New thread or put it in the "all your religion is belonging to uz" thread.

Gonna reply to your post Jared, probably not in this thread. This is where Brain rages about politics and worships his false idol, Ron Paul.

(Not-so-ninja edit) New thread at https://www.miataturbo.net/current-events-news-politics-77/evolution-speciation-62661/

are you sure you dont like ron paul?
i think you might like him
at least a little bit, me knows u like him



and yeah blaenn start a thread. perhaps a big more vague than just evolution....like i was saying heretics and what not. that is if anyone is actually interested in discussing it

Oh, I was very specific, and the thread is up as referenced prior Jared.

This thread should prove to be both entertaining and informative.

There are certainly aspects of Paul that I like in a candidate, but he also holds beliefs that I do not agree with (not talking religious). I will take a closer (objective) look (again) but I don't think i'll be voting for him.

As I've said before in this thread, there are certain parts of Paul's platform I find...well, disgusting Gearhead.

However, if Paul does well enough, that is going to break the current paradigm of "You have to vote for one of the two Obama/Bushes/whatever" that the two parties put up.

If Paul does well enough, we'll be able to get more choice. This is a Good Thing in my eyes.

Plus, even if Paul isn't perfect, he's better than any of the other Republican candidates.

You speak the truth.

Anything in particular?

If I hadn't updated my understanding of the current US monetary system, I don't know if I would have any issues with Ron Paul.

As covered earlier, his stance on abortion and similar issues wrt legislated morality.

Is that really what you mean? That government shouldn't "legislate morality"? Or do you simply mean that you disagree with RP that the unborn are still human lives?

An embryo is not a human life. That entire argument is fallacious and logically equivalent to saying a woman that has her tubes tied is equivalent to a mass murderer.

If you want to adopt the "late trimester abortions" argument, fine. But that's a fallacy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._histogram.svg

This is a chart of all abortions done in the US in 2004 by week of abortion.

Well, tubal ligation prevents egg fertilization, so I'm not exactly sure your argument works there.

But just to confirm, your position is not that government doesn't have the right to legislate morality, but simply that you disagree with Ron Paul over the biology of in utero fetal development, correct?

IF Ron Paul were correct on the issue of fetal development (that is, if new biological/medical data clearly demonstrated that developing fetuses showed all the necessary and sufficient characteristics of human life), would you agree that we could no longer consider abortion to be something left up to personal choice, but instead must be banned in order to protect innocent life?

Based on present in US law, a crime can be committed based on the possibility or plan to do something. See: ------- retarded recent supreme court decisions.

In other words, it would be a smaller jump to argue that tubal ligation (Or "Tubes tied") is equivalent to killing babies if you adopt embryos-are-lives than it would be to try to understand some of the recent supreme court decisions.

I'm sorry, but this argument is ridiculous and is contingent on late trimester abortions which don't happen except under cases of extreme medical need (I.e., mother dying and....that's all I know of offhand) due to the extraordinary riskiness of the operation and high chance of a malpractice suit.

There's two arguments that I'm going to ask you to choose between, or both.

#1: Are you claiming that an embryo is a human life? (See: Chart evidencing the near-nonexistence of late trimester abortions)

#2: Once the embryo has developed to such an extent where it could be considered a human life, are you telling me that a mother should not have the choice to abort if it means she will die or similar circumstances occur?

I haven't argued either position yet, actually, I'm simply trying to figure out on what points you actually disagree with Ron Paul, since you started this line with the idea that government shouldn't "legislate morality."

Sorry, your argument about tubal ligation makes no sense. The prevention of fertilization is not equivalent to the destruction of a fetus.

Moreover, I'm not sure why you're focusing on third-trimester abortions; the issue seems to be that Ron Paul believes that any fertilized egg is a human life that is worthy of protection. Arguing over how common third-trimester abortions are does not address RP's claim that all fetuses are human life.

No, RP's position is that embryo's are human life in order to support a ban on all abortion - including abortion that would kill the mother (This is key. RP has even stated he opposes abortion from rape or that would kill the mother).

If you argue for third trimester abortion, I have no arguments against it. Based on your previous post, the only objection I would have would be the addition of "Unless it would kill the mother, or similar medical emergencies". But this is targeting a nonexistent problem.

If you argue for late 2nd trimester abortion, we're in agreement, with the similar clause I gave above. But this is also targeting a nonexistent problem.

If you argue for early 2nd trimester, you sir are willfully ignoring the large amount of medical and scientific data on the development of the embryo, and even then you are only targeting what is a very minor part of abortions.

If you argue for 1st trimester, I have absolutely nothing to say, as I'm ------- dumbfounded. You, in essence, are arguing that a human embryo is human life. There's no brain, no nerve cells developed in the first trimester. It's just a chunk of cells. Nothing that Makes A Human Human is in the first trimester beyond the "potential" to become human - the same potential all embryos have. Which, by tubal ligation, you are similarly eliminating. My tubal ligation mention may seem a fallacy or a red herring, but it's not.

And that's where I am with RP. You are legislating choices with no scientific, medical, or even factual basis for reasoning primarily based on religion to take away what a woman can or cannot do with her body. This is, by definition, legislating morality.

OK. I can't continue a discussion about abortion if you can't understand the difference between an unfertilized egg and a fetus.

A fetus doesn't even exist untill the 11th or 12th week of pregnancy (Gestational age, not embryonic age - important, as above charts are based on gestational age) in humans, FYI. If you want to argue fetus, fine. But that means your argument is solely focused on 2nd and 3rd trimester, not 1st, and does not support a ban on all abortion, just specific kinds.

Sorry, misspoke. I'm referring to your unwillingness to acknowledge that there is a fundamental change happening at fertilization.

There is a "fundamental change" that happens at fertilization, granted. But this isn't the change you yourself referred to earlier, in that...

Your argument stems from "Critical marks of human life". My argument has been focused on the medical and scientific "critical marks of human life".

It's just a lump of cells. Hell, I read one article that said if you use a "potentially fertilized egg that has the potential to develop in a baby" as a metric for abortion, PMS is the leading cause of abortion by a landslide - I'm not joking. How do you think many of the so-called "abortion pills" work?

Prior to the 2nd trimester, there's nothing there that anyone would consider "life" using the criteria you proposed. And to argue that embryo's are human life has about as much intellectual integrity as me trying to argue that the chicken eggs that everyone here eats are a crime to eat because they are eating living chickens.

(Edit) To be absolutely clear, an embryo in the form I am discussing is a fertilized egg. An embryo is the final stage of the zygote untill it becomes a fetus.

We're not talking about "potentially fertilized." Fertilized or unfertilized, one or the other. One of them does nothing until it's naturally ejected from the body, the other naturally grows into an infant unless illness, malformation, or violent action stops it.

You do understand that chicken eggs for food consumption are unfertilized, right? They don't allow roosters to roam free in the henhouses, you know.

A more apt comparison would be you finding a developing chick in your omelet, and then claiming that it wasn't really a chicken because it didn't have feathers yet.