Obamacare: Eugenics

[PLC1]

Anyone who supports abortion is a proponent of the practice whether they want to admit it or not.

I don't support abortion. I support choice.

I don't support adultery, nor drug abuse, nor any of a number of poor choices that people make. I just don't think that outlawing them is the best response to them.

Individuals make their own choices and live with them. The government has no business making choices that don't impinge on the liberties of others.

And no, a collection of cells that is only visible in a microscope does not qualify as an "other."

Evolution is not science, yet it is taught.

Evolution is the basis for modern biology. It has stood up to 150 years of scientific observation. It has been observed in real time among simple organisms. There are no biological scientists who will support your opinion that evolution is not science.

Creationism is a philosophical concept, unrelated to evolution.

The philosophical/religious concept of creation is compatible with evolution anyway. There is no conflict.

That is the difference between me, and you. I do know.

You only think you know.

Now, science seems to think it knows when life begins in regard to endangered species since it passed a law to prevent the destruction of the unborn there. Yet it does not know when the life of a human begins?

That is an unrelated issue.

Once the egg is fertilized, and the cells begin their division, life has begun.

So you keep saying. You may be correct, but your opinion has not been proven, nor is it likely to ever be proven. Did you follow my link above?

The concept of a human being as a biological organism only, determined solely by DNA, seems to me to be quite at odds with your avowed religious philosophy of creationism. If life is simply a unique DNA, is there a soul involved somewhere?

 

[GenSeneca]

I think we are already forcing society to pay for the health care of individuals.

Is the forced redistribution of wealth libertarian or not? That's what forcing John to pay for Mikes health care is, a forced redistribution of wealth.

That is only one possible scientific viewpoint among many.

That's absurd...

Life might begin at conception.

The life of an individual begins at conception, that life either continues or it dies. Continue to live or die, those are the absolutes that all life must face.

If you accept the premise that a unique DNA makes a human being, then it does begin at conception.

Then argue that we are some species other than human beings at conception... Cite a scientific journal that says we're monkeys, apes, dogs, cats or even pond scum at conception then evolve into humans at some later date.

If you believe that life begins when the heart starts to beat, or when the brain starts to function, when self awareness begins, or when the soul enters the body, then it does not start with conception.

How could the heart or brain even form if the individual were dead at conception?

The point is, none of the above is proven nor provable with current technology.

The only thing that is not currently provable is the talk about the soul or self awareness.

Drawing your own conclusion is one thing, but forcing that conclusion on the rest of society is authoritarianism in its worst form.

So your position on health care is authoritarianism in its worst form?

Are laws against murder authoritarianism? Are laws against murder forcing a morality on society?

 

[PLC1]

Is the forced redistribution of wealth libertarian or not? That's what forcing John to pay for Mikes health care is, a forced redistribution of wealth.


That's absurd...


The life of an individual begins at conception, that life either continues or it dies. Continue to live or die, those are the absolutes that all life must face.


Then argue that we are some species other than human beings at conception... Cite a scientific journal that says we're monkeys, apes, dogs, cats or even pond scum at conception then evolve into humans at some later date.


How could the heart or brain even form if the individual were dead at conception?


The only thing that is not currently provable is the talk about the soul or self awareness.


So your position on health care is authoritarianism in its worst form?

Are laws against murder authoritarianism? Are laws against murder forcing a morality on society?

Your position is very logical, in a circular sort of way. Life (undefined) begins at conception, therefore, abortion is murder because life begins at conception. Yet, the question of when life begins remains unanswered, and must remain unanswered until you can define the term "life."

Now, how do you define life? Is it simply the active division of cells? I say that it is more than that. Is it simply a unique DNA? You say it is, i say there is more. I've even conceded that your definition may be the correct one, just that you can't prove that it is. It is a philosophical, not a scientific question, and it is on that question that the determination of when life begins revolves.

A microscopic zygote is no more than a potential human life. A fetus with no brain function is not the same as a self aware adult. Again it is only a potential.

As for the unrelated question about health care, I'll concede that you're more libertarian than me on that issue. Libertarianism must be tempered with practicality, or it won't work.

 

[asur]

Yes, it will not matter what the American people think or approve of.
Many people dislike abortion to start with, but making everyone fund it?

Maybe we can hear a sob story from some democrat senator saying how she couldn't afford her abortion years ago and had to keep her baby. How inhumane it was, etc.

I

 

[PLC1]

Yes, it will not matter what the American people think or approve of.
Many people dislike abortion to start with, but making everyone fund it?

That would be as absurd as funding someone's adultery, drug addiction, or gambling, unless, of course, the procedure is necessary to save the mother's life.

And as absurd as outlawing abortion, drug use, gambling, , or any other individual choice.

 

[GenSeneca]

Now, how do you define life?

Life: Being alive, living, not dead.

I've even conceded that your definition may be the correct one, just that you can't prove that it is.

You can prove that we're dead at conception? That our cells, despite being dead, split, grow and form organs until one day we magically spring to life?

The proof of us being alive at conception is based on the biological fact that no development would take place if we were dead at conception, being dead would preclude the possibility of advancing to other stages of life.

Life either continues or it dies. Life, as a general term, doesn't just start, we do not know when, or where, Life, as a general term, began and the answer to that question is irrelevant to the issue. However, the life of a specific individual does begin at conception.

Zygotes contain DNA derived from both the mother and the father, and this provides all the genetic information necessary to form a new individual.

It is a philosophical, not a scientific question, and it is on that question that the determination of when life begins revolves.

No, you're either alive or you're dead, there's no philosophical element to that reality, no gray area, it's black and white, either-or.

If you want to muddy the waters with philosophical questions, then you should ask when an individual human being becomes a person rather than when life begins (because the question of when life, as a general term, begins is a bogus question).

A microscopic zygote is no more than a potential human life.

So a microscopic equestrian zygote, despite being dead (i.e. not living), is a potential human life?

A fetus with no brain function is not the same as a self aware adult. Again it is only a potential.

Those are different stages of life, not different types of life.

Are they both living (i.e. not dead)?

If tested, would both a human fetus and a human adult be shown to have Human DNA?

All mammals go through the zygote stage of life.

As for the unrelated question about health care, I'll concede that you're more libertarian than me on that issue. Libertarianism must be tempered with practicality, or it won't work.

There is nothing practical about using force to violate individual rights.

 

[GenSeneca]

And as absurd as outlawing abortion, drug use, gambling, , or any other individual choice.

Why don't you include murder as an individual choice? Or rape, or theft, or arson? Abortion is the only item you listed that is a violation of individual rights, drug use and gambling are only a "potential" violation of someones rights but abortion (except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger) requires that an individuals right to life be violated.

 

[Gipper]

Why don't you include murder as an individual choice? Or rape, or theft, or arson? Abortion is the only item you listed that is a violation of individual rights, drug use and gambling are only a "potential" violation of someones rights but abortion (except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger) requires that an individuals right to life be violated.

He/She did include murder.

Abortion is murder.

Murder is now a "personal choice" in the minds of some.

Very sad...

 

[PLC1]

Life: Being alive, living, not dead.


You can prove that we're dead at conception? That our cells, despite being dead, split, grow and form organs until one day we magically spring to life?

The proof of us being alive at conception is based on the biological fact that no development would take place if we were dead at conception, being dead would preclude the possibility of advancing to other stages of life.

Life either continues or it dies. Life, as a general term, doesn't just start, we do not know when, or where, Life, as a general term, began and the answer to that question is irrelevant to the issue. However, the life of a specific individual does begin at conception.

Zygotes contain DNA derived from both the mother and the father, and this provides all the genetic information necessary to form a new individual.


No, you're either alive or you're dead, there's no philosophical element to that reality, no gray area, it's black and white, either-or.

OK, so now we know your definition of life is simply a biological/physiological one. I suspected so.

Such a definition does a good job of defining life for plants and the lower animals, I have to admit. Human life, however seems to me to have another element.

If you want to muddy the waters with philosophical questions, then you should ask when an individual human being becomes a person rather than when life begins (because the question of when life, as a general term, begins is a bogus question).

Now, we're getting to the meat of the subject. When does an individual human life begin? Is it when the body begins to be biologically alive, i.e.,not dead, as in your definition, or does it take something else to make a human life? If a life doesn't have human mind, is it still a human life? some would say yes, but it is far from a resolved issue.

So a microscopic equestrian zygote, despite being dead (i.e. not living), is a potential human life?

A microscopic equestrian zygote? An equestrian means someone riding a horse. Did you mean an equine? An equine zygote is not dead, but is a potential horse. I'm sorry, but i don't understand that question at all.

Those are different stages of life, not different types of life.

Are they both living (i.e. not dead)?

If tested, would both a human fetus and a human adult be shown to have Human DNA?

Certainly, but a human fetus, at least an early one would not show evidence of human brain activity. There is no thought, no awareness, no human life in that sense, not yet. It is still a potential.

All mammals go through the zygote stage of life.

Yes, of course. So, an equine zygote is a potential horse, a canine zygote is a potential dog, etc.

There is nothing practical about using force to violate individual rights.

There is nothing practical in your philosophy of every man for himself, either.

Do you wonder why it has never been tried?

 

[PLC1]

He/She did include murder.

Abortion is murder.

Murder is now a "personal choice" in the minds of some.

Very sad...

I'm a he, and I did not include murder.

Your syllogism is as follows:

Abortion is murder,
PLC1 does not want to outlaw abortion,
Therefore, I'm wanting to keep murder legal.

That only works if you agree that abortion is murder, and that hinges on the concept that life is physiological/biological only, as in Genseneca's definition of "not dead."

Sorry, but there is more to a human being that dividing cells and DNA.

 

[GenSeneca]

OK, so now we know your definition of life is simply a biological/physiological one.

That's correct, not a religious one as you suggested.

What then is the basis of your definition? Theology? Philosophy? Tautology?

When does an individual human life begin?

At conception.

Is it when the body begins to be biologically alive, i.e.,not dead, as in your definition,

Yes, that is the only provable scientific definition.

or does it take something else to make a human life?

Nope. Any of the "something else" you could suggest would not change the fact that the "something else" must be built on what is already a human life.

If a life doesn't have human mind, is it still a human life? some would say yes, but it is far from a resolved issue.

What life? Plant life, Animal life or a Human life? Can a human mind come from something other than a human life?

An equine zygote is not dead, but is a potential horse. I'm sorry, but i don't understand that question at all.

I was trying to point out that you say "life" or "zygote", as being potential human life and leave of the human part.

Certainly, but a human fetus, at least an early one would not show evidence of human brain activity. There is no thought, no awareness, no human life in that sense, not yet.

Can any of those things be proven to exist in a human that has no life, i.e., is dead?

There is nothing practical in your philosophy of every man for himself, either.

Are you admitting that your philosophy is not practical? Is that why you have done like so many others and chosen to attack my philosohpy rather than defend your own?

I cannot legally violate your rights and you cannot legally violate mine, that is not a philosophy of every man for himself. Every man is free to choose his association, to help another individual or not, to be charitable or not, to act in his own best interests or against them. It is practical because every man is free to live his life without being subjugated by force to will of another.

Do you wonder why it has never been tried?

Stealing what others have earned is always easier than earining it yourself, and it's far more politically popular. When a politician promises to give Peter the fruits of Pauls labor, he can count on having Peters support. In our two party system, we have two parties that are both promising the unearned and no parties that are willing to stand on principle and protect individual rights.

 

[Hobo1]

This debate will change dramatically when science can completely grow and embryo, fetus, and baby outside of the womb. A willing sperm donor and a willing egg donor is all that will be required.

Secondly, science is quickly developing technologies to keep a human alive virtually forever - that is a cure for every disease or illness. This includes artificially produced bionic organs, limbs, etc.

Combine this with the health care costs associated with this technology, plus the rapidly growing earth's population and you get to the point where, at some point, some human (or group of humans) must dictate what is ethical and necessary. In other words, in the next couple of decades, the developed world will recognize that keeping every human alive, no mater if it is a embryo or some elderly person living on life support, will significantly degrade the quality of life for healthy humans.

Biotech companies and drug companies are racing to achieve this goal of eternal life. At some point, in the relatively near future, society will not be able to both afford and cope with providing "state of the art" health care.

Then, realism and survival will replace philosophy, and religious ethics.

 

[PLC1]

That's correct, not a religious one as you suggested.

What then is the basis of your definition? Theology? Philosophy? Tautology?

At conception.

Yes, that is the only provable scientific definition.


Nope. Any of the "something else" you could suggest would not change the fact that the "something else" must be built on what is already a human life.


What life? Plant life, Animal life or a Human life? Can a human mind come from something other than a human life?

I was trying to point out that you say "life" or "zygote", as being potential human life and leave of the human part.


Can any of those things be proven to exist in a human that has no life, i.e., is dead?


Are you admitting that your philosophy is not practical? Is that why you have done like so many others and chosen to attack my philosohpy rather than defend your own?

I cannot legally violate your rights and you cannot legally violate mine, that is not a philosophy of every man for himself. Every man is free to choose his association, to help another individual or not, to be charitable or not, to act in his own best interests or against them. It is practical because every man is free to live his life without being subjugated by force to will of another.


Stealing what others have earned is always easier than earining it yourself, and it's far more politically popular. When a politician promises to give Peter the fruits of Pauls labor, he can count on having Peters support. In our two party system, we have two parties that are both promising the unearned and no parties that are willing to stand on principle and protect individual rights.

Once again, we're starting to run around in circles. I say that there is more to human life than cell division and human DNA, you say that is all that is required. No, of course, a human mind can not spring from a non human source. Still, a zygote without a human mind is just a potential human being. A mouse zygote is not even a potential human being.

I'd go even further and say that a human body is not a human being at all, but merely a sophisticated machine being occupied by the immortal soul, which is the real human. Human life, in that sense, does not begin at all, nor does it end

How anyone could express a belief in god and an afterlife and not understand that concept escapes me, yet it seems to be the religious among us who agree with your definition of human life and would say that terminating a potential body is the same as murder.


I think I've made my point pretty well, and you have done the same. I'll just leave it up to the readers of this thread to decide whether human life is biological only, or whether there is something more needed. I suspect that issue will not be settled for a very long time, if ever. Meanwhile, you seem to be the one who wants to enshrine your point of view into law and outlaw abortion as murder, while I'm willing to leave the determination up to the individual.

 

[GenSeneca]

I'd go even further and say that a human body is not a human being at all, but merely a sophisticated machine being occupied by the immortal soul, which is the real human. Human life, in that sense, does not begin at all, nor does it end

You were trying to deride my viewpoint on the topic as religious...

It's a good thing we didn't have to prove that blacks had a soul in order to end slavery, or that women had a soul in order for them to have suffrage... For that matter, if it is indeed the presence of a soul that determines whether or not we have rights, how can you scientifically prove that anyone has a soul?

 

[OldTrapper]

Combine this with the health care costs associated with this technology, plus the rapidly growing earth's population and you get to the point where, at some point, some human (or group of humans) must dictate what is ethical and necessary. In other words, in the next couple of decades, the developed world will recognize that keeping every human alive, no mater if it is a embryo or some elderly person living on life support, will significantly degrade the quality of life for healthy humans.

This is probably the strongest argument pro-abortion, or pro-eugenics, people can make in defense of their position, yet, like the others, it has no basis in reality.

First off, the argument assumes that the technology of agriculture will not expand. Nothing is farther from the truth. As an example, in "drought" areas the development of hydroponic farming has not even been approached which would use far less water, and chemicals.

Then too, they ignore the reality that currently there is about 2 billion acres of land previously used for agriculture lying idle. In the US alone there is some 180 million acres of farmland not being used.

Then we have the political consequences such as in the US, and Zimbabwe, that prevent the maximizing of farmland for crop production. If one considers how much food is being used for the production of ethanol (which is proving to be more costly then originally predicted, and more corrosive in engines) one can see how the arrogance, and ignorance, of legislators just gets in the way of human initiative.

e.g. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25383

So, the idea that the world will at any point in time become overpopulated is a farce.