Comments on: Brokaw Let Biden off the Hook http://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/09/08/brokaw-let-biden-off-the-hook/ Delivering the Best of the New Media Since 2004. Thu, 24 May 2012 18:45:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: suekhttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/09/08/brokaw-let-biden-off-the-hook/comment-page-1/#comment-668606 suek Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:37:13 +0000 http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=5657#comment-668606 Here's an interesting discussion on the topic... <a href="http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091204.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091204...</a> Here's an interesting discussion on the topic…

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091204…

]]> By: suekhttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/09/08/brokaw-let-biden-off-the-hook/comment-page-1/#comment-668160 suek Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:07:31 +0000 http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=5657#comment-668160 It says to me that the Federal Government has decided that the embryo of the Bald Eagle is a Bald Eagle, and therefore has the same protection. Your further point bases the protection on the scarcity issue. That in effect, removes the question from the science level and places into the realm of philosophy, since it then becomes a question of where our values are placed, not a question of when science says life begins. Regardless of what science says, the Federal Government has said that an embryo at any stage is equivalent to an adult of that species. What is true of the Bald Eagle is true of the human - scarce or not. It says to me that the Federal Government has decided that the embryo of the Bald Eagle is a Bald Eagle, and therefore has the same protection.

Your further point bases the protection on the scarcity issue. That in effect, removes the question from the science level and places into the realm of philosophy, since it then becomes a question of where our values are placed, not a question of when science says life begins.

Regardless of what science says, the Federal Government has said that an embryo at any stage is equivalent to an adult of that species. What is true of the Bald Eagle is true of the human – scarce or not.

]]> By: Mr. Science Guyhttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/09/08/brokaw-let-biden-off-the-hook/comment-page-1/#comment-668109 Mr. Science Guy Thu, 11 Sep 2008 03:47:20 +0000 http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=5657#comment-668109 Is that a science question, suek? If so, I'm afraid I didn't understand it as such. I think what you're pointing out is that the endangered species law applies to eagles and their eggs, but common criminal law (e.g. murder statutes) applies to humans only after birth. Am I on the right track? I'm not Mr. Law Guy, but from my perspective, laws are frequently contradictory with each other, and often only tangentially related to facts. Trying to figure out why laws are written the way they are is a job for judges and historians, in my opinion. I'll make a guess, though my viewpoint on the law probably deserves no particular weight--the law protects Bald Eagles because of their scarcity; therefore it punishes any interference with their reproductive cycle. Human beings, on the other hand, are not scarce, so the laws that protect them are based on different precepts. If the laws governing human beings were to be philosophically consistent with the endangered species law, contraception would also be illegal. Is that a science question, suek? If so, I’m afraid I didn’t understand it as such.
I think what you’re pointing out is that the endangered species law applies to eagles and their eggs, but common criminal law (e.g. murder statutes) applies to humans only after birth. Am I on the right track?
I’m not Mr. Law Guy, but from my perspective, laws are frequently contradictory with each other, and often only tangentially related to facts. Trying to figure out why laws are written the way they are is a job for judges and historians, in my opinion.
I’ll make a guess, though my viewpoint on the law probably deserves no particular weight–the law protects Bald Eagles because of their scarcity; therefore it punishes any interference with their reproductive cycle. Human beings, on the other hand, are not scarce, so the laws that protect them are based on different precepts. If the laws governing human beings were to be philosophically consistent with the endangered species law, contraception would also be illegal.

]]> By: suekhttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/09/08/brokaw-let-biden-off-the-hook/comment-page-1/#comment-668067 suek Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:07:39 +0000 http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=5657#comment-668067 Mr.Science Guy... Why has the federal government made it illegal to destroy the egg of the Bald Eagle? Mr.Science Guy…

Why has the federal government made it illegal to destroy the egg of the Bald Eagle?

]]> By: Jimmiehttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/09/08/brokaw-let-biden-off-the-hook/comment-page-1/#comment-667960 Jimmie Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:50:30 +0000 http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=5657#comment-667960 Mr. Science guy - You are correct on the details. What I intended to say, which I also believe to be correct, is that when a human sperm fertilizes a human egg inside a human body, what exists at that point is a human life.It is not the most precise definition that can be given but I think it's the one that most folks intend when they say "life" in the context of this discussion. You are right that I need to take care to be more precise when I sling around the words "science says".Your point about where the line is "supposed" to be is the very heart of the discussion. Brokaw's question is a different question from Warren's and requires that we think differently.Joel, I think the great sin of Roe v Wade was not that it legalized abortion but that it made it practically impossible for us to have a reasonable national discussion on whether unborn human beings are worthy of personhood or not. Mr. Science guy – You are correct on the details. What I intended to say, which I also believe to be correct, is that when a human sperm fertilizes a human egg inside a human body, what exists at that point is a human life.

It is not the most precise definition that can be given but I think it’s the one that most folks intend when they say “life” in the context of this discussion. You are right that I need to take care to be more precise when I sling around the words “science says”.

Your point about where the line is “supposed” to be is the very heart of the discussion. Brokaw’s question is a different question from Warren’s and requires that we think differently.

Joel, I think the great sin of Roe v Wade was not that it legalized abortion but that it made it practically impossible for us to have a reasonable national discussion on whether unborn human beings are worthy of personhood or not.

]]> By: Mr. Science Guyhttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/09/08/brokaw-let-biden-off-the-hook/comment-page-1/#comment-667946 Mr. Science Guy Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:08:38 +0000 http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=5657#comment-667946 I hate to contradict you outright, but science doesn't say human life begins at conception. "Conception" is a fairly well-defined term, but "human" and "life" aren't. So when you ask, "does human life begin at conception," the scientific answer is, "what do you mean by human life?" It's not a desire to muddle the definition--in fact, it's the opposite. The definition is already muddled, and scientific inquiry seeks to clarify it. The everyday definitions you use are good enough for most situations you encounter, which leads you to think they're clear and precise--but when you ask questions that are outside that scope, you can't count on getting the obvious answer. I'll give you a sample: if we simply say "life" means ongoing cellular metabolism, and "human" means that cell (or cells) has 99% of its diploid DNA in common with every other human cell, then yes, absolutely, human life begins at conception. However, by those same definitions, a recent blood sample also qualifies as human life. You can certainly change your definition so that it includes the zygote and not the blood cells, but if you do that your definition won't be a simple one any more, and there will be people who dispute your choices. My point is that a defining a word is like defining the borders of a country--science can give you a detailed map of the landscape, but it can't tell you where the line is "supposed to" go. For that, we usually rely on some other branch of philosophy, and where to draw the line becomes a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. I hate to contradict you outright, but science doesn’t say human life begins at conception. “Conception” is a fairly well-defined term, but “human” and “life” aren’t. So when you ask, “does human life begin at conception,” the scientific answer is, “what do you mean by human life?” It’s not a desire to muddle the definition–in fact, it’s the opposite. The definition is already muddled, and scientific inquiry seeks to clarify it. The everyday definitions you use are good enough for most situations you encounter, which leads you to think they’re clear and precise–but when you ask questions that are outside that scope, you can’t count on getting the obvious answer.
I’ll give you a sample: if we simply say “life” means ongoing cellular metabolism, and “human” means that cell (or cells) has 99% of its diploid DNA in common with every other human cell, then yes, absolutely, human life begins at conception. However, by those same definitions, a recent blood sample also qualifies as human life. You can certainly change your definition so that it includes the zygote and not the blood cells, but if you do that your definition won’t be a simple one any more, and there will be people who dispute your choices. My point is that a defining a word is like defining the borders of a country–science can give you a detailed map of the landscape, but it can’t tell you where the line is “supposed to” go. For that, we usually rely on some other branch of philosophy, and where to draw the line becomes a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.

]]> By: Joel Gaineshttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/09/08/brokaw-let-biden-off-the-hook/comment-page-1/#comment-667959 Joel Gaines Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:30:20 +0000 http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=5657#comment-667959 Mr. Science, I appreciate the nuances involved in the scientific aspects of the question. I believe you are attempting to clarify this so that the arguement about life itself is not in question. I appluad you, sir. However, let us not forget Jimmie's point. The debate is whether a person's inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness begins at the point of conception or not. My view on this is simple. This is wholely a question of morality. Morality, of course, only exists because of God. There is no scientific equation to indicate the beginning of a person's right to life, regardless of Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi's commentary on the subject. JG joelgainesshow.com Mr. Science,

I appreciate the nuances involved in the scientific aspects of the question. I believe you are attempting to clarify this so that the arguement about life itself is not in question. I appluad you, sir.

However, let us not forget Jimmie's point. The debate is whether a person's inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness begins at the point of conception or not.

My view on this is simple. This is wholely a question of morality. Morality, of course, only exists because of God. There is no scientific equation to indicate the beginning of a person's right to life, regardless of Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi's commentary on the subject.

JG

joelgainesshow.com

]]>