167 Responses to ** Who will be Obama’s VP? **

• 161. bradykp August 26th 2008 - 13:38:17 |

  matt_72 wrote:

  Job history? What job history does Obama have? He has done NOTHING! Name ONE THING he has accomplished of note. And please don’t mention some bill that he and 100 other people co-sponsored. I love it when people think his job history is a selling point b/c the man has quite honestly done nothing worth mentioning. He probably hasn’t even found all the men’s rooms in the Senate yet.

  As for Character – you do understand that a character w/ no credibility has no character. Or are you going to ignore Obama’s own misstatements, falsehoods & little white lies? Or are you just going to listen to the man’s fancy words and ignore the actions he takes that prove he doesn’t stand for what he says he does?

  is the senate the only job he’s held in his lifetime? i wasn’t aware of that. you have your opinion on “falsehoods” and i have mine. that’s all that needs to be said because we’re not going to agree.

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

• 162. bradykp August 26th 2008 - 13:48:30 |

  MidnightRacer wrote:

  The abortion debate revolves around the issue person-hood. This is the case both in legal and social discourse. All legal and private conversations which errantly use the false claim that a fetus is not a person, thus does not have person-hood rights in the BoR of the U.S. Constitution.

  With regards to the presidential and VP candidates taking positions, and relevant to this thread, the abortion debate cannot refute that a fetus is a human, and is a person. Because a person is not defined by the many false claims others out there put forth. Only science, DNA, and life form status can.

  I’ve answered War vs Abortion dilemna in post #112 – i hope in clear enough terms.

  Easy-E wrote:

  Read my post again. Where did I say that a fetus wasn’t human? I spoke of a clump of cells, do I need to define that they are human cells? Sorry, I thought that was self-explanatory. OK, for you I’ll be specific, a clump of HUMAN CELLS versus a self-aware, cognitive person. An individual, with a memory and experiences and identity.

  Either way, you missed the point entirely. Congratulations.

  There’s no point missed. Your side tries to remove BoR US Constitutional rights from a human fetus, which is scientifically a person, by criteria that has nothing to do with science, but rather an attempt to categorize and differentiate based upon that which you can see above in your post (“self-aware, cognitive person. An individual, with a memory and experiences and identity”), when none of that can scientifically differentiate one is a person vs one is not. It’s an attempt to subjectively differentiate person and non-person in non-scientific terms. And attempt to over ride science in the context of redefining person-hood in order to remove the rights to life of another person/fetus.

  If you accept that a fetus is a human, then you accept that a fetus is a person. Because person-hood and human are the same thing. Thus, you then indirectly accept that all persons have the right to not be deprived of life as stated in the BoR in the U.S. Constitution.

  My posts #’s 110 and 112 pretty much wrap it up – in terms of science.

  please post a link or source to your scientific definition of person. it would also be helpful to post the arguments that have been held up in courts in an argument for the rights of an unborn child.

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

• 163. MidnightRacer August 26th 2008 - 14:14:26 |

  jscirish27 wrote:

  MR-I’m always good for a laugh. Honestly, I have strong political convictions but I rarely discuss them here because everyone is so strident in their viewpoints. Rarely does anyone come away feeling educated or informed, but usually more entrenched in their previously held positions. Assumptions are easily made as well, and people characterize others without fully understanding their overall views based on a few quotes. That’s why I only usually discuss things I feel especially passionate about such as food politics and of course Duke, the Bush’s Baked Beans dog (see other thread).

  I hear ya, good advice. I’m getting me some beans.

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

• 164. Easy-E August 26th 2008 - 14:41:30 |

  MidnightRacer wrote:

  The abortion debate revolves around the issue person-hood. This is the case both in legal and social discourse. All legal and private conversations which errantly use the false claim that a fetus is not a person, thus does not have person-hood rights in the BoR of the U.S. Constitution.

  With regards to the presidential and VP candidates taking positions, and relevant to this thread, the abortion debate cannot refute that a fetus is a human, and is a person. Because a person is not defined by the many false claims others out there put forth. Only science, DNA, and life form status can.

  I’ve answered War vs Abortion dilemna in post #112 – i hope in clear enough terms.

  Easy-E wrote:

  Read my post again. Where did I say that a fetus wasn’t human? I spoke of a clump of cells, do I need to define that they are human cells? Sorry, I thought that was self-explanatory. OK, for you I’ll be specific, a clump of HUMAN CELLS versus a self-aware, cognitive person. An individual, with a memory and experiences and identity.

  Either way, you missed the point entirely. Congratulations.

  There’s no point missed. Your side tries to remove BoR US Constitutional rights from a human fetus, which is scientifically a person, by criteria that has nothing to do with science, but rather an attempt to categorize and differentiate based upon that which you can see above in your post (“self-aware, cognitive person. An individual, with a memory and experiences and identity”), when none of that can scientifically differentiate one is a person vs one is not. It’s an attempt to subjectively differentiate person and non-person in non-scientific terms. And attempt to over ride science in the context of redefining person-hood in order to remove the rights to life of another person/fetus.

  If you accept that a fetus is a human, then you accept that a fetus is a person. Because person-hood and human are the same thing. Thus, you then indirectly accept that all persons have the right to not be deprived of life as stated in the BoR in the U.S. Constitution.

  My posts #’s 110 and 112 pretty much wrap it up – in terms of science.

  I don’t equate human to being a person. Humans are a species. A person is a human who has cognitive abilities. A fetus doesn’t have cognitive abilities from conception, therefore a fetus may be a human, but isn’t a person until they develop consciousness and the ability to continue to thrive after leaving the womb. That doesn’t happen at conception.

  People who lose their mental faculties often lose their right to live and have any say in their fate, because they have lost that ability.

  So back to the beginning:

  This was a question of MF’s morals, not the science of pregnancy and the legal status of the fetus. How a pro-lifer can be pro-war, and not have any regrets for the loss of the innocent lives.

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

• 165. MidnightRacer August 26th 2008 - 15:34:45 |

  As I like jscirish27’s take on no longer getting involved in political wars, this will be my last post in such discussion for a long long while.

  bradykp (#162) and Easy (#164), you don’t need my definition, but rather you should refer to the forensics DNA definition of what a person is. Please refer also to any dictionary (hopefully a scientific one) on what a person is – because it’s clearly defined universally as a human. Which is why I always say a person is a human, period (there are no sub categories of partial human, kind of human, not so much human).

  Now, you guys and others are more than welcome to have your personal opinion of what a person is. I don’t care. But when we get into legal discussion revolving around US Constitutional rights in the BoR, everyone shall find fact in scientific determination. Justices in a court are not scientific experts in determining person-hood status, they’re legal experts. For any court justice to rationalize what they think a person is, and ignore the scientific criteria is just flat out in error and falls under the fallacy of appeal to authority – meaning just because a justice is a judge and legal expert in law does not give credibility in their non-expert determination of species H. s. sapiens. (human).

  Again, there’s no way anyone can say that a person is not plainly a human, and that a life form is as scientifically defined as such. The real debate is whether one person has more rights than another person, and sub-debate is under which circumstances may that apply. One is in the threat of death from pregnancy. Otherwise, abortion for other reasons other than threat of death is merely exercising the belief that one person has more rights than another person.

  You guys can carry on, but I end my discussion here. If anyone else wants to take up where I leave off, feel free. I’m taking a break from all this for a while.

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

• 166. bradykp August 26th 2008 - 15:53:36 |

  MidnightRacer wrote:

  As I like jscirish27’s take on no longer getting involved in political wars, this will be my last post in such discussion for a long long while.

  bradykp (#162) and Easy (#164), you don’t need my definition, but rather you should refer to the forensics DNA definition of what a person is. Please refer also to any dictionary (hopefully a scientific one) on what a person is – because it’s clearly defined universally as a human. Which is why I always say a person is a human, period (there are no sub categories of partial human, kind of human, not so much human).

  Now, you guys and others are more than welcome to have your personal opinion of what a person is. I don’t care. But when we get into legal discussion revolving around US Constitutional rights in the BoR, everyone shall find fact in scientific determination. Justices in a court are not scientific experts in determining person-hood status, they’re legal experts. For any court justice to rationalize what they think a person is, and ignore the scientific criteria is just flat out in error and falls under the fallacy of appeal to authority – meaning just because a justice is a judge and legal expert in law does not give credibility in their non-expert determination of species H. s. sapiens. (human).

  Again, there’s no way anyone can say that a person is not plainly a human, and that a life form is as scientifically defined as such. The real debate is whether one person has more rights than another person, and sub-debate is under which circumstances may that apply. One is in the threat of death from pregnancy. Otherwise, abortion for other reasons other than threat of death is merely exercising the belief that one person has more rights than another person.

  You guys can carry on, but I end my discussion here. If anyone else wants to take up where I leave off, feel free. I’m taking a break from all this for a while.

  i’d like to take a break also, but i still don’t see this DNA definition that you refer to. I googled it in various ways and am not finding it. it’s quite possibly i’m just missing it. regardless, i’m fine with someone else choosing to end the fetus/person/human – whatever you want to call it – in the first trimester. i’m not an advocate of it, and am not vocal about it, i don’t even think it should be a political issue. so if you want to define it as “choice” then fine, go for it. whatever. bottom line is, i wouldn’t do it and wouldn’t want any family members to do it, but there are many scenarios where that response might be different and thus, I’m ok with the medical procedure being available and legal. to the idiots that misuse the procedure – oh well, it’s gonna happen legal or not anyways.

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

• 167. Easy-E August 26th 2008 - 15:56:45 |

  MidnightRacer wrote:

  As I like jscirish27’s take on no longer getting involved in political wars, this will be my last post in such discussion for a long long while.

  bradykp (#162) and Easy (#164), you don’t need my definition, but rather you should refer to the forensics DNA definition of what a person is. Please refer also to any dictionary (hopefully a scientific one) on what a person is – because it’s clearly defined universally as a human. Which is why I always say a person is a human, period (there are no sub categories of partial human, kind of human, not so much human).

  Now, you guys and others are more than welcome to have your personal opinion of what a person is. I don’t care. But when we get into legal discussion revolving around US Constitutional rights in the BoR, everyone shall find fact in scientific determination. Justices in a court are not scientific experts in determining person-hood status, they’re legal experts. For any court justice to rationalize what they think a person is, and ignore the scientific criteria is just flat out in error and falls under the fallacy of appeal to authority – meaning just because a justice is a judge and legal expert in law does not give credibility in their non-expert determination of species H. s. sapiens. (human).

  Again, there’s no way anyone can say that a person is not plainly a human, and that a life form is as scientifically defined as such. The real debate is whether one person has more rights than another person, and sub-debate is under which circumstances may that apply. One is in the threat of death from pregnancy. Otherwise, abortion for other reasons other than threat of death is merely exercising the belief that one person has more rights than another person.

  You guys can carry on, but I end my discussion here. If anyone else wants to take up where I leave off, feel free. I’m taking a break from all this for a while.

  Great idea. Unless you think there’s something else you can add to it that still has nothing to do with the question I asked in the first place.

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.