I Have Seen the Future: It Is Giuliani (Red State.com)

Red State.com ^ | 3/5/07 | Eric Erkickson

[meg88]

Today I have seen the future and that future is President Rudy.

It's not that I'm voting for Rudy, but the vacuum to be filled has been filled.

Consider this:

Rudy Giuliani and Tony Snow are the only guys who have had to have fire marshals bar people from entering due to overcapacity in a very big room.

In the green room, Giuliani's speech was the only one to cause everyone to sit down, shut up and watch.

More and more, the conservatives at CPAC are realigning. You have the Brownback folks, the Mitt folks, and the people who are headed quickly to Rudy. And you know what? They are more or less cheerful in doing it.

They've found the guy who knows he needs them to get in the door. They know the calculus Rudy has made -- the conservatives aren't selling out their principles; Rudy is telling them he won't impose his social view on them, but he'll keep them safe.

After all, abortion is not an issue when a terrorist has killed you.

Look for all guns to turn on Rudy now. He's been the frontrunner all along and now the rest of the pack realizes it.

The reception he got at CPAC should worry them.

[Lexinom]

Your point about extremes is well taken.

I did not say that it was a 'poof' moment, and if I did, it was a misstatement. You are the one who is arguing for such a thing, for you, the 'poof' moment is conception. That's not very credible. I don't think of 'life' when I see a fertilized egg.

Dynamism itself is part of the ontological nature of the developing person. It is an attribute of life and separates a substance (such as a human organism) from a property thing (an automobile). The DNA containing the blueprint for this development program exists as an intrinsic, ubiquitous component throughout the whole.

Conception is not much of a "poof" since we are only talking two cells - there has to be a beginning somewhere, and the flash created by "poof"-moment over several billion cells, you would agree, is much greater, more difficult to defend, and at odds with the human mind's familiarity with reality (i.e. smooth, gradual transitions). The point of debate is where you place the beginning of humanity, and on what basis do you divorce legal personhood status from ontological humanness. I would suggest that the basis has become legal abortion. (In 1973 it could legitimately be claimed that "we don't know"; we no longer have that excuse).

The most salient point rests in your words "I don't think of 'life'", etc. This belies the Platonic rationalism underlying the pro-choice position - that the human mind shapes reality. For example, if I see a dog, my brain imposes attributes of "dogness" and can even read in things that aren't there but common to other members of that category.

Rationalism is inherently subjective and stands against the objective empiricism that forms an important cornerstone of post-Enlightenment scientific inquiry.

MHGInTN is more of an expert in this philosophical aspect than I am, so I've pinged him. But I hope you see that my position has a solid philosophical and objective basis.

[MHGinTN]

The evidence of 'LIFE' -to the lab scientist working with embryos- is the beginning of cell division in the zygote. When the single cell that results from fertilization (mistakenly called a fertilized egg by your poster, since the egg ceases to exist as soon as the chromosomes of the sperm and ovum unite) makes the first cell division, the lab tech identifies the entity as now directing his or her own construction project, which will include building a placenta and a body for life in the air world in a few months. With cell division, the scientist understands that a LIVING ORGANISM is present, an ORGANISM that came into being at conception. That your poster refuses to accept the science is not unusual ... the utilitarian approach to justify all manner of obscenities against human beings is well documented in History.

[Lexinom]

the utilitarian approach to justify all manner of obscenities against human beings is well documented in History.

A PRECISE description of our present situation. The utilitarian "need" created by widespread acceptance of and reliance upon a ruling that occurred at a time when it really could be claimed that we were not sure. Today, we are without excuse and that ruling needs to be reviewed, scrutinized, found lacking, and overturned.

[MHGinTN]

Consider for a moment what is at the heart of your poster's plea for abortion right for the raped woman. The unstated plea is 'self defense'. The first right named in the DI is LIFE, then liberty, then, pursuit of happiness. A raped woman has the right to end an increased risk to her mortality begun with a pregnancy resulting from rape, from a criminal act against her. Where we are still struggling to evolve in our culture is the perspective of killing the innocent alive unborn as a means, the only means, to remedy this self defense issue. Why do we not apply the same right to LIFE to the alive unborn, where we may end the pregnancy but sustain the LIFE of the innocent other? How twisted must be the minds of folks who are convinced the raped woman has a right to a dead baby as a remedy for the crime committed against her. Yet Senators Boxer, clinton, Lautenberg, Harkin, and others truly hold that position.

[MHGinTN]

Ping-a-ling-a-ling

[LtdGovt]

Conception is not much of a "poof" since we are only talking two cells - there has to be a beginning somewhere, and the flash created by "poof"-moment over several billion cells, you would agree, is much greater, more difficult to defend, and at odds with the human mind's familiarity with reality (i.e. smooth, gradual transitions).

I explicitly stated that I do not believe in such a moment, that it is in fact you who believes that. And I don't think that you can pin-point the exact time when a fetus becomes 'really' human and living. But it's fair to say that it doesn't happen at conception.

The point of debate is where you place the beginning of humanity, and on what basis do you divorce legal personhood status from ontological humanness. I would suggest that the basis has become legal abortion. (In 1973 it could legitimately be claimed that "we don't know"; we no longer have that excuse).

If you look at polls, more than 70 percent of people want to outlaw abortions that are done in the second and third trimester, even though they are allowed under Roe v. Wade. Legal abortion in those trimesters may set the standard for the law, but it is not setting the standard for the people.

The most salient point rests in your words "I don't think of 'life'", etc. This belies the Platonic rationalism underlying the pro-choice position - that the human mind shapes reality. For example, if I see a dog, my brain imposes attributes of "dogness" and can even read in things that aren't there but common to other members of that category.

Ah, the form of the dog. But people have to live with the results of what they advocate. If you believe that life begins at conception, you should accept the logical conclusions of that belief, namely that a fertilized egg is a life, a human, a person, or whatever you wish to call it.

Rationalism is inherently subjective and stands against the objective empiricism that forms an important cornerstone of post-Enlightenment scientific inquiry.

There is no way that you can establish your belief as fact under objective empiricism.

MHGInTN is more of an expert in this philosophical aspect than I am, so I've pinged him. But I hope you see that my position has a solid philosophical and objective basis.

A solid philosophical basis, yeah. Objective, not so much. Beliefs about this issue are subjective, whether they be pro-choice or pro-life.

[LtdGovt]

My position is not Utilitarian.

[LtdGovt]

? How twisted must be the minds of folks who are convinced the raped woman has a right to a dead baby as a remedy for the crime committed against her.

Ah, yes, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and others have twisted minds. Nice going.

[Lexinom]

I explicitly stated that I do not believe in such a moment, that it is in fact you who believes that.

Why then do we speak of a "you" and a "me"? Under this view, there is no distinction in persons since there is no moment of separation of identities from parents. You've effectively undermined all further debate by unwittingly proposing that all humanity is part of one giant organism.

So why doesn't the moment happen at conception? Asked another way, why doesn't the beginning of personhood happen at the beginning of unique existence - as defined by the presence of unique DNA distinguishing child from mother? For utilitarian reasons, no doubt - it's inconvenient.

Given your last paragraph, I would like to know whether you believe in absolute truth. If not, why would words mean anything; why would our DI and Constitution carry any weight at all; what would be the basis for law?

Also, you may wish to review posts #242 and #244.

[LtdGovt]

Why then do we speak of a "you" and a "me"? Under this view, there is no distinction in persons since there is no moment of separation of identities from parents. You've effectively undermined all further debate by unwittingly proposing that all humanity is part of one giant organism.

Nice try at misinterpreting my words. But I stated that it's difficult to pinpoint the exact time (if there is an exact time), not that a person never truly becomes independent or a living human being, or whatever you're saying. It's more of an evolution (though you probably don't believe in evolution).

So why doesn't the moment happen at conception?

Why does it?

Asked another way, why doesn't the beginning of personhood happen at the beginning of unique existence - as defined by the presence of unique DNA distinguishing child from mother? For utilitarian reasons, no doubt - it's inconvenient.

Not because it's inconvenient, I couldn't give a damn, because I'm not female, nor am I careless. It causes no inconvenience to me. The problem is that your argument simply isn't persuasive.

Given your last paragraph, I would like to know whether you believe in absolute truth.

Absolutely, but absolute truth is limited in quantity. I think experience has shown us that.

Also, you may wish to review posts #242 and #244.

I already reviewed them.

[MHGinTN]

You spewed out: "And I don't think that you can pin-point the exact time when a fetus becomes 'really' human and living. But it's fair to say that it doesn't happen at conception." Amazing!

1) Define your 'really' human

2) Living? ... The ORGANISM is definable as soon as cell division is in evidence

3) If 'it' doesn't happen at conception, you might want to enlighten us with just when 'it' does happen, as in what is the poof moment you would use to show us when there is a new human being 'there'

[LtdGovt]

I'll be glad to answer your question, but first answer mine. Post 284

[MHGinTN]

Try again ... the link goes to a post without a question contained therein.

[MHGinTN]

Incidentally, this might be a good time for us to discuss the notion of self defense as applied to a rpae victim, in cases of incest, and the LIFE of the mother. Care to give it a fair try?

[longtermmemmory]

The fact he is packing in the crowds speaks volumes.

I have seen many occasions when one candate has a HUGE crowd and the other candidate shows for an event and has more staffers and press than audience.

It is a sad sad circumstance to view. (think Ronald Reagan crowd vs Modale crowd)

[longtermmemmory]

No, he was just another DOJ appointee lawyer.

A typical DOJ prosecutor. (that is an insult for those in rio linda)

[LtdGovt]

You might think of that provocative statement as a question. Do you really believe that Ronald Reagan has a twisted mind?

[MHGinTN]

RR didn't have the evidence before him that we have today. Nor did he have the luxury of applying much improved life support technology to the problem of supporting the alive unborn scheduled for termination. Is that answer sufficient?

[LtdGovt]

If Ronald Reagan didn't have the 'evidence' that we have, then surely, Bush has a twisted mind because he favors an exception in cases of rape, incest and for the life of the mother?

BTW, your 'evidence' seems to be that life begins at conception because (1) a seperate DNA is created and (2) the cell begins multiplying. However, DNA was discovered long before Ronald Reagan entered the politican arena. Why did he continue to favor exceptions for the life of the mother, and for cases of rape and incest?

[Lexinom]

To distill this down to its basic components:

A) I don't know where to pin the beginning of life;

B) Therefore, for pragmatic purposes we'll assume it begins at birth and allow abortion up to that point.

The reason life begins at conception is because it is the kickoff point at which the human organism begins developing. It is the only logical rubicon beyond which the cells contain within themselves all of the attributes necessary for human development, and before which they retain the DNA attributes marking them as members of the parent. There is no other point in the gestional process about which this could be said, hence your difficulty pinpointing one.

Trying to bring the CREVO argument to the table is specious because by design the arguments I've used could be employed by a pro-life atheist.