Definition of democracy: 'The term democracy indicates a form of government where all the state's decisions are exercised directly or indirectly by a majority of its citizenry through a fair elective process. When these factors are met a government can be classified as such. This can apply to a multitude of government systems as these concepts transcend and often occur concomitantly with other types.'
Definition of republic:democracy: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.
Definition of republic: a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president"
Just because the country is not ruled by monarchy, doesn't mean it's not a democracy.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Doesn't matter if the fetus is human or not by definition, But it can be argued that abortion is morally wrong.
I propose then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it:
Every person has a right to life, so the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body, everyone would grant that. But surely, a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed, an abortion may not be performed.
It sounds plausible, but now let me ask you to imagine this:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back-to-back in bed with an unconscious violinist . . . a famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. Therefore, they have kidnapped you, and last night, the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own.
The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you, we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months, by then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."
Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still?
What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but now you've got to stay in bed with the violinist plugged into you for the rest of your life, because remember this: All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body, so you cannot ever be unplugged from him."
I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Definition of democracy: 'The term democracy indicates a form of government where all the state's decisions are exercised directly or indirectly by a majority of its citizenry through a fair elective process. When these factors are met a government can be classified as such. This can apply to a multitude of government systems as these concepts transcend and often occur concomitantly with other types.'
Definition of republic:democracy: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.
Definition of republic: a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president"Just because the country is not ruled by monarchy, doesn't mean it's not a democracy.
So are we a republic or a Democracy? I thought America was a democracy! I must've dozed off during a couple of those History lessons.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriJust clarifying. So, these cells do not deserve the right to evolve into a human being?
Obviously the foetus.His point was that potential does not equal goal.
Where did I say that? I said they're not CURRENTLY a human being, baby, foetus or whatever.
Dude, honestly and no offense is meant, but if you can't keep up do not expect indulgence.
-AC
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
By following your set of morals, which you will readily enforce on others.
Unless you live in a cave on some moutain your still following a set a morals that are enforced by the state.
Originally posted by Ashestoashesjc
So are we a republic or a Democracy? I thought America was a democracy! I must've dozed off during a couple of those History lessons.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I propose then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it:Every person has a right to life, so the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body, everyone would grant that. But surely, a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed, an abortion may not be performed.
It sounds plausible, but now let me ask you to imagine this:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back-to-back in bed with an unconscious violinist . . . a famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. Therefore, they have kidnapped you, and last night, the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own.
The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you, we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months, by then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."
Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still?
What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but now you've got to stay in bed with the violinist plugged into you for the rest of your life, because remember this: All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body, so you cannot ever be unplugged from him."
I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
Wow that's a good argument -claps- Well done! I'm jealous///
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Unless you live in a cave on some moutain your still following a set a morals that are enforced by the state.
There's a difference; it has been scientifically proven that a foetus cannot feel, has no sense of pain and is not yet a human being. Therefore not only would it be enforcing set of morals, but a set of morals which have no backing.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I propose then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it:Every person has a right to life, so the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body, everyone would grant that. But surely, a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed, an abortion may not be performed.
If the State feels it's illegal to pump certain drugs they deem illegal for whatever reasons into my body. Why can't they do the same for a women, honestly abrotions should only be a last resort for proven rape victims. And, by proven, I mean Women who were raped not do to intoxication or folly.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It sounds plausible, but now let me ask you to imagine this:You wake up in the morning and find yourself back-to-back in bed with an unconscious violinist . . . a famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. Therefore, they have kidnapped you, and last night, the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own.
The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you, we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months, by then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."
Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still?
What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but now you've got to stay in bed with the violinist plugged into you for the rest of your life, because remember this: All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body, so you cannot ever be unplugged from him."
I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
That sounds like a life and death situtation, problem is most abortions are not. Even if I say yes that doesn't make abortion anymore moral since they definetly are not in the same context as this. Anyway, he could have my kidney since humans have two.
Originally posted by chillmeistergenso, it is not aware. it feels no pain. this makes it OK to abort it?
There's a difference; it has been scientifically proven that a foetus cannot feel, has no sense of pain and is not yet a human being. Therefore not only would it be enforcing set of morals, but a set of morals which have no backing.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Governed by a democracy.
So, the majority can pass bills, last I checked that was the senates job.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
There's a difference; it has been scientifically proven that a foetus cannot feel, has no sense of pain and is not yet a human being. Therefore not only would it be enforcing set of morals, but a set of morals which have no backing.
That's nice but science does not dictate morals, and since when did morals need backing to be enforced?
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
So, I'm wrong for doing what's been done since the dawn of human histroy and is also practiced today? So, every country is wrong for enforcing there morals.
that makes no sense. all you people conveniently ignore the fact that their is a majority besides you. throughout history its apparent that when one majority imposes their will and beliefs on the other, its always bad and certainly not an age of moral greatness, you pompous person.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
So, the majority can pass bills, last I checked that was the senates job.
I don't think you understand:- go back to school.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
That's nice but science does not dictate morals, and since when did morals need backing to be enforced? [/B]
Legally, they always require backing to be enforced. Would you like to live in tyranny, where all laws are decided based on personal beliefs? You're unbelievably cretinous.