have power over him or her at the point in time that they are considered “gone” mentally.

I approve of physician assisted suicide in certain cases, but only if the person who is dying has signed on to it. There is a different set of arguments for this if you want to go into it.

And this is relevant because? Again I asked if you think anyone is sufficiently knowledgeable to determine the point in time a brain functions sufficiently to make the unborn baby a human with human rights.

Neurologists and other scientists know something about when properties emerge, and then there is a discussion about what kind of properties are important. This is how it works in most countries that allow abortion.

At any rate we are talking about abortion in the US which is sadly not restricted as to fetal development. The Dems just voted down a restriction on abortion at 20 weeks. At that point Persuader it’s a BABY but the Dems have fought against ANY restriction on abortion. It’s a gruesome club you belong to.

Please don’t tell me which club I belong to. Why do you think I am a democrat? (I’m not) And get you facts straight about restrictions. Most states have restrictions on abortions.

Because "pro choice aka pro abortion rights has NO standard. If the mother wants an abortion, even if the baby is at eight months’ gestation, she can get one. That sounds pretty subjective to me.

If someone wants to buy a property, and thereby acquire rights of ownership, they can. That sounds pretty pretty subjective to me. What are you even talking about? You are confusing the description of allowed behavior with the arguments for why the behavior is allowed.

How can it not imply those things? The arguments are disingenuous.

No, they are academic arguments. Read my reply to Lisa.

 

[LisaA]

Point one…I feel fairly confident that he already had the support of many in the UAW.

Point two: Why, assuming that he had any influence, and that’s a big stretch, would he (Obama) choose to retool a plant that GM had already decided to close? Remember, in Feb. 2008, when he said it was his belief that plants like that could be retooled, that decision had not been announced.

President Obama, along with many of both parties, decided that it was worthwhile to save GM and Chrysler. In fact, Ryan voted for a bailout under President Bush.

John

John I feel like beating my head against the wall as you continue to argue against points I did NOT make.

1. I have not questioned the timeline
2. I agree it was GM that made the decision
3. You cannot blame President Bush for the closure so why continue to refer to its closure “under Bush” as if he WERE at fault
4. I did not blame Obama for the closure but questioned whether he could have influenced which plants were or were not given funds. They clearly made arbitrary decisions on which dealerships to close and which employees’ pensions were preserved. Union vs non union…do we see a pattern? YES!
5. Yes I DID see the ENTIRE video of Obama in early 08 visiting the plant, back slapping and rah rahing the workers. I did not take the comments out of context.

***And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your President. ***

OK he didn’t say “I promise you” or but do you think there was a pretty strong statement that he meant THIS plant would be saved or at least he would “fight for this future” when we see in fact he did nothing for Janesville once elected.

1. He enticed, bribed or offered goodies saying “if you have the government behind you …this plant will be here 100 years” OK you can split hairs and say he did not say “I promise you all jobs for 100 years” but clearly the workers believed that was his plan
2. The “bailout” under Bush that Ryan voted for was not nearly the size, scope nor did it freeze out the shareholders and bondholders against the interests of the unions, nor did it provide that the US taxpayers would own the company
3. Janesville WAS under consideration for re-tooling :In June 2009, GM considered three sites to locate a small car: its Orion plant in Michigan; Janesville, Wis.; and a Spring Hill, Tenn., plant slated to close in November. GM picked Orion and later reopened Spring Hill. Do we think it might have something to do with the Michigan district having a Democrat vs Ryan’s district having a Republican in office…NAWWWW couldn’t happen right?

Now I grant Obama probably had the unions in his pocket by virtue of tradition and a history of unions supporting Democrat candidates with huge contributions. OTOH I think Ryan made the point that Obama’s litany of broken promises extends from here to the moon and back. I don’t think his speech was a lie or inaccurate albeit with certain inferences. The lack of financial wisdom, the ignoring the rule of law, the arbitrariness of the GM bailout all speaks to the problems of letting the government use our tax dollars to pay back their friends.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

That is confused. Nobody is claiming that the embryo or fetus has the same DNA as the mother. Pro-choice can be argued in two different (and sometimes overlapping) ways: either you argue for the woman’s right to control her own body or you argue that the embryo/fetus is of lesser moral significance because it lacks the necessary properties.

.

No but as you state they claim the woman has power over HER body, completely ignoring the point I made that it is NOT the woman’s body we are discussing, it is the body of a completely unique human being. The point of the DNA is to demonstrate scientifically it IS not part of the woman’s body and while she should be able to control her body to the extent it doesn’t interfere with others (her right to swing her arm ends where my face begins) she should not have the untrammelled right to kill another.

Your second point is the other canard. The unborn baby is considered non-human by the pro abortion rights contingent. As evil as their actions are in practice I don’t think most of them would kill an innocent human being. Therefore the only justification is to claim the human being is not human and therefore has lesser or no value other than what the mother attributes to it.

I know that you don’t think it’s fine to kill one twin, but it followed from the premises of your argument, so I made the counter-argument. Similarly, we can counter your new statements. A distinct human being A can split into two separate, but distinct, human beings B and C (monozygotic twins), or two distinct human beings D and E can fuse into F (chimera). But A cannot be identical with both B and C, since B and C are not identical with each other. And so we have that A is neither B or C, and is either dead/gone or didn’t exist as a distinct human being. In either case, B and C were not distinct human beings from conception.

Also, what happens to the distinct human beings D and E when they fuse into F? Is one lost? What is the math on that one?
.

So you posit a totally ridiculous scenario and think this has any bearing on the subject? Sorry why waste the time responding to such nuttery.

Not the point, was it? The point is that DNA is not an organism, and has no value just because it might be unique.
.

You misquoted me. I said that the BABY is unique. The baby has a unique set of DNA differing from her mother. Not just some strand of DNA but the DNA that creates a unique human being has value over the value of stray cells.

No, it’s not irrelevant. I have spoken about the requirements for moral value. If one does not have the ability to experience, if there is no minimal consciousness there, there is no moral signifance either. A dead universe has no moral value, for there is nothing there to value it.
.

You are expressing your opinion not a fact. It’s the old relativism gig. Your “requirements” for moral value originate somewhere. Since you claim to be spiritual I suspect you have no religious basis for them. But somehow because they are YOUR moral values they are determinative here. Really? Says who? You constantly refer to ‘moral value’ as if you believe some humans are have more value than others. OK, your opinion. But it’s all relative. You are the world’s greatest expert on your own opinion.

Your values and mine differ. There is no way to argue against that point.

“But many philosophers define ‘person’ as something that has certain special mental properties. Locke, for instance, famously said that a person is “a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places” (1975: 335). Presumably this implies that something is a person at a given time if and only if it has those mental properties then. And neurologists say that early-term foetuses and human beings in a persistent vegetative state have no mental properties at all then. If anything like Locke’s definition is right, such beings are not people—not at that time, anyway.”

plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/

It’s a bit more complicated than that. Unconscious people who haven’t gotten their brain (and ability to actualize mental properties) destroyed, does not necessarily stop being a person, although this is strictly speaking not as clear cut as one would like (read the article I posted if you want to know more). However, we can recognize that a human being would be without something essential to personhood and humanity if it had the mental properties of a fly. And if mental properties doesn’t matter, then what about non-human animals?
.

OK you believe in the gods of the Greek philosophers and Stanford. I don’t. Clarity over agreement Persuader.

T
I approve of physician assisted suicide in certain cases, but only if the person who is dying has signed on to it. There is a different set of arguments for this if you want to go into it.
.

That approval would be consistent with the rest of your ethical code. Human beings have value only if you say they have value. I don’t find your standards very convincing but againt you are the master of your opinions.

Neurologists and other scientists know something about when properties emerge, and then there is a discussion about what kind of properties are important. This is how it works in most countries that allow abortion.
.

Once again elevating neurologists and other scientists to the level of gods. So you think individual scientists should decide which properties are important enough to decide on matters of life and death? Look my parents worshipped the god of science too so I’ve been around this attitude all of my life. I don’t agree with it but it’s not unfamiliar to me.

It is not the value system I choose but again you are the master of your own heart and soul.

Please don’t tell me which club I belong to. Why do you think I am a democrat? (I’m not) And get you facts straight about restrictions. Most states have restrictions on abortions.
.

I think you belong to the club of secular humanism where man is god and human beings have no intrinsic value but only the value attributed by those in power. Now in my opinion this theory hasn’t worked out too well in recent history but I can’t argue the point. It’s your opinion that this is the correct attitude toward human beings.

Yes there are restrictions on abortions in most states. You can’t kill a baby unless it’s still IN the birth canal so those doctors need to work quickly! Of course Obama thought it was fine to just let the baby die if he happened to actually make it out alive. You can’t get between a woman and her doctor after all!

The reality is that a woman has complete and total power over her unborn baby right up to the last month. If her state doesn’t allow the gruesome partial birth abortion then she can simply travel to a state that does.

No, they are academic arguments. Read my reply to Lisa.

I did and again, if you’ve seen sausage made you won’t eat it. I grew up around this rather utilitarian “academic” argument. I find it heartless and cruel but it apparently appeals to some. I’m still not sure why you are here on a Catholic forum. People of strong faith just look at this kind of argument in complete wonder. I would hate to live in a society where people are valued only by their functionality. Obviously you wouldn’t
Lisa

 

[fix]

No, they are academic arguments. Read my reply to Lisa.

Lisa’s responses are very accurate. Your position may be accepted by many in the Academy, but that does not make them correct. You seem to value scientism as a type of god. IOW, you elevate mere words above common sense.

The day before a baby is born, by your reasoning, would not be a person.
No reasonable person holds such an erroneous position.

 

[meltzerboy]

Then, how is President Obama to blame? We certainly did not own it in Dec. of 2008, when Mr. Bush was President and 1900 some workers were furloughed indefinitely. Nor did we own it when the final 57 were sent home. Nor does President Obama manage GM…doesn’t now…never has.
It might also interest you to check who voted for the auto bailout.

BTW, I didn’t quote Ed, I copied another’s post relative to Mr. Ryan’s appearance.

So, how about that “promise?”

John

Mea culpa.

 

[Persuader]

The point of the DNA is to demonstrate scientifically it IS not part of the woman’s body and while she should be able to control her body to the extent it doesn’t interfere with others (her right to swing her arm ends where my face begins) she should not have the untrammelled right to kill another.

But then we get into the arguments about women’s right to control her own body and what rights an embryo or fetus has to the women’s resources, which is a different set of arguments.

[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violinist_(thought_experiment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violinist_(thought_experiment)

Your second point is the other canard. The unborn baby is considered non-human by the pro abortion rights contingent. As evil as their actions are in practice I don’t think most of them would kill an innocent human being. Therefore the only justification is to claim the human being is not human and therefore has lesser or no value other than what the mother attributes to it.

No, it is considered to be human. That is not in question. The quesiton is: is it a person? What kind of human being is it? Does its interests trump the interests of the woman etc.

Now, if it’s a canard, as you say, it should be an easy task to decimate these arguments. So go ahead.

So you posit a totally ridiculous scenario and think this has any bearing on the subject? Sorry why waste the time responding to such nuttery.

Both monozygotic twins and chimera’s exist, so it’s not ridiculous. If you don’t understand, you can ask to have the argument explained in greater detail, but don’t call it nutty or ridiculous when it isn’t.

You misquoted me. I said that the BABY is unique. The baby has a unique set of DNA differing from her mother. Not just some strand of DNA but the DNA that creates a unique human being has value over the value of stray cells.

You employed the uniqueness of DNA as an argument as to why the embryo or fetus should be valued. If you don’t want to do that after all, then you haven’t really produced any arguments for your position.

You are expressing your opinion not a fact. It’s the old relativism gig. Your “requirements” for moral value originate somewhere. Since you claim to be spiritual I suspect you have no religious basis for them. But somehow because they are YOUR moral values they are determinative here. Really? Says who? You constantly refer to ‘moral value’ as if you believe some humans are have more value than others. OK, your opinion. But it’s all relative. You are the world’s greatest expert on your own opinion.

What are you talking about? It has nothing to do with relativism. What’s relativist about it? I am giving arguments for the claims I make, I am not just giving opinions. If you disagree with the arguments, you can argue against them. You don’t get to say they are opinions and can somehow be dismissed because of that. That’s not how discussion works.

OK you believe in the gods of the Greek philosophers and Stanford. I don’t. Clarity over agreement Persuader.

No, I don’t.

That approval would be consistent with the rest of your ethical code. Human beings have value only if you say they have value. I don’t find your standards very convincing but againt you are the master of your opinions.

As I have said, I have given arguments, which is all anyone can ever do. I have never said that you should adopt my beliefs because I hold them (I don’t necessarily hold all the beliefs that could be deduced from the arguments I have given. The point was simply to illustrate that pro-choice does not imply anything negative about the moral character of a person.) If you disagree with the arguments I have given, you have to argue against them, not critize me for giving them. It doesn’t even make sense what you are doing.

Once again elevating neurologists and other scientists to the level of gods. So you think individual scientists should decide which properties are important enough to decide on matters of life and death? Look my parents worshipped the god of science too so I’ve been around this attitude all of my life. I don’t agree with it but it’s not unfamiliar to me.

No, I don’t think scientists should decide which properties are important. That is a philosophical and legal discussion informed by biological facts, and that discussion is both public and academic.

And if it’s so familiar, I’m surprised that you are so confused about having a discussion. I have noticed that you have called the arguments utilitarian. They haven’t been. They are deontological arguments, and utilitarianism and deontology are generally in conflict. You should know that if you are familiar with this, as you say. I don’t think you are very familiar with this at all.

I think you belong to the club of secular humanism where man is god and human beings have no intrinsic value but only the value attributed by those in power. Now in my opinion this theory hasn’t worked out too well in recent history but I can’t argue the point. It’s your opinion that this is the correct attitude toward human beings.

Please stop telling me which clubs I belong to. I have never said that people have no intrinsic value (the argument states that human beings are not always people) and that they only have the value attributed by those in power. Nowhere in my argument do I state anything that can be construed to give that impression. Be honest.

I would hate to live in a society where people are valued only by their functionality. Obviously you wouldn’t
Lisa

I have never spoken about functionality. I am interested in having a world-view that fits together. And in this context that means that you need to figure out what it is that makes a person. I have provided you with a link about that discussion. Perhaps you could say that it doesn’t matter if human beings are persons - that they have value simply because of the species they belong to, but I think that is counterintuitive and weakens specism as a valid position, which in turn makes our handling of animals even more difficult to justify. You could see this as having a kind of domino-effect. And again, I can give arguments (not simply opinion) to support that.

Lisa’s responses are very accurate. Your position may be accepted by many in the Academy, but that does not make them correct. You seem to value scientism as a type of god. IOW, you elevate mere words above common sense.

The arguments are not scientific. And you are free to disagree with the arguments. But you should be able to counter the arguments, not simply label them and think you are done.

The day before a baby is born, by your reasoning, would not be a person. No reasonable person holds such an erroneous position.

No, the arguments do not imply that a baby becomes a person when born.

 

[meltzerboy]

But then we get into the arguments about women’s right to control her own body and what rights an embryo or fetus has to the women’s resources, which is a different set of arguments.

[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violinist_(thought_experiment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violinist_(thought_experiment)

No, it is considered to be human. That is not in question. The quesiton is: is it a person? What kind of human being is it? Does its interests trump the interests of the woman etc.

Now, if it’s a canard, as you say, it should be an easy task to decimate these arguments. So go ahead.

Both monozygotic twins and chimera’s exist, so it’s not ridiculous. If you don’t understand, you can ask to have the argument explained in greater detail, but don’t call it nutty or ridiculous when it isn’t.

You employed the uniqueness of DNA as an argument as to why the embryo or fetus should be valued. If you don’t want to do that after all, then you haven’t really produced any arguments for your position.

What are you talking about? It has nothing to do with relativism. What’s relativist about it? I am giving arguments for the claims I make, I am not just giving opinions. If you disagree with the arguments, you can argue against them. You don’t get to say they are opinions and can somehow be dismissed because of that. That’s not how discussion works.

No, I don’t.

As I have said, I have given arguments, which is all anyone can ever do. I have never said that you should adopt my beliefs because I hold them (I don’t necessarily hold all the beliefs that could be deduced from the arguments I have given. The point was simply to illustrate that pro-choice does not imply anything negative about the moral character of a person.) If you disagree with the arguments I have given, you have to argue against them, not critize me for giving them. It doesn’t even make sense what you are doing.

No, I don’t think scientists should decide which properties are important. That is a philosophical and legal discussion informed by biological facts, and that discussion is both public and academic.

And if it’s so familiar, I’m surprised that you are so confused about having a discussion. I have noticed that you have called the arguments utilitarian. They haven’t been. They are deontological arguments, and utilitarianism and deontology are generally in conflict. You should know that if you are familiar with this, as you say. I don’t think you are very familiar with this at all.

Please stop telling me which clubs I belong to. I have never said that people have no intrinsic value (the argument states that human beings are not always people) and that they only have the value attributed by those in power. Nowhere in my argument do I state anything that can be construed to give that impression. Be honest.

I have never spoken about functionality. I am interested in having a world-view that fits together. And in this context that means that you need to figure out what it is that makes a person. I have provided you with a link about that discussion. Perhaps you could say that it doesn’t matter if human beings are persons - that they have value simply because of the species they belong to, but I think that is counterintuitive and weakens specism as a valid position, which in turn makes our handling of animals even more difficult to justify. You could see this as having a kind of domino-effect. And again, I can give arguments (not simply opinion) to support that.

The arguments are not scientific. And you are free to disagree with the arguments. But you should be able to counter the arguments, not simply label them and think you are done.

No, the arguments do not imply that a baby becomes a person when born.

It continually fascinates me that, for some, when science is beneficial to supporting the arguments of those on the pro-life side of the abortion issue (as well as other issues), they explain their position by referring to science; whereas when science can be used to facilitate expressing an opposing viewpoint, they decry science.

 

[LisaA]

It continually fascinates me that, for some, when science is beneficial to supporting the arguments of those on the pro-life side of the abortion issue (as well as other issues), they explain their position by referring to science; whereas when science can be used to facilitate expressing an opposing viewpoint, they decry science.

No Meltzerboy you are wrong. I believe that an unborn baby is human. It is part of my Catholic faith and I can explain, chapter and verse why according to my Catholic faith I hold that position.

However, when dealing with atheists, secularists and those who devalue human life due to an elitism, I try to used scientific arguments because arguments of faith are useless in the face of those who would support evil in the furtherance of a secular humanist agenda. Google Peter Singer for the poster child of this movement. He even thinks that parents should be able to kill their children during the first year. There is nothing you can say to someone like that and to pull out the Hitler card generally loses the argument even though I think the basic philosophy is the same. Unborn babies are not humans until they reach a certain stage. What is that stage? Well Meltzerboy it depends…and that’s called relativism.

I grew up around secular humanists, worshipping the god of science. I know how they think and I have long since rejected that cruel and inconsistent attitude.

Lisa

 

[oldcelt]

It continually fascinates me that, for some, when science is beneficial to supporting the arguments of those on the pro-life side of the abortion issue (as well as other issues), they explain their position by referring to science; whereas when science can be used to facilitate expressing an opposing viewpoint, they decry science.

Curious, isn’t it?

John

 

[Dale_M]

Paul Ryan’s Most Egregious Lie: He Never Ran a Marathon in Under Three Hours

Paul Ryan has never run a marathon in under three hours.

Last week, Ryan claimed his personal best was “two hour and fifty-something.” But that doesn’t match up with the facts.
news.runnersworld.com/2012/08/31/paul-ryan-says-hes-run-sub-300-marathon/

Not a sub-three — or even a sub-four. Could this be the scandal that destroys Paul Ryan?

Never mind any factual inaccuracies in his political speeches: a runner’s time is sacred. Straight-up lying about Obama “raiding” Medicare and closing GM plants is one thing. Bragging about a fictional athletic accomplishment is quite another.

You have lost the coveted runner vote, sir. This is the political equivalent of hitting the wall.

gawker.com/5939846/paul-ryans-most-egregious-lie-he-never-ran-a-marathon-in-under-three-hours