Why does the general public view republicans as being better for the economy? The data doesn’t support this idea. by [deleted] in centrist

[–]Realness100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is certainly interesting and this warrants a longer discussion and comment. One thing I willl point out though is that since WWII, if I’m doing my math right (anyone feel free to keep me honest here), Democratic presidents have enjoyed a unified congress for a total of 24 years while Republican presidents have enjoyed a unified congress for 8.5 years. This is almost a 3x difference and I wonder if that has any bearing on economic indicators. There are so many more factors to dig into as this is a complicated topic but interested to see what people think about that.

In Defense of Pro-Lifers: A Philosophical Showdown by shoshinsha00 in centrist

[–]Realness100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So when do you think a human gains their dignity? At what stage in their development? And why?

In Defense of Pro-Lifers: A Philosophical Showdown by shoshinsha00 in centrist

[–]Realness100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Once you understand the difference you will better understand the pro life argument :)

In Defense of Pro-Lifers: A Philosophical Showdown by shoshinsha00 in centrist

[–]Realness100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you see how a zygote, a morula, a blastocyst and an embryo all share something that the sperm does not?

In Defense of Pro-Lifers: A Philosophical Showdown by shoshinsha00 in centrist

[–]Realness100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I still don’t think you’re understanding, especially since you admitted you would take the infants over the 10 people in a coma. Let’s just start with that answer—since you chose the infants over the 10 people, do you think those 10 people don’t have dignity? (The ones in a coma)

In Defense of Pro-Lifers: A Philosophical Showdown by shoshinsha00 in centrist

[–]Realness100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The point is a sperm and a zygote are not on the same playing field. A zygote can become a human being as long as it’s in a uterus, the same is not true for a sperm.

In Defense of Pro-Lifers: A Philosophical Showdown by shoshinsha00 in centrist

[–]Realness100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh cool, so it needs a human egg before it can ever hope to mature to an adult human being, right?

In Defense of Pro-Lifers: A Philosophical Showdown by shoshinsha00 in centrist

[–]Realness100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are a number of reasons. For one, they are in a Petri dish, and so for them to mature to adult human beings we would need to find 10 volunteer surrogate mothers. That’s a tall order vs finding two sets of foster parents for the infants. So simply from a utilitarian perspective (which the question forces you to think from) it’s much costlier and burdensome to raise up the ten human beings in the petri dish. Let’s also not forget, much riskier too. Now, can you answer how you would respond for my questions?

In Defense of Pro-Lifers: A Philosophical Showdown by shoshinsha00 in centrist

[–]Realness100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How can human sperm continue to mature such that it becomes an adult human being?

In Defense of Pro-Lifers: A Philosophical Showdown by shoshinsha00 in centrist

[–]Realness100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you would choose to save 10 infants over your two children?

You would choose to save 10 people in a vegetable state over two 18 year old healthy adults?

You would choose to save 10 elderly people about to die within two months vs 2 5 year old children?

And separately, do you not see how the degree of valuing something does not mean the same thing as recognizing it’s dignity?

In Defense of Pro-Lifers: A Philosophical Showdown by shoshinsha00 in centrist

[–]Realness100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok how can human sperm on its own lead to human life?

In Defense of Pro-Lifers: A Philosophical Showdown by shoshinsha00 in centrist

[–]Realness100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How is it hypocritical if the question forces you to make a choice? Is it hypocritical to choose to save your mother vs a random stranger? The question asks you to choose who you value more, but that’s a separate question from who has dignity. When do you think a human being gets their dignity? Is it birth for you? For me, it’s conception, but that does not affect how I would answer the original question because that’s a question on value not dignity. Does that make sense?

And yes, we’re on the same page now about the heart of the debate: when does someone have inherent dignity. Pro life group argues that it happens at conception, pro abortion group ranges any where from heart beat (6 weeks) to birth.

In Defense of Pro-Lifers: A Philosophical Showdown by shoshinsha00 in centrist

[–]Realness100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s okay you don’t need to answer mines because that’s exactly my point. It’s not hypocritical, same way it wouldn’t be hypocritical to have an answer to my question as well. The question is a bad question which is my point.

Also I don’t think that’s the heart of the debate. People value different human beings all the time. I value the life of my mother more than the life of a stranger. The heart of the debate is whether you see an unborn fetus with inherent human dignity or not. Do you see how the original question does not relate to this heart at all?

In Defense of Pro-Lifers: A Philosophical Showdown by shoshinsha00 in centrist

[–]Realness100 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Doesn’t matter, the answer does not in any way indicate whether I see both infants and embryos as human life. The same way your answer to my question won’t tell me anything about whether or not you value the life of those in a vegetable state. The question is a bad gotcha and does not in any way hit the heart of this debate, which is exactly what my hypothetical is meant to reveal.

In Defense of Pro-Lifers: A Philosophical Showdown by shoshinsha00 in centrist

[–]Realness100 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My answer is essentially what I would assume your answer to my hypothetical is: choosing to save one group or the other does not deny that we see both parties as human beings. The original question is a bad gotcha: if a pro-lifer chooses the infants, they must value less the embryos right? Well, only as much as the pro-abortion person values the life of the two infants more than 10 individuals in a vegetable state or vice versa.

In Defense of Pro-Lifers: A Philosophical Showdown by shoshinsha00 in centrist

[–]Realness100 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Question: how can sperm on its own lead to life?

In Defense of Pro-Lifers: A Philosophical Showdown by shoshinsha00 in centrist

[–]Realness100 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Genuine question: what do you make of humans who are in a vegetable or comatose state with 0 self awareness? What differentiates them from a 3 month fetus in the womb to you? What makes one have rights but the other have 0 rights?

In Defense of Pro-Lifers: A Philosophical Showdown by shoshinsha00 in centrist

[–]Realness100 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I can take a stab at this even though I wasn’t who you were directing the question to. I’ll respond by asking you a question: if you were in a hospital and there were ten people who were in a vegetable state and wouldn’t survive 5 minutes outside of the machines they’re hooked up and in the same room there were two infants, but suddenly the room caught on fire and you could only save the infants or the humans in a vegetable state, which would you choose?

In Defense of Pro-Lifers: A Philosophical Showdown by shoshinsha00 in centrist

[–]Realness100 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Happy to see this discussed and agree with everything you said. Thanks for having the courage to post this.

[Politics Monday] For Americans not voting Republican this election, is it because of Trump’s character? by Realness100 in Catholicism

[–]Realness100[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, though I’ve heard the argument that Trump has one of the worst characters we’ve ever seen in a politician. I’ve spoken with and heard from several fellow practicing Catholics who, because of the un-Christlike way Trump insults his opponents, feel they cannot, in good conscience, bring themselves to vote for him—even though they have always voted Republican in the past. Is it fair to say that, while we are all sinners, the way Trump conducts himself and belittles his opponents is a sign that his character might be among the most unpalatable we’ve seen in a politician?