Mikee

now he's comparing abortion to slavery If, like me, you believe it is wrong because abortion kills an innocent human being, then it is ludicrous to then go on to say that "it is the woman's choice". It is as ludicrous as saying that you believe slavery is wrong, but that people should still have the choice whether they buy a slave or not.

he's actually an atheist (according to him) but I have heard of secular arguments against abortion.

last part of the comments It's really very simple: if you don't want to have children, and wish to be in complete control of your reproduction, then don't engage in the sole activity that produces children until you are ready to assume the responsibilities of parenthood. In a way, it's like a person whining that they have the right to eat as much as they want, and then whining that they are getting fat. The problem with abortion, though, is that a human life is killed because of this childish desire to escape the perfectly predictable consequences of our actions. With rights come responsibilities, though it's not fashionable to say so. I for one am protective of human life, as we have a long and blody history to show us what happens when certain classes of people are determined to be "non-human".

what do you make of comments such as this (came across it on diana's blog): there is no later point, in the development of the human embryo, that "human-being-ness" is endowed. This would require an intermediate non-being (and non-human non-being) exist for this interim, which is scientifically absurd. The human embryo is human, and it is a being. Thus it has the inalienable right to life -- the founders did not base the endowment of those rights on location (inside the womb vs. outside), but on being human. our Declaration of Independence posits certain rights as "inalienable", and the right to life is one of them. A fetus is a human being -- this is simply science. It is not, as you claim, "potential life" --that is a rather ridiculous assertion, since abortion kills the fetus: you can't kill something that isn't alive to begin with, but merely potential life. The problem with abortion, though, is that a human life is killed because of this childish desire to escape the perfectly predictable consequences of our actions. With rights come responsibilities, though it's not fashionable to say so. I for one am protective of human life, as we have a long and blody history to show us what happens when certain classes of people are determined to be "non-human". My references are the founding documents of this county, the Declaration and the Constitution. Nothing in those documents lead me to think that the human embroyo does not qualify for the right to life. Nor do I, as an atheist, support how science has been distorted for personal and sometimes political reasond.

well for example, you are pulled over for speeding and the officer asks for the usual. The person gives the officer an id card from a foreign country or gives no ID at all. Most agencies can check if the person has a valid license, registration, etc and then they can be cited for failure to carry and present the id when asked subsequent to the legal stop. However, upon checking and finding out this person is unlicensed, ininsured, and the vehicle is unregistered. It is perfectly reasonable to then ask if this person is a legal resident of the United States.

sometimes the argument, in favour of a fetus, is framed as such "what about the right of the individual who is unable to speak and protect himself/herself?"

for some strange reason I am unable to access the chat. If I click on it I get returned to the homepage

oh my remark was concerning the article

sounds rather puritan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bert-gall/wh...t_b_487406.html

Got into a discussion related to this issue on another forum and the response was below: "A corporation is an amelgam, it is not human, it is an entity, it does not breath air, its sole purpose and designation is to make profit for its survival. The supreme courts ruling of providing a so called equal voice to a corporation is paramont to saying that a robot/computer is human".

I came across this in my search http://bioshock.wikia.com/wiki/Sofia_Lamb notice the source for this character's philosophy and this: http://bioshock.wikia.com/wiki/Augustus_Sinclair notice the selfless description in helping his companions "but in his last moments, discovers his selfless side, aiding his companions even though he has nothing to gain from it."

I might do that and see what happens then.

I haven't played the game to the finish yet but i take it you killed the Gil Alexander character and spared the poole fellow.

there is one specific part I didn't like when the black lady said that turning the other cheek is for a thinking man and no monster would do such a thing.

the point being that they are state-recognized as opposed to state-created.

interesting and that is the mindset displayed in those replies to that forum topic especially by the "progressive dude"

taken from this thread: http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?sho...=37828&st=0 not sure what you guys make of that discussion.

*** Mod's note: Merged topics. - sN *** I'm not sure how to respond to this: "The most radical intervention in the market in the history of the world was the state creation of the limited liability corporate person. The so-called debate between free markets and intervention is a false one. Unless one is willing to be entirely consistent about free markets, including the elimination of corporate personhood, then we are really just debating about the degree of intervention. It is far from the case that less intervention is always a good thing. When there are a whole set of interlocking regulations that may have achieved a sort of balance, and removing one could produce dire consequences. It was exactly this type of deregulation which produced the recent financial crisis. Not to mention that the wealth inequalities that are an inherent byproduct of capitalism allow the powerful an unfair advantage in steering legislation. Thus, anyone seriously concerned with removing undue influence from government must strike at the heart of it, at interventions like corporate personhood. Other mechanisms can also come into play, such as the estate tax, in the interest of preserving freedom from the corrupting influence of aristocracy. Pragmatism regarding regulations is a necessity, considering the entrenched nature of our regulatory structure. So unless one is some sort of "anarcho"-capitalist or some other ridiculous thing, and believe in tearing down all government, then one must look at regulations on a case by case basis." it seems some people are mixing corporate personhood/corporatism with the recent supreme court decision.

i read a random comment by one libertarian who argued that corporations are legal entities which are specifically set up via the granting of a state privilege to encourage the pooling of capital in return for limited liability protection. so basically he's trying to say they are state-created.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/21/cam...dex.html?hpt=T2

how would you apply this concept to the supplement industry.

Private prisons are tricky. They're not operating in a free market. Their only customer is the government, so whether private prisons do a better job than public prisons or not is purely dependent on whether the government monitors their relationships with independent contractors better than they do their relationships with their own employees. And that's questionable.

Corporations are voluntary contracts between individuals, and those individuals have rights, period.

but if a hero is a bad-ass and cares for the ones he values why is that necessary a bad thing? Unless you mean caring for the res of the world