Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

22 ways to be a good democrat


Spaceman Spiff

Recommended Posts

To Be Added To Both Lists:

23. You must believe your party is more important than everything else. And that the other party is the spawn of hell. Common sense and truth be damned. The party must survive.

Quoted for not just truth, but the g**d*** bottom line.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know... the abort unborn babies and keep killers alive things is pretty accurate.

What about strongly supporting the death penalty but being against abortion? That doesn't make sense either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a religious argument at best. Is a cell alive? Hardly. A fetus at conception is hardly more then a cell.

Actually, re-take high school biology, there are many single-cell organisms.

A fertilized egg meets all of the scientific requirements for life (i.e. cellular respiration, cellular reproduction, etc.). Analysis of a fertilized egg's DNA will show it to be human. In addition, this analysis will show that it is indeed NOT a part of the mother, having it's own unique set of DNA. To review: living, human and unique (both from the mother and any other human organism ever to have lived).

The real issue becomes whether our laws should protect all human life or if limits to this protection are acceptable. Viability outside of the mother is the demarkation most often used, but it is essentially an arbitrary choice. The judicial precedent set by legalized abortions is that all human life is not protected: at certain developmental stages, living human organisms do not receive full protection under the law.

The question this raises, however, is what legal rationale remains to bar additional developmental stages from being added to the nonprotected list? Also, are babies born pre-term not protected under the law prior to reaching full-term status? Children that survive abortions are not saved, so would it be murder to kill a premie before it reached full-term?

If scientific definition as a living human organism does not garner protected legal status, what is the threshold? Who decides? Can society decide to treat the end of life similarly, removing protected status to everyone over a certain age or beyond a particular developmental stage?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, re-take high school biology, there are many single-cell organisms.

A fertilized egg meets all of the scientific requirements for life (i.e. cellular respiration, cellular reproduction, etc.). Analysis of a fertilized egg's DNA will show it to be human. In addition, this analysis will show that it is indeed NOT a part of the mother, having it's own unique set of DNA. To review: living, human and unique (both from the mother and any other human organism ever to have lived).

Good points... However, it seems the only criteria you specified for "human" is "having human DNA." That is clearly not sufficient.

If scientific definition as a living human organism does not garner protected legal status, what is the threshold? Who decides? Can society decide to treat the end of life similarly, removing protected status to everyone over a certain age or beyond a particular developmental stage?

I would argue that a "scienfitic definition" can be made in way that would make it all work out, especially if we're talking about first trimester abortions.

For example, the "first firing of a neuron" could be a good candidate for the "living human oragnism" threshold.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Good points... However, it seems the only criteria you specified for "human" is "having human DNA." That is clearly not sufficient.
Perhaps not sufficient for your political purposes, but DNA is the very basis of life and the defining factor in whether or not one is human.
I would argue that a "scienfitic definition" can be made in way that would make it all work out, especially if we're talking about first trimester abortions.
I would counterpoint by stating that a scientific definition should not be "made," rather it should be verified and proven to the extent possible. Manufacturing a definition to meet your political agenda is not science.
For example, the "first firing of a neuron" could be a good candidate for the "living human oragnism" threshold.

First firing of a neuron is much earlier than legal limits currenlty allow and has nothing to do with defining whether or not an organism is human. Dead human oragnisms have no firing neurons, but are still human by definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
:thumbsup:

You know what they say when someone can't take a joke...

You didn't ruffle my feathers. I'm not offended by your list. I just feel it's cliched. I feel the same about your list as I did the conservative list that was started shortly after yours last night: mildly amused and bordering indifference. I'm not trying to step on your toes I just know you're the first person to complain about people talking about the same things over and over again so I was surprised you put this list up. That's all.

Then again, maybe that's the joke and I'm a tool and didn't get it. If that's the case, I give you the right to flog me to death.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You didn't ruffle my feathers. I'm not offended by your list. I just feel it's cliched. I feel the same about your list as I did the conservative list that was started shortly after yours last night: mildly amused and bordering indifference. I'm not trying to step on your toes I just know you're the first person to complain about people talking about the same things over and over again so I was surprised you put this list up. That's all.

Then again, maybe that's the joke and I'm a tool and didn't get it. If that's the case, I give you the right to flog me to death.

What isn't a cliche these days when it comes to making fun of the other side?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps not sufficient for your political purposes, but DNA is the very basis of life and the defining factor in whether or not one is human.

If a cell that contains human DNA can be considered a human, then your body consists of millions of humans.

Having human DNA is a required condition. It is not a sufficient condition.

I would counterpoint by stating that a scientific definition should not be "made," rather it should be verified and proven to the extent possible. Manufacturing a definition to meet your political agenda is not science.

How would one go about scientifically proving a definition of a word?

First firing of a neuron is much earlier than legal limits currenlty allow and has nothing to do with defining whether or not an organism is human. Dead human oragnisms have no firing neurons, but are still human by definition.

We were discussing the issue of legal status. Surely you would have no issue with awarding a different legal status to living humans compared to dead ones...

I do agree that based on a purely scientific viewpoint abortions would probably not be allowed to be performed as late as the current system allows.

However, I think it is important to understand that science cannot possibly provide us with a definitive answer as to what can be considered a living human being, that meaningful science-based discussion of that topic is possible and necessary, and finally that invoking references to "political purposes" is not necessary when such a discussion takes place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

23. Claim you "want to focus on fighting Al Qaeda"- but then retreat from Al Queda in Iraq. Which conveniently, is where Al Qaeda has its CENTRAL FRONT against the West.

Makes perfect sense to a liberal though. Why should we fight Al Qaeda everywhere- EXCEPT for where they are mostly based today?!! Brilliant strategy :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
A fertilized egg meets all of the scientific requirements for life (i.e. cellular respiration, cellular reproduction, etc.). Analysis of a fertilized egg's DNA will show it to be human. In addition, this analysis will show that it is indeed NOT a part of the mother, having it's own unique set of DNA. To review: living, human and unique (both from the mother and any other human organism ever to have lived).

And , as far as I'm aware, a cancerous tumor will meet every one of those qualifications. (At least, I think cancer cells have DNA that's slightly different from the host.)

Every sperm and egg have, IIR, different (in the sense that "half of" is different) DNA from the host.

Should sperm, eggs, and tumors be legally recognized as "human"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
And , as far as I'm aware, a cancerous tumor will meet every one of those qualifications. (At least, I think cancer cells have DNA that's slightly different from the host.)

Every sperm and egg have, IIR, different (in the sense that "half of" is different) DNA from the host.

Should sperm, eggs, and tumors be legally recognized as "human"?

I don't know enough about cancerous cells to answer your question, but I'm curious. Eggs and sperm only have half the needed chromosomes, they're clearly part of the parent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...