Oh, the beginning part? I was just trying to say that, even if you support just some form of abortion, or abortion under certain circumstances, you still support the idea to a certain extent. It was a bit confusing though, sorry about that.

Btw, the above argument is by Judith Jarvis Thompson. Here is the excerpt where she talks about it:

Link Here

I's a pdf file, btw.

Quite a good one; I don't think it has been shot down yet.

Although i'm dissapointed to hear you're only okay with abortion if rape is involved, that's a really good article.

What fear of exploration are you talking about? Did we discover stem cells out of fear?

And if this has nothing to do with politics, then why did you bring this up: I find it interesting that many who coach their oppostion to putting a baby out of its misery in terms of "morality" but don't care to encourage ways to make their future's happier and healthier under the same empty blanket statement.

I see it as a way of pointing out "hypocrisy" by opponents of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, while at the same time stidestepping the whole controversy around stem cells. On has the right to be morally opposed to both infanticide AND embryonic stem cell research, you know. A lot of time it goes hand in hand, actually.


To me, encouraging means only one thing: giving money for that research. You want to encourage it? Sponsor it! There is enough supporters of embryonic stem-cell research around to do it. California decided to give more money to research than the federal government did, actually. It's their prerogative.


I do what I can. I'm just saying that it's wrong to suggest that embryonic stem-cell research is going to magically solve all problems of the world, while it's not even known if it will accomplish anything different than adult stem cells.

By the way, eugenics was a part of "progressive" medical research too.

Kudos to you for pointing out that this example only applies to rape pregancies. Thompson goes to great lengths to mask that little issue.

I can't convincingly argue in favour of all abortions. If I had an argument to back me up, I wouldn't mind extending my support to include all abortions. However, I haven't come across any such argument.

I had a discussion with a friend of mine about the topic, and the conclusion I came to is that I would respect any woman's decision, whatever it is, but that I would only support it in extreme cases. I wouldn't change my views of someone who made choice to have an abortion; everyone has their own reasons for doing what they want to do, and everyone will deal with the consequences to the best of their ability; it's not my business to judge. I most certainly wouldn't think of them as a bad person.


Other social issues I'm much clearer on; I am 100% opposed to the death penalty because there is absolutely no good reason for it, not a single one. It does not deter, it does not instill fear, it does not heal anyone's wounds, it does not protect anyone, it does not cause remorse in the criminal, and it does not set things right. Women's rights, equal rights for minorities, etc. are pretty clear as well, though specifics such as affimrative action have still to be dealt with.

But abortion, that's a tough one.

I brought it up because I fail to take seriously someone who just says something like "Oh that is so wrong." without expounding on why, and in what way alternatives can be provided. "Wrong" is initself such a malleable concept that I like to hear a little more. Same goes for, you know what I'm going to say next, "Evil." This was not an attack directed at you, you do provide information as to why you do or don't disagree with something, hence the reason I said "many who."

The other point you mentioned,


is true. It is something I hope "science" as a field wrestles with every day, and that is why I have always supported the humanities, histories, arts, etc far greater contributers to society than most give them credit for. Science should always have to grapple with its own closet of skeletons, but that is the beauty of it. Eugenics was in and out in three decades, and woul dhave been out even quicker if more dissention had been allowed at the time. I think an integral part of the science research field is understanding how much it forms and is informed by society, and how that relationship has to be constantly scrutinized.

I think that's a straw man attack. Generally, I find conservatives who oppose embryonic stem cell research to be more educated on the issue than its advocates. For one thing, they do not fail to make a crucial distinction between embryonic and adult stem cell research ;-)

Secondly, there are some things that are evil per se, without a need for a further explanation. For instance, I consider murdering of innocent people to be evil. It's a tad simplistic, however that is my belief.


This is why I believe scientists should not be sponsored by the government: it makes them out of touch with the public, and more in touch with their own agenda.

Do you oppose social security? One of the biggest government funded programs?

On moral grounds, yes I do.

From a practical standpoint, there is no easy way to get rid of it, however there is a way to render it irrelevant: work on attaining a wealthier society.

Your last statement is virtually impossible.

You're right; I should've said wealthier individuals, not society.

As in a broad spectrum? Eliminating poverty, well... unfortunatly will never happen.

As long as you keep coming up with incentives for people to stay poor, not it won't.

But that has nothing to do with what I posted. More wealthier individuals does not mean eliminating poverty.

I know, thats why I was confused by your statement.

Incentives to stay poor?! . I don't want to drag this discussion into this thread, but that is the single most Republican (and therefore dumbest) thing i've ever heard you say, Krem. I'm dissapointed.

That's not a "Republican" thing to say; though it's up to you to figure out if it's dumb or not.

Yes, there are incentives for people to stay poor. I'm using the term "poor" liberally here; by that I mean not trying to achieve more, because of the government programs.

For instance, it's not a secret that in ghetto neighborhoods single women used to not seek gainful employment, because there was always Welfare to fall back on, especially if one had a lot of children.

You know, cause it's so easy for a sinlge mother with three kids to have a 40 hour a week job.

How many black female friends do you have from the ghetto?...Seriously curious
Thats a HUGE assumption Krem, You act as if these single mothers with 6 kids and no father figure ENJOY living welfare check to welfare check, in a shitty neighborhood where one has to fend for the life constantly

Three kids? How about seven or eight?

The whole reason behind having that many kids and staying single is to draw benefits from the government.

actually, to add to krem, i can state another thing ...

In Quebec, if parents are divorced, under situations, one parent is not allowed to have more than the other parent. If the mom buys a 200 dollar christmas present for the child, the father must to. If he can't then the mother must match the father's maximum or give the father money to match hers. Can't live in a bigger place ... cant have sattelite TV .. blah blah blha.

all this leading to one parent deliberately slacking off and letting the other one cover.

Ofcourse, i did mention certain situations such as kid's age, custody, descrepencies in wealth and stuff.

Do you know (or have heard of) a single person that has seven or eight kids for the sole reason of collecting welfare? That's the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard of, Krem. No women would put her body threw that for 500 bucks a month. This sounds like something Ronald Reagan would have said, like homeless people make $50,000 a year or some horse shit.

Excuse me, but nobody forced them to have those kids without getting married.

Now this is a bit ridiculous. It's not fair to either parent no matter how much money they make, and it's not fair to the child. Who in the hell came up with this law?

Yes, I have.

Recently there was a case about a foster family here in Philadelphia, who had 5 of their kids and 6 or 7 foster kids at any time. That family did nothing, but collect child support. It turns out, they were also abusing their children, by not feeding them.

And it's not $500 a month either.

Right, because there's no way the husband could have skipped out on her, right?