StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 02:37 PM) That's garbage. We define life on other planets, yet we can't define it for our own species? We have rough categories of "life" and "non-life" and break things down further from there. All of these categories are man-made and really just convenient ways for us to classify things for our own understanding. We're drawing a map with definitions, not defining the terrain. Saying that a zygote is "life" is one thing, though I don't know if that's even a consensus view. But that isn't the only thing meant by "life begins at conception" rhetoric in the abortion discussion. That phrase carries a much more significant moral argument that human life worthy of moral protections and considerations begins at conception. There isn't a scientific question there. There's no hypothesis to test.

Time for the GOP to rethink abortion politics I thought this was insightful.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 02:35 PM) Because of the whole abortion debate, most everyone is afraid to step into everything before birth. Except for those people that passed dozens of bills around the country restricting abortions in the past two years. They were okay with stepping into it.

Specist! Identical twins have different DNA, it's just really, really, really close.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 02:01 PM) I find that statement very troubling simply due to the fact that it is impossible for every sperm, or even any reasonable percentage of them, to ever be united with an egg. IIRC something like 50% of impregnated eggs are naturally aborted by the body without the woman ever even knowing. That scientific knowledge leads me to the moral judgement that "life," meaning human life worthy of moral consideration, does not begin at conception but at some later stage.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 01:53 PM) Scientists will tell you that a zygote is a life form. Perhaps*, but that's a substantially different statement from the political/moral argument that underlays "life begins at conception" and assigning moral weight to a zygote. *http://en.allexperts.com/q/Biology-664/species-membership.htm

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 01:52 PM) The difference between a liver/spleen and a fingernail/eyelash is not a moral judgment. It's a matter of whether or not a human being needs those to live. A fetus at 8-10 weeks is lacking many, many things that a human being needs to live. Like the ability to process gas exchange in the lungs. Or anything close to resembling an actual human brain.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 01:48 PM) Vital organs. I'm not talking about fingernails and eyelashes and bulls*** like that. That's my point. What constitutes the "full set of human characteristics" is itself a moral judgement.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 01:44 PM) Well, scientists will tell you that it is a life immediately upon conception. The question you are getting at is when that life has developed into a human being. Even as a single fertilized cell, a human zygote is more complex than billions of life forms on the planet, but of course those life forms don't get the kinds of protections that we give human beings. Scientists speaking as scientists and not on their own personal, moral beliefs will not tell you that "life begins at conception" with the moral weight that is behind that pro-life argument.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 01:41 PM) Beating heart and active brain waves occur at nearly the same time, and both very early in pregnancy. Other than actually being born, any significant physical marker that someone might use to make such a moral judgment happens very, very early in the process, often before or very shortly after a woman even discovers she is pregnant. I would morally judge that this is not a human being, not a person deserving full rights and veto power over a woman's decision on what to do with her own body. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/ch...ed=all&_r=0

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 01:36 PM) I'm not flipping anything, you're not reading all of what I'm saying, and I've said it several times. At conception, the zygote has a full set of chromosomes and is therefore a life form as opposed to sperm and eggs which are not life forms. In the 8-10 week range, the zygote has become a fetus with a full set of human characteristics and is therefore a human life form. If this is what you are saying, then yes I agree with you. What is a "full set of human characteristics?" There is quite a bit undeveloped and unformed at 8-10 weeks.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 01:31 PM) How is becoming a human being a moral issue? A human being is a biological creature with a well-defined physical development. Other than physical development, what makes somebody a human being? Physical development is a continuum of biological processes. What is or isn't a human being is a moral question, not a scientific one. Scientific knowledge can help form that opinion, but scientific findings cannot actually say "this is a human being, this isn't." People must make moral judgements as to what constitutes a human and use medical knowledge to gauge that. Some may say it's a beating heart, others may say it's an active brain with brain waves. The difference between those two measures isn't a scientific question.

"The science" does not and cannot make moral statements on when something becomes a human being.

I'm gonna guess that women are smart enough to make this decision regarding their body and their reproductive organs without a bunch of guys telling them what they can or can't do.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/201...omney_loss.html

No abortions for anyone!

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 12:31 PM) we already knew about Hilary Geithner should have been gone years ago.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 11:43 AM) The reactions to the election from the far-right, such as the Tea Party groups and Christian Coalition hardliners, are hilarious. They actually think Romney lost because he wasn't conservative enough. Complete denial of reality. It is almost sad to watch. I can fully understand people's policy positions, even if they are further right than mine (by a little or a lot). But at some point, if the GOP wants to make changes, they need to deal with the obvious schism occurring in their party. They need to deal with the fact that the Tea Party types - who initially started as libertarian-like but quickly became just extra-angry right wingers - is falling back from being a party base to being an interest group. They can't have that be their platform keys anymore. Conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.

Las Vegas business owner fires 22 ‘mostly Hispanic’ employees over Obama win Job Creators!

Who gives any s*** at all who the "favorites" are for 2016? Remember how wrong all of those predictions were in 2004 for 2008? In 2008 for 2012 (Sarah Palin was considered the frontrunner. Palin!)

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 06:59 AM) Interesting to note that after the Presidential race, the most money spent by Democratic/liberal PACs was on an Indiana Senate candidate who is very pro-life. I wonder if all those donors knew how much of their money was going to a pro-life guy? I'm sure they knew and that it was simply "any Democrat is better than Mourdock" as well as being aware that you're not going to be able to get a progressive Senator from Indiana.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 06:48 AM) Abortion isn't about what happens in your bedroom. As long as it remains legal anyway.