Support NeoGAF

[slidewinder]

I can't remember what election it was, but throughout the south, the GOP distributed flyers reminding black people to vote on Nov. 5th. The election was, of course, on the fourth.

Are you sure you aren't thinking about the recent "Women's Voices, Women Vote" mini-scandal, where an allegedly Clinton-affiliated voter reg group made calls to black males in NC during primary season, and after the registration deadline, insinuating that they weren't registered?

 

[Incognito]

MSNBC is turning into a disaster.

 

[devilhawk]

How did I miss this?

The life sciences of biology and embryology et. al have a very clear answer where a human lifespan begins. Biologic life has a fairly clear definition (you'll certainly find scientists that think viruses count as living, but that's not in Chapter 1 of every Bio 101 textbook), and a newly synthesized human embryo meets all the criteria. What is biologically, scientifically human and what is not is also not a point of dispute.

Do not look to future science for the answer to this dilemma. Present day science has rendered an answer, and that answer is ignored entirely in favor of non-scientific, wholly subjective, exclusionary, legal personhood.

I understand the answer is currently present. The problem is getting people to understand the science so that it can justifiably be used. Future scientific breakthroughs can further enforce this. Just like a recent virus was found to infect only other viruses increasing the number of scientists who think viruses are alive. Science is really the only objective stance on the issue.

 

[Hitokage]

Abortion is largely a moral issue, and although science may inform the decision, it cannot provide it.

Yes, life begins at conception, but when that life becomes "human life" is less well defined, to say nothing of whether we should care about the difference. Even then, a pregnancy is a cooperative process that involves significant physiological effort on part of the mother, but that doesn't tell us how much consideration we should give to the contributions and risks on the mother.

Obviously, people who say an zygote isn't alive are wrong, people who say an embyro is a fully developed thinking and feeling baby are wrong, people who treat a uterus as space for rent are wrong, but that still hasn't answered the question for us.

 

[Ether_Snake]

I can't remember what election it was, but throughout the south, the GOP distributed flyers reminding black people to vote on Nov. 5th. The election was, of course, on the fourth.

A 40 years old example:

The young Karl Rove first got involved in campaign dirty tricks back in 1970, when he stole stationery from a Democratic campaign headquarters and delivered invitations to the homeless promising free food and beer. Hundreds of the city's "riff-raff" showed up at a reception for the candidate.

 

[Stinkles]

Abortion is largely a moral issue, and although science may inform the decision, it cannot provide it.

Yes, life begins at conception, but when that life becomes "human life" is less well defined, to say nothing of whether we should care about the difference. Even then, a pregnancy is a cooperative process that involves significant physiological effort on part of the mother, but that doesn't tell us how much consideration we should give to the contributions and risks on the mother.

Obviously, people who say an zygote isn't alive are wrong, people who say an embyro is a fully developed baby are wrong, people who treat a uterus as space for rent are wrong, but that still hasn't answered the question for us.

Which is why it should be left up to individuals. Governments have no business legislating your body or religious beliefs.

 

[Tyrone Slothrop]

an obama presidency will catalyze intellectualism and common sense in america.

believe

 

[PantherLotus]

Both debates are only in America. Go in France and talk about creationism and people will mock and ridicule you, with reason too. America is being hurt from the inside for the sake of sustaining a political party that relies too much on fundamentalists. After a while you all seem to forget that the reason the whole abortion and evolution debate has gotten so much attention over the recent years is because the religious right is shrinking in numbers so the right is trying to bring religion back into the school curriculum to raise a whole new crop of future voters and sustain its current one. It's all politics, has nothing to do with bettering the situation of Americans.

Meanwhile, as a result of the above, you end up with a large amount of people who are ignorant, unhealthy, racist, etc., for the sake of a party's vote count (or for the sake of corporations, which is again for the sake of a party). This in the long term has seriously dangerous implications for the country's future.

The prosperity of the US, a nation that has all the foundations to remain the world's leading super power, relies on education, health, and energy. The later two are entirely dependent on education itself. Yet you have a party dedicated to ruin the strength of the public education system, ignore the need for health care, and turn its back on solutions for energy independence, and this can only be achieved by attacking the intellect of the population. It's sort of counter productive when half of your job is to run a country, the other half is to hurt it so you can keep on running it for eight more years.

I agree with this.

 

[Tamanon]

Prime Minister's question time is fucking awesome. Why don't we have anything like that in the US?

McCain "claims" he'd do it, but I don't buy it at all. Considering how much shit the Republicans toss around about having to support our President no matter what, they wouldn't stand for it.

 

[Ether_Snake]

is anyone ever held accountable for shit like this ?

You got $20, $0.25 a call, that's 80 votes

 

[Mandark]

Lemme say this about that: Europeans got no business lecturing America on racism.

 

[Hitokage]

Which is why it should be left up to individuals. Governments have no business legislating your body or religious beliefs.

More importantly, governments shouldn't be legislating medical decisions. Going back to the "the uterus is NOT space for rent" point, human pregnancy is a messy business, with 40% of all pregnancies resulting in complications and 15% of all pregnancies resulting in severe complications. The mother and the doctor should be the ones to decide when something goes wrong.

 

[Trakdown]

Are you sure you aren't thinking about the recent "Women's Voices, Women Vote" mini-scandal, where an allegedly Clinton-affiliated voter reg group made calls to black males in NC during primary season, and after the registration deadline, insinuating that they weren't registered?

No, I'm almost positive this was post-primary.

Ether_snake: I agree with you totally. And you have no idea how depressing that is.

 

[Zeliard]

Are you sure you aren't thinking about the recent "Women's Voices, Women Vote" mini-scandal, where an allegedly Clinton-affiliated voter reg group made calls to black males in NC during primary season, and after the registration deadline, insinuating that they weren't registered?

This is a bit different, but still the same sort of shit:


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E5D6123FF935A2575BC0A9629C8B63

State police officers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando and interrogated them as part of an odd ''investigation'' that has frightened many voters, intimidated elderly volunteers and thrown a chill over efforts to get out the black vote in November.

The officers, from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which reports to Gov. Jeb Bush, say they are investigating allegations of voter fraud that came up during the Orlando mayoral election in March.

The state police officers, armed and in plain clothes, have questioned dozens of voters in their homes. Some of those questioned have been volunteers in get-out-the-vote campaigns.

I asked Mr. Morales in a telephone conversation to tell me what criminal activity had taken place.

''I can't talk about that,'' he said.

I asked if all the people interrogated were black.

''Well, mainly it was a black neighborhood we were looking at -- yes,'' he said.

Back in the bad old days, some decades ago, when Southern whites used every imaginable form of chicanery to prevent blacks from voting, blacks often fought back by creating voters leagues, which were organizations that helped to register, educate and encourage black voters. It became a tradition that continues in many places, including Florida, today.

Not surprisingly, many of the elderly black voters who found themselves face to face with state police officers in Orlando are members of the Orlando League of Voters, which has been very successful in mobilizing the city's black vote.

 

[PantherLotus]

Lemme say this about that: Europeans got no business lecturing America on racism.

we must therefore reject all that they have to say on every other matter

 

[MightyHedgehog]

an obama presidency will catalyze intellectualism and common sense in the White House.

believe

Fixed.

 

[Ether_Snake]

If the next 60 days go by without any sort of attempt by the Obama campaign to expose McCain's lies, then you'll have a point. But since the past 60 days haven't gone that way (or the 60 days before that...), I hardly see the relevance of your criticism.

EDIT: Does this qualify as "an excuse to accept defeat" to you?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26563623#26563623

Advertising is where it's at. Nobody except people who are going to vote Democrat watched this.

 

[woxel1]

The life sciences of biology and embryology et. al have a very clear answer where a human lifespan begins.

I'm no biology major, and maybe this sounds odd in the case of humans, but the fact that a developing organism is incapable of reproduction means that it doesn't fulfill all the criteria of "life." That's a critical function of living things, and can make all the difference. Many creatures reproduce in vast amounts (think fish eggs) because no living thing will necessarily survive past the development phase. But humans are strange, the way that we are so slow to develop self-preservation skills... I don't believe there's a simple answer to when life begins – or what constitutes a living human being – or we wouldn't be having the abortion/euthanasia debate.

 

[Hitokage]

This is a bit different, but still the same sort of shit:


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E5D6123FF935A2575BC0A9629C8B63

Yeah... that's why I consider Ohio in play but not Florida.

 

[JayDubya]

(Or a 'brother human supremacist' in the case of out-liers like JayDubya.)

What does that even mean?

Why should a blob of cells be considered a being to give rights to?.

Because you're dealing with a living member of the Homo sapiens species - an entire, distinct organism, and not the moral equivalent of a mere single cell or bit of tissue that is simply part of another.

Science is really the only objective stance on the issue.

Yup. Philosophic mumbo-jumbo need not apply. And yet, apply it does. Strongly.

Abortion is largely a moral issue, and although science may inform the decision, it cannot provide it.

You're right, it merely informs the decision, it can't make you be moral.

Yes, life begins at conception, but when that life becomes "human life" is less well defined, to say nothing of whether we should care about the difference.

Same ol', same ol'. "Well yes, it's human, and yes, it's alive, but is it really human life?" Well, that depends. Are we using a definition of really that is accurate, or wholly subjective and up to the whims of the questioner?

 

[speculawyer]

How did I miss this?

The life sciences of biology and embryology et. al have a very clear answer where a human lifespan begins. Biologic life has a fairly clear definition (you'll certainly find scientists that think viruses count as living, but that's not in Chapter 1 of every Bio 101 textbook), and a newly synthesized human embryo meets all the criteria. What is biologically, scientifically human and what is not is also not a point of dispute.

In that case . . . we are all terrible people since we are allowing the wholesale slaughter of BILLIONS OF HUMAN BEINGS that fail to attach to the uterus! Why hasn't the UN been informed of this humanitarian disaster?!? Pehaps they can send peace keeping troops up the uterus of women all over the planet!

 

[Mandark]

we must therefore reject all that they have to say on every other matter

How's about we just stick to what I actually wrote instead attacking what I didn't? Think we could do that?

 

[devilhawk]

Abortion is largely a moral issue, and although science may inform the decision, it cannot provide it.

Yes, life begins at conception, but when that life becomes "human life" is less well defined, to say nothing of whether we should care about the difference. Even then, a pregnancy is a cooperative process that involves significant physiological effort on part of the mother, but that doesn't tell us how much consideration we should give to the contributions and risks on the mother.

Obviously, people who say an zygote isn't alive are wrong, people who say an embyro is a fully developed thinking and feeling baby are wrong, people who treat a uterus as space for rent are wrong, but that still hasn't answered the question for us.

Excellent answer. I agree with this. Government should have little say about a women's body. There is obviously a point where having an abortion is wrong. How far back from that point though is the moral debate.

About the science stance: maybe one day science could undisputedly answer the moral question?

 

[JayDubya]

In that case . . . we are all terrible people since we are allowing the wholesale slaughter of BILLIONS OF HUMAN BEINGS that fail to attach to the uterus! Why hasn't the UN been informed of this humanitarian disaster?!? Pehaps they can send peace keeping troops up the uterus of women all over the planet!

Pretty sure the global death rate's holding at 100%. Not sure what you want people to do about natural death, but something can be done about homicide.

 

[Stinkles]

Yup. Philosophic mumbo-jumbo need not apply. And yet, apply it does. Strongly.



You're right, it merely informs the decision, it can't make you be moral.

And you don't think these two ideas are contradictory?

 

[Mandark]

Because you're dealing with a living member of the Homo sapiens species - an entire, distinct organism, and not the moral equivalent of a mere single cell or bit of tissue that is simply part of another.

What makes this species have rights and not other species?

 

[Trakdown]

Yeah... that's why I consider Ohio in play but not Florida.

Florida is election hell, for reasons beyond the 2000 fiasco. I'm sure you're all familiar with the Repubs who dressed up as gay activists favoring the Kerry campaign.

 

[Zeliard]

What makes this species have rights and not other species?

JayDubya isn't a big fan of animal rights.

 

[JayDubya]

What makes this species have rights and not other species?

Being awesome.

 

[kaching]

Advertising is where it's at. Nobody except people who are going to vote Democrat watched this.

And there's been plenty of advertising, and there will be plenty more. But you didn't answer my question.

 

[woxel1]

Being awesome.

Are you kidding? Evolutionarily speaking our species is on the short bus.

 

[Mandark]

No, really.

Why should all humans have rights but not other species?

 

[laserbeam]

MSNBC is turning into a disaster.

I think Olberman let his popularity go to his head. He acted numerous times during the DNC as if he was the boss. Thats part of whats getting the execs pissy.

It's not even MSNBC thats overall upset its parent company NBC saying what the fuck is going on. Olberman doesn't have the grounds to act as if he is gods gift to MSNBC. His show may be #1 on MSNBC but its not making MSNBC any better off in the ratings war.

 

[woxel1]

No, really.

Why should all humans have rights but not other species?

Bacteria? Bah! Who needs them?

 

[Trakdown]

McCain "claims" he'd do it, but I don't buy it at all. Considering how much shit the Republicans toss around about having to support our President no matter what, they wouldn't stand for it.

Please. McCain cancelled on Larry King because Campbell Brown eviscerated one of his cronies.

 

[Hitokage]

About the science stance: maybe one day science could undisputedly answer the moral question?

Maybe I wasn't clear. Morality is inherently outside science's purview. It will never answer it.

No, really.

Why should all humans have rights but not other species?

Because ecology and geophysiology are evil lies made by Satan to deceive man.

 

[devilhawk]

Bacteria? Bah! Who needs them?

The use of antibiotics is another debate entirely :lol

 

[Trurl]

Being awesome.

If you go back down the human family tree to the point of life's origin, when would our ancestors cease to take a form whose life is sacred?

Is there a point where you would say one animal's life is sacred but its mother's is not?

Let your moral absolutes chew on that.

 

[Miroku]

RE: size of the religious right.

Anyone have any articles or numbers actually showing that America's fundamentalist Religious Right is shrinking? Or what percentage of the population they are?

I was kind of under the impression this segment of the population was growing.

 

[Y2Kev]

Because remarkably few politicians could stand up to that kind of pressure or scrutiny.

Get that shit into the constitution. What do we have? State of the Union. Where the big blowhard stands up and everyone claps for him.

Screw that. We need question time. Where you get RAILED ON for an hour and the speaker is chosen by an old looking guy with funny glasses.

edit: If Obama doesn't win this election, I bet you won't see another racial minority out of the Democratic (and because of that, both parties) for a while. Not sure about women.

 

[Byakuya769]

The abortion question is not "when does life begin" but "when does ensoulment occur" and that has already been answered by science... it doesn't... because souls aren't real.

But of course, reality isn't all that important to the pro-life crowd.

Flat earth caucus indeed.

You're making a mistake in just making the issue be about whether or not someone's religious. If you have no qualm about ending the life of a fetus, do you feel any reason to preserve the lives of adults with similar cognitive abilities? If so, why?

 

[woxel1]

The use of antibiotics is another debate entirely :lol

Did you know that the termite's ability to digest wood is not an inherited trait? They have to ingest the fecal matter of an adult before they have the bacteria necessary for digestion :lol

 

[slidewinder]

Being awesome.

You need to go to a good zoo. Or maybe on a safari.

 

[Stinkles]

Maybe I wasn't clear. Morality is inherently outside science's purview. It will never answer it.
.

Philosophical mumbo jumbo! Clearly morality has no business in the Abortion debate.

 

[devilhawk]

Maybe I wasn't clear. Morality is inherently outside science's purview. It will never answer it.

Well, maybe I wasn't clear. Maybe science can so thoroughly answer the question which makes people so ridiculously informed that the debate is solved over time. Dreaming, I know.

 

[Stoney Mason]

MSNBC is turning into a disaster.

I'm biased and subjective because I was rooting for a particular candidate during the primaries but Matthews permanently lost me during that period with his behavior.

 

[speculawyer]

What does that even mean?

I laughed at it initially but it makes perfect sense after some thought. You think it is fine for someone to torture their dog but murder if a human blastocyst is aborted. It makes no sense to me. However . . . if one takes the position that human animals are supreme and given rights at conception and other animals are all shit with no rights . . . it makes sense . . . brother human supremacist. Not a white supremacist . . . a homo sapiens sapiens supremacist.

Because you're dealing with a living member of the Homo sapiens species - an entire, distinct organism, and not the moral equivalent of a mere single cell or bit of tissue that is simply part of another.

Moral equivalent? No . . . literal equivalent. (Depending on how you meant to use 'or')

Hey . . . if I masturbate onto a Petri dish with a egg cell from a woman, did I commit murder?

Wait . . . this should all go into a different thread. I'm de-railing massively.

 

[LCGeek]

The abortion question is not "when does life begin" but "when does ensoulment occur" and that has already been answered by science... it doesn't... because souls aren't real.

But of course, reality isn't all that important to the pro-life crowd.

Flat earth caucus indeed.

Science says there is no proof for saying the soul exist not that it doesn't exist.

Science has forgotten it ways much like the fanatically spirtually minded. They only care about the physical and are only beginning to understand quantum physics. Meta Science is shunned these days and people have forgotten it place and how it's inspired some of Science greatest minds.

Real is a matter of perception. Perception is heavily influenced by both the mind and body. This is exactly why science nuts like you don't get the picture. You still don't understand the concept of numbers numbers on a bigger level.

One can say our bodies and mind are physical (Two), therefore wouldn't anything of the body regardless of it's function be real. You just ended your own hypocritical argument because you locked it in to a corner. Anything of the mind would be real by your own standards regardless whether it happens external or internal to your senses as a sentient being of existence. Science sucks when it comes the conscious and how perception works in actuality from their own feelings, oh I mean real reality.

 

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I think Olberman let his popularity go to his head.

its ironic because that's what happened to o'reilly earlier this decade. he actually used to be fairly sound in his opinions, but when his show took off like a rocket he went completely apeshit.

i'm not saying olberman is as bad as o'reilly or ever will be, but there are apparent paralells to their success

 

[JayDubya]

Why should all humans have rights but not other species?

Correction: no other known species on Earth at this time.

Want to skip a few dozen steps?

"Sentience / sapience."
"Ah, but early term fetuses don't have brains yet, so..."
"So what?"
"Well, that completely undermines your posit..."
"No, it doesn't. First of all, in addition to being just as helpless and independent as before, only now requiring proactive effort on the part of its caretaker(s), a newborn does not exhibit these characteristics, and yet we give it rights just for traveling through the magical personhood cave. Second of all, lack of brain activity in utero is not the equivalent of a brain death. When you're in a permanent, pathophysiological vegetative state, pull the plug, game over, you had a nice run. When you're in a temporary, physiological embryological state, your condition is merely transitory. Transitory conditions should not be the basis for the removal of rights from a human being, unless you want anesthetic patients to be fair game."
"Look at the funny little dog, look at the silly puppy, Libertarians are crazy, lol"
"No we're not, if you'd just liste..."
*thread moves on*