55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 11:53 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Main Entry: vi·a·ble Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: vbl
Function: adjective
Etymology: French, from Middle French, from vie life (from Latin vita) + -able -- more at VITAL
1 a : capable of living <the skin graft was viable> <viable cancer cells> <a viable infant>
b of a fetus : having attained such form and development of organs as to be normally capable of living outside the uterus <a 7-month viable fetus>

Source: "viable." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (16 May 2009)
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 11:58 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Yet your life began at conception just like all the rest of us Walter. You're here. So there is a reasonable argument to be made that you were viable from the moment your mom's egg joined with your daddy's sperm, or else you wouldn't be here. That is a totally different perspective on viability than the dictionary definition of what a 'viable' fetus is.

Quote:
vi·a·ble (v-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/viable
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 12:05 pm
@Foxfyre,
You're English knowledge certainly is better than mine. And that of the Merriam-Webster, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, et. al..
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 12:07 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I don't believe that the only definition of viable in Merriam-Webster has to do with viability of the fetus either. And one's command of any language has no bearing on that at all.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 12:13 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
"Capable of living" has so many different standards, that it is difficult to say who sets those levels of living? Some live in continual starvation, and that's still "capable of living."
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 12:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Well, that's why it has a very specific meaning when used as "viable with a fetus".

At least that's how non-native English speakers learn it. Via American dictionaries and encyclopaedias.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 12:22 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
As we should all be aware, even some fetus die before they are delivered from the womb. Natural abortion occurs whether right-to-lifers wish them to have a life.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 12:26 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, that's why it has a very specific meaning when used as "viable with a fetus".

At least that's how non-native English speakers learn it. Via American dictionaries and encyclopaedias.


If you are honest, however, you will admit that I was using it in ways other than only in reference to the legal definition of a fetus however. The point is that we all at one point were nothing more than a joined egg and sperm. And to say that the joined egg and sperm that started our lives was not a viable human being is refuted by the fact that you and I are here.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 12:31 pm
And on another front:

George Will who became something of a bane to the Bush administration when he wrote a number of (correct in my opinion) scathing criticisms, is chiming in on current events:

Quote:
. . . . In February, California's Democratic-controlled Legislature, faced with a $42 billion budget deficit, trimmed $74 million (1.4 percent) from one of the state's fastest-growing programs, which provides care for low-income and incapacitated elderly people and which cost the state $5.42 billion last year. The Los Angeles Times reports that "loose oversight and bureaucratic inertia have allowed fraud to fester."

But the Service Employees International Union collects nearly $5 million a month from 223,000 caregivers who are members. And the Obama administration has told California that unless the $74 million in cuts are rescinded, it will deny the state $6.8 billion in stimulus money. . . . .

Such a federal ukase (the word derives from czarist Russia; how appropriate) to a state legislature is a sign of the administration's dependency agenda " maximizing the number of people and institutions dependent on the federal government. For the first time, neither sales nor property nor income taxes are the largest source of money for state and local governments. The federal government is. . . .

. . . .The Economist says the administration has "ridden roughshod over [creditors'] legitimate claims over the [automobile companies'] assets. . . . Bankruptcies involve dividing a shrunken pie. But not all claims are equal: some lenders provide cheaper funds to firms in return for a more secure claim over the assets should things go wrong. They rank above other stakeholders, including shareholders and employees. This principle is now being trashed." Tom Lauria, a lawyer representing hedge fund people trashed by the president as the cause of Chrysler's bankruptcy, asked that his clients' names not be published for fear of violence threatened in e-mails to them. . . .

. . . .The Obama administration's agenda of maximizing dependency involves political favoritism cloaked in the raiment of "economic planning" and "social justice" that somehow produce results superior to what markets produce when freedom allows merit to manifest itself, and incompetence to fail. The administration's central activity " the political allocation of wealth and opportunity " is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption. . . .

WHOLE ESSAY HERE:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will051409.php3
DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 12:34 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:


So far as the unwanted children of the world, the kindest thing to do is to kill them? Why is not the kindest thing to do to teach adults personal responsibility and to accept the consequences for their choices and behavior?


which is just one of the reasons that i really believe that if a person is pro-life to the point of insisting that a women birth an unwanted child, that pro-lifer really should be standing at the bedside with a properly filled out set of adoption papers.

seriously. as much ballyhoo about the federal government getting into people's personal lives as i read on just this forum everyday, it is stupefying that some of those same people would presume to do the very same thing to their fellow citizens. and with what authority? there is none. religious beliefs aren't adequate; unless we also want to accept something like honor killings under the same entitlement.

i'm not trying to be nasty about it. there's been so much back and forth about it over the years, i'm not too sure that there's going to be much more in the way of conversion to either point of view.

even the distilled analysis of the gallup material shows the upward trend to be mostly contained by self identifying republicans and attributes it to the party's recent harder swing to the right.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 12:39 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

As we should all be aware, even some fetus die before they are delivered from the womb. Natural abortion occurs whether right-to-lifers wish them to have a life.


actually that brings up an interesting question about miscarriage.

if a fetus is viable from the moment of conception, then a miscarriage shouldn't be the end of the road for that fetus. ???
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 12:41 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
It works both ways DTOM. Either you approve education and social pressures for people to be responsible or you don't. Either you put your money where your mouth is re what responsibility people should take for other people or you don't. I don't know a single pro-abortion group that is running orphanages. I know a LOT of pro-life groups who are. I don't know of a single child given up for adoption by its mother who wound up homeless.

I know many wonderful couples who have been waiting and waiting for an infant to adopt but those giving up their babies for adoption are almost non-existent. Those who choose not to give their baby life abort it. And too many irresponsible others turn the kids over to their parents or grandparents or use them to garner government benefits until the kid is big, out of control, and turned out on the street where s/he is easy prey for the gangs and other seamier influences in our society. There is no denying that there are women who make no effort to avoid pregnancy because the baby generates material benefits for her.

The problem is neither as cut and dried nor as simple as the pro-abortion advocates wish to make it and the many other elements at play in the issue are usually denied by those who point fingers at and accuse those who believe that life is sacred and must never be dismissed casually.

Many pregnancies do end without coming to full term even when the mother heroically attempts to save them. But that is nature. But you are here DTOM. CI is here. I am here. Walter is here. Cyclop is here. Every single one of us WAS viable from the moment of our conception or we would not be here. And not one of us would be here had our mothers opted for abortion.

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 12:47 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
Every single one of us WAS viable from the moment of our conception or we would not be here.


You are plain and 100% wrong. We were not viable from the moment of our conception. You are trying to use definitions that do not fit the discussion, because using the actual definition is harmful to your case.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 12:53 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Every single one of us WAS viable from the moment of our conception or we would not be here.


You are plain and 100% wrong. We were not viable from the moment of our conception. You are trying to use definitions that do not fit the discussion, because using the actual definition is harmful to your case.

Cycloptichorn


Cyclop, at your insistence, I've already conceded that you weren't viable and don't exist or else you are a second attempt at Frankenstein's monster. What else can I say?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 12:56 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Every single one of us WAS viable from the moment of our conception or we would not be here.


You are plain and 100% wrong. We were not viable from the moment of our conception. You are trying to use definitions that do not fit the discussion, because using the actual definition is harmful to your case.

Cycloptichorn


Cyclop, at your insistence, I've already conceded that you weren't viable and don't exist or else you are a second attempt at Frankenstein's monster. What else can I say?


That you were and are wrong. You know you are. It has already been shown that you are by myself and others. For once in your A2K career, just admit it, instead of acting the fool.

I'm starting to believe that you don't actually understand how poor your argumentation is. I think it may be indicative of a mental deficiency on your part; not an obvious, overt one, but some lack of ability to self-examine and find anything but approval, no matter the circumstances. That's sad.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 01:03 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Yes Cyclop. I have also conceded that you believe you are the wisest, best educated, smartest, most intelligent, and most brilliant debater on the planet and you have repeatedly pronounced me as the worst. You are so convinced I am the worst you take frequent opportunities to advise me of that. At times you follow me around to make damn sure I don't miss a single insult or ad hominem argument. Oh and I am also not a very good person.

I must sure be a burr under your saddle though to warrant such attention. That you are so eager to attack and so reluctant to actually defend your own arguments tells me that I really hit sore nerves with you. And that alone tells me that I am more right than you are. You might take the hint.
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 01:12 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
That you are so eager to attack and so reluctant to actually defend your own arguments tells me that I really hit sore nerves with you. And that alone tells me that I am more right than you are. You might take the hint.


The fact that somebody doesn't let you get away with making up the definition of a term to bolster your argument is evidence that you're right?

You're kidding, right?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 01:15 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
I believe personality is determined by factors which do not exist until a person can survive without being attached to another person's body.


This then presents you with an interesting dilemma.
A preemiebaby, born 2 or 3 months premature, can and has survived outside the womb, or "without being attached to another person's body", so you will agree that it is a person.

Now, are you honestly saying that the same baby, carried to term, is not a person?
Why not?
Are you saying that "wherre it is" is the determining factor?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 01:31 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

It works both ways DTOM. Either you approve education and social pressures for people to be responsible or you don't.


which is why i mention that is vital to provide sexual education in the formative years. but, a lot of the same people who are staunchly pro-life are also anti sex education. just slapping a bible down in front of a kid isn't going to do a thing to help them understand the changes and urges going on in their body.

even crystal palin stated on national television that abstinence only is unrealistic. at least that was her position until mom's political handlers gave her her new point of view.



Foxfyre wrote:
Either you put your money where your mouth is... (running) orphanages. I know a LOT of pro-life groups who are.


no. not orphanages. i mean a strict pro-lifer taking that newborn off of the mother's breast, taking it home and raising it as their own. nothing less than that is acceptable; it is exactly what people like randall terry are seeking to impose by force on another.

the strict pro-lifer should not only be willing, but also eager and happy to do the same thing.


Foxfyre wrote:
I know many wonderful couples who have been waiting and waiting for an infant to adopt but those giving up their babies for adoption are almost non-existent.


then why do the pro-lifers need to run an orphanage? could the problem be that too many of the baby's are the wrong color ?


Foxfyre wrote:
The problem is neither as cut and dried nor as simple as the pro-abortion advocates wish to make it and the many other elements at play in the issue are usually denied by those who point fingers ... and accuse


the very same thing can be stated about the strict pro-lifer. the difference is, as a person who you have labeled incorrectly, not pro-choice, but pro-abortion, i can say that i in no way seek to impose an abortion on any woman. in fact i my pro-choice advocacy is based on one concept; it is not my body, it is not my decision. neither is it the rightful decision of others who believe they derive authority by simple virtue of having read a book that says so.


Foxfyre wrote:
Many pregnancies do end without coming to full term even when the mother heroically attempts to save them. But that is nature. But you are here DTOM. CI is here. I am here. Walter is here. Cyclop is here. Every single one of us WAS viable from the moment of our conception or we would not be here.


what you are contending is that after a few seconds of fertilization, i would be able to exist and thrive outside of the womb, and to grow fully, learn to type on a computer and give you your current heartburn. Wink

i'm very sure that would not have been the case.



Foxfyre wrote:
And not one of us would be here had our mothers opted for abortion.


precisely. it was my mother's decision to bear me to full term. i'm pretty sure i gave her reason to kick herself over the years for making that choice. Very Happy

but as i stated above, it was her decision first, and my father's on a secondary level.

obama has articulated my feelings quite well. abortion should be rare, legal and safe.





mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 01:36 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
DTOM,
You have said you are "pro-choice", and I have no reason to doubt that.

So, would you object to an anti-abortion group setting up a table and trying to talk women out of having an abortion, even as those women were walking in to a clinic to have an abortion?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 09/06/2024 at 01:10:31