Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on December 30, 2003, 12:03:26 PM
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20031230/ts_nm/health_ephedra_dc
:rolleyes:
The FDA has reports of 155 deaths of people who took ephedra and more than 16,500 complaints.
"There is no single piece of evidence that stands out," he said.
-
Ephedrine - my bestest friend some days!
Just got back from N.C they got to good stuff thats 25 mg per pill!
and you can buyem by the bottle (60 count)
Here in Mi. its only 15 mg per pill! and you pay the same price but there all blister packed individually ! sucks
But i got six bottles worth the good stuff!
too bad all the people making CRANK out of it ruined it for the rest of us!
-
"Ephedra is an adrenaline-like stimulant that can have potentially dangerous effects on the heart," the FDA said in a statement.
Damn, what about the adrenaline itself!
Just like the tiny minority of people genetically predisposed to suffer ill-effects from abuse of Ephedra in combination with strenuous exercise, some people may - and do - die from over-production of adrenaline.
The government mush outlaw any activity that elevates adernaline levels.
No sports. No action or horror movies. No porn. No scanty, revealing or sugestive closing on women. No laying off people older than 30 and those at risk. No newspaper articles than may inspire controversy. No news reports. No tea or coffee. No sex except for procreational purposes - and that under medical supervision only.
If a single sickly person dies a few years prematurely because we refuse to ruin our economy and install a socialist paternalistic police state - that's one death too many.
Down with consumer's choice. Down with the free market.
miko
-
They (The Government)are just looking out for you, since you are not smart enough to look out for yourself. Government always knows best.
-
I am rather curious miko, how mucy research have you done to assure yourself, and all of us that noone died as a result of ephedra use that didn't abuse the stuff, and didnt fall into a high risk group?
-
Ephedra is dangerous.
Read about it and stop blaming your ignorance on Bush.
-
Hmmm... not really seeing the problem here. The FDA banned a supliment? So?
MiniD
-
miko.. don't worry... if we continue to let women vote they will make sure that we don't do any of those things that might "excite" us.
lazs
-
Makes you wonder when the Fed will start prosecuting tweekers caught using the stuff... sad sad sad...
Seems the manufacturer of this drug didnt know how to play the game.. Not enough greased hands and they are suppose to market the drug directly to doctors and place adds on the TV explaining why you should consult your doctor for better energy/weight loss.... The FDA loves those type drugs..
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Ephedra is dangerous.
Read about it and stop blaming your ignorance on Bush.
An herb that killed .0000005167% of the U.S. population is dangerous?
... and you are the first retard in this thread to mention bush.
-
Originally posted by Furious
An herb that killed .0000005167% of the U.S. population is dangerous?
... and you are the first retard in this thread to mention bush.
Have a gander at the title of the thread, boy wonder.
You can put two and two together, no?
-
Dago: I am rather curious miko, how mucy research have you done to assure yourself, and all of us that noone died as a result of ephedra use that didn't abuse the stuff, and didnt fall into a high risk group?
I do not care at all how many people died as a result of ephedra - as long as nobody forced them to take it, it was their - or their adult parents - responcibility to research what they are putting into their bodies.
Or rather, I do care but I do not agree that the government should make the choices for us.
If you want to issue warnings and place posters everywhere about the dangers of ephedra, or driving above 20 miles per hour, or watching TV, or drinking homogenised milk, or wearing skimpy clothes causing skin cancer - I will donate money to your campaign and maybe march with a poster for a few hours.
If the government jails people selling ephedra to the minors - I will applaude, since the minors are not legally capable of giving informed reasoned consent.
But it is not constitional or legitimate for the government to coercively impose choices this way. The government just does not legitimately posess such powers.
miko
-
An herb that killed .0000005167% of the U.S. population is dangerous?
Statistics might be a little more representative if you compared deaths to users, not deaths to everyone in the country, most of who never used it.
Here is part of the story:
It was the government's first-ever ban on a dietary supplement, one that comes eight years after the Food and Drug Administration (news - web sites) first began receiving reports that ephedra could be dangerous.
Ephedra once was hugely popular for weight loss and body building. But it can cause life-threatening side effects even in seemingly healthy people who use the recommended doses, because the amphetamine-like stimulant speeds heart rate and constricts blood vessels. It is particularly risky for anyone with heart disease or high blood pressure or people engaging in strenuous exercise.
Wolfe petitioned the government for a ban in 2001, when the agency had reports of 81 deaths. That number now is 155; also, FDA has reports of more than 16,000 health complaints from ephedra users.
Sales already have plummeted because of publicity about the herb's dangers, which peaked after the ephedra-related death of Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steve Bechler last February.
I am not particulary in favor of the Government controlling everything about our lives, but sometimes actions must be taken to protect the health of people living in a society.
If anyone on this board had a family member die an ephedra related death, how long would it take before they started yelling "why didn't the government do something about this stuff, why didn't they ban something so dangerous?"
dago
-
Originally posted by miko2d
The government just does not legitimately posess such powers.
Does the government not possess the ability to do anything we allow them to do? By allowing them to ban this drug, have we not given them the consent to do it to other supplement's?
-
Originally posted by Dago
If anyone on this board had a family member die an ephedra related death, how long would it take before they started yelling "why didn't the government do something about this stuff, why didn't they ban something so dangerous?"
dago
Not long. Reading the O'Club for a month, one gets the impression that our government is more of a scapegoat than an adminstrative body.
I used to take it a few years back - really screwed me up; heart pulpitations, eradic heartbeat, near loss of conscienceness during strenuous activity, etc.
I see no problem with the FDA banning the supliment - pound for pound it is probably far more dangerous than tobacco products in terms of directly causing serious health problems and/or death. (this as opposed to counting Joe Smith, tobacco user, dead at age 77 as a 'smoking related death')
Just an anti-adminstration whine, is all.
-
Oh thank you Big Brother FDA for telling me what to put in my body. I mean without the FDA, how did people ever flourish all over the earth?
-
It's not like they banned ribs.
Maybe a few people could come up with a really good number for how many fatalities it should take for the FDA to make something illegal. Or exactly what merrits their attention. Right now, the usual "too much government" types are simply reacting because that's what they were trained to do. I find that funny.
MiniD
-
I mean without the FDA, how did people ever flourish all over the earth?
Today, the average lifespan in the USA is nine years (76) greater than the average for the rest of the world(67). Darned that evil FDA for contributing to this pesky attempt to safeguard health!
Right now, the usual "too much government" types are simply reacting because that's what they were trained to do.
Well said Mini D.
dago
-
The scientific evidence that ephedra is killing and permanently injuring people is overwhelming and conclusive. The only reason this drug is on the market in the first place is because of a legal loophole that allows it to be classified as a supplement.
If the manufacturers want to sell ephedra, then they should have to show that it’s relatively safe and effective, just like any other drug.
-
Munkii: Does the government not possess the ability to do anything we allow them to do? By allowing them to ban this drug, have we not given them the consent to do it to other supplement's?
Posess the ability - yes, based on brute force. Legitimately - no.
Can you give the government such a consent even if you wanted to - no.
You see, the legitimate government derives all of it's powers from it's citizents. The people delegate some of their legitimate powers to the government. (I said legitimate because certainly a thief or a murderer cannot delegate his power to steal or murder to the government and make it legal for government to do so.) With me so far? Good.
Can a prospective citizen delegate a power that he does npot posess to the government? That would be quite a trick. The answer is no. You cannot legitimately delegate a power to the government that you do not legitimetely posess yourself.
So imagine a bunch of free persons in a government-less state-less society considering forming a government.
In such a society you would not have any legitimate power to ban me from consuming ephedra or doing anything else on my property or to my body as long as my actions do not harm your property or person - just like neither you not our government have legitimate power to ban anything to Canadians or Mexicans or any other people not citizens of the same state as you.
So if you did not have such powers before the government was formed, you surely could not delegate them to the government.
miko
-
Dago: Today, the average lifespan in the USA is nine years (76) greater than the average for the rest of the world(67). Darned that evil FDA for contributing to this pesky attempt to safeguard health!
As usually you confuse "despite off" with "because off" - with no basis whatsoever. What was teh life expectancy doing before FDA was formed?
What do you think are the major contributors towards greater life expectancy besides the protection from modern drugs that could be harmfull.
Do you think that before both FDA and modern drug production process were created - say a 100-150 years ago, the life expectancy was maximal?
After all, if there were no new drugs produced for decades, there would have been no benefit from FDA even if it existed.
miko
-
Independent thought is actually mind control. It's just an illiusion, a product of training. Obey, conform, consume, and multiply.
-
Why dont they ban alcohole?
-
er all, if there were no new drugs produced for decades, there would have been no benefit from FDA even if it existed. [
My first impression of this statement : Foolish rhetoric. Drugs will be invented, they will be tested and evaluated, if deemed effective and safe, they will be approved and sold on the market. Failing either of these conditions, they won't be marketed, and personally, I prefer it that way. Any drug developed by a company that is safe and effective that were blocked from reaching the market would quickly come to the medias attention because the drug company would make darned sure of it.
you confuse "despite off" with "because off"
Seems to me you mistake implied contribution with an either/ or situation.
Do you think that before both FDA and modern drug production process were created - say a 100-150 years ago, the life expectancy was maximal?
Obviously not, and I think you are trying to help prove my point, but the fact is life expectancy will never reach a point that can be definitively declared maximal. There will not be an absolute in an area of so many variables.
What do you think are the major contributors towards greater life expectancy besides the protection from modern drugs that could be harmfull.
Better health care and awareness of risk factors added to knowledge of preventive health maintenance. Improving drugs spurred on by constant R&D. Better controls of workplace dangers and toxic exposures.
What do you think are the major contributors?
modern drugs that could be harmfull
A "modern drug" that could be harmful? The development or use of such a drug would seem contrary to the goal, though exceptions ARE noted and excepted when results indicate risk factor is outweighed by final results, (i.e. chemotherapy). It just must be proven that the dangers in selling/using a drug will not in the long run prove more harmful than not using the drug. This is an accepted practice today. (sky is not falling, sky is not falling).
dago
-
Just give them a few years.
-
We'll stick with this government 'till we've had enough, then we'll make a new one.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Why dont they ban alcohole?
They tried once, and saw the largest crime spike, specifically violent crimes, in US history.
-
Why dont they ban tobacco? Over 400,000 deaths per year in the USA are directly caused by tobacco.
Thats over 1000 deaths per day.
Why not? MONEY.
dago
-
Dago: My first impression of this statement : Foolish rhetoric. Drugs will be invented
Because you misquote my statement and attribute to it a wrong meaning.
You said that FDA prolonges our lives by banning harmfull medicines.
So according to you, before there were any medicines worth that name, our life expectancy should have been the greatest.
Sure - the drugs would be invented, the FDA would be able to stop some of them from doing harm but those that slip through would still reduce our life-expectancy compared to the old times.
Because in your post you certainly crdited only FDA - not the drugs themselves, developed by the private companies, not the development of sewage systems separating our ***** from water, not the window screens keeping moskitoes away, not the plentifull food supply - just the FDA. Sulphamides, penicilin, inoculation, pasterisation, basic hyegine like washing hands, running water, refrigeration, airconditioning - those had nothing to do with any government agency and contributed to the life longevity greatly.
FDA did help prevent some dangerous drugs - and there is all reasons to believe that private enerprise would have provided as good a protection.
FDA also prevented usefull drugs from being produced or significantly delayed they use - causing tens of thousands unnecessary deaths.
Insisting that you now the answer whether the total contribution was positive is just ignorant arrogance on your part.
Dago: Over 400,000 deaths per year in the USA are directly caused by tobacco. Why not? MONEY
BS. Caused by people to themselves using tobacco. If the big companies went out of business, people would smoke black market crap.
If course it's money - not the money they make but the money we are willing to pay - and no destruction of businesses will change the fact that we have and want to spend that money on things you do not approve.
The [busybodies] like yourself do not understand that people do not want to be protected and will find ways around the protections - like they do with drugs, did with alcohol, porn, prostitution, gambling, etc.
Banishment of ephedra is just a feel-good measure for idiots. People will use unregulated black market ephedra with profits collected by criminals instead of legitimate companies, switch to even more dangerous stuff, etc. Nobody will become "good" by governmental decree.
miko
-
Miko, now you are just blathering like an idiot. Try to maintain a little focus and not run off topic so fast in an attempt to obscure.
When the question was "why not ban alcohol?", I countered with tobacco. If you want to consider something the government should ban, if they should ban anything at all, they should go after tobacco first.
Sometime we need to consider the greater public good, but money is the one thing that can get in the way. This is how our government works. Dont like it, move to Canada. We sure didnt beg you to move hear and suggest you ***** about everything.
Geez, your getting tiring, *****ing and *****ing and *****ing.
You cant even hold a decent discussion and stay on topic.
dago
-
Originally posted by Dago
Why dont they ban tobacco? Over 400,000 deaths per year in the USA are directly caused by tobacco.
Thats over 1000 deaths per day.
Why not? MONEY.
dago
I disagree.
"Tobacco related deaths" include the example I gave above.
Its kind of like the people claiming that Pvt. John Soldier, who died in a hospital in Germany of pnemonia, is an Iraqi KIA simply because theres where he got sick.
Now, Im not claiming that tobacco products arent bad for the body and after continued use for decades increase the risk of cancer or other diseases but from the 'Truth' ads on TV, youd think a cigarette was the Black Plague in rolling paper.
'Direct' causes of death, attributed to tobacco use, in my opinion, include those diseases 'directly' caused by tobacco use. Empheseyma, lung/throat/mouth cancer, etc.
A tobacco user who has died of a brain tumor is not a tobacco related death as far as Im concerned. Do they include Mr. Brain Tumor in those numbers? You bet your bellybutton - that bastard had a pack of Camels in his car.
Ive used ephedra and Im a smoker. I know which one ****ed up my body the worst - both in terms of immediate effect and severity.
-
Saurdaukar
The figure I posted is the tally provided by scientists, doctors and researchers who have done extensive studying and research. You seem to disagree. I am curious, based on what?
dago
-
Dago: Miko, now you are just blathering like an idiot.
No. I am just as consitent in my views as you are in yours.
You seem to be supporting banning of ephedra just because some idiots hurt themsleves with it - as if teh ban will make them stop being idiots.
When the question was "why not ban alcohol?", I countered with tobacco.
Yes - you have your own preference of what to ban and regulate.
If you want to consider something the government should ban, if they should ban anything at all, they should go after tobacco first. Sure, each one of you has his own pet scheme to enforce on the rest of us. By the way - claiming to represent the people and acting to limit their liberties for their own good is the definition of the communists.
Sometime we need to consider the greater public good,
As you perceive it - comltely arbitrarely and sujectively and contrary to the theory that it can not possibly be measured or calculated.
but money is the one thing that can get in the way.
You have no idea what money is. I'd call you a marxist but toy are too ignorant for that.
For all practical purposes, money is what the working people receive for their labor that they spend on whatever they want. By making their money no good for the purposes desired by them, you basically want to treat them as slaves - like any collectivist.
This is how our government works. Dont like it, move to Canada.
Now who is raving? What did I ever say that is applicable to any specific government and would not hold true whether I was posting from Canada, Ukraine or Mars?
You run out of your marxist arguments - so just shut up. I certainly do not need you permission to stay here in US or wherever I damn please.
miko
-
Originally posted by Dago
Saurdaukar
The figure I posted is the tally provided by scientists, doctors and researchers who have done extensive studying and research. You seem to disagree. I am curious, based on what?
dago
Based on the definition of 'Tobacco Related Deaths.'
Do you have a source for your figure? Ill hopefully be able to pluck an example from there.
-
Miko moved from a Communist country, Why would he want to move back to one?
Besides, Miko is capable of working, therefor the Canadian Government wouldnt let him in.
Welfare cases only please.
Sheesh
-
Nevermind - found one on my own.
This one breaks down the 400,000 figure and says exactly what I stated above; the definition of 'smoking related deaths' is a little 'smokey' (no pun intended, of course)
http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-29-99.html
The crusade against the tobacco industry began with a kernel of truth -- that cigarettes are a high risk factor for lung cancer -- that has exploded into a war driven by greed and bad science. In today's commentary, Robert A. Levy and Rosalind Marimont take a fresh look at the case against smoking minus the propaganda fueling the fire of debate. They argue that the claim of smoking causing 400,000 premature deaths each year in the U.S. does not hold up under close scrutiny.
The truth is that smoking-related deaths, even under the generous definitions used by CDC, are associated with old age. Nearly 60 percent of the deaths occur at age 70 or above; nearly 45 percent at age 75 or above; and almost 17 percent at the grand old age of 85 or above! Nevertheless, without the slightest embarrassment, the public health community persists in characterizing those deaths as "premature." Regrettable, yes; premature, no.
None of this is to suggest that the attack against cigarettes is entirely dishonest. Without question, the evidence is that cigarettes substantially increase the risk of lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema. But most deaths from those diseases occur at an advanced age. The relationship between smoking and other diseases is not nearly so clear; and the scare mongering that has passed for science is quite simply appalling. The unifying bond of all science is that truth is its aim. That goal must not yield to politics, and science must not be corrupted to advance predetermined political ends. Sadly, that is exactly what has transpired as our public officials fabricate evidence to promote their crusade against big tobacco.
The table on the site where the 427,743 'smoking related deaths' is analysed, case by case, is particularly interesting.
For example, burn victims are included. This in addition to the 120,000 odd deaths occuring between the ages of 75 and 84 and the 71,000 odd deaths amongst those 85 years of age or older.
Those deaths are classified as 'All Other Diseases' however it appears as though they are used as 'smoking related death' statistics in this case simple because they used a tobacco product - be it a cigarette, cigar or pipe.
By this logic, if I died at age 88 many years down the road and I was a soda drinker my death would be 'soda related.'
Hardly a strong argument if you ask me.
-
When the going gets tough, the dimwitted go ad hominem.
-
You have no idea what money is
Miko, do you realize you try to gain the upperhand in every discussion by making foolish statements like this?
You constantly try to degrade everyone with your pronouncments that "they" dont know anything about a subject, yet you sit on the exalted throne of knowledge and experience.
If you're so freaking brilliiant, why do you spend time on this forum? Why aren't you teaching at a University, having great discussions in a think tank, or writing books? Instead you spend a lot of time arguing on an irrelevant game forum and accomplish nothing.
I take it you are all blather without the plan to do anything.
Maybe in the future, you can try to sway opinion with facts, rational and relevant discourse, and not by trying to insult, to obscure and play world political and socioeconmic genius.
It seems to me you tend to avoid answering some questions.
dago
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
If you feel the need to make personal attacks to get a point across, I suggest you find another bulletin board to post at.
-
Greater public good?????
That was one of the keystones of the NAZI (national SOCIALIST) party plank. Look at what they did with it.
Where does it stop? Who decides?
I see far to many laws being passed for the public good that are placing all our freedoms at great risk.
Sure MAYBE we will never get anyone into office that would abuse those laws. Then again maybe we will get a Hitler.
The following site may shed more light on what Miko is really trying to say.....
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ohara/debbie15.htm
FDA????
http://www.newswithviews.com/Howenstine/james2.htm
and
http://www.newswithviews.com/Mary/starrett35.htm
and
http://www.newswithviews.com/health_care/health_care5.htm
hmmm drug companies????
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
_- Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
Perhaps too many of us are a little too trusting?
Perhaps too many of us put too much trust in what the teacher told us?
Perhaps to many of us do not realize that all these officials are human beings?
Perhaps too many of us project a "they're good people" when we should be asking ourselves and them questions?
Perhaps..............
-
Originally posted by Dago
Today, the average lifespan in the USA is nine years (76) greater than the average for the rest of the world(67). Darned that evil FDA for contributing to this pesky attempt to safeguard health!
I looked up some figures US vs. EU
US: men 72 , female 79
EU: men 74,7 , female 82,5 (both 78,6)
Figures from South Korea came up as well: men 68,8 and female 76
Not quite good to compare it to 'rest of the world', which includes some places like africa, which are far apart from other western type nations and their life spans.
-
the young guys... women.. liberals and fanatic conservatives here simply don't get it..
They feel tha government is evil and too big when it bans stuff they like and take away their pet freedoms but that it is great when it bans things they don't like or takes away freedoms from people they don't care for... they then feel the government doesn't have enough power..
when will you guys get it straight? every freedomn the government takes awayu from some group is taking away freedom from us all... it is incremental.. the bigger any organization with power over you gets the worse off you are.
lazs
-
the druggies are all upset again ? LOL
there's plenty of speed around in other forms for you burn outs, stop whining & go find it
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the young guys... women.. liberals and fanatic conservatives here simply don't get it..
They feel tha government is evil and too big when it bans stuff they like and take away their pet freedoms but that it is great when it bans things they don't like or takes away freedoms from people they don't care for... they then feel the government doesn't have enough power..
when will you guys get it straight? every freedomn the government takes awayu from some group is taking away freedom from us all... it is incremental.. the bigger any organization with power over you gets the worse off you are.
lazs
Just curious, do you support pro-choice in the abortion debate?
-
Originally posted by wrag
That was one of the keystones of the NAZI (national SOCIALIST) party plank. Look at what they did with it.
Ah! Yes... every thread must have a reference to Bush, Nazi, and Liberals.
Some how every subject is related to these three things... at least with this BBS community.
The last time I saw a nazi symbol was at the national air and space museum on a Me-109.
Why isn't that marking painted over with something more PC correct...doesn't Bush realize how offensive that is to the Jews?
It's the liberals who allow these atrocities to happen!
And what does any of this have to do with Ephredine again?
damn Nazi's have me brain washed!
LOL - :rofl
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Obey, conform, consume, and multiply.
OK, here's the deal.
I'll be the official in charge of multiplication. I'll do all that for yas. If I need help, I'll ask, so keep your zippers zipped until you hear from me.
I think Funked can take charge of consuming.
Mini clearly should get the office of obey AND department of conform.
There. That's done.
On to 2004 and greater glory!
-
Munkii: Just curious, do you support pro-choice in the abortion debate?
That is a totally invalid question. You are basically asking him "do you want a pro-choice group take control of coercive power of the government so it can impose it's views?" when he is telling you he does not want government to have power to impose anyone's views on anybody.
Even if Lasz does not approve of abortion, he would not promote his views vial political coercove means.
wrag: Sure MAYBE we will never get anyone into office that would abuse those laws. Then again maybe we will get a Hitler.
No "maybe" about it. It's a historical inevitability. And it does not depend on an accident of a single person. Hitler or Napoleon or Stalin did not happen out of nothing. They fit the existing conditions. Each one of them fought for the ultimate post among dozens of similar types.
None of them was unique or even special - they were just more capable or more lucky than dozens of hitlers, napoleons and stalins composing their respective governments.
miko
-
munkii.... depends...
tell me when you think a person starts life.. is it when he can survive outside the womb? when he reaches 18? on the one hand... A fetus would be a human and his "choice" would no doubt be to survive...
if, on the other hand.... you are not responsible or human till say...18... then your mom should be able to have someone kill you up till your 18th birthday.... it would be "pro choice" of the only human involved in the "choice".
to make things even murkier... I am not against killing... I simply want the killer to admit it and everyone be in agreement. this would be, capital punishment for example.
if, being in the wrong womb is considered a crime punishable by death then... by all means... let the mom or the state or uncle fred decide.
lazs
-
lazs2: if, being in the wrong womb is considered a crime punishable by death then... by all means... let the mom or the state or uncle fred decide
I don't know about uncle fred, but it is a huge difference whether the state or the mom is entitled to decide - and enforce such decision.
miko
-
That is a totally invalid question. You are basically asking him "do you want a pro-choice group take control of coercive power of the government so it can impose it's views?" when he is telling you he does not want government to have power to impose anyone's views on anybody.
I realize that it's an invalid discussion towards the arguement, but its a point I like to bring up. The decision to ban abortion or not is strictly a moral one, based upon one's morals of life and when it begins. The ban on most drugs are based upon moral and monetary decisions. The government does not have a legitimate right to ban drugs in my personal opinion, but it does have a right to say when someone is a minor/when life begins.
tell me when you think a person starts life.. is it when he can survive outside the womb? when he reaches 18? on the one hand... A fetus would be a human and his "choice" would no doubt be to survive...
I feel life begins the moment the egg is fertilized, but I believe that the mother still has ultimate control over the fetus, once the fetus actually gets to the point of being a fetus, i.e. around 3 months, I belive anything done to endanger the life of the fetus is wrong. I don't think that before that it really matters, it is just a lump of cells.
if, being in the wrong womb is considered a crime punishable by death then... by all means... let the mom or the state or uncle fred decide.
This is were we differ a little, I feel that it is not a state decision but a personal moral one. After the fetus develops the brain and primitive brain interaction it is a human, until then it is just an extension of the mother, a type of cancer that becomes something beautiful. Ultimately it is no one's decision but the mothers and fathers.
I do apologize I did not mean a hijack, anything else on the subject should be in a new thread.
-
I tend to feel that if the fetus can survive outside the mother then it is indeed a person... before that... the mother should have the same control as she has over anything else to do with her body.
After the fetus can survive outside of the mother.... I think it has human rights and I am gonna go out on a limb here and assume it's "choice" is to survive.
morality has nothing to do with it at that point. unless in the context that laws against murder are indeed "moral laws".
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I tend to feel that if the fetus can survive outside the mother then it is indeed a person... before that... the mother should have the same control as she has over anything else to do with her body.
After the fetus can survive outside of the mother.... I think it has human rights and I am gonna go out on a limb here and assume it's "choice" is to survive.
morality has nothing to do with it at that point. unless in the context that laws against murder are indeed "moral laws".
lazs
Pretty much the same way I feel. I belive murder is a moral law. If people didn't mind people killing other people, it wouldn't be illegal. Murder is a universal moral, like stealing, that is shared across culture's, and is one of the things that would be governed in a minarchial society.
-
I also believe that you can't place murder and the taking of drugs into the same morality basket.
On the former you are taking something away from someone that is tangible and of value but the later is strictly a choice that you may or may not agree with.
you should be able to punish someone for murder or theft or rape for instrance but not for drinking or using drugs or owning and carrying a gun or for not wearing a seatbelt or a helmet.
lazs
-
Munkii: I realize that it's an invalid discussion towards the arguement, ... The government does not have a legitimate right to ban drugs in my personal opinion, but it does have a right to say when someone is a minor/when life begins.
OK, I see - you believe that the rigth to ban abortion is a legitimate role of the government and so does not contradict with limiting the power of the government to withing legitimate limits.
Sorry, your claim may not be valid but the argument certainly is - it was my misunderstanding.
Now to the claim. The government does not have a legitmate right to determine what happens in woman's womb or in woman's house.
The government derives its legitimate powers from the people - which delegate some of their legitimate powers to the government. Obviously, people cannot delegate powers they do not originally posess.
Since before the government is established you did not have powers to dictate those things, neither can you delegate those powers to the newly-created government.
Imagine that US and Canada decided to form a common government. Right now we - americans - do not have the right to ban pot smoking or abortions in Canada. So we could not delegate such powers to that common government.
Morally, one may - and should - oppose abortion. But use of government's power to enforce such ban is not legitimate.
Also, since the federal government derives it's power not from that delegated by people but from that delegated by States, the Row-Wade decision banning States from banning abortion to their citizens is lillegitimate!
Even though the states are illegitimately oppressing their people, it's their internal matter to be resolved within the states.
miko
-
miko... at what point do you believe that the mother should have no right to terminate her childrens life on her whim?
when the fetus is capable of survival without her? at birth? 2 years old? 18 years old? forever?
lazs
-
but it does have a right to say when someone is a minor/when life begins.
I never said the government has a right ban abortion, but I believe they have a right to say when a child is a minor. I don't think a child is a minor the second they are concieved, but at a further point down the road. Infact I don't think any type of abortion should be completely outlawed, but possibly restricted to certain medical cases. It is better that a 6 month old fetus be aborted than allowing the mother to survive, who is already a contributor of capital, instead of a drain on one.
-
lazs2: miko... at what point do you believe that the mother should have no right to terminate her childrens life on her whim?
It's irrelevant what I believe she should do - in the context of this discussion, I certainly have my views on those matters.
I do not believe that I have a legitimate right to influence her actions coercively.
Rights or some people are really obligations of other people. And obligations are incured voluntarily - imposing them by force is a coercion and thus illegitimate. Once one is ready to wield coercion, it becomes pointless discussing which obligations he imposes on others - he will impose whatever obligations he damn wishes.
Here is the link to a thread I posted earlier explaining the concept of rights I subscribe to http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79556 and their origin.
I will reprint the relevant passages but I'd suggest you read it all anyway.
“Rights derive from systems of relations of which claimant has become a part through helping to maintain them. If he ceases to do so or has never done so (or nobody has done so for him) there exist no ground on which such claims can be founded.
Relationships between individuals exist only as products of their wills but the mere wish of the claimant can hardly create a duty for others. Only expectations created by long practice can create duties for members of the community.” – F. Hayek.
A child originates within a person’s body, so a child belongs to that person – part of his/her domain. A child does not have claim to any rights other than those voluntarily claimed on its behalf by its parents (see above) – since nobody has incurred any obligation to such child/fetus.
Parent has rights in a society by supporting its operation and can claim such rights for a child.
That makes it easy for me to define my stand on abortion – I do not have to decide anything and leave life/choice decision to the parents in question, however abortion is abhorrent to me – or alternatively, however I’d have preferred some rare people aborted :)[/i]
If a person in a society does not voluntarily incur the obligation of non-aggression - confirming the rights of others to their lives and property, he cannot be a member of the society and does not have a right to his life and property. He is an outlaw.
If a person does not voluntarily incur the obligation of honoring his contracts - the same consideration applies. None of his rights are honored. He is an outlaw as well.
Other then those two specific rights/obligations necessary for the society to exist at all (any society, not just free soociety), the rest are incured/granted voluntrarily.
I cannot interfere with someone else's abortion because that person did not grant me a right to interfere with his abortion - though I can deny the use of my property to such person, I cannot invade his/hers.
That is different from interfering with somebody else's murdering a rightfull member of a society because that victim had a right not to be murdrred - an obligation assumed by all the members. I have a right to interfere with the attacker's actions and violate his property because the attacker has forefeited his rights by violating other's claimed rights.
It would seem logical that a parent is entitled to terminate a child untill the child becomes a member of society in his/her own right and leaves his domain but the society does run on pure theory and never will, never fear. Empirical rules of thumb will always exist - implemented as social mores, conventions, customs.
A theoretical danger that someone can kill his own child is much outweigted by very practical danger of many people dying - including fetuses aborted - because the government has excessive powers.
I'd be happy to elaborate or discuss any particular point.
miko
-
Speed kills, so does abortion .. no pictures this time...
-
miko... not sure I understand you. Are you saying that you have no right to interfere in the murder of a minor by it's parents? If not then you are saying that so long as.... as what? as long as the baby's foot has not cleared the womb or... the head or.... till it get's the paperwork filled out or... or what? it is not a person and the sole responsibilty and property of the mother who can then kill it? would you extend this to drowning newborns?
You didn't answer my question or... I may have missed it. at what point is a person given the rights that it can't be murdered with impunity by the parents?
lazs
-
lazs2: miko... not sure I understand you. Are you saying that you have no right to interfere in the murder of a minor by it's parents?
No legitimate right. I may be unable to abstain from interfering if I saw that in a real life but that's just my upbringing. It sounds weird to us that parents would have such right but in many civilised societies that was nothing of the ordinary.
You didn't answer my question or... I may have missed it. at what point is a person given the rights that it can't be murdered with impunity by the parents?
When he is developed enough to claim such a right. I am sorry but there is no set answer - like there is no answer when a person stops being young and starts being old. A society would have to come up with some way to formalise that - if only some set legal age.
How would you envision enforcing such restriction without violating the people's rights? If someone is suspected to perform abortion on his property, are you justified in invading the property to check it out?
Meaning, would a person be in violation if he shoots you on his property because you invaded without permission to scout it?
That's similar with you sneaking into russia and punishing russian women for having abortions if they were illegal according to the laws of your country. You just do not have any jurisdiction here - no soverenity over them.
This theorising is disturbing, I understand, but it's only theory. In practice, a government that is given enough power to do good has more than enough power to do evil - and would.
Ban on abortion did not stop abortions while government's social policies drastically increased the incidence of abortions. I woudl rather have them legal and rare than illegal and common. That's practical thinking as well as a theoretical one.
Human nature what it is, there is no arrangement of a society that would be totally perfect. We can only strive for minimum evil - which would be a free society along the lines I've described.
miko
-
miko... I am a little disapointed in your answer. It appears that you have no opinion. I think we should discount what they do in other countries except intelectually ...
I think it is important enough to have an concensous on. My opinion is that a person has "rights" as soon as he can survive outside the womb. I can not prevent people from any kind of murder unless I catch them.. this would be no different. I believe that you are overthinking it. People have the right to not be killed by others and they have the right to defend themselves. If they can't defend themselves it is societies duty to do so.
The way we do so is the question is... how do we defend each other? How do we catch those who would commit crimes against others? We investigate. if we can't investigate without violating peoples rights then... maybe we never catch the bad guy but we have to try. First we have to decide who is the bad guy tho...
other countries asside... most of us would agree that the mother who drowns a 1 year old because it is too much work is a murderer. we work back from there.
I really don't know the answer but we certainly need a policy.
I have told you what I think should be the policy. I would like to hear what you think should be done.
So far... it appears that you feel a person doesn't have rights till they are (depending on intellect and maturity) somewhere between 5-100... This is not a very specific or enforceable policy... it would create more problems than it would solve it seems to me.
I believe a certain amount of courage is required here in making this important decision... as much as was required to frame the original bill of rights I believe.
lazs
-
I don't know about uncle fred, but it is a huge difference whether the state or the mom is entitled to decide - and enforce such decision.
really whats the difference (just for arguments sake, I in no way suport gov't ordered abortion, or any abortion)? why is it more wrong for society to order abortions of people they feel it would be inconvienient to allow to be born, than for a mother to order the killing of her unborn child for the same reason?
is it because the mother doesn't get to decide? why does her opinion matter, if the fetus isn't yet a child then she isn't yet it's mother and should have no special rights in it's life.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Dago: Over 400,000 deaths per year in the USA are directly caused by tobacco. Why not? MONEY
BS. Caused by people to themselves using tobacco.
miko
It goes a little deeper than that Miko. For years the tobacco industry did not have to list what it was putting in it's product. Why? Dunno, everything else you consume into your body lists it's content. Well, years later they were forced to do so. It seems they were putting anything with addictive qualities into the cigs. Sugar, chocolate, molasses, you name it. I do not need to go through the numbers to show you what cigs have done to the health of our nation.
Sometimes you cannot apply free market to everything, unless of course, you think heroin would stimulate the economy and create a great nation.