Replies

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.

The U.S. does not control the laws in other countries. I thought we were talking about the U.S.. Employees in other countries accept employment on the terms available to them. It is their choice to work for the wage offered. Should we boycott foreign made goods and render them unemployed? Is that moral or ethical? Would it make you feel good?

Why should a man who earns little have his salary confiscatedt?

Good question. One answer is to pay for Rx drug benefits for seniors many of whom are financially well off. There is no financial qualification for those benefits, just age. Is that ethical? Keep in mind that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of the taxes.

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.

If so, the mortality rate is about to take on a steeper curve.

And your point? Statistics are just accumulated data. The manner in which data is manipulated doesn't change the reality of the phenomena it is used to describe.

Many scientists would argue that an unfertilized egg is technically 'alive.'

All scientists would admit (unless they are kooks) that gametes cannot replicate themselves or repair their own structure or take in nourishment or excrete wastes. Gametes contain only 1/2 of the DNA necessary to make a living body that can do those things. The moment a sperm unites with an ova a complete set of DNA is formed, unique from every other set that ever has or ever will exist, and replicative growth begins immediately.

Whether it is human is another issue.

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?

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.

You can also talk to Scandinavian looking grandmothers about what it is like to be probed and searched merely to fly within the U.S.. Should we drop security measures entirely for the comfort of all? It's not discrimination if it is applied to everybody. It is also not discrimination to apply suspect descriptions to the public at large in an effort to apprehend criminals. Can you give me a general description of an Al Queda operative based on the 19 9/11 hijackers? What general profile do 90% of these ME terrorists fall into?

Anti-Arab racism is also rampant all over the Internet; anytime someone talks about what animals "they" are, they are guilty of racism.

Are you sure these comments you have seen are about Arabs in general or are they more particularly about terrorists? Do you have warm and fuzzy feelings for the people who fly planes into buildings and strap bombs on their chests? Put another way; there is a saying "if you want to have friends you have to be a friend." In light of that concept consider Joe Lieberman's recent observation when he asked "has anyone apologized for 9/11? Has anyone apologized for the U.S.S. Cole? Has anyone apologized for the Khobar Towers or the U.S. Embassies in Africa?" IOW's can you think of one single Arab/Muslim man or woman, much less an Arab/Muslim national leader, who has expressed regret over or repudiated those acts?

There is no institutionalized discrimination in our government and no significant discrimination in the private sector here. In fact a small town in Mich. or Wisc. has recently voted to allow a local Mosque to broadcast a call to prayer five times a day over a loudspeaker in town. I would say that indicates a rather tolerant and benevolent mindset amongst average Americans considering the catostrophic atrocities so recently committed against us by ME terrorists. Were you expecting that there would be no emotional reaction to the systematic and random murders of thousands of Americans? That might explain why you have trouble discerning between a non-replicative gamete and a fully formed sentient being. You have to have a genuine concern for the welfare of others not just a concern for how things make you 'feel.'

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

I would ask you where in the Constitution the Federal gov. gets the authority to regulate prayer but I think you are not ready yet to consider a subject that profound. I will simply note that, generally speaking, Democrats support 'diversity' programs that have children acting out Muslim rituals, Native American rituals and other religious rituals yet also support the autocratic judicial decisions to ban Christian prayers in school or even the display of Christian symbols like crosses worn on neck chains or bracelets. It may be to your credit, whether I agree with its Constitutionality or not, that you don't agree with the inconsistency of that double standard.

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.'

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!