By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Racist history of the Republican Party

Rath on 14 March 2012
Allfreedom99 said:
Rath said:
Allfreedom99 said:
 

I understand what you are trying to say and have me see your position on it. It may not have a concious in the beginning, but it is still human life with human DNA.

If I told you that I got a woman pregnant and said I was going to be the father of a mushroom plant once its born you would say, "you are mentally strange". Thats because you know that the moment I got a woman pregnant it means me and a woman have created a human life through my sperm and her egg. It may not have a concious in the beginning, but it quickly will within weeks and Inevitably will be birthed into the world as human.

All that to say....If its ok to end that human life before it develops a concious then it Must be ok to end that human life once it is more developed in the womb, or after its birthed, or heck when its a young child. Either way human life is being ended. Whether its before it develops a concious or after.

I'm not trying to claim that it is not human life. I'm claiming being human life does not automatically make it a person. When it becomes a person is highly debatable.

@Kasz. It's not scientific. Show me how you can deduce personhood through the scientific method.

defining personhood today is in debate as i see. Even if having a conscious defines a human as a person the human life that is developing in the womb will inevitably develop a conscious. It will inevitably be within the bounds of "personhood". a human life is human life whether its in its first stages in the womb or a 30 year old man. both have human DNA.

So if a fetus in the womb is a human being and will inevitably develop a conscious and be accepted into society as a "person" then what difference does it make if you end that life in the womb or as a 30 year old man?

The potential to have a consciousness in the future is not the same as having a consciousness in the present.

Also human DNA does not make something a person, a dead body also has human DNA.



Around the Network
Allfreedom99 on 15 March 2012
Rath said:
Allfreedom99 said:
Rath said:
Allfreedom99 said:
 

I understand what you are trying to say and have me see your position on it. It may not have a concious in the beginning, but it is still human life with human DNA.

If I told you that I got a woman pregnant and said I was going to be the father of a mushroom plant once its born you would say, "you are mentally strange". Thats because you know that the moment I got a woman pregnant it means me and a woman have created a human life through my sperm and her egg. It may not have a concious in the beginning, but it quickly will within weeks and Inevitably will be birthed into the world as human.

All that to say....If its ok to end that human life before it develops a concious then it Must be ok to end that human life once it is more developed in the womb, or after its birthed, or heck when its a young child. Either way human life is being ended. Whether its before it develops a concious or after.

I'm not trying to claim that it is not human life. I'm claiming being human life does not automatically make it a person. When it becomes a person is highly debatable.

@Kasz. It's not scientific. Show me how you can deduce personhood through the scientific method.

defining personhood today is in debate as i see. Even if having a conscious defines a human as a person the human life that is developing in the womb will inevitably develop a conscious. It will inevitably be within the bounds of "personhood". a human life is human life whether its in its first stages in the womb or a 30 year old man. both have human DNA.

So if a fetus in the womb is a human being and will inevitably develop a conscious and be accepted into society as a "person" then what difference does it make if you end that life in the womb or as a 30 year old man?

The potential to have a consciousness in the future is not the same as having a consciousness in the present.

Also human DNA does not make something a person, a dead body also has human DNA.

I would still consider these as moot points. a dead body is gone. passed from life to death and will decay. a human in the womb consists of living cells developing as a human and a person in order to survive outside of the womb.

If we consider human life outside of the womb as having a right to live then one should also consider human life inside of a womb as having a right to live.

If you would consider me using a gun to blow the brains out of an individual who is unconscious or having no mental awareness right in front of your eyes to be a criminal act or murder then why isnt preventing a human being in the womb of a right to life a criminal act as well in your conscious?




Rath on 15 March 2012
Allfreedom99 said:
Rath said:
Allfreedom99 said:

defining personhood today is in debate as i see. Even if having a conscious defines a human as a person the human life that is developing in the womb will inevitably develop a conscious. It will inevitably be within the bounds of "personhood". a human life is human life whether its in its first stages in the womb or a 30 year old man. both have human DNA.

So if a fetus in the womb is a human being and will inevitably develop a conscious and be accepted into society as a "person" then what difference does it make if you end that life in the womb or as a 30 year old man?

The potential to have a consciousness in the future is not the same as having a consciousness in the present.

Also human DNA does not make something a person, a dead body also has human DNA.

I would still consider these as moot points. a dead body is gone. passed from life to death and will decay. a human in the womb consists of living cells developing as a human and a person in order to survive outside of the womb.

If we consider human life outside of the womb as having a right to live then one should also consider human life inside of a womb as having a right to live.

If you would consider me using a gun to blow the brains out of an individual who is unconscious or having no mental awareness right in front of your eyes to be a criminal act or murder then why isnt preventing a human being in the womb of a right to life a criminal act as well in your conscious?


As I said a person who is comatose has a consciousness, it's just kind of in standby mode.

A fetus does not have a consciousness at all.



Allfreedom99 on 15 March 2012
Rath said:
Allfreedom99 said:
Rath said:
Allfreedom99 said:
 

defining personhood today is in debate as i see. Even if having a conscious defines a human as a person the human life that is developing in the womb will inevitably develop a conscious. It will inevitably be within the bounds of "personhood". a human life is human life whether its in its first stages in the womb or a 30 year old man. both have human DNA.

So if a fetus in the womb is a human being and will inevitably develop a conscious and be accepted into society as a "person" then what difference does it make if you end that life in the womb or as a 30 year old man?

The potential to have a consciousness in the future is not the same as having a consciousness in the present.

Also human DNA does not make something a person, a dead body also has human DNA.

I would still consider these as moot points. a dead body is gone. passed from life to death and will decay. a human in the womb consists of living cells developing as a human and a person in order to survive outside of the womb.

If we consider human life outside of the womb as having a right to live then one should also consider human life inside of a womb as having a right to live.

If you would consider me using a gun to blow the brains out of an individual who is unconscious or having no mental awareness right in front of your eyes to be a criminal act or murder then why isnt preventing a human being in the womb of a right to life a criminal act as well in your conscious?


As I said a person who is comatose has a consciousness, it's just kind of in standby mode.

A fetus does not have a consciousness at all.

still the life in the womb is a human being in development no matter any way you try to look at it. and by terminating that life one is ending a human life. So when it comes to abortion we always hear "oh its up to the mother to have the right to choose."

Its like saying, "since this human being does not yet have a concious and therefore does not have a voice to claim it has a right to live then we can justify killing it."

What real justification is there for ending the life of a human being in the womb? can you name one?




FinalEvangelion on 15 March 2012
venepe said:

About the Republican being all for freedom, it depends on what freedoms you talk about. They are against certain freedoms, especially ones that go against Christian morals. They also tend to favor restricting freedoms in exchange for security.

Now Democrats are also all for freedom but it also depends on which freedoms you talk about. They are against freedom to get rich by any means necessary. And they are against the freedom of people to make bad choices.


Took the words right out of my mouth.  As a left leaning moderate, I can say that both sides are needed.

If we only had conservatives, then we would turn into a theocratic military state where corporations can do anything that harmfully / inderectly effects people (like harming the water supply, less cleanliness standards for food, etc.)

If we only had liberals, then we would probably live in a society where you can't advance at all monetarily, thus limiting motivation to produce quality products and services.

 

Both sides are for big government, just in different areas.  If you look at the pre-amble, conservatives are really about "providing for the common defence and establishing Justice."  They really want shit tons of money funneled into defence contracts and focus a lot on punishing law breakers.  They are very much for expansion of surveillance powers for the sake of national security and intervening in people's personal lives to preserve Christian morality.

 

Liberals favor "providing for the common welfare" more.  They want to make sure that everyone gets access to basic needs such as health care, food, shelter, etc. at the expense of the wealthy people's earnings.



"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."  --Hermann Goering, leading Nazi party member, at the Nuremberg War Crime Trials 

 

Conservatives:  Pushing for a small enough government to be a guest in your living room, or even better - your uterus.

 

Around the Network
Rath on 15 March 2012
Allfreedom99 said:

still the life in the womb is a human being in development no matter any way you try to look at it. and by terminating that life one is ending a human life. So when it comes to abortion we always hear "oh its up to the mother to have the right to choose."

Its like saying, "since this human being does not yet have a concious and therefore does not have a voice to claim it has a right to live then we can justify killing it."

What real justification is there for ending the life of a human being in the womb? can you name one?


There are no convincing arguments that a fetus is a person, therefore there is no convincing reason why women should not be allowed to have abortions.



Mr Puggsly on 15 March 2012
NinjaguyDan said:

The Republicans are the champions of freedom?

The freedom to marry who you want?

The freedom to use a safe, natural substance, either medicinally or recreationally?

The freedom for a woman to make her own reproductive decisions?

 

Or are you trying to feed me some bullshit?

The marriage thing is more of a conservative and religious issue. Its clear that most democrats are opposed to same sex marriage as well. Otherwise it would be legal in more places.

Illegal substances, democrats are generally conservative about this issue.

Believe it or not but there are democrats that are pro life. The reproductive thing is often a religious issue.


Don't be so hard on republicans. Conservatives are the problem to the issues you're mentioning and they're found in both parties.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Mr Puggsly on 15 March 2012
Rath said:
Allfreedom99 said:
 

still the life in the womb is a human being in development no matter any way you try to look at it. and by terminating that life one is ending a human life. So when it comes to abortion we always hear "oh its up to the mother to have the right to choose."

Its like saying, "since this human being does not yet have a concious and therefore does not have a voice to claim it has a right to live then we can justify killing it."

What real justification is there for ending the life of a human being in the womb? can you name one?


There are no convincing arguments that a fetus is a person, therefore there is no convincing reason why women should not be allowed to have abortions.

Well a fetus has a heart beat after just a few weeks so it appears to me an abortion kills something that's alive. Now is it a person... well that seems like a subjective argument.

My gut says abortions are technically murder. However, we don't have a solution to really deal with all these unwanted children. So I'm only pro choice because nobody wants these children.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Jumpin on 15 March 2012
Kasz216 said:
Jumpin said:
I'm about as far left as they come; but seeing the argument "A fetus is essentially a parasite" is biologically incorrect; and the only reason that this argument exists is as a method to attempt to dehumanized a developing fetus), so it seems like it is not immoral to kill it. In reality, a human fetus is genetically a human being, and the womb exists to hold the developing fetus until it is ready for birth. So, if aborting a fetus, you are in fact executing a human being.

This is the question that should be asked; what circumstances makes it ok to grant the execution of developing human being?

Arguments about how abortion prevents crime are philosophically and scientifically unfounded. How is this logically the case? Do you have statistics to support that the aborted children would have been criminals? It could also be argued using the same logic that infanticide would lower crime.

I'd suggest reading freakanomics...


Outside that, all of them would have been criminals?

No.

That a higher percentage of them would be criminals then the average populace?

Yes.

 

 

Although if this is a justification for abortion, then it would also be a justification for infanticide and genocide of locations with high crime rates. 

It's essentially eugenics, something which was universally rejected in the first world a long time ago.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin on 15 March 2012
Rath said:
 

@Jumpin. A brain dead person is also biologically a human being. If all you requires is living cells with a unique set of human DNA then the bar for personhood is set rather low.

The arguement you are making does not target the point I made. My point is that a human fetus is biologically a human being, which is true. I said nothing about groupings of living human cells since that definition can mean anything from a blood sample to an entire population of humans.

This is the problem with the pro-abortion arguments, you completely ignore scientific fact to try to dehumanized those who are biologically human.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.