Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

shyboy

Regulars
  • Posts

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by shyboy

  1. I'm curious as to what you all here on this forum think about what this guy on youtube has to say about his criticisms of Ayn Rand and Ron Paul http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovELs252uVg
  2. Are you all married? I'm not but this seems to me to be romance in its early stages, although I'm not saying that it cannot flame up every once in awhile when it has gotten older. I think the best part about romance or marriage in it's later stages, is the groundedness of it, the sense of belonging, the safeness, the companionship, and the routines. People aren't going to be all lovey dovey all the time expecially if you are with them 24/7. If you are with a person for so long though your love for them can't help but to grow but if you expect what you all are typing all the time you all will most certainly go astray... Also you all are some great creative writers. I wish I could type like that.
  3. shyboy

    A Fetus Is Human

    Yea okay, The same law that maintains that a violent act against a pregnant woman is a violent act against two persons. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. Now I know I'm dealing with What Ifs here but... What if the pregnant lady gets shot and it kills the baby but not the lady? One attempted murder charge and one murder charge? And another scenario, whatif the baby gets shot and killed but the woman stays alive and said it was okay about the baby because she wanted an abortion anyway? Just an Attempted murder charge? This law shouldn't be in place if abortion is legal it is a contradiction. I think if I try to defend my argument any further I understand that it wouldn't be objective, and it would be just plain redundant. No need going 37 pages of redundancy. You all made some great points, I don't really have too much room to argue.
  4. shyboy

    A Fetus Is Human

    "drawing an analogy between the genetics of fetuses and tumors with respect to the argument you had made. That's not the same as comparing the two." Well I think it was a terrible analogy... I think the misunderstanding lies in what you consider a person. NO ONE can draw the line. Not even the Supreme Court who failed to do so with Roe vs Wade. That resulted in the overturning of laws in 50 different states. It is based off of an element of doubt...They didn't feel that they should determine when life started. The burden of proof should lie with the life-taker, and the benefit of the doubt should be with the life-saver."When in doubt, don't"... A hunter who hears rustling in the bushes shouldn't fire until he knows what is in the bushes. Likewise, a Court which doesn't know when life begins, should not declare open season on the unborn. The burden of proof in law is on the prosecution. The benefit of doubt is with the defense. This is also known as a presumption of innocence. The defendant is assumed to be innocent unless proven guilty. Again the burden of proof is on the entity that would take away life or liberty. The benefit of the doubt lies with the defense. The Supreme Court clearly stated that it does not know when life begins and then violated the very spirit of this legal principle by acting as if it just proved that no life existed in the womb. Even more curious was the fact that to do so, it had to ignore the international community on the subject of the unborn. I think I fully understand the nature of rights. I understand we live in a country where an animal has the rights and status similar to that of a Human slave before abolition, more than what we grant our own unborn children. I think the problem with this subject is people's inability to hold sacred Human life or maybe life in general...over all things. People's ability to exploit ambiguity in the written law to avoid it's intended effect. That's no misunderstanding I don't think.
  5. shyboy

    A Fetus Is Human

    There is a huge difference between Langerhans cells and the cells that make up a human body. The baby has those cells too. The baby also has a heart, a brain, an actual human body structure. Just like you had at one point. Skin cells are none of those. So that isn't convincing? You all are comparing a child to an abnormality. A child to an abnormality. Cancer is an abnormality. It can be malignant, metastatic (spread to other parts of the body) No it isn't, that's just a knee-jerk reaction. Reason can only be exercised through the mind, on the third level of consciousness: the conceptual faculty. The fetus does not gain access to this until it has unlocked the second level: the perceptual faculty. The sensational faculty is a given amongst any animal with a nervous system. By your definition, anything capable of feeling pain is capable of being rational. True, having a nervous system doesn't make you rational, but they have the same level as children in infancy outside of the womb. Level 1. "A fetus cannot exist alive outside thee mother's womb. It is, essentially, a PARASITE on the mother's body. If she doesn't want it there, there's no reason why she should keep it there." A parasitism is a relationship between organisms of a DIFFERENT SPECIES in which the host is harmed. To compare children to tapeworms, flukes, plasmodiumspecies and fleas...That's going a little too far isn't it? They are of the same species therefore they are not parasites...I'm not saying you don't have the right to say that cause you do, but just because you said it doesn't make true. "What does this mean? An ameoba has life, does it thereby have rights? Life -- as such -- does not imply rights. If you think it does, then state your case. And, even if you think that human life implies rights, you need to explain why." It's called human life, not decaying vegetation as an ameoba. It's called human rights...they are entitled to every human. They are inalienable. Which means they shouldn't have to be directly shown or expressed. You just have them. A Human Being doesn't need a documented right to take a dump, but he does...Why should you need one to live? It's a call to nature.
  6. I guess this is the proper place here for this...As you can see I'm against abortion, not all abortion though. Let me start by saying scientifically, a fetus is a human. At conception the embryo is genetically distinct from the mother. To say that the developing baby is no different from the mother's appendix is scientifically inaccurate. A developing embryo is genetically different from the mother. A developing embryo is also genetically different from the sperm and egg that created it. A human being has 46 chromosomes (sometimes 47 chromosomes). Sperm and egg have 23 chromosomes. A trained geneticist can distinguish between the DNA of an embryo and that of a sperm and egg. But that same geneticist could not distinguish between the DNA of a developing embryo and a full-grown human being. It's a completely separate person in the womb. That's why the person is entitled to inalienable rights. Because it's a person. Just because it's inside the mother doesn't make it any less a human. Abortion to me is infanticide. Reason or not...even though a fetus/baby's ability to feel pain. If you stick an 8 week fetus/baby in the hand with a needle they'll open their hand and pull away. It's ability to respond to pain is evidence of reason. A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one of the most important criteria used to determine death. If the cessation of brain wave activity can define death, could the onset of brain wave activity define life? Individual brain waves are detected in the fetus in about 40-43 days (a heart is formed within 18 days). Using brain wave activity to define life would outlaw at least a majority of abortions. And on the issue of rape. The percentage of abortions due to rape is 1%...Though a large number compared to 30 million. I personally know a woman that has had a child from rape, but despite that being a criminals child...it's still her child...It's still another person. It doesn't make it any less a human. However, I take into consideration a woman's mental state after rape. Experiencing tense, sometimes unpredictable emotions. And they may find it difficult to deal with their memories. It even impacts and disables some women's ability to function. Even in extreme cases resulting in suicide. These are (mental) health issues. Even though not in all cases...I find health reasons a logical reason. In this case it should be an option. You can't really argue inalienable rights without citing the first natural right...life.
  7. You guys are forgetting that if it wasn't for the Indians the settlers would of died. If it wasn't for Pochahantas who saved John Smith the settlers would of died. The settlers didn't know anything about the land and they wouldn't of succeeded without the indians help. Expecially in that harsh winter. They took good care of the land and stuff I don't think that is evil.
  8. shyboy

    Abortion

    What do you mean by getting all legal about it?
  9. I think what the person ment is that their sense of culture for peace and Hunting and gathering societies were egalitiarian because they depended on cooperatives and equal relations among members in order to survive.
  10. shyboy

    Abortion

    I got a question for the males here. You As A Future Potential Father...You Feel It Would Be Fair For The Potential Mother of Your Child To Abort Her Pregnancy Without Noticfying You? & How Would You Feel if that Did happen to You?
  11. I was always told that the Japanese would of surrendered quickly if they had known that they could of kept their Emperor. I'm not trying to spread anything. I know very well what forum I am on. I'm just telling you what I was told.
  12. Man, I dunno... Society, if I understand correctly, is merely just a collection of individuals.
  13. Here is a list of pros and cons I found. Don't know if it is is biased or not. Why the bomb was needed or justified: The Japanese had demonstrated near-fanatical resistance, fighting to almost the last man on Pacific islands, committing mass suicide on Saipan and unleashing kamikaze attacks at Okinawa. Fire bombing had killed 100,000 in Tokyo with no discernible political effect. Only the atomic bomb could jolt Japan's leadership to surrender. With only two bombs ready (and a third on the way by late August 1945) it was too risky to "waste" one in a demonstration over an unpopulated area. An invasion of Japan would have caused casualties on both sides that could easily have exceeded the toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The two targeted cities would have been firebombed anyway. Immediate use of the bomb convinced the world of its horror and prevented future use when nuclear stockpiles were far larger. The bomb's use impressed the Soviet Union and halted the war quickly enough that the USSR did not demand joint occupation of Japan. Why the bomb was not needed, or unjustified: Japan was ready to call it quits anyway. More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria. American refusal to modify its "unconditional surrender" demand to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor needlessly prolonged Japan's resistance. A demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor would have convinced Japan's leaders to quit without killing many people. Even if Hiroshima was necessary, the U.S. did not give enough time for word to filter out of its devastation before bombing Nagasaki. The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its development. The two cities were of limited military value. Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one. Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant damage without making the U.S. the first nation to use nuclear weapons.
  14. how can you all put greece next to Egypt? the Greeks and romans didn't even exist when the pyramids were build 2500 BC. I 'm not even mentioning the library of 'alexanderia'. they had on highly advanced society when the greeks and romans were still walking around like cavemen. oh and the Minoans had major influence on Greece...I wouldn't even c that the greeks are on the same level as the minoans were... Roma is overrated. compare what they did in europa with what Qin did in China, around(even before actually) the same time. to be the greatest empire ever, u must be above all the other empires imo....Egypt obviously was a couple thousand years ahead of it's time and should be considered the greatest imo.
  15. First question is was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima necessary? I'll leave that a bit vague knowing that "necessary" and "justified" are different, but feel free to comment on both. Second, given the effect of the Hiroshima bomb, what of the Nagasaki bomb? If something like this has already been asked sue me, I didn't know.
  16. So what you're proposing is that, if I do happen to be one of those lucky minorities who is able to get into an upper level university without the assisstance of the system we have now, that I should forget my community/family/culture I left behind and assimilate into the majority? The majority that still hasn't proven itself to be capable of looking out for the good of the minority? Why do you think this would all of a sudden change if we got rid of the Civil Rights Act?
  17. I'm confused like are you saying that the solution to removing the stigma of being a minority student at an established university, tainted by the fact that a few students that share the same skin colour as you are bad students, is to force all minority students, with the exception of the very smartest, into minority only universities ? If this is too much for this board I would love to pm one of ya'll.
  18. Yea, I know that is why I put that question in this thread. I just wanted you alls views on things. I don't know what you mean, on such basis, what basis are you talking about?
  19. I read this in your defense against affirmative action... So you would rather just have no or very few minority students because somehow that would make it look like minorites are smarter because less of them have gone to college ? What about the fact that many of the minority students have fewer resourses then their white counter parts do at the grade school and high school level ? Should that just be ignored in the university admision process ?
  20. RationalBiker deleted my thread earlier but I want you all to know that I'm not advocating violence. I just want to know the objectivist way to get change. I guess you would call me somewhat of a Mechavallian. Violence is the only way that I see we can have change in america. Even those in the 60's DIED in the name of peace. In a nutshell, people DIED for change. there's always a violent result when making change. even jesus went out crucified peace is what we want violence is what usually occurs in order to achieve peace and thus the paradox What are you alls point of view.
  21. Excuse me for being such a newb but what does experience gotta do with anything? Bush doesn't have that much experience.
×
×
  • Create New...