Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Who said anything about Death Panels?

Can I be on a death panel? I promise I'll always wear all white. I'll just calmly sit and pet a wiener dog and say cryptic things like "Eiger Sanction" a lot.

Grey Templar wrote:They can regulate harmful drugs and criminal activity, as we the people have decided to define them. They can't criminalize something the Constitution explicitly allows, but they can strip the Constitutional rights of criminals.

Do you even think about what you say sometimes?

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
And you whole "man is an island" bit? It's actually quite childish. And I don't mean that as an insult; I mean that in terms of psychological development. It's an earlier stage that honestly considered things so black & white as that, more akin to the mindsets of adolescents than adults.

Damn. I was hoping your amateur psychological evaluation would be more favorable. Can't win 'em all.

It's not my evaluation; it's actually drawn from Piaget. And I can assure you, he was about as professional as you can get in developmental psychology. Anyway, the standard Libertarian rhetoric is firmly rooted in the concrete operational stage of cognitive development; wherein there is a lack of a longview and only that which is concrete (such as immediate circumstances) can be considered, and the ability to work out problems in an abstract sense eludes them (such as failing to recognize the relationship between crime and poverty, or not understanding that an increase in social welfare programs costs less money than does a reactionary criminal justice system).

 whembly wrote:

That was a 'socialist' body of the government 'interfering' with a parent disciplining a child, and it was absolutely the right thing to do. You can talk about where to draw the line, that can be a subject all of it's own for long conversation, but I think we can both agree there does need to be a line where the state does step in. I have seen what some 'creatures' did behind closed doors and it left me absolutely clear on it.

I absolutely agree with you there.

It's like a pendulum... which way do we want it to swing. that is the discussion... right? For Full Blown Libertarins... it doesn't work on a large scale (ie, like all out capitalism or all out socialism).

I was listening to a Penn Jillette talk the other day, he gave an example of the 'deep south', with the example raised that a born again judge, born again jury, born again lawyers and a born again accused in the stand. The accused is a woman who thinks that God instructed her to kill her child, there is biblical example of this instruction and yet, there is no clause in the law that says 'God made me do it', there is either 'guilty, innocent or guilty on reason of insanity'.

This is because it's a wider nation that just the deep south born again community in that instance. Them being allowed to legislate on that small scale, as you mentioned, would bring about several tiny religious theocracies, ones that would stifle the freedoms of those not in their faith.

They would, according to both Jillette and me, remove freedoms, not empower individuals. So, you can make the town self ruling and before you know it, you're stuck in a supermarket, the mist is rolling in and suddenly too many people around you are listening to an angry and shrewish woman who's 'in touch with god' apparently...

Sure, when I become the Dictator of the US you can be on my Death Panels. But they won't have anything to do with the health of the people in question.

I'll even throw in the job of head executioner as a bonus.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, and that is exactly why we can't allow Abortions. You can't be sure where the line is, better to play it safe instead of just saying screw the consequences.

No, like I said, the uncertainty about the line doesn't matter. Unless you blatantly ignore science and declare "my religion said so" as your only justification there is near-certainty that the line is much later in development than the overwhelming majority of abortions (especially once you ignore out late-term abortions done because of serious medical problems and only consider voluntary ones). It doesn't matter if, say, there's uncertainty about whether higher brain functions and "personhood" occur at 30 weeks or 33 weeks when you're talking about abortions happening at 20 weeks.

And please don't ignore the life support analogy. We don't say "it's better to play it safe" and make ending life support murder, we accept that the near-certainty that brain function has ceased is enough and allow life support to end. You can't have a consistent standard for "personhood" that makes abortion murder but allows the ending of life support for brain-dead people.

And thats no detectable higher brain functions. We can't detect all actions the brain can take. Especially on something that small.

Among the experts on biology and human development there is no disagreement that there is no higher-level brain function. The idea that the fetus has magic undetectable brain function has about the same credibility as the flat earth theory.

And again, the life support analogy applies: we don't say "we can't be sure there aren't undetectable brain functions" when we're talking about ending life support for someone whose brain has apparently ceased to function, so why should we do the same for a fetus with an equal lack of detectable brain function?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:They can regulate harmful drugs and criminal activity, as we the people have decided to define them. They can't criminalize something the Constitution explicitly allows, but they can strip the Constitutional rights of criminals.

Do you even think about what you say sometimes?

Yes, do you need some translation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, and that is exactly why we can't allow Abortions. You can't be sure where the line is, better to play it safe instead of just saying screw the consequences.

No, like I said, the uncertainty about the line doesn't matter. Unless you blatantly ignore science and declare "my religion said so" as your only justification there is near-certainty that the line is much later in development than the overwhelming majority of abortions (especially once you ignore out late-term abortions done because of serious medical problems and only consider voluntary ones). It doesn't matter if, say, there's uncertainty about whether higher brain functions and "personhood" occur at 30 weeks or 33 weeks when you're talking about abortions happening at 20 weeks.

And please don't ignore the life support analogy. We don't say "it's better to play it safe" and make ending life support murder, we accept that the near-certainty that brain function has ceased is enough and allow life support to end. You can't have a consistent standard for "personhood" that makes abortion murder but allows the ending of life support for brain-dead people.

And thats no detectable higher brain functions. We can't detect all actions the brain can take. Especially on something that small.

Among the experts on biology and human development there is no disagreement that there is no higher-level brain function. The idea that the fetus has magic undetectable brain function has about the same credibility as the flat earth theory.

And again, the life support analogy applies: we don't say "we can't be sure there aren't undetectable brain functions" when we're talking about ending life support for someone whose brain has apparently ceased to function, so why should we do the same for a fetus with an equal lack of detectable brain function?

Whatever, if it makes you feel better. Keep on thinking its ok to kill unborn children.

Anyway, the point here is that your "libertarian" position on abortion is hypocrisy: you claim to be against government interference, but you're happy to have lots of government interference in abortion. That's not a consistent minimal-government ideology, that's just a desire to have government regulate only the things you disagree with.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

That was a 'socialist' body of the government 'interfering' with a parent disciplining a child, and it was absolutely the right thing to do. You can talk about where to draw the line, that can be a subject all of it's own for long conversation, but I think we can both agree there does need to be a line where the state does step in. I have seen what some 'creatures' did behind closed doors and it left me absolutely clear on it.

I absolutely agree with you there.

It's like a pendulum... which way do we want it to swing. that is the discussion... right? For Full Blown Libertarins... it doesn't work on a large scale (ie, like all out capitalism or all out socialism).

I was listening to a Penn Jillette talk the other day, he gave an example of the 'deep south', with the example raised that a born again judge, born again jury, born again lawyers and a born again accused in the stand. The accused is a woman who thinks that God instructed her to kill her child, there is biblical example of this instruction and yet, there is no clause in the law that says 'God made me do it', there is either 'guilty, innocent or guilty on reason of insanity'.

This is because it's a wider nation that just the deep south born again community in that instance. Them being allowed to legislate on that small scale, as you mentioned, would bring about several tiny religious theocracies, ones that would stifle the freedoms of those not in their faith.

They would, according to both Jillette and me, remove freedoms, not empower individuals. So, you can make the town self ruling and before you know it, you're stuck in a supermarket, the mist is rolling in and suddenly too many people around you are listening to an angry and shrewish woman who's 'in touch with god' apparently...

What the hell did you just say???

 Peregrine wrote:
Anyway, the point here is that your "libertarian" position on abortion is hypocrisy: you claim to be against government interference, but you're happy to have lots of government interference in abortion. That's not a consistent minimal-government ideology, that's just a desire to have government regulate only the things you disagree with.

I am not Libertarian.

Keep on thinking that it's okay for adults to die that didn't bootstrap hard enough.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, when I become the Dictator of the US you can be on my Death Panels. But they won't have anything to do with the health of the people in question.

I'll even throw in the job of head executioner as a bonus.

Can I write down "ax sharpening" as a business expense?

 d-usa wrote:
Keep on thinking that it's okay for adults to die that didn't bootstrap hard enough.

At least they had a chance at life, unlike babies that get aborted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, when I become the Dictator of the US you can be on my Death Panels. But they won't have anything to do with the health of the people in question.

I'll even throw in the job of head executioner as a bonus.

Can I write down "ax sharpening" as a business expense?

yeah, but surely you'd prefer death by wiener dog?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Whatever, if it makes you feel better. Keep on thinking its ok to kill unborn children.

Oh good. I'm glad you've decided to just ignore your different standards for what is and isn't murder and dodge the question with an accusation of "killing unborn children". I just love it when my debate opponents demolish their own credibility so efficiently.

PS: did you know that the whole "life begins at conception" thing, along with opposition to abortion, is a relatively recent invention and done entirely for political reasons?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Keep on thinking that it's okay for adults to die that didn't bootstrap hard enough.

At least they had a chance at life, unlike babies that get aborted.

At what age should state-funded welfare stop for children?

 Peregrine wrote:
Anyway, the point here is that your "libertarian" position on abortion is hypocrisy: you claim to be against government interference, but you're happy to have lots of government interference in abortion. That's not a consistent minimal-government ideology, that's just a desire to have government regulate only the things you disagree with.

I'm a libertarian and I'm just fine with abortions for everyone. As long as you have the capcity for consent, go to town. Throw a party. Just stay the hell of my lawn.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Whatever, if it makes you feel better. Keep on thinking its ok to kill unborn children.

Oh good. I'm glad you've decided to just ignore your different standards for what is and isn't murder and dodge the question with an accusation of "killing unborn children". I just love it when my debate opponents demolish their own credibility so efficiently.

PS: did you know that the whole "life begins at conception" thing, along with opposition to abortion, is a relatively recent invention and done entirely for political reasons?

So? I honestly do belive life begins at conception.

So what if it was originally done for political reasons? Everything elected officials do is for political reasons.

 Grey Templar wrote:
At least they had a chance at life, unlike babies that get aborted.

So let me get this straight:

Allowing an adult with fully-developed consciousness/feelings/personality/etc is acceptable because they had a chance at life and just failed.

Allowing a fetus with the brain function of a cockroach to die is murder.

At least you're honest about being in favor of social darwinism.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Whatever, if it makes you feel better. Keep on thinking its ok to kill unborn children.

Oh good. I'm glad you've decided to just ignore your different standards for what is and isn't murder and dodge the question with an accusation of "killing unborn children". I just love it when my debate opponents demolish their own credibility so efficiently.

PS: did you know that the whole "life begins at conception" thing, along with opposition to abortion, is a relatively recent invention and done entirely for political reasons?

Its actually when life is viable. Science will make viability at conception in a few short years. Then you're going to have a problem under Roe v. Wade.

 d-usa wrote:
Keep on thinking that it's okay for adults to die that didn't bootstrap hard enough.

Would you be okay with death panel decision then, via Universal healthcare?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, your children are your own. But you are not allowed to commit murder for any reason. Thus Abortion shouldn't be legal.

If abortion is legal it's not murder, as murder is the unlawful killing of another person.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
At least they had a chance at life, unlike babies that get aborted.

So let me get this straight:

Allowing an adult with fully-developed consciousness/feelings/personality/etc is acceptable because they had a chance at life and just failed.

Allowing a fetus with the brain function of a cockroach to die is murder.

At least you're honest about being in favor of social darwinism.

No, I'm against killing a person in a coma too. But I would prefer that to killing an unborn child, if I had to make the choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, your children are your own. But you are not allowed to commit murder for any reason. Thus Abortion shouldn't be legal.

If abortion is legal it's not murder, as murder is the unlawful killing of another person.

Which is why I will always vote to make it illegal and support that trying to make it so.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
At least they had a chance at life, unlike babies that get aborted.

So let me get this straight:

Allowing an adult with fully-developed consciousness/feelings/personality/etc is acceptable because they had a chance at life and just failed.

Allowing a fetus with the brain function of a cockroach to die is murder.

At least you're honest about being in favor of social darwinism.

I'm gonna drop this here, the RUN.
http://bloodmoneyfilm.com/

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Keep on thinking that it's okay for adults to die that didn't bootstrap hard enough.

Would you be okay with death panel decision then, via Universal healthcare?

Democracy is key, let the people vote on death panel cases each month

Or show me a list of countries that manage to provide universal or socialized healthcare with death panels


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
At least they had a chance at life, unlike babies that get aborted.

So let me get this straight:

Allowing an adult with fully-developed consciousness/feelings/personality/etc is acceptable because they had a chance at life and just failed.

Allowing a fetus with the brain function of a cockroach to die is murder.

At least you're honest about being in favor of social darwinism.

No, I'm against killing a person in a coma too. But I would prefer that to killing an unborn child, if I had to make the choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, your children are your own. But you are not allowed to commit murder for any reason. Thus Abortion shouldn't be legal.

If abortion is legal it's not murder, as murder is the unlawful killing of another person.

Which is why I will always vote to make it illegal and support that trying to make it so.

But at what age has a child had enough of an opportunity to bootstrap to cut off welfare and let them die?

I want an ax now.

Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, because I'm selfish and will do whats best for me in that moment.

And there's a difference between the government providing healthcare and the government forcing you to get healthcare. I wouldn't mind an optional government healthcare plan if I'm not going to be forced to buy it, or even being forced to get a private healthcare plan.

So, you do what's best for you but wish to remove the rights of others to do likewise? If the fertilized egg inside a woman cannot survive beyond the womb, it can be strongly argued that it remains a part of the woman, does the woman not have the personal freedom to have that part of her operated on?

Also, you are not forced to 'buy healthcare' with proper state healthcare, rather it simply becomes a part of the taxes you pay, much like you cannot currently 'opt out' of military protection by the US government, you have no private option, you have to pay for that august socialist construct.

Grey Templar wrote:
Whatever, if it makes you feel better. Keep on thinking its ok to kill unborn children.

What incendiary language. You and everyone else who wishes to make abortion illegal need to accept something, noone on the other side is in favor of abortion, no sane human being is in favor of abortion, we on the other side to you want the process of stopping the course of pregnancy to be legal and regulated, rather than the other option, which is it become illegal and continues along the lines of crackhouse coathanger specials.

Because you won't stop abortion, but you can monitor it and legislate on how early it takes place.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So what if it was originally done for political reasons? Everything elected officials do is for political reasons.

The point is that it wasn't a decision made because there was any evidence that a fetus is a "person", or even the sacred truth as revealed in religious texts/traditions. There was no mass support for banning abortion and demands for elected officials to adopt that ban as a policy. It was nothing more than a pragmatic decision by conservative religious leaders to create an issue "unify" the religious right around for political gain. If it hadn't been politically convenient to adopt that ideology those exact same leaders would have no problem with abortion.

What we're talking about is the equivalent of some politician deciding that the flat-earth-supporter vote is what they need to win the next election, declaring that "the earth is flat" is the sacred word of god, and winning as a result. And now mere decades later the politician's entire party has forgotten that flat-earthism was nothing more than a pragmatic political decision and genuinely thinks that it's the actual truth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, I'm against killing a person in a coma too. But I would prefer that to killing an unborn child, if I had to make the choice.

I didn't say someone in a coma (which is a temporary pause in brain function with indisputable evidence that it can end and normal life can continue), I said someone whose brain is gone. If you feel that abortion is murder then you must also support first-degree murder charges for anyone who unplugs life support from someone whose brain function has permanently ceased.

Sure, yes I oppose that.

Depending on if the person's brain is indeed completely destroyed. If it is gone(as in huge chunks are missing or otherwise physically destroyed) then its just a body.

What are you defining as "gone"?

There is a difference between a unborn baby(which is a functioning living human) and a body with a brain that doesn't exist anymore and is simply using an artificial heart and/or lung to keep the rest of the body from decay.

 Frazzled wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

That was a 'socialist' body of the government 'interfering' with a parent disciplining a child, and it was absolutely the right thing to do. You can talk about where to draw the line, that can be a subject all of it's own for long conversation, but I think we can both agree there does need to be a line where the state does step in. I have seen what some 'creatures' did behind closed doors and it left me absolutely clear on it.

I absolutely agree with you there.

It's like a pendulum... which way do we want it to swing. that is the discussion... right? For Full Blown Libertarins... it doesn't work on a large scale (ie, like all out capitalism or all out socialism).

I was listening to a Penn Jillette talk the other day, he gave an example of the 'deep south', with the example raised that a born again judge, born again jury, born again lawyers and a born again accused in the stand. The accused is a woman who thinks that God instructed her to kill her child, there is biblical example of this instruction and yet, there is no clause in the law that says 'God made me do it', there is either 'guilty, innocent or guilty on reason of insanity'.

This is because it's a wider nation that just the deep south born again community in that instance. Them being allowed to legislate on that small scale, as you mentioned, would bring about several tiny religious theocracies, ones that would stifle the freedoms of those not in their faith.

They would, according to both Jillette and me, remove freedoms, not empower individuals. So, you can make the town self ruling and before you know it, you're stuck in a supermarket, the mist is rolling in and suddenly too many people around you are listening to an angry and shrewish woman who's 'in touch with god' apparently...

What the hell did you just say???

Whembly and I think you also, mentioned smaller, more local 'government' vs federal or even state.

I said that when you get to smaller and smaller regions dictating their own laws, you run the risk of becoming the odd one out, the Jew living in a Catholic neighborhood, the homosexual living in a heterosexual apartment block, the Baptist living in a cul de sac of atheists... As a national voice, Baptists can leverage a deal, as two couples living in, say where I am now, where the rest of the church going public is Catholic, they don't get squat in the decision making process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, yes I oppose that.

Depending on if the person's brain is indeed completely destroyed. If it is gone(as in huge chunks are missing or otherwise physically destroyed) then its just a body.

What are you defining as "gone"?

There is a difference between a unborn baby(which is a functioning living human) and a body with a brain that doesn't exist anymore and is simply using an artificial heart and/or lung to keep the rest of the body from decay.

So, you are not a libertarian, you are a social conservative who wishes the government to remove freedom of choice and enforce religious doctrine yes?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Depending on if the person's brain is indeed completely destroyed. If it is gone(as in huge chunks are missing or otherwise physically destroyed) then its just a body.

So then how is a fetus that has an equal absence of brain more than "just a body"?

What are you defining as "gone"?

Medically-defined brain death. Brain function has ceased and can not return (at least given current knowledge/technology).

There is a difference between a unborn baby(which is a functioning living human) and a body with a brain that doesn't exist anymore and is simply using an artificial heart and/or lung to keep the rest of the body from decay.

There is no difference at all. Neither has a functioning brain (at least at a level beyond a cockroach), so if you insist on "being safe" with the fetus because there's a chance there could be undetectable brain function then you must also insist on "being safe" with people who are declared brain dead but might have undetectable brain function. If one is murder so is the other.

Hence why I said I would want to be 100% sure the person is 100% dead and not coming back before pulling the plug.