Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Japper007]

 japper didn't want to debate, or understand, just to throw out insults.  I gave up.

Try me. Or at the very least shut up and don't snipe at me in a comment directed at someone else and not expect a response. 

But if your arguments TL:DR is this:

 

 all it takes to reconcile anti abortion with libertarian is to posit that non aggression principle applies to all people even unborn

Then don't bother, as the highlighted is self-contradictory already.

[TheHumanHydra]

 all it takes to reconcile anti abortion with libertarian is to posit that non aggression principle applies to all people even unborn

Then don't bother, as the highlighted is self-contradictory already.

There are a number of points at which to assign humanness, depending on what you're looking for in a human (I would say birth is one of the less advisable, but I'm sure that was rhetorical).

'We Bene Gesserit sift people to find the humans.'

[Cornflakes]

 japper didn't want to debate, or understand, just to throw out insults.  I gave up.

Try me. Or at the very least shut up and don't snipe at me in a comment directed at someone else and not expect a response. 

But if your arguments TL:DR is this:

 

 all it takes to reconcile anti abortion with libertarian is to posit that non aggression principle applies to all people even unborn

Then don't bother, as the highlighted is self-contradictory already.

But what you do with the other body?That one doesnt diserve integrity? So in the name of 'freedom' you are ready to kill someone which cant defend  and has no guilt to be there.

It's not a "someone", so no. Freedom applies to humans, not potential humans

But why is it not a human? It has human DNA, and distinctly unique DNA from that of the mother or father. What is it that makes it only a "potential" human and not an actual human?

Japper, I may have missed it but did you ever respond to this? What is the difference between a human and a person? What is it that makes an unborn baby a "potential" human and not an actual human?

[Krill]

Anyone watching the clusterfuck that is British politics at the moment?

[Japper007]

 japper didn't want to debate, or understand, just to throw out insults.  I gave up.

Try me. Or at the very least shut up and don't snipe at me in a comment directed at someone else and not expect a response. 

But if your arguments TL:DR is this:

 

 all it takes to reconcile anti abortion with libertarian is to posit that non aggression principle applies to all people even unborn

Then don't bother, as the highlighted is self-contradictory already.

But what you do with the other body?That one doesnt diserve integrity? So in the name of 'freedom' you are ready to kill someone which cant defend  and has no guilt to be there.

It's not a "someone", so no. Freedom applies to humans, not potential humans

But why is it not a human? It has human DNA, and distinctly unique DNA from that of the mother or father. What is it that makes it only a "potential" human and not an actual human?

Japper, I may have missed it but did you ever respond to this? What is the difference between a human and a person? What is it that makes an unborn baby a "potential" human and not an actual human?

Consciousness and the abilty to survive, any legal abortion even in the most liberal country is waaay before that. DNA is not a factor here, which is why I didn't reply to it. A tumor has human DNA but we don't think that deserves protection (bar a few fringe religious idiots) a non-sentient, not even alive clump of cells is not a human.

[Cornflakes]

Consciousness and the abilty to survive

But a patient with a heart attack awaiting heart transplant fits the same criteria. I sadly have a coworker in that exact condition, sedated and with a machine assisting his half-dead heart. Can someone without consciousness or the ability to survive on their own be killed?

Consciousness alone cannot be enough to grant the right to life. Otherwise, could I knock anyone out by some means (anesthesia) and then kill them after they have lost consciousness? Likewise with the ability to survive is not sufficient either. Could I go through the ICU at any hospital and dismember patients who cannot survive without the medical life-sustaining devices? (or less extreme, could I simply unplug any/all the life-sustaining devices at will?). Certainly that would not be justified, right?

DNA is not a factor here, which is why I didn't reply to it. A tumor has human DNA but we don't think that deserves protection (bar a few fringe religious idiots) a non-sentient, not even alive clump of cells is not a human.

Ah, but there is a very significant difference between tumor DNA and baby DNA (or fetus, call it what you will ... the word used doesn't change the reality). Tumor DNA is the DNA of the host, with potentially some mutations mixed in causing the cells to malfunction. As you point out, a tumor is never under any circumstances a viable human [although the cells are technically alive]. Removal of a tumor would be similar to removal of an appendix or tonsils, or even amputation of a limb. No issue whatsoever for anyone to remove (or order the removal) of their own body parts if they so desire. Baby on the other hand has a unique set of genetic code independent from the "host" (mother) that is capable of developing into an adult human. It is in fact a separate human being, although developing inside of the mother.

[MJW (ya that one)]

Well it looks like the Broward undervote didn't do anything because the gap's between Scott and DeSantis and then Nelson and Gillum are about the same. This is because there's much less reason for a GOP voter to look for that Senate race because there was a bunch of uncontested house races with a democrat (probably). +0 is still an obviously great result on the worst map ever so the DEMS should have won ND and have a lot of momentum going into 2020. She probably just looked at the stats (ND is 45% Pro-Choice) and thought she could get away with it.

Edit: If she was not capable of voting for it for moral reasons she would have taken a much firmer Pro-Choice stand against Berg in the 2012 race; which would have caused Berg to go over the finish line anyway.

[Japper007]

Consciousness and the abilty to survive

But a patient with a heart attack awaiting heart transplant fits the same criteria. I sadly have a coworker in that exact condition, sedated and with a machine assisting his half-dead heart. Can someone without consciousness or the ability to survive on their own be killed?

Consciousness alone cannot be enough to grant the right to life. Otherwise, could I knock anyone out by some means (anesthesia) and then kill them after they have lost consciousness? Likewise with the ability to survive is not sufficient either. Could I go through the ICU at any hospital and dismember patients who cannot survive without the medical life-sustaining devices? (or less extreme, could I simply unplug any/all the life-sustaining devices at will?). Certainly that would not be justified, right?

My apologies CF using consciousness there was an honest mistake on my part.  I meant to say sentience. You see, in Dutch, one word ("bewustzijn") covers consciousness, awareness AND sentience. It was merely my thoughts getting lost in translation. English is only my fourth language, after Dutch, French and German. (not trying to act smug, just trying to clarify why I can sometimes seem to be talking out my ass )

To adress your medical point we do distinguish clinical death (heart-failure) from the death of sentience (brain-death) for this exact reason, and many countries do not support life-support for unrecoverable comas, or most at least leave it up to relatives to decide. Kind off how most countries are okay ending the life of some other non-sentient "human being".

[the]Baby on the other hand has a unique set of genetic code independent from the "host" (mother) that is capable of developing into an adult human. It is in fact a separate human being, although developing inside of the mother.

I understand that, hense my earlier point about potential humans. Where we disagree is if it is already a human being at the point of abortion. 

If we are going to argue about how the father has some "right" to "his" genetic code I'd say go for it and send him the fetus, maybe he can sell it to a stemcell clinic. But he doesn't have the right to force a woman to be his incubator for said fetus for 9 months (which is not a painless or easy process), as that's slavery.

[Krill]

Anyone watching the clusterfuck that is British politics at the moment?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...-bad-dream

Fucking Autocorrect: Now we wait for the ECJ ruling on if article 50 is unilaterally revokable.

[ipecac]

Anyone watching the clusterfuck that is British politics at the moment?

Civil war in both big parties