A human fetus, while alive, does not have those qualities.

Unless you insist like many of my countrymen that up until the last second before birth there is still nothing more than a non independent fetus inside the womb.

And the law, both federal and that of several states makes it clear that yes, a 2nd trimester baby has the legal rights of a human.

I guess part of my problem may be that I'm Canadian, and up here there are no laws against abortion, to the extreme that if you have a willing doctor when you go in to labor you could still 'choose' anytime before delivery to terminate...

None of this means you have to change your opinion. Look at the evidence and make the decision you think is most rational.

That's a tough thing to say in all this though. After the point you consider a fetus a human being with full rights, you have the same degree of moral obligation to defend that human's right to life as with any other person. If you believe that murder should be illegal and face arrest and jail time, then when other people act on their 'difference of opinion' on when a fetus is a human being you support them being arrested.

I believe the 'solution' is to treat abortions like other life saving situations, they are solely allowed when there is a credible threat to the life of the mother that necessitates a horrible choice. Because I believe a fetus is an independent human being with it's own rights from when it attaches to the womb, it does mean that abortion is lumped in with infanticide, and I'm ok with that. I additionally support a massive effort to treat and prevent the struggles and difficulties faced by prospective parents in difficult circumstances, and to prevent people in difficult circumstances from getting unexpectedly pregnant in the first place.

Oooooh yeah, since I think the perspective they present is a good one to have at hand..

The theme of the book is about how incentives we create or are placed under have unintended consequences on behavior.

Also, that the solution to the unforeseen problem that your incentives inevitably create is usually something unexpected.

For example..
In the rural parts of India, they still practice the tradition of bride burning and female infanticide.

The government attempted to amend this brutal behavior by starting a "Don't horribly abuse women" campaign with pamphlets and everything.
Sadly, this did nothing to decrease the occurrence of such abuse.

Coincidentally, when an outside organization introduced color television to a few rural villages.. the occurrence of abuse against women dropped dramatically.

So if you want terrible atrocities in far parts of the globe to stop, you should try both empowering people them with soap operas and sedating them with cricket matches apparently.

I understand what you are saying, but it's not that they don't know what condoms are. There are millions of people in the world who know what condoms are and still don't use them (or use them properly); the key is in teaching why to use them.

The girl does say that there should be classes that teach the girls about protection and about not getting pregnant so I imagine it is a bit of both.

@Reefie As for the comment about the 1 child per family as per China, I don't even know where to start. First there's the massive problems associated with the policy in China; ie. the 4-2-1 problem (one child not able to help support 2 parents and 4 grandparents), the increase in infanticide, the huge gender disparity, etc. Then there's the fact that its results have been exaggerated; better economic status and better healthcare are more effective at controlling birthrates than the one-child policy, plus China's most dramatic decreases in birth-rate occurred before the policy under the voluntary "late, long, few" policy. And finally there is the fact that most "Western" countries are facing a population decline already - with so few people being born to the Baby Boomers that there will not be enough people to support their pensions. I'm not sure what the suggestion had to do with this video, but it doesn't really have a place in any realistic discussion about population.


>> ^bareboards2:

I'm not sure that this is the reason. You think these kids don't know what a condom is? This isn't a rural isolated school.
There have been anecdotal reports of young women getting pregnant so that they will have someone who will love them. To me, this epidemic of pregnancies is a reflection of low self-esteem and poverty, of young women seeking to feel relevant and empowered.
Teachings about condoms isn't going to fix that.

>> ^Skeeve:

In all seriousness though, I'd be willing to be this has something to do with abstinence-only sexual education and a lack of education about, and availability of, protection.
When are people going to realize that teenagers have sex whether you want them to or not? Providing education and protection is the only real solution.
>> <

I would love to find out what their success rate is...

By the way, Chimps are vicious animals, with strength to match. They've been know to start wars with neighboring groups, infanticides and cannibalism. So very much like humans.

For a woman in a First World country to resort to an abortion with so many birth control methods available is the apex of ignorance.

You can CHOOSE to call "partial birth abortion" murder or infanticide, both terms are correct.

If you believe late term abortion is infanticide, a murderer was assassinated.

okay, I'm an atheist, but I can't understand the harsh comments on here.

As far as allowing the child to live as long as they did, well, they probably didn't find out about his defects until it was too late for an abortion (not that they would've considered it, but I'm just making a point), and infanticide is just as illegal as euthanasia -- so there's no reason to blame the parents for the possibility of prolonged suffering.

There's also no reason to believe the child was suffering the whole time. The parents obviously spent the entirety of those 99 days completely focused on taking care of him as best possible.

I have no problem with the fact that they interpreted their experience through their faith. If it helps them to heal, than fine.

Now as an atheist, the way I interpret this is the remarkable capacity humans (have obtained from millions of years of evolution) have to love and care for children. The video was very touching and sad, but also beautiful.

As far as the beliefs of the parents, they really didn't specify, so for all we know they are moderate Christians, and not the extremist types. And in no way did they imply that his death was a miracle. I may not believe in miracles, but if they chose to believe that the time they spent with their child was a miracle, than fine. It doesn't mean that they're not aware of the contributions of medical science.

QM is absolutely right, because naturally people are just as comparable to each other as inanimate objects. A black man is just a stick of licorice right? I'm just a sheet of paper myself.

Sorry, but a *person* has considerably more value than any object. Be it billfold, mode of transportation, or even unjust, unfair, bigoted laws. Blacks are people. Native Americans are people. Women are people. Unfortunately for the backwards people believing in a book promoting infanticide, genocide, slavery, incest, and cowardice (I'd call handing over your virgin daughter to appease a mob cowardice), GAYS are people as well.

They can fight all they want, but progress *will* happen no matter how they oppose it. I suppose we'll have to put up with their weeping and gnashing of teeth through it all though.

>> ^solvent:
how come he never speaks against the jewish religion??? is he a jewish???

Lets see, that would be the Torah, or Old Testament as some call it..

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
-Richard Dawkins

>> ^imstellar28:
As far as I can tell in this thread, 5/8 of Keyes claims have been confirmed by other posters, and 3/8 have not been addressed by any posters. Funny how the world flips ass over kettle when evidence is required.
Most people hear loud, extreme words like COMMUNIST......INFANTICIDE.....NOT A CITIZEN...and assume insanity. The human mind has the capacity to filter emotion, and it is extremely useful in situations such as this...


Nonsense. Sorry to be slow answering, had to take care of something else, but it's still nonsense. A couple such as Thinker gave you some points but even at that it's a big so what on some of them and he outright shot down others which you just mentioned such as infanticide. "because it was already law" isn't exactly because I like to kill babies. It's a bit closer to there is already a law on the books for that. Most didn't even agree with you on that much. Your math isn't any better than your claims that others need "evidence" while with you already rejected by the courts assertions should do.

On the so what parts, let's take the socialism thing for example. Did you go to a public school? Socialist. Does your driveway connect to a toll road you pay for each time you want to go somewhere and does all the other roads between home and destination, or do you share that burden with your fellow citizens and share the cost? Socialist. How about security, planning on hiring private guards to replace those socialist cops you aren't wanting anymore? Your own private army instead of this socialized and shared one we've got now?

As I pointed out already it's nonsense for the most part. Some more than others though. I liked this one in particular. "Evidence a bankrupt government can fix a bankrupt economy".

Let me ask you something here. Company, nation, whatever else. If they AREN'T bankrupt how are they supposed to solve a problem that they DON'T have? Of course a bankrupt country can solve a bankrupt economy, they are the only ones who can. If they aren't bankrupt they don't tend to have that problem to fix and yes, I'm pretty sure it's happened and nations have come back from it.

It's been fun and I do wish I'd been here a day or two earlier, but this one is done I'd think. Overplaying a joke just ruins it.

As far as I can tell in this thread, 5/8 of Keyes claims have been confirmed by other posters, and 3/8 have not been addressed by any posters. Funny how the world flips ass over kettle when evidence is required.

Most people hear loud, extreme words like COMMUNIST......INFANTICIDE.....NOT A CITIZEN...and assume insanity. The human mind has the capacity to filter emotion, and it is extremely useful in situations such as this...

I guess I'll have a go at this MadLib:

1. Obama has no any communist/socialist tendencies
2. Nationalization and large public debt (currently $65 trillion, greater than the world GDP) in no way threatens the future of the US
3. Obama did not support infanticide in the named instance
4. Obama's relatives (including his grandma) did not claim he was born in kenya
5. Obama's mom could legally transfer citizenship
6. Obama's is not supporting a plan where the government pays for mortgages
7. Evidence a bankrupt government can fix a bankrupt economy
8. Evidence printing money out of thin air can correct a recession

--

1. You're probably right, Mr. McCarthy.
2. You're right.
3. "Barack Obama: Opposed born-alive treatment law because it was already law." -http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_Pres_3.htm
4. They did claim he was born there. And Dick Cheney claimed that we would be greeted as liberators. people can claim whatever they want, but that doesn't make it true.
5. Is this even relevant?
6. You're right.
7. A government that is not bankrupt can't solve a bankrupt economy. Governments only create more problems. So you're right again.
8. Printing money out of thin air creates inflation. Doing so during a recession causes hyperinflation. You are correct.

>> ^imstellar28:
I am a scientific person so I require scientific evidence for my beliefs.

I'm not sure what would constitute scientific evidence in relation to some of these questions.

Obama's citizenship cannot be scientifically verified, nor must it be, as it is a legal question. Obama provided the evidence necessary to meet the legal threshold. Can you prove your citizenship scientifically? No, of course not. Nobody can. If you 'require scientific evidence'... well, good luck with that.

Socialism is a broad term and means different things to different people. It would be difficult to make a case without stating a clear definition to work against. Heck, income tax is a socialist system, so anyone with a job has socialist tendencies (or is a federal criminal).

Nationalization and debt... well, how about as a preliminary you scientifically demonstrate that we have a large public debt. Also, scientifically demonstrate that we have a bankrupt government and that money can be produced spontaneously from atmospheric gases. Once you've done that, I'll see what I can do.

As a "scientific person" you should know that disbelief is the default stance. Nobody has to prove Obama doesn't support infanticide until someone produces evidence that he does.

Obama's grandma's claims are irrelevant as I've detailed above. He has met the legal threshold for proving his citizenship and I'm not sure it's possible to hold him to any higher standard.

#6... Unfortunately, he is. Read the proposal yourself if you want the evidence.

>> ^imstellar28:
I'm not refuting anything, I'm asking a question: please provide evidence supporting the consensus. I have yet to ever receive an answer. You and others are making a claim here "Alan Keyes is insane" yet nobody has provided a single reason for this. I'm not making any claims here, I'm asking a question!
Again, if this man's claims are insane the evidence should by definition be readily available--why has nobody provided it, especially if I said I will watch your entire personal queue?


People said he was insane colloquially, probably because of several of his views being percieved as far from reality. I don't think anyone here is really saying he his clinically insane, despite a couple comparisons being drawn.

The main problems I believe include him calling Obama a "radical socialist", which we've gone over already. That appraisal is waaay off. He takes it to the extreme like some of his other points, like Obama somehow single-handedly destroying the USA. He spins the infanticide thing like crazy, removing all context whatsoever and turning it into something like "Obama supports killing babies", literally inferring that's his general stance. Like it applies to every baby, like he personally wants them dead. Again, way off reality.

And the Obama not actually being president thing? Wow. He says it isn't a laughing matter. It is. The level of fact-ignoring is worse than creationism.

1. These accusations have been rebutted time and time again, yet they keep repeating the same old arguments. For example: "He refused to show his documents!" comes up EVERY SINGLE TIME. At one point during his campaign this came up. Later on he provided the documents. They're on the web even. Anyone can see his birth certificate. But, no, it keeps getting repeated as a "reason" and "evidence". Let's keep calling this orange a banana over and over and over and...

2. It's on technicalities anyway. Blindly trying to apply law without regard to it's original intent. Even if some obscure law changed his status, why would it even matter? With a straight face can you make the argument that a word in our language determined by arbitrary law is more important than evaluating the situation itself? You know, how a judge would? To determine whether one is qualified would you not look at the evidence and use reason?

I'm sure there's more I'm forgetting that he said. His appraisals of reality are simply in the extreme, presented as black and white issues, with no context.

This is why he is being colloquially labelled as crazy... just because he's "on the same side" as others who make rational arguments against, say, economic stimulation, doesn't mean HIS arguments or he himself is rational.

>> ^chilaxe:
For those questioning it... the word 'insanity' is being used here to refer to disproven positions that deny reality to such a degree that it's useless for mainstream society to try to speak with the person.


I always hear about how true something is, but I never see any evidence for it. Can you please provide some evidence for the following:

1. Obama has no any communist/socialist tendencies
2. Nationalization and large public debt (currently $65 trillion, greater than the world GDP) in no way threatens the future of the US
3. Obama did not support infanticide in the named instance
4. Obama's relatives (including his grandma) did not claim he was born in kenya
5. Obama's mom could legally transfer citizenship
6. Obama's is not supporting a plan where the government pays for mortgages
7. Evidence a bankrupt government can fix a bankrupt economy
8. Evidence printing money out of thin air can correct a recession

I'm sorry but these are valid questions, theres nothing "insane" about them. If someone can provide supporting evidence for all 8 of those points I'll personally go through and watch your entire personal queue. Given how "insane" his claims were, the evidence should be really easy to find.