Phi for All

That's unbelievably wrong. There is abundant evidence to support morality. Morals are determined by the society you're part of. They are absolutely NOT "just what feels right". Drink the puppies in the US and you're going to jail, or possibly an asylum (though there would be some PETA folks calling for lethal injection), no matter how right it feels to you. Drink the puppies in a the wildest parts of New Guinea and you may get a shoulder shrug and a request for a sample. This is far from a typical "life begins at conception" argument. Now we just need to figure out the parameters of "if the life of the mother is endangered by continuing the pregnancy". Does endangerment have to be lethal in all cases? As was mentioned before, if the father, upon hearing of the pregnancy, decides to flee the scene of the crime, are you seriously going to force the mother to have a child she doesn't want to raise alone? The list of things that endanger both the child and the mother is quite long, and that's generally why pro-choice folks argue that the abortion developmental prevention option needs to stay open. Informed opinion is essential to modern life. And information helps us overcome our own internal feelings and bias in science as well. It may not feel right to give free needles to drug addicts, but it successfully stems the spread of diseases that might otherwise find their way to non-addicts. It may not feel right to arrest the development of a viable fetus, but in many cases it actually lowers the crime rate down the line, lowers the amount of public funding needed and keeps multiple lives from being ruined in the process. This isn't opinion, it's backed up by mounds of evidence, like all the best theories. Which is ironic, because nobody had up until then.

And I answered your question. This administration is not compromising an ongoing investigation into the situation by warning suspects of what it's doing or planning to do. If this was poker, I'd say they're playing things close to the vest so they don't tip their hand. Remember, they're spread pretty thin over there, watching so many Middle Eastern countries at once. Of course the Republicans are going to use this against Obama. It's risky though, imo. If they make a huge deal about Obama not doing anything and then suddenly Obama announces that an ongoing, quietly dispatched operation nabbed the perpetrators, the GOP looks pretty stupid. Like I said, I'm a fan of transparency normally, but in military matters, loose lips sink ships, or gives the terrorists time to make their getaway. When it comes to fighting terrorism, let's try using a blowgun since we know a trumpet doesn't work.

When Bush was president, I didn't like all the secrecy surrounding his administration. He was labeled early on as one of the most secretive presidents ever. On the other hand, I thought he was entirely too forthcoming and open about his military procedures in Afghanistan and then Iraq. I understand that he wanted to show the world that he was doing something to retaliate after 9/11, but I thought his military policies put our troops at extra risk just so he could crow about it. The publicity involving military actions further encouraged terrorist recruitment as well, this is known. I was pleased when Obama took a much more low key approach. Suddenly, without a bunch of media hype to sell it, we had killed bin Laden, covertly, with a minimum of expense and fuss, treating him like a coward and a menace and giving him the justice he deserved. On the other hand, a lack of transparency creates situations like these, where the administration doesn't want to let the whole world know what's going on with respect to their situations and options. It's frustrating when the government has to play things close to the vest like this, but I have to believe the military commanders prefer it when as few people as possible know of their plans. I remember complaining when Bush's administration outed our own spies and couldn't wait to tell the press about all our plans, so I guess I have to bite the bullet, so to speak, when we're not told everything about our operations in the Middle East these days. Grudging admiration, given through gritted teeth, for a difficult job in a difficult part of the world, made all the more difficult because of past mistakes.

We've gotten to be such a bunch of nuts in this country. People will believe anything that supports their biases. I keep hearing Republicans either defending Mitt's airplane windows comment, or they say too much is being made of it (the same people who are still claiming Obama isn't a US citizen, he's a communist, he's a socialist, he's a Muslim and now his mom was a porn star). Another funny thing is how the whole message approval rules are working just like the new rules with pharmaceutical ads. Instead of making people leery of taking new drugs that may cause anal leakage, thoughts of suicide and blindness, the test disclaimers are actually selling more drugs, and similarly, when some of these third-party sponsored ads come out without the candidate's endorsement, it seems to be making many people just that much more sure they're true. What is making us so stupid?

It should also be noted that the life that is already living is the one the cyst is completely dependent on. Its care can't be transferred like any other dependent entity. Without that particular woman's consent, the blastocyst can't survive. How could that possibly fit a moral or legal definition of life? The word "abortion" is partly to blame in all this. It implies a failed plan, failure at something that was intentional, and nothing could be further from the truth. We should be calling it a prevention instead.

No discussion available here, I guess. Move along.

Are you willing to execute a woman for choosing to abort a baby she doesn't want? Some states will do that if "life begins at conception" is made the law of the land. Some states would execute a woman if she exercises too strenuously and miscarries. Where is your right to privacy-small-non-intrusive government philosophy now? Did you know that, around the world, abortion rates don't vary substantially between countries where abortion is legal and where it's illegal? This shows us some very important things. Women would rather face death sometimes than have a child they don't want. It also shows us that women will choose abortion whether it's legal, monitored and safe or it's illegal, unmonitored and dangerous. If you're pro-life, why don't you value the lives of these women? Why should a potential for life trump an already living and viable human? If you still maintain that this potential for life is enough to grant personhood to a blastocyst, please keep in mind that a few skin cells or a piece of dandruff contains the potential to be cloned as a human being. Potential for life is a stupid reason to restrict the rights of anybody.

This is one of the biggest problems with the abortion issue, people trying to form ethical stances based on few facts. It's insane. This adherence to "life begins at conception" is completely untenable. It's more in line with a personal moral value, but fails miserably when you attempt to make it law and enforce it. I think it's extremely selfish thinking. Some people assume birth control means sluts doing whoever they want, or think welfare goes only to lazy people who could work if they really wanted to. People who oppose making abortion available seem more interested in a potential life than they are in the actual, here-and-now life of the mother, and they're usually the ones who demand that every baby gets born and then don't want to pay taxes that go to any welfare or education for all those kids. They're also usually the same people who don't really give a crap that lots of innocent brown people get killed every day with their tax money.

We generally prefer more substance in our discussions.

I define conservatism as a kind of timeless, traditional, substantial viewpoint that shrugs off what may be fleeting. It's investing in solid, dependable things that have stood the test of time. There is also an efficiency factor that favors thriftiness. You shouldn't waste anything, and being resourceful is a hallmark of conservatism. I define liberal as progressive and generous. It's thinking in future terms and investing in things that will pay off long-term in multiple dividends. There is also an efficiency factor that favors practicality. Sometimes you need to use more to get a better result, like painting the house. If you're too stingy with the paint, it's not going to look good, it won't protect as well and you'll just have to re-do all that labor sooner. Better to apply three coats. I'm conservative when it comes to clothing. I like garments well-tailored and somewhat modest, simply because I think clothes that show too much flesh aren't as sexy as clothes that conceal but suggest. I'm conservative about craftsmanship, and I prefer something well-made by someone with a traditional sense of quality to something that's manufactured to a low price point. I'm conservative when it comes to subsidies. There should be a number of great reasons why my taxes should help pay for anything commercial. Business gets my consumerism and the benefits of the free market, so it shouldn't need tax dollars that could be spent elsewhere. Business owners have an automatic economic benefit just by being the owners, so I don't feel they deserve that kind of welfare. I'm liberal when it comes to education. I think we could eventually disband most of the military forces in the world if we spent half our defense budgets educating as many people as possible (starting with our own kids, since it's our tax dollars). Speaking of that, I'm very liberal about the military as well. I think we should cut the waste by having a single armed force that trains soldiers to fly, soldiers to run boats and ships, and soldiers to be infantry. One cohesive military force instead of having four different hands (and four enormous administrative machines) out reaching for every dollar in military appropriations. I'm liberal when it comes to welfare and healthcare, and I think they're something we should all be thankful to help fund simply to be a member of a great and growing society. I'd also like a complete overhaul of the system so the focus is to help people not to need welfare rather than come to depend on it. Healthcare insurance should be offered as a risk pool administered on the most successful business model by the federal government.

I hate that we get labeled conservative OR liberal as people. It just allows other people to assume they know everything about you, and I think most people are a blend of perspectives, depending on the issue and the context. First, I'd like to hear how you define liberal, and how you define conservative. It seems like these definitions are usually skewed, and that's why people don't seem to mind being labeled ("Conservatives are stable and consistent, not like those loony, reckless liberals", or "Liberals are forward-thinking intellectuals, not like those fearful, stuck-in-the-past conservatives"). Then, I'd like to hear about some issues where you're firmly left, and other issues where you're firmly right. Be honest, and remember your definitions. This isn't so much a discussion about the merits of the individual issues or even your stance on them. I really don't want to get bogged down talking about abortion or gay marriage. What I want to discuss is how you can feel conservative about one issue, yet liberal about another. I was going to start with mine but I need to dash. I'll chime in further down the page.

What made you think I was angry? Was it because I called bullshit and deception on some of those visually-enhanced-for-the-integrity-challenged sound bytes you linked us to and asked us to evaluate for veracity? I was just pointing out their shallow, intellectually dishonest roots. Was it because I said I was tired of checking them out? The first six showed no merit whatsoever. I had some friends to meet up with and had other things to do, so I assumed there were no real facts hiding out further down the list (normally a good tactic is to start with facts before you switch to deceit, that way your audience is more trusting). Frankly rigney, those were just a bunch of emotionally charged monkey turds, meant to be thrown over the fence at the people you think you hate. It doesn't anger me so much as it disgusts me. We're Americans and we've let ourselves be separated from our common goals by a bunch of special interest spinners who know that whipping up the mob emotionally makes us forget how smart we can be. Why we aren't calling for heads to roll in a Congress that only one person in ten feels is performing adequately is a great testimony to how effective these special interest groups are. What angers me is that these tactics work. America is being strawmanned on both sides. Nobody is 100% liberal or conservative, but that's the way we're being portrayed and the way we're being attacked. And most of it, I feel, is to distract us from the real threat, the way our government is being manipulated. In the Old West, the best way to cheat at cards was to start a fight in the bar and then stack the deck in your favor when the other players were watching the brawl.

Don't you LOVE the hypocrisy of this one? Liberals support the Constitutional separation of church and state, so they don't really care about Romney's religion as long as he doesn't try to govern by it. It's the religious right that really hates the fact he's Mormon (many Christians think Mormons are cultists). So, the tactic is to pretend the liberals have a problem with his religion, and the conservatives don't. Also it helps to paint the left as anti-religion, so you can't be accused of defending parts of the Constitution, like the right to bear arms, while trying to establish a religion-based governance. How... classy. I think the religious right figures that Obama, despite being a more mainstream Christian, hasn't let himself waste political capital on the abortion issue, so Romney gets their vote because he might (and, of course, because he would be more likely to make conservative SCOTUS appointments). Whatever else Mitt may be, I don't think he's stupid enough to waste any resources on that battle if elected.

OK, the first one has no context. We don't know which millionaire business owner was called greedy and selfish, we just have the disparity between the salaries. Are the conservatives trying to imply that the more money you make, the greedier you are? The second one seems bogus. Whether or not actors earn every penny they make isn't really a conservative/liberal stance. I think it's more whether you like that particular actor or not. The third one is bogus as well. The First Lady has security requirements that are beyond her control, ordered by the Secret Service. Ann Romney has no such requirements. The fourth one is deceptive. What's the issue, both men served, no one stopped them. What's your point? The fifth one I couldn't find much about in 60 seconds. Dees is a lawyer, so bleh. Even Glenn Beck has suggested the Tea Party is racist. The sixth one is bullshit. It only includes profits from the sale of gasoline and ignores the huge profits from producing and refining crude oil. I'm tired of this now, maybe more later.

! Moderator Note Unfortunately, this is exactly what the staff has to deal with from members who claim, for instance, that the Earth is hollow. Every thread they get involved in gets derailed by "looking at this from the Hollow Earth angle".

There are multiple sources that disagree with your assertion. One of them defines Pleroma as a region of the Abyss, home to demons. Add the fact that you're basing this assertion on your own interpretation, and the fact that you're using a Greek word to add vagueness to the meaning and you've got a pointless mix of languages that's worthless as a definitive subject. This whole thread is worthless, imo, since the first claim you make is that preserving this vague and arguable point will make your religion live forever. Deception can't be fed ad infinitum. I think eventually enough people will see through it.

! Moderator Note To whatever your names are, let's drop the animosity and personal attacks. Arguing is completely scientific, practically mandatory, but bickering is not. Let's stay focused on ideas and leave the people who have them out of it. In the future, please change "you" to "your argument" or your ideas" or "your understanding of the concept" as it's more appropriate, professional and within the rules you agreed to when you joined.

! Moderator Note It's my offer, but it would have to be your wish. ! Moderator Note Nature won't be reading your original post, either.

! Moderator Note I can add a poll if you like.

Is it the same as your counterfeit medicines identity number?

So how do you deal with that within the justice system if it becomes law? You know it would be abused by husbands distraught over miscarriages. One of the early stages of the development is actually called the blastocyst. It's got potential, but it's not life that should be given the rights of a citizen. So we take away the option from everyone because there is a small yet existent percentage of abusers? Hey, we should do that with alcohol and gambling!

What percentage would you say is "some"?

Because "life begins at conception" would be so simple to deal with from a legal standpoint, counselor? After you patent openable jet windows, maybe you should switch to prosecuting all those women who miscarry at the gym during their first trimester.

You have the right to clench your own fallopian tubes, moo. It's in the Constitution, I think.

Mitt Romney would throw you out the plane's window if he heard you talking like that! Well, after he took away your birth control pills and demanded you raise every child begat from your promiscuous ways, without government help of course. Maybe you can borrow the money from your parents. Are we still thinking suffrage, equal pay for equal work and the right to personal bodily freedoms are liberal stances, really? You post mostly about chemistry subjects. The fact that girls couldn't possibly be interested in chemistry will come as a shock to hypervalent_iodine. Pray tell us, from a conservative, openable jet window perspective, how do girls talk? <bats eyelashes innocently>