comment listing type:
Top New Books Videos by Vote
Subscribe
Top 15 Sifters of All Time
Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week
VideoSift Links
comment listing type: Top New Books Videos by Vote Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week VideoSift Links |
SNL: Palin/Biden Debate sketch
Palin Explains Why Raped Women Should Be Forced ToBear child
We never should've given women the vote.
Representative governments have the benefit of preventing bloody wars of succession and, if you keep an eye on the past 500 years of history, almost always producing better policies than autocracies. If the 19th amendment were rejected, and subsequent attempts were rejected, there might have been a war over women's suffrage. That is why, as a selfish man, it is in your interest to support the 19th amendment. Also, if you ever want to get laid...
Palin Explains Why Raped Women Should Be Forced ToBear child
If the mother didn't want to have a child, chances are that she wouldn't take care of the child as well as someone who wanted to have a child, so children in general are better off if parents in general are allowed to abort.
The Beethoven fallacy applies equally well to arguing against abstinence (who knows what genius you might have created if you hadn't abstained from sex!), so it shouldn't be taken seriously.
A rational determination whether legalized early-abortion is moral should weigh the harm of early-abortion itself (zero except the placebo effect) against the benefits (freedom of women, less suffering of destitute unwanted children) and the harms of the opposite legislation (delayed abortions, back-alley coathanger abortions, more babies than we need, penalties against doctors and women) against the benefits of the opposite legislation (none, unless there's a shortage of babies).
So you thought your hands were clean? (Blog Entry by Doc_M)
Pick a damn magazine!
Palin Explains Why Raped Women Should Be Forced ToBear child
Murder is immoral. Murder is also against the law. There's a connection.
Lying (for fraud) and stealing are also against the law, and also generally immoral. There's a connection.
Although I agree with your premise of the law giving people as much personal freedom as possible without infringing on the rights of others, here's the rub: the "not infringing on the rights of others" part is the whole of morality. That's why it bugs the hell out of me when people say "you can't legislate morality". Every good law is based on morality, promoting the general welfare, or a practical expedient to the enforcement of other good laws (such as taxes necessary to pay the cops and feed the poor).
in the old testament,if a woman was accused and found guilty of adultery she was "to be brought into the streets and stoned to death"...but if you let the government legislate morality,we risk fascism,or worse
Leviticus is not morality.
lying and stealing, even masturbation.
A prerequisite for calling an action immoral should be that it has a victim. There's no victim of masturbation. Masturbation is not even a moral issue.
Palin Explains Why Raped Women Should Be Forced ToBear child
>> ^jwray:
Life doesn't start at conception, it's a continuous process that started 3 billion years ago. Only sentient life forms have the moral status of persons. A fertilized egg is not sentient.
This is by far the best argument I've heard for the moral grounds for abortion (and also extends to stem cell research). It may be what chilaxe was trying to say but I just couldn't understand the way he was saying it. "Sentient" in animal rights is defined as "capable of suffering" and I'm guessing that's how you're using it here (correct me if I'm wrong). Such a definition neatly sidesteps the issue of consciousness.
So okay, I'll agree with you on this--a zygote and the subsequent stages of celluar development are not sentient for some time--estimates vary from the 13th to the 24th week of pregnancy.
I'm not so sure sentience is a pre-requisite for humanity, though. I pointed out above the case of someone in a coma. chilaxe's counter to that was that we believe "their feelings are there in some manner." But those in a deep coma do not respond to pain and will not remember any pain should they eventually wake up. Hence no suffering. Have they therefore lost their humanity? Are they no longer a person?
The answer to both questions is quite clearly no. I'm interested in understanding "why not," because if only sentient life forms have the moral status of persons then a deeply comatose patient should have lost that status by virtue of being beyond suffering. If the argument is that "well, they may wake up and therefore be sentient again" then I would say you have to include developing fetuses as humans because they too may well be sentient someday--if someone doesn't destroy them first.
The difference is that the person in a coma with the possibility of recovery had some desires in the past that ought to be considered, while the fertilized egg never had any desires.
I would argue that a person with severe brain damage, in a persistent vegetative state, with no hope of ever recovering consciousness (such as Terri Schaivo during her 15 minutes of fame) has lost their personhood. If the brain is dead, then they are, for all moral purposes, practically dead.
Palin Explains Why Raped Women Should Be Forced ToBear child
CNN: Palin Has Never Seen Russia From Alaska
Kid Wears Anti Obama Shirt To School
He's pissed off because Obama wants to give terrorists a fair trial. What the frak?
Boy Suspended for Wearing Anti-Obama Shirt
>> ^jwray:
>> ^imstellar28:
^"the line needs to be drawn somewhere"
says the guy drawing the line...
No contradiction there. Troll better next time.
Whats the contradiction?
You posted a snippy reply that was structured like you were trying to point out the JiggaJohnson's self-contradiction where there was no self-contradiction.
>> ^imstellar28:
^"the line needs to be drawn somewhere"
says the guy drawing the line...
Jack Cafferty Loves Sarah Palin, Part II
Obama on nuclear power
Let's have some political variety (Election08 Talk Post)
Republican Won't Call Himself a Republican During Campaign
Income has diminishing returns. The difference between making 2 million a year and making 1 million a year is a very small amount of happiness compared to the difference between making $15K a year and making $30K a year. The poor have a lot to gain from socialism, and 60% income taxes in the top bracket would hardly affect the lifestyles of the super-rich. Market fundamentalists need to take a real economics course that deals with externalities. Not being able to afford healthy food, education, or doctors causes loss of productivity.