Since I promised to stay out of the other thread, but have been summoned

[idestroyedthetoilet]

A fetus is human. So is cancer (in a human). So is my eyebrow hair. However, to say "a human" requires more than merely having human origin, and people can disagree on what being a human means. It can't just be that it is alive, because, again, so is cancer.



Life is a continual process, from the mother forming the ovum (and father the sperm) all the through birth and death. The Catholics have taken to heart the policy that "every sperm is sacred", but unless you are advocating for that position, there will be an arbitrary dividing line at some point.



Hint: convincing arguments can't be reversed, such as "the mother is just as human as the fetus and of course deserves not be biologically connected to another human against her will".



If all the aborted fetuses were birthed, the list of adoptees would vanish in less than a year.

Ok. Attempting to define the term life as loosely as absolutely conceivable proves what point?

 

[One Brow]

Ok. Attempting to define the term life as loosely as absolutely conceivable proves what point?

My point was that any division we make between when a pregnancy can or can not be avoided/terminated is an arbitrary decision.

 

[LogGrad98]

My point was that any division we make between when a pregnancy can or can not be avoided/terminated is an arbitrary decision.

Not entirely. There comes a point of viability outside the womb.

Cancer will never be viable outside a host. Let alone any chance for sentience.

Although sentient cancer sounds like a premise for a Stephen King book.

 

[Rubashov]

Not entirely. There comes a point of viability outside the womb.

Cancer will never be viable outside a host. Let alone any chance for sentience.

Although sentient cancer sounds like a premise for a Stephen King book.

I would name it Rupert Murdoch...

 

[One Brow]

Not entirely. There comes a point of viability outside the womb.

Cancer will never be viable outside a host. Let alone any chance for sentience.

Although sentient cancer sounds like a premise for a Stephen King book.

I agree that viable fetuses should not be killed. If termination of the pregnancy is desired, they should be removed.

Perhaps not. Then again, if you put 200 lbs of cancer cells together and let them grow for 1000 years, who knows?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

No doubt you think Google was carefully monitoring the various possible results of searching for the founders of Greenpeace, to make sure he was manually eliminated, as opposed to a search algorithm updating automatically in response to various web posting. Yeah, that first one makes way more sense.

Oh yeah. The idea that Google might have a political agenda or might manipulate results in any way is so ludicrous. Surely there is no evidence of such things happening at all. Thanks for setting me straight.

 

[LogGrad98]

I agree that viable fetuses should not be killed. If termination of the pregnancy is desired, they should be removed.

Perhaps not. Then again, if you put 200 lbs of cancer cells together and let them grow for 1000 years, who knows?

Ain't nobody got time for that!

 

[One Brow]

Oh yeah. The idea that Google might have a political agenda or might manipulate results in any way is so ludicrous. Surely there is no evidence of such things happening at all. Thanks for setting me straight.

Assuming such a political agenda exists (Google's primary agenda is to sell us as a product to the major corporations that support conservative politicians, so how far can they really go before their source of income dries up?), why would you think it was focused on the notion of who was or was not afounder of Greenpeace? Do you think they are still monitoring this concern?

 

[One Brow]

but actual representative governance that follows the will of the people rather than leads/programs it.

So, does the opposite of following the vision of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, all of whom thought that the people needed to led?

 

[One Brow]

Thought this was interesting. Fare evasion is skyrocketing in NYC costing the transit authority hundreds of millions of dollars each year. This is clearly linked with the DA's decision to no prosecute fare evaders because they don't want to "criminalize poverty".

This is an example of an extremely liberal state thinking with the heart instead of the brain. The transit authority can't sustain itself. Fare evaders are stealing from taxpayers. What's next? Is the DA's office going to not prosecute shoplifting because it "criminalizes poverty?"

I'm not aware of any public transportation system that is not tax-payer subsidized. In NYC, something like less than half the expenses are covered by fares.

Just to clarify, I would have no problem with discounted or reduced fares for the poor. Declining to prosecute a specific illegal activity just encourages more of it.

Would a concerted effort to prosecute the offenders cost more or less than just ignoring them? I honestly don't know.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

I'm not aware of any public transportation system that is not tax-payer subsidized. In NYC, something like less than half the expenses are covered by fares.

True, but does it need to be? Why can't the government franchise public transportation systems (when possible) to a private business? The reason the costs are so high is because it's a government run operation. From my understanding, the UK franchises out it's transportation systems. Also, with this, the Gov could still offer vouchers or discounted rides for poor users of public transportation.

Would a concerted effort to prosecute the offenders cost more or less than just ignoring them? I honestly don't know.

I agree that we don't want the legal system bogged down with a bunch of fare evaders. However, at least the threat of getting into trouble would have to encourage some to just pay the fee to ride.

 

[One Brow]

True, but does it need to be? Why can't the government franchise public transportation systems (when possible) to a private business?

Because a truly usable pubic transportation system doesn't make money.

The reason the costs are so high is because it's a government run operation.

I've worked for 2 different Fortune 500s, and they were not any more efficient than the government.

From my understanding, the UK franchises out it's transportation systems. Also, with this, the Gov could still offer vouchers or discounted rides for poor users of public transportation.

About 47% of the financing for the London Underground comes from fares.

I agree that we don't want the legal system bogged down with a bunch of fare evaders. However, at least the threat of getting into trouble would have to encourage some to just pay the fee to ride.

I agree here, too. I don't where the curve hits the minimum expense value. Maybe it's at no enforcement, or sporadic enforcement, or complete crackdown.