[Gork]

Zero, are you a vegan conservative? You might be one-of-a-kind in the whole of human existence. Not only are you stubborn as shit about EXACT word choices, as if every syllable and comma is 110% intentional in an internet forum, your very beliefs seem to actually contradict. Are you what happens when a Nixon campaign staffer marries a crazy hippie? I'm beginning to wonder if YOU are a person, or some philosophical construct that has broken loose of the mind, like a yin-yang Godzilla that can type and wreak its havoc on the minds of thinking people.

[Zerogouki]

The reason an illegal immigrant is illegal is because they're not considered a citizen.

Wrong. The reason they're considered illegal is they came here illegally. There are plenty of non-citizens who live here 100% legally.

Here is your clue card, please use it wisely.

A fetus isn't a citizen until they're born. A fetus needs a birth certificate and an immigrant needs their green card.

A fetus isn't a citizen until they're born.

Irrelevant; non-citizens have rights in this country. For example, you can't just murder a bunch of French tourists fresh off the plane just for fun (although maybe that should be legal...)

Zero, are you a vegan conservative?

Vegan: for all intents and purposes, yes
Conservative: sort of. I'm what you might call a Neolibertarian or South Park Republican. My political philosophy is a combination of strict constitutionalism at the federal level, pragmatism at the state/local level, civil (or "soft") libertarianism, and a heavy dose of a certain Real American Hero from the '80s.

Not only are you stubborn as shit about EXACT word choices, as if every syllable and comma is 110% intentional in an internet forum

That only happens when I'm not drunk.

your very beliefs seem to actually contradict.

Name two contradicting beliefs that I have seriously expressed.

Are you what happens when a Nixon campaign staffer marries a crazy hippie? I'm beginning to wonder if YOU are a person, or some philosophical construct that has broken loose of the mind, like a yin-yang Godzilla that can type and wreak its havoc on the minds of thinking people.

yeah, basically.

[Infidelis]

Wrong. The reason they're considered illegal is they came here illegally. There are plenty of non-citizens who live here 100% legally.

Here is your clue card, please use it wisely.

What was it about their migration that was illegal?

Wait for it...


Wait..

Don't be too impatient...

Okay...

I'll tell ya...

FORMS. PAPERWORK. FEES.

Irrelevant; non-citizens have rights in this country. For example, you can't just murder a bunch of French tourists fresh off the plane just for fun (although maybe that should be legal...)

I asked the question...who the hell are you to tell me what is relevant to my inquiry?

My question isn't the regarding "killing" or current rights. It's regarding a willingness to extend rights to those that aren't legally a US citizen to increase quality of life.

[Zerogouki]

The reason an illegal immigrant is illegal is because they're not considered a citizen.

What was it about their migration that was illegal?

FORMS. PAPERWORK. FEES.

Thank you for contradicting yourself. Have a nice day.

My question isn't the regarding "killing" or current rights. It's regarding a willingness to extend rights to those that aren't legally a US citizen to increase quality of life.

And as I demonstrated, we are already in the practice of recognizing the rights of non-citizens within our borders so long as they respect our laws.

[Gork]

Well then Zero, I'd like to request that you only post here when you're drunk. Sober, you're INTOLERABLE. Now, if you're done nit-picking, I'd like to open this back up to any pro-lifers who might have actually thought about this problem: When does a human being become a person and why?

Granted, it is a philosophical problem that has never been conclusively answered, but it must be at least considered in order to debate abortion. Killing a lifeform isn't murder. It is murder to kill a person. Is a week-old fetus a person? Do fetuses have the right to own guns?

Seriously though, SCHIP provides free health care for children, but pregnant women do not get free health care, which can bankrupt a family just as they get started and occasionally sub-standard care puts lives of fetuses at risk. So are all the conservatives on this forum hypocrites, or will someone here defend free health care for pregnant women? This is not a trap. I'm just seeing if any of you are human.

[ninurta]

Well then Zero, I'd like to request that you only post here when you're drunk. Sober, you're INTOLERABLE. Now, if you're done nit-picking, I'd like to open this back up to any pro-lifers who might have actually thought about this problem: When does a human being become a person and why?

As soon as the sperm enters the egg. It goes from being half a human to human.

Granted, it is a philosophical problem that has never been conclusively answered, but it must be at least considered in order to debate abortion. Killing a lifeform isn't murder. It is murder to kill a person. Is a week-old fetus a person? Do fetuses have the right to own guns?

Do children have the right to own guns? Yeah they should. Let's say they do. In that case yeah a fetus would have that right if it has the necessary capital and means to buy it. Though we all know that that is kinda a silly thought to allow them to own one, but if every human had the right, then they would have the right to.

Seriously though, SCHIP provides free health care for children, but pregnant women do not get free health care, which can bankrupt a family just as they get started and occasionally sub-standard care puts lives of fetuses at risk. So are all the conservatives on this forum hypocrites, or will someone here defend free health care for pregnant women? This is not a trap. I'm just seeing if any of you are human.

I am against free health care because it is a myth, no less than Heracles and Medusa. I am serious, there is no such thing anywhere, and its most likely impossible to attain.

It's nationalized but comes out of your taxes, but either way you pay for it.

[The Clockwork Rat]

It's nationalized but comes out of your taxes, but either way you pay for it.

But there is not discrimination between a rich person or a poor person who gets hit by a car. They both get treated and neither gets bankrupted. The poor person can then continue to support their family.

[Gork]

As soon as the sperm enters the egg. It goes from being half a human to human.

Totally missed the point. This is a debate on personhood, not humanhood. The problem of personhood has never been satisfactorily answered by any theologian or philosophy throughout human history, on either side. And yet you deign to answer it here, you brilliant fucking manboy? No, I'm sorry. I asked it as a rhetorical question, because there's no real answer, and yet the answer to it is what this whole debate resides on. God damnit, I hate explaining apologetics to children.

I am against free health care because it is a myth, no less than Heracles and Medusa. I am serious, there is no such thing anywhere, and its most likely impossible to attain.

It's nationalized but comes out of your taxes, but either way you pay for it.

So you are against POOR CHILDREN having HEALTH INSURANCE. Holy fucking Christ, are you or are you not the Black Angel of Death? You are, verily, Ebenezer Scrooge. In case you didn't pick up on that, that's an insult.

[Infidelis]

No victory too small, is there Zero? Congratulations on completely transforming the question into an argument over schematics and then winning that argument.

But, I assume by your inability to answer why you're willing to extend rights for non-born fetuses on the basis of humanity and not to illegals for the same reason, and why a conservative would be willing to throw more people into the welfare system, that you have no reason.

Wonderful talking with you, as always.

[Zerogouki]

When does a human being become a person and why?

Again with this "human being" nonsense. If you want to ask how a "human being" is different from a "person", then you first need to clarify how a "human being" is different from "a human".

Or, if you were just being careless with your words and you meant to ask "When does a human become a person?", I would answer with "when it becomes sentient". This is not very scientifically definable, though, so from a legal perspective, I would argue "when activity can be detected in the cerebral cortex", as that's the earliest point at which anything that might be considered "thought" is possible.

Do fetuses have the right to own guns?

Just as much as turtles have the right to fly.

Seriously though, SCHIP provides free health care for children, but pregnant women do not get free health care, which can bankrupt a family just as they get started and occasionally sub-standard care puts lives of fetuses at risk. So are all the conservatives on this forum hypocrites, or will someone here defend free health care for pregnant women?

A false choice. I don't advocate taxpayer-sponsored health care for anyone.

So you are against POOR CHILDREN having HEALTH INSURANCE.

NO. We are against poor children depending on a government system that takes ten dollars from us for every one dollar that it gives back to them. We'd rather just give them the money ourselves and tell the government to go fuck itself.

But, I assume by your inability to answer why you're willing to extend rights for non-born fetuses on the basis of humanity and not blah blah blah

WRONG.

Recognition for the rights of the unborn is based on two things: their inherent humanity or personhood or whatever, and the fact that they haven't broken the law.

If a fetus somehow manages to escape from its womb, murder someone, and then climb back in there, then by all means, hold a trial and kill the little cretin. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[Infidelis]

WRONG.

Recognition for the rights of the unborn is based on two things: their inherent humanity or personhood or whatever, and the fact that they haven't broken the law.

If a fetus somehow manages to escape from its womb, murder someone, and then climb back in there, then by all means, hold a trial and kill the little cretin. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.

So you're willing to extend rights to embryos and fetuses because they haven't broken a law? They're unable to...that'd be like extending the right to live to the brain-dead. And no, it hasn't escaped me that there is a faction of the population believe that those who are complete vegetables have a right to life. But, that too is asinine.

And half of the extension of rights to fetuses is based on the same thing as those who support easing immigration laws; "inherent humanity."

And I see you're not touching the welfare burden from would-be abortees. So, I assume that we're in agreement that one can't be anti-abortion and a fiscal conservative, right?

[Zerogouki]

So you're willing to extend rights to embryos and fetuses because they haven't broken a law? They're unable to...

Irrelevant. The point is that they haven't, which is what separates them from illegal immigrants.

that'd be like extending the right to live to the brain-dead.

Except that the brain-dead are not people anymore. That's not always the case with fetuses.

And half of the extension of rights to fetuses is based on the same thing as those who support easing immigration laws; "inherent humanity."

Yeah, I don't buy all that "humanity" bollocks.

And I see you're not touching the welfare burden from would-be abortees.

That's because I'm against the existence of a welfare system. Try taking that argument up with a neocon and see how it works out, though. The results should be hilarious.

[ccdan]

Or, if you were just being careless with your words and you meant to ask "When does a human become a person?", I would answer with "when it becomes sentient". This is not very scientifically definable, though, so from a legal perspective, I would argue "when activity can be detected in the cerebral cortex", as that's the earliest point at which anything that might be considered "thought" is possible.

what human are you talking about? a fetus is just like a human organ and if you take that shit out, it dies, like any other organ... and btw., sperm cells are also alive and human in nature...

[ninurta]

But there is not discrimination between a rich person or a poor person who gets hit by a car. They both get treated and neither gets bankrupted. The poor person can then continue to support their family.

The so-called discrimination comes because the rich pay more, so they get better care. It's not a hard concept to get. Pay a little more, get a little bit better care.

[]As soon as the sperm enters the egg. It goes from being half a human to human.[]
Totally missed the point. This is a debate on personhood, not humanhood. The problem of personhood has never been satisfactorily answered by any theologian or philosophy throughout human history, on either side. And yet you deign to answer it here, you brilliant fucking manboy? No, I'm sorry. I asked it as a rhetorical question, because there's no real answer, and yet the answer to it is what this whole debate resides on. God damnit, I hate explaining apologetics to children.

What are you talking about, we answered this over and over again. First, a person = human, a human = person. Are chimpanzees persons? No, as a person (obviously) is a human being.

As for defining what human is, having DNA of a human and being human.

[]I am against free health care because it is a myth, no less than Heracles and Medusa. I am serious, there is no such thing anywhere, and its most likely impossible to attain.

It's nationalized but comes out of your taxes, but either way you pay for it.[]
So you are against POOR CHILDREN having HEALTH INSURANCE. Holy fucking Christ, are you or are you not the Black Angel of Death? You are, verily, Ebenezer Scrooge. In case you didn't pick up on that, that's an insult.

No, that is a strawan, and of course I picked up on your failed insult. It failed because you don't know what you are talking about.All I simply stated was that there is no such thing as free health care nor fre health care insurance. And by the way, I am for children having health insurance, I just am against the government being involved

[The Clockwork Rat]

The poor person can't afford the healthcare.

[Gork]

Zero: The most complex brain activity that begins in the womb is from sensory input, which occurs right before birth and is involuntary, not requiring any thought.

Go back and re-read my treatise on brain activity in newborn babies. Straight out of the womb they still aren't capable of cortical thought. So by your own admission newborn babies aren't persons.

I'm not advocating killing newborn babies, but purely as a thought experiment, if personhood begins with cortical activity and the cortex is still forming when a baby is born, from a philosophical standpoint, by your definition, it wouldn't be murder to kill a newborn baby.

My only point is that, depending on when you define personhod as beginning, this is a very gray area. No one who approaches the issue has an honest answer. I tend to think that brain activity connotes personhood. A baby born without a brain is human, but it isn't a person. A Human who is brain dead is alive, but not a person.

Some religions define personhood as happening around 12 years of age.

I think in order for something to be murder, it must involve more than simply the extinguishing of a life. It must involve the stoppage of actions, thoughts or emotions entering this world from a source, the target, a person.

Besides that, if abortion were made illegal, women who didn't want to have a baby would simply start hitting themselves in the stomach with baseball bats when they missed a period. Violent miscarriages would lead to infections and hysterectomies. you wouldn't save any babies, you'd just put mothers at risk. And we can't handle more babies put up for adoption, so that's not the answer. The adoption system is already stretched to its limits.

[Gork]

And by the way, I am for children having health insurance, I just am against the government being involved

You REALLY think that if we repealed SCHIP Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh would be coughing up money for poor black kids to get heart transplants? You're delusional if you do. We went a LONG time in this country with no mandatory health coverage for children and kids died by the millions from preventable diseases, often because they were working for rich men in factories for barely any money, and when they got sick they were fired and died.

It's heartwarming, your naivete for the charity of the rich, but any thinking, rational person would see that it is faulty, mainly because it's been needed before and wasn't provided. And I will make you into a rational human being if it kills me.

[ninurta]

[]And by the way, I am for children having health insurance, I just am against the government being involved[]
You REALLY think that if we repealed SCHIP Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh would be coughing up money for poor black kids to get heart transplants? You're delusional if you do.

I never said I did. Though I know people would, other people.

We went a LONG time in this country with no mandatory health coverage for children and kids died by the millions from preventable diseases, often because they were working for rich men in factories for barely any money, and when they got sick they were fired and died.

And is why we need to deal with that directly. It's not something that can not be done without government interference.

It's heartwarming, your naivete for the charity of the rich, but any thinking, rational person would see that it is faulty, mainly because it's been needed before and wasn't provided. And I will make you into a rational human being if it kills me.

Yeah because the rich don't donate to the poor. Look at the world's richest man (if he still is), Bill Gates hasn't even donated a dime. You are so right.

And it isn't just the rich who would donate.

[Gork]

Yeah because the rich don't donate to the poor. Look at the world's richest man (if he still is), Bill Gates hasn't even donated a dime. You are so right.

Excellent example. He and Warren Buffet are both staunch liberals. Thanks for pointing out that liberals care about the needy, although that was already pretty obvious.

[ninurta]

Excellent example. He and Warren Buffet are both staunch liberals. Thanks for pointing out that liberals care about the needy, although that was already pretty obvious.

I've always said that about my liberal counterparts. Though also, its not just liberals who give to the poor through charity. Liberals just want to try their best to give the poor food, a home, clothing and everything they need. Though us libertarians disagree on how to go about doing it, and neocons tend to rely on charity to do so as well, some don't even give a damn. But thats not all of us, and some liberals dont give a damn too.