Author Topic: Freakonomics (Read 1661 times)

midnight Target · « **Reply #75 on:** May 04, 2005, 08:26:25 AM »

Probably the most hypocritical thing about the less-government-conservative movement is their wish to have the government define a philosophical argument .... when does life begin.

Incredible.

lazs2 · « **Reply #76 on:** May 04, 2005, 09:02:16 AM »

perhaps you or your wife is correct there MT except for the fact that... Most conservatives feel that about the only thing government should do is protect individual life and liberty.

If the fetus is indeed a human being and not a lump of crap.... then.. conservatives have a right to protect it.

lazs

T0J0 · « **Reply #77 on:** May 04, 2005, 09:24:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Probably the most hypocritical thing about the less-government-conservative movement is their wish to have the government define a philosophical argument .... when does life begin.

Incredible.

Ewwweee MT used an adjective, everyone take notice of his skills!

lazs2 · « **Reply #78 on:** May 04, 2005, 09:26:47 AM »

his wife wrote it.

lazs

midnight Target · « **Reply #79 on:** May 04, 2005, 10:33:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by T0J0
Ewwweee MT used an adjective, everyone take notice of his skills!

Thanks, but I've had my fill of cheerleaders... maybe Ripsnort could use your support.

Seagoon · « **Reply #80 on:** May 04, 2005, 10:38:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Probably the most hypocritical thing about the less-government-conservative movement is their wish to have the government define a philosophical argument .... when does life begin.

Incredible.

MT,

Actually, that argument is pretty much over, everyone except the most staunch abortion advocates (who have difficulty using the word "life" at all) would grant that life begins at conception, but the argument is over whether this "conceptus" is a person or whether this life can be legally protected. After all, cattle are also alive but we can legally kill and eat them. PETA, of course, regards this as murder, but this only goes to illustrate an earlier point namely that when it comes to making ethical decisions of enormous importance, for instance:

What is a person?
Which human lives may we take and under what circumstances?

Biology alone is incapable of answering these questions, it is incapable of answering why killing your 1 year old is murder, teenagers murdering their newborn are often excused, and killing an infant in the womb is a legally protected right. For instance the statement "Killing a baby is an immoral act", cannot find a basis in biology. Where in human biology do we find a basis for the terms moral and immoral, right or wrong? How does science provide us with any means of defining these terms? For instance, the biologist would laugh at the idea of a crocodile who ate a child being called "immoral" or "evil," but somehow, the same biologist would "know" it would be immoral if he did it.

At the moment all we have are competing interest groups and arbitrary or utilitarian decisions like: "A Mother may opt to kill her child, as long as a portion of the head is still in the birth canal, even if that child would be otherwise viable." But when it pops out, we make an arbitrary decision that to kill that child is now "murder." All of this parsing, and the fact that definitions can change overnight by legal fiat has a coarsening effect over time and means that respect for human life overall sinks ever lower.

- SEAGOON

lazs2 · « **Reply #81 on:** May 04, 2005, 02:38:14 PM »

well said seagoon.

I am very leary of the cheapening of human life. especialy for convienece sake. abortion and assisted suicide... both seem to cheapen.

on the other end... I think that the death penalty shows how much we revere the innocent life and how much of a dim view we take of people who would take it away for their convienence or gain.

killing in war sets the moral tone that it is ok to kill others if they are trying to kill you.

executing a murderer sets a moral tone that we will not tollerate people taking others lives into their own hands... the most extreme penalty will be paid..

Abortion and assisted suicide take the moral tone that.... it is allright to kill a human being if they are in the way.

lazs

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #82 on:** May 04, 2005, 02:46:27 PM »

Holden actually babies are parasitic literally. They consume the mothers nutrients and strip the mothers bones for calcium.

I believe that while an abortion is always tragic sometimes it's a better option. The parents life could be destroyed, on some cases both the childs and the parents.

If the parent is not able or willing to support the child its crazy to force her into keeping the child. Is it better to find dead babies in the junk then? What about crack addicted newborn with aids from birth?

The sad reality is that if you force a messed up person to deliver you either use the societys money to support the poor orphan and pray it'll survive without becoming a sociopath - or put the child into grave danger in the hands of the messed up parent.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #83 on:** May 04, 2005, 02:49:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
it is allright to kill a human being if they are in the way.

Stand between a buffet of ribs and SOB, you're life will be forcefully aborted by a semi-truck full of pain and drool.
-SW

lazs2 · « **Reply #84 on:** May 05, 2005, 09:08:01 AM »

I have eaten with SOB and even I was smart enough to stay out of arms reach... not so for the unfortunate mother who brought her toddler too close...

siaf.... babies aren't parasites by defenition... the babie is part of the mother and geneticaly half her.. not a seperate organism... you would have to define a breat feeding infant as a parasite in order to make the connection or... a cancer.. they are not really "parasites".

lazs