Free Republic

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I apologize for my poor choice of words -- I certainly don't believe that no one should be allowed to pray in schools! I have a problem with prayer being promoted by the school or children being led in prayer by the school, as I was forced to do when I was in public school. That is what I meant by "prayer in schools." I have no problem with children praying in school on their own time; if a child wishes to say grace to himself before eating, I am fine with that. I sense this is what you are referring to; sorry, for me, 'prayer in schools' has a different meaning -- thanks for clarifying.

"Is it moral and/or ethical for companies to take advantage of a lack of labor laws and dollar-a-day salaries in third world countries?" Workers are often intimidated and brutalized in the corporate-sponsored factories in underdeveloped countries, and the corporations are often complicit in the abuse. Is that ethical?

I feel that that is a disingenuous question.

Why?

I guess you would have to specify who values a chimpanzee life less than a human's. According to PETA cats are more valuable than humans. To the Sierra Club Spotted Owls are more important. It's not another topic really. How much one values human life is the question. If a chimp is not as important as a human then is there a difference between a chimp zygote and a human zygote?

(An interesting note: I just learned that the Spotted Owls are being decimated by Barred Owls, nearly wiped out in fact, in spite of eliminating logging on their turf, putting hundreds of people out of work, ruining businesses, killing towns and driving the price of wood products up for all.)

Many members of PETA may value cats' lives as much or more than human lives. I do not. Many decent people with sincere beliefs feel that the life of each living thing is equally valuable. But even they have to draw distinctions: do they rate a gnat's life as equivalent to a human's? If not, why not and what are the criteria that make one more valuable than the other? To me, there are valid criteria that make a person's life more valuable than a chimp's. The most important is that a person has the power of self-awareness, of consciousness; it is a reflexive and moral creature. A zygote is not, nor is it capable of surviving outside the womb; it has few features of 'personhood.'

The question at hand was; "what makes a being human?"; or perhaps it was "what makes a human being worthy of its right to live?"

Is it me who is confused about terminology? I did not disagree that a human zygote is human; of course it is -- I disagree that it is a person. It is a potential person. There is no vagueness in my terminology, though there is admitted difficulty in asserting just when 'personhood' begins. I would be happy to argue that point with you as well.

Firstly you have again asserted the "emotions are determinative" position here, secondly you are resting the validity of that position on the basis of a consensus of opinion rather than a critical analysis of the actual value of the object in question (the baby, human zygote, human embryo, whatever) and thirdly you have taken it upon yourself to arbitrarily decide that the object in question is valueless by classifying it with a negative qualifier "pre- or potential persons" thereby imputing valuelessness to the object rather than leading to that conclusion through reason and logic.

The 'value' of a fetus' life increases as it reaches a state of viability. The value of its life is relative, not absolute. We are also making moral judgments here, not just logical ones. If a fetus endangers the mother's life, and the only choices that exist are to: a) abort that fetus, which would definitely save the mother or b) allow the pregnancy to continue, which will probably kill the mother, what is the 'just' choice? If the mother wishes to terminate an early-term pregnancy to save her own life, should we oppose her? Why?

Emotions are partially determinative, and they help us to determine the value assigned to a life (of course, this is a general assertion, and it would be easy to come up with exceptions). The attachment one feels toward a child is, for most people, vastly stronger than the attachment they feel toward an embryo which, even if it were aborted within three weeks of conception, would generally provoke nothing stronger than sadness and disappointment in a fertile couple. The loss of a child, those who have experienced that can tell you, is a world-shattering experience, which often takes years or decades to recover from. That is because the sense of attachment toward a child is naturally much greater. Emotion, or more precisely the magnitude of emotional response, is an important factor in deciding the value of human life. How else would we know to value human life except by our emotional response?

you are resting the validity of that position on the basis of a consensus of opinion rather than a critical analysis of the actual value of the object in question (the baby, human zygote, human embryo, whatever)

Value itself is only determined by a consensus (though not necessarily of opinion). We can only place an accurate value on money or life if we can agree to a particular value. What is the 'actual value' of anything, absent of consensus of understanding, or of God? The 'value' of a human life is a moral decision, reached by people. To use an example, if one believes that the death penalty is a just punishment (and you may not, but many do), one is making a judgment and assigning relative, not absolute, value to human life.

thirdly you have taken it upon yourself to arbitrarily decide that the object in question is valueless by classifying it with a negative qualifier "pre- or potential persons" thereby imputing valuelessness to the object rather than leading to that conclusion through reason and logic

I did not decide that anything is 'valueless'; I did assert that the value of an infant's life was higher than an embryo's, and that conclusion was reached using reason and logic.

Actually, I'll admit I'm getting a bit weary of the argument, it's true, thought it's still interesting to me. I know the thread is pretty much dead, but I'm still fine to continue to use it to debate this, since it seems to have evolved into something else entirely. Believe it or not, I have considered what you've said and considered more deeply the beliefs I hold; I'm not dismissing you by any means (sorry I'm not addressing the argument about taxation and income; I'm trying to keep things down to a (semi) sane length..).

I'm not squeamish; most of the time, I relish my assumptions being challenged, and appreciate your doing so. My apologies for not responding earlier; I was at a conference the last couple of days.

Yes and it begs the question, "is it moral and/or ethical to boycott foreign made products and eliminate the only jobs available to many people in those under developed countries?"

I feel this is a disingenuous question. A better question to me is, "Is it moral and/or ethical for companies to take advantage of a lack of labor laws and dollar-a-day salaries in third world countries?" Workers are often intimidated and brutalized in the corporate-sponsored factories in underdeveloped countries, and the corporations are often complicit in the abuse. Is that ethical?

I would argue it is not a person. I would argue this because partly I think it matters whether a "person" has a heartbeat, or a brain; its cellular complexity makes a difference.

Genetic complexity doesn't count? Life processes of growth don't count? Is a human with an artificial heart not a person? Is a human whose cognitive brain functions have ceased due to disease or accident no longer a person?

No, genetic complexity doesn't count, or rather it is not the only thing that counts. A chimpanzee is comparably complex genetically to a human, yet its life is valued less than a human's (justifiably or not, is another topic). Obviously, you can come up with examples where a human's cognitive functions are profoundly impaired or a heart has been replaced with a machine. That artificial heart still beats; those lungs still draw oxygen, a human being with a machine heart is still exponentially more a person than an three-week-old embryo. That heart still beats in the chest of a cellularly and historically complex person. My point remains: a single-celled organism with the potential to become a human being is not yet a human being.

I would also argue this because of the sense of magnitude felt in proportion to its loss: an embryo lost to an an early-term miscarriage (if it is even noticed) is usually not grieved as a person when it dies, and its death is not equivalent in magnitude to the death of a viable fetus or actual infant.

Ah, ignorance is bliss? As long as we remain uninformed of millions of Rwandans being massacred and have formed no emotional attachments to them then they effectively don't exist as 'persons.' Is that it? That's the logic.

I feel this sidesteps the point. The emotional impact of an embryo's vs. a fetus' death is highly relevant, and the 'if a tree falls in the forest, does anybody care' argument doesn't address the essential thrust. If a) a zygote dies, and the mother was aware of this, or b) she births a stillborn baby who died at eight months, a child with fingers and eyes and a brain (and yes, a fingerless, eyeless person is still human), and she is aware of this, which loss is felt more keenly? For most people, the grief would be qualitatively (and no doubt quantitatively) different. This is not an argument based on emotional reasoning, in the sense that I am allowing my own emotion to override logic. It is an argument based on observation of emotion. I am arguing that we grieve when persons die; most of us do not grieve when pre- or potential persons die.

No, I'm not getting tired of you. Though no doubt some are tiring of me! Most of the time when people make the arguments you're making to me, they do it by literally or figuratively jabbing their fingers in my chest. So I appreciate the intelligence of your writing and thought.

The U.S. does not control the laws in other countries. I thought we were talking about the U.S..

I mentioned U.S. examples. This is a global example. However, it is one that is very pertinent to the ethics and morals of way the U.S. does business.

Keep in mind that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of the taxes.

Nominally true, yet misleading. You make it sound like the middle class are bearing a disproportionate portion of the tax burden. In fact, the 96.03 number cited by Rush Limbaugh from 2003 IRS data tells a very different story when you break it down, as this site does pretty well. In fact, the tax burden of the 50th-95th percentile earners is basically proportionate to their earnings. It is the top 5% who are taxed very highly.

There are millions of miscarriages each year in America within the first few weeks of pregnancy; is each one of these the death of a person?

Yes.

I respect your belief that this is true. However, I disagree with that definition of 'person.'

A human sperm combined with a human ova forms a body with a unique and complete DNA complement and begins growing in a set progressive pattern. Given the source material what does common sense tell you the typological classification of this living being would be?

I don't think we are just talking about biology. We are talking about belief. You are right that the DNA in the zygote could not belong to any species except Homo sapiens. However, it is still a zygote. I would argue it is not a person. I would argue this because partly I think it matters whether a "person" has a heartbeat, or a brain; its cellular complexity makes a difference. I would also argue this because of the sense of magnitude felt in proportion to its loss: an embryo lost to an an early-term miscarriage (if it is even noticed) is usually not grieved as a person when it dies, and its death is not equivalent in magnitude to the death of a viable fetus or actual infant.

Obviously, this is only my opinion. Sorry, in this case, I think that's all any of us have to offer.

The rest of the points I would also be glad to discuss with you -- though I have a feeling this debate is taking place in the wrong forum. Maybe the "General Interest" forum? No doubt I have allowed my zeal to take this thread out of its original context. Not that that's uncommon on any Internet forum!

Well, stick around, don't let anyone run you off.

Thanks for the welcome!

The second amendment point is something I can see. I used to be convinced that no private citizen should own a handgun, until someone eloquently explained the notion of a well-armed populace to me. After much thought, I came to understand that the right to bear arms is perhaps something worthy of being defended. Not to bear assault rifles, but arms, yes.

Actually, it's true, I don't know much about the ACLU's actual background, besides what I read in the papers and a book I read on J. Edgard Hoover. I'd certainly be willing to listen to your perspective on the organization.

I never claimed to be a conservative. I always thought of myself as being merely a moderate, hating political correctness, convinced of the need for governments' fiscal responsibility, but also pro-choice etc. I think I am liberal on some issues, conservative on others. But to some people here, I must sound like the president of the Karl Marx fan club (no doubt that choice of words will be used against me:).

Your ignorance is not my fault.

And whose fault is your fuzzy, unreasoned prejudice? It is a rare gift to be able to determine a person's morality by the geography they inhabit.

Exploitation of the poor, usually by the "producers," is also immoral and unethical (and commonplace).

And illegal so that's a non-issue.

As non sequiturs go, that one's a doozy. Exploitation of the poor is not only legal but pervasive; overseas, it is evident in the sweatshops that support companies like Nike and just about every clothing line offered in the U.S.

Very few people "scrape by" on minimum wage salaries. Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs the majority of which are held by students. Even most illegals hold jobs at higher than minimum wage. But the question remains; why should a man who earns a good salary have some of it confiscated and given to someone who earns less? Moral and ethical?

Many people scrape by on minimum-wage or low-wage salaries. Look at employee data for Wal-Mart, McDonald's and other companies that depend on a low-wage labor force. Sure some of them are kids, but a signficant percentage are poor adults who work hard and see little return. Yet the government does not fail to tax them. Why should a man who earns little have his salary confiscatedt?

According to the Sutras, the Bible, Science and common sense human life begins at conception.

That's a pretty big claim you're making for "Science." Many scientists would argue that an unfertilized egg is technically 'alive.' Whether it is human is another issue. I am sure you could find a couple of scientists who could tell you that although a fertilized egg is also 'alive' (in the sense of being a living thing), there is no way to determine its 'humanness,' except by a private moral decision. There are millions of miscarriages each year in America within the first few weeks of pregnancy; is each one of these the death of a person? If so, the mortality rate is about to take on a steeper curve.

What Arab-Americans have been discriminated against and in what way? Please provide a link to some supporting evidence.

If you want some stories and news reports of Arab-American discrimination, post 9/11, check here. Or just talk to a person who looks Middle Eastern about what's it's like to regularly cross a border into the U.S., regardless of their citizenship. Anti-Arab racism is also rampant all over the Internet; anytime someone talks about what animals "they" are, they are guilty of racism.

Should the teachings of Islam be banned from public schools along with acting out of Muslim rituals by students on the same grounds?

Yes. The teachings of any religion, Islam, Christianity or Zoroastrianism, should not be promoted by a public school.

ggordon - member since 5/9/2004. What are you a skeptic of? And where did you get your "And yes, some of those mistreated were elderly, handicapped or sick." info from?

That was a slightly-facetious reply to an earlier post that read, "Did you ever notice that the only people who live in Arab countries are children and 'elderly, handicapped or sick people'," a mean-spirited comment if there ever was one. And I got my info from articles including the one that began this tread.

I am skeptical of governments that lie to me, people who think freedom should only be extended to a select few, who are so sure of their righteousness they cannot recognize the humanity of those who disagree, and those who believe whatever their leaders tell them (among other things).

Thanks, Qwinn. I admit I wasn't aware of the documentation. It appears there were links between al Queda and Saddam, which affects my perceptions of the war, to be sure. I still don't agree with going to war in Iraq, or how the war was "sold," but Saddam's links to terrorists are certainly troubling.

Nice how you avoid answering any of the questions in my post. Would you like to try again?

ping

Disregard the labels and simply choose which is right and which is wrong:

-Involuntary redistribution of wealth from producers to the poor. Moral and ethical?

The "poor" are not producers? Tell that to the countless working poor who scrape by on minimum wage salaries. I assume what you meant was people on welfare or some form of government assistance, though I can only infer. Welfare abuse, which is both unethical and immoral, does occur. Exploitation of the poor, usually by the "producers," is also immoral and unethical (and commonplace).

- Claiming the right to kill a defenseless human for convenience sake. Moral and ethical?

Again, I can only assume you mean abortion, and not the too-frequent occasions an innocent or improperly convicted person has ended up on death row. This is a complex issue, and your simple binaries don't help. At what point is a fetus a human? We all have to make a personal decision on that one. Even people who support the right to an abortion agree that it is a difficult decision. Especially in cases like rape or incest. It's a little more complex than you allow.

- Decrying the injustice of racial discrimination while ardently supporting racially based quotas for college admissions. Moral and ethical?

I notice that conservatives get apoplectic at the notion of "reverse" discrimination, but are usually not the first to defend Arab-Americans and others who are regularly discriminated against. Whose ethics are really suspicious?

The protests against affirmative action and quotas are often based on a worldview that whites are somehow being systematically discriminated against in America. This is due more to the 'victim' culture we live in than any genuine discrimination. Having said all that, I would prefer that all job and school applicants were treated equally and do not agree with quotas. I'm not sure if that makes me immoral.

- Banning Christian prayer in schools on the basis of the 1st Amendment while supporting school programs that teach the tenets of and require participation in the practice of Muslim religious rituals in the name of 'tolerance.' Moral and ethical?

Yes, prayer should be banned in public schools. Period.

This could go on for a while..;

When the WMD justification began to flag as efforts to find the weapons met with little success, the humanitarian angle was pushed. Obviously, the Bush government was willing to use any justification necessary to initiate a war with Iraq. And some good has come of that. But the emphasis for various war justifications were in constant flux, leading one to wonder what the precise purpose was at any given time.

As far as I can tell, the so-called links between al-Queda and Iraq amount to very little. There was an early (2001), damning story in the Observer that suggested a strong link, and a later (2003), more comprehensive and knowledgeable account, with the benefit of much more information, in the Observer that tells a very different story. If there are other links, I would be interested and appreciative.

Either we found WMDs or we didn't. Is it your contention that they were all spirited away before the war started? OK, maybe. Maybe Saddam hid nuclear warheads in an remote, undiscovered bunker. But let's use Occam's Razor just for a second, and assume the simplest explanation that there were not massive, lethal stockpiles of WMDs.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Imagine if we used that standard to try criminal cases. "Well, we have no evidence you did anything wrong. But we have no evidence you didn't do anything wrong. So just to be sure, we'll lock you up anyway."

No problem at all. Glad you enjoyed the advert.

The AP story was carried by many other outlets as well, that's just the one that I first clicked on when I Googled the story. I'm not a regular reader of the Seattle Times, though perhaps anything left of the Washington Times is suspect in your books?

Which newspapers do you trust?

I don't know what to say to that. If I were a liberal, I'd call myself one.

Somehow I knew you would pounce on that one part of my response, and ignore all that stuff about income tax and George Bush etc.

Is there a right to property? Some on the left will tell you that "all property is theft".

This is actually an anarchist slogan. Very few people on the left are anarchists. Most liberals pay rent or mortgages and would not take kindly to having their property liberated by an anarchist.

Wait a minute. When was it ever just "one", or just "two" of those reasons? All those reasons were cited from the very beginning. All those reasons were cited from the very beginning. To claim it would have been just one or just two at any point would have required an actual disavowal of the others.

Sorry, this is simply not accurate. I'll just point out three things here:
* those reasons were not cited from the very beginning. The WMD justification came out in 2001 or 2002, well before the 'humanitarian' justification. But none of that matters, because...
* there were no WMDs.
* Saddam wasn't linked to Al Queda.

Um, so what's your point. That he didn't flit from lie to lie but was consistent in telling the same lies from the beginning?

In one part, I'm wrong and you're right. Bush did not say Saddam posed an imminent threat. He said Saddam posed a growing threat.

Continue perpetuating those lies and you will likely receive the same lack of respect, but only cause you earned it the same way they did.

As opposed to the way you are earning it from me, which is to harp on a small point while willfully ignoring the big, important point, which is that the war was unjustified and pursued under confused and false pretenses.

I don't say that liberals are weak peaceniks. I say that they are really socialists who aim to sell out our constitutional rights.

Again, these labels don't help. Many "liberals" have helped defend your constitutional rights to free speech and a free press. Many conservatives -- e.g. John Ashcroft -- on the other hand, have attempted to restrict your liberties.

Right to bear arms? Don't "need" guns. Toss that out.

I have heard few liberals suggest banning guns altogether. I think you may be thinking of a very far left, radical fringe that only represents a small portion of people on the political left, much as Pat Robertson represents a small portion of people on the political right.

Right to property? Inheritance tax is a scheme to redistribute wealth (it doesn't really belong to you). Toss that out.

Is inheritance tax really a burning issue? I'll take your word for it. I'm more concerned with what government is doing with income tax. And right now, the "conservative" George Bush is busy spending all manner of tax revenue on the biggest government in U.S. history, operating on a staggering deficit.

Right to freedom of religion? Freedom FROM religion to hear the left tell it.

Both are important. Any self-respecting person on either side of the political spectrum who respects democracy and the U.S. Constitution will defend your right to practice any religion, or no religion.

Thanks, leadpenny. It's good to run into you too..and very nice to hear some validation of the idea that we are all independent agents, capable of deciding for ourselves. It is interesting to see the two parties claim issues over the years...makes me wonder about the viability of the two-party system.