Chaoticsouls wrote:

godisnotreal wrote: Lumina wrote: The advance of pro-choice policies imported a different ideology into the Democratic Party -- the absolute triumph of individualism. The rights and choices of adults have become paramount, even at the expense of other, voiceless members of the community. This is so ironic, especially when the whole right-wing movement in america is based on an elitist individualist philosophy (Ayn Rand anyone?). And now, all of a sudden, individualism is bad? So i want the government out of my financial affairs, but I want the government to regulate my pregnancy? WTF? What is the democrats philosophy based on Karl Marx? I mean seriously you have to be kidding me ayn rand wasn't even religious nor a republican.

which is why its particularly ironic why she's experiencing a resurgence among conservatives

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/books/04/27/ayn.rand.atlas.shrugged/in dex.html

BlueSpader wrote:

Chaoticsouls wrote: wrote: Lumina wrote: The advance of pro-choice policies imported a different ideology into the Democratic Party -- the absolute triumph of individualism. The rights and choices of adults have become paramount, even at the expense of other, voiceless members of the community. This is so ironic, especially when the whole right-wing movement in america is based on an elitist individualist philosophy (Ayn Rand anyone?). And now, all of a sudden, individualism is bad? So i want the government out of my financial affairs, but I want the government to regulate my pregnancy? WTF? What is the democrats philosophy based on Karl Marx? I mean seriously you have to be kidding me ayn rand wasn't even religious nor a republican. I wouldn't try to figure out what godisnotreal post, he diverts from the subject allot in an attempt to derail the thread after his talking points don't pan out.

wow, stalking me, are you?

ChuckBerry wrote:

godisnotreal wrote: Lumina wrote: The advance of pro-choice policies imported a different ideology into the Democratic Party -- the absolute triumph of individualism. The rights and choices of adults have become paramount, even at the expense of other, voiceless members of the community. This is so ironic, especially when the whole right-wing movement in america is based on an elitist individualist philosophy (Ayn Rand anyone?). And now, all of a sudden, individualism is bad? So i want the government out of my financial affairs, but I want the government to regulate my pregnancy? WTF? Economic individualism, when it is shown to harm the community or restrict opportunity to others, ought to be reigned in by law.

not according to many conservatives, who believe that the government meddling in economic affairs takes away their individualist "freedom." Many conservatives, and virtually all libertarians see economic deregulation as a property rights issue, more than a utilitarian one.

Yes, legal abortion is an individual rights issue.

An individual human being's rights are being violently infringed upon.

JayDubya wrote:

Yes, legal abortion is an individual rights issue. An individual human being's rights are being violently infringed upon.

I was Googling around today and learned that the estimated 300,000 abortions performed annually mean about 34 performed hourly. Staggering, isn't it?

Lumina wrote:

JayDubya wrote: Yes, legal abortion is an individual rights issue. An individual human being's rights are being violently infringed upon. I was Googling around today and learned that the estimated 300,000 abortions performed annually mean about 34 performed hourly. Staggering, isn't it?

I hate it when people cite absolute numbers. Without any context, they mean nothing. I can say that 300,000 ears of corn is a lot of corn. But if you're trying to feed a million people, that's very little corn. You have to make it relative to something. Absolute numbers are worthless, and are usually used by people who are trying to scaremonger.

300,000 sounds like a lot. But in a country of 300 million, it comes out to one tenth of one percent. So it's not a lot at all.

godisnotreal wrote:

Lumina wrote: JayDubya wrote: Yes, legal abortion is an individual rights issue. An individual human being's rights are being violently infringed upon. I was Googling around today and learned that the estimated 300,000 abortions performed annually mean about 34 performed hourly. Staggering, isn't it? I hate it when people cite absolute numbers. Without any context, they mean nothing. I can say that 300,000 ears of corn is a lot of corn. But if you're trying to feed a million people, that's very little corn. You have to make it relative to something. Absolute numbers are worthless, and are usually used by people who are trying to scaremonger. 300,000 sounds like a lot. But in a country of 300 million, it comes out to one tenth of one percent. So it's not a lot at all.

Except that we aren't talking about corn. We're talking about 34 human lives snuffed out an hour, and every single one of them counts.

Lumina wrote:

godisnotreal wrote: Lumina wrote: JayDubya wrote: Yes, legal abortion is an individual rights issue. An individual human being's rights are being violently infringed upon. I was Googling around today and learned that the estimated 300,000 abortions performed annually mean about 34 performed hourly. Staggering, isn't it? I hate it when people cite absolute numbers. Without any context, they mean nothing. I can say that 300,000 ears of corn is a lot of corn. But if you're trying to feed a million people, that's very little corn. You have to make it relative to something. Absolute numbers are worthless, and are usually used by people who are trying to scaremonger. 300,000 sounds like a lot. But in a country of 300 million, it comes out to one tenth of one percent. So it's not a lot at all. Except that we aren't talking about corn. We're talking about 34 human lives snuffed out an hour, and every single one of them counts.

the problem with that, is that if you think in those terms, then you can't really make logical decisions. If you think that there's no difference between a rate of 0.1% and 10%, (because "every single life counts") then you're just operating on pure emotion--and your decisions won't make much sense in any logical framework. Emotions are great when you're trying to champion a cause (which I guess is what you're trying to do). But it's not very good when you're trying to make rational decisions at the public policy level.

Principles are not inherently illogical.

The number is also not particularly relevant to whether or not that number should be 0 or allowed to be as high as possible.

It should be 0 because modern society has access to biological science that can confirm the beginning of the human lifespan, or indeed, any organism's lifespan; furthermore, said society claims to respect human rights and hold that all men are created equal.

JayDubya wrote:

...furthermore, said society claims to respect human rights and hold that all men are created equal.

And which society might that be. It would be a nice place if it existed.

JayDubya wrote:

biological science that can confirm the beginning of the human lifespan, or indeed, any organism's lifespan

the question is whether the organism should be preserved at such an early point in its lifespan. I would argue no.

godisnotreal wrote:

JayDubya wrote: biological science that can confirm the beginning of the human lifespan, or indeed, any organism's lifespan the question is whether the organism should be preserved at such an early point in its lifespan. I would argue no.

You are absolutely correct as the precise question to be posed, bravo.

But then the next question is the real question, at what point in its development, should the state protect human life and more importantly why at that specific point vs. any point earlier in development?

godisnotreal wrote:

Lumina wrote: godisnotreal wrote: Lumina wrote: JayDubya wrote: Yes, legal abortion is an individual rights issue. An individual human being's rights are being violently infringed upon. I was Googling around today and learned that the estimated 300,000 abortions performed annually mean about 34 performed hourly. Staggering, isn't it? I hate it when people cite absolute numbers. Without any context, they mean nothing. I can say that 300,000 ears of corn is a lot of corn. But if you're trying to feed a million people, that's very little corn. You have to make it relative to something. Absolute numbers are worthless, and are usually used by people who are trying to scaremonger. 300,000 sounds like a lot. But in a country of 300 million, it comes out to one tenth of one percent. So it's not a lot at all. Except that we aren't talking about corn. We're talking about 34 human lives snuffed out an hour, and every single one of them counts. the problem with that, is that if you think in those terms, then you can't really make logical decisions. If you think that there's no difference between a rate of 0.1% and 10%, (because "every single life counts") then you're just operating on pure emotion--and your decisions won't make much sense in any logical framework. Emotions are great when you're trying to champion a cause (which I guess is what you're trying to do). But it's not very good when you're trying to make rational decisions at the public policy level.

What is the acceptable % of human life that can be terminated at the will of the individual, and by what objective method does one arrive at that %?

Gilbert1908 wrote:

godisnotreal wrote: Lumina wrote: godisnotreal wrote: Lumina wrote: JayDubya wrote: Yes, legal abortion is an individual rights issue. An individual human being's rights are being violently infringed upon. I was Googling around today and learned that the estimated 300,000 abortions performed annually mean about 34 performed hourly. Staggering, isn't it? I hate it when people cite absolute numbers. Without any context, they mean nothing. I can say that 300,000 ears of corn is a lot of corn. But if you're trying to feed a million people, that's very little corn. You have to make it relative to something. Absolute numbers are worthless, and are usually used by people who are trying to scaremonger. 300,000 sounds like a lot. But in a country of 300 million, it comes out to one tenth of one percent. So it's not a lot at all. Except that we aren't talking about corn. We're talking about 34 human lives snuffed out an hour, and every single one of them counts. the problem with that, is that if you think in those terms, then you can't really make logical decisions. If you think that there's no difference between a rate of 0.1% and 10%, (because "every single life counts") then you're just operating on pure emotion--and your decisions won't make much sense in any logical framework. Emotions are great when you're trying to champion a cause (which I guess is what you're trying to do). But it's not very good when you're trying to make rational decisions at the public policy level. What is the acceptable % of human life that can be terminated at the will of the individual, and by what objective method does one arrive at that %?

Quite the loaded question Gil.
If you'd bothered to absorb godisnotreal's post you would have understood that his abortion argument specifically agrues against the mere reiteration of vacuous statistics.

Prog wrote:

Gilbert1908 wrote: godisnotreal wrote: Lumina wrote: godisnotreal wrote: Lumina wrote: JayDubya wrote: Yes, legal abortion is an individual rights issue. An individual human being's rights are being violently infringed upon. I was Googling around today and learned that the estimated 300,000 abortions performed annually mean about 34 performed hourly. Staggering, isn't it? I hate it when people cite absolute numbers. Without any context, they mean nothing. I can say that 300,000 ears of corn is a lot of corn. But if you're trying to feed a million people, that's very little corn. You have to make it relative to something. Absolute numbers are worthless, and are usually used by people who are trying to scaremonger. 300,000 sounds like a lot. But in a country of 300 million, it comes out to one tenth of one percent. So it's not a lot at all. Except that we aren't talking about corn. We're talking about 34 human lives snuffed out an hour, and every single one of them counts. the problem with that, is that if you think in those terms, then you can't really make logical decisions. If you think that there's no difference between a rate of 0.1% and 10%, (because "every single life counts") then you're just operating on pure emotion--and your decisions won't make much sense in any logical framework. Emotions are great when you're trying to champion a cause (which I guess is what you're trying to do). But it's not very good when you're trying to make rational decisions at the public policy level. What is the acceptable % of human life that can be terminated at the will of the individual, and by what objective method does one arrive at that %? Quite the loaded question Gil. If you'd bothered to absorb godisnotreal's post you would have understood that his abortion argument specifically agrues against the mere reiteration of vacuous statistics.

Then why is my question "loaded"? Lumina's statistic was used to make a point that abortions happen every minute of every day, for her and many others a staggering number.

The appeal by godisnotreal does not suggest that the statistic is false or even inaccurate, the appeal is that as a % relative to the population it is a "small" number.

So if the statistic used by Lumina is "vacuous" as you purport or if as godisnot real the statistic or its application is "out of context" I am simply asking the direct question.

What % of the population would put the termination of human life at will within context or be unacceptable.

And to you I would ask is the statistic vacuous, it seems a statistic is either accurate or inaccurate and the conclusions drawn from it would be vacuous. If the stat is inaccurate then the conclusions drawn that that seems like a lot of abortions would indeed be erroneous, unless there were actually more abortions performed than represented of course. But if the stat is accurate how then do you conclude that 300,000 terminations of human life is not alot?

Gilbert1908 wrote:

But then the next question is the real question, at what point in its development, should the state protect human life and more importantly why at that specific point vs. any point earlier in development?

A living human being is a living human being. There is no other valid place to draw the line.

JayDubya wrote:

Gilbert1908 wrote: But then the next question is the real question, at what point in its development, should the state protect human life and more importantly why at that specific point vs. any point earlier in development? A living human being is a living human being. There is no other valid place to draw the line.

The valid place to draw the line is when its life isn't dependent on being attached to another human being to their detriment.

lil bit wrote:

The valid place to draw the line is when its life isn't dependent on being attached to another human being to their detriment.

...and can live of his or her own organs mostly.

Gilbert1908 wrote:

Then why is my question "loaded"?

Again, you're not paying attention. It was explained earlier that such an exclusive reliance upon no more than mere statistics is a promulgated appeal to emotion...a tactic used all too well by the special interest/idealist (and likewise in your question), yet basically empty of any objective relevance.

Gil, please try focusing on the pertinent issue at hand instead of fostering questions intentionally and fallaciously structured to make one's answer (or lack thereof) look absurd.

Prog wrote:

Gilbert1908 wrote: Then why is my question "loaded"? Again, you're not paying attention. It was explained earlier that such an exclusive reliance upon no more than mere statistics is a promulgated appeal to emotion...a tactic used all too well by the special interest/idealist (and likewise in your question), yet basically empty of any objective relevance. Gil, please try focusing on the pertinent issue at hand instead of fostering questions intentionally and fallaciously structured to make one's answer (or lack thereof) look absurd.

The absurdity of an answer is not dependent upon the question asked but the answer given, something you clearly avoided here.