Barack Obama inauguration

[macgamer]

Hi guys! I'm what the thread is supposed to be about! Remember me?

I have not forgotten President Obama. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_abortion_rights_2

On this anniversary, we must also recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons: the chance to attain a world-class education; to have fulfilling careers in any industry; to be treated fairly and paid equally for their work and to have no limits on their dreams, [...] that is what I want for women everywhere.

While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion and support women and families in the choices they make. [...] To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information and preventative services.

You cannot get much more pro-choice than that, or indeed further from the philosophy that I am advocating.

Obama won election by emphasizing how the country could work together, even on difficult issues such as abortion. His across-the-spectrum approach brought together a political coalition that he has sought to sustain during his first days in office.

Given his words above, I cannot see how his strong commitment to widening access to abortion will engage those that oppose it.

The Bush Administration's way was far more neutral, abortion was not abolished or re-criminalised but it was not encouraged either. Nor was abortion encouraged overseas through funding of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).

That is my critique of Obama's approach.

[Frank]

PARASITES

[macgamer]

PARASITES

Just to say Frank, I have found your interjections amusing and defusing. Appreciation of humour doesn't always get expressed well on the internet.

[Haunted]

All life has an environment in which it has evolved to survive within, the embryo's is the female reproductive tract. Certainly we can culture an embryo because we know what its basic requirements are. So too can adult humans exists beyond the earth's atmosphere because we know what is required for survival and we take some of it with us. Give the embyro what it needs and it will of its own accord develop into an adult. The embryo is self sufficient between conception into the fallopian tube and implantation in the endometrium. Any other cell cannot make itself into a human adult it requires intervention, the embryo does not. Any early loss of the embryo is due to a failure in its supression of menstruation.

All this had been said before, it doesn't further your argument that a molecule is a human person.
Also you cannot say that an embryo develops self sufficiently into an adult, I'm not sure what experience you have with infants but they are hardly self sufficient. It's also worth pointing out that infants below the age of two are not self aware, technically not sentient. They fail the mirror test that elephants dolphins and primates can pass. The human consciousness keeps developing until the late teens.

When exactly do you say that human life, or more crucially personhood begins?

It's a question that bothers me because there is no clear answer. A molecule is not a human, a cell is not a human, a foetus with a neural network is not a human but it is considered a higher form of life compared to a cell, and may even feel pain. Legally, we need a clear line cf. age of consent. I am happy with the current situation. And I do consider abortions after the development of neural systems to be killing. However, we already accept killing can be justified under the right circumstances.

All I am saying is that when the full diploid complement of chromosomes exist within one cell and their influence is noticeable, i.e. physiological change from an ovum to a zygote there exists human life.

So where is the line then? When almost all of the DNA is fused and only one base pair is missing is it a full human person? Is this clicking together of a dozen atoms really the deal sealer here? This molecule is now capable of holding all the human rights we ascribe to adults?

You display ignorance, only ex cathedra pronouncements on matters of faith and morals have infallibility.

Of course, how silly of me.

Certainly, to accede to their use would be tacit acceptance of their destruction and endorsement of their artificial creation.

So when anything fails we must destroy everything because to reuse something or recycle it is therefore endorsement of it failing? Embryo's get created artificially these days, it's routine, it help's couples who have trouble conceiving naturally, it is within the law now, I suggest you get used to it.

I think maybe you should also look up the definition of 'illicit' and what is this white noise about "unitive and creative aspects", what the hell does that mean?

Bah! Semantics. You honestly haven't been reading the answers I've given to others

You still haven't justified anything you just keep answering with white noise ala the following:

The sexual act can be broken down into two aspects unitive and the procreative. The unitive is the complementary union of male and female in the sexual act, also an expression of love, the procreative is the end purpose of that union of male and female, sperm and ovum: progeny.

IVF is immoral (prefer that to illicit?) because it separates sexual intercourse (unitive) from reproduction (procreative).

The word suits you better yes. However, again you haven't attempted to justify why it is so. Why is having sex without conceiving immoral?

Do you even follow the news: http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE4AI03420081119

This absent mindedness on my part is a severe sting. I remember now when this story came out and I was excited. Your point is, very humbly, taken.

Research for the sake of research that is the other reason. I was responding to something Frank mentioned

Research for the sake of research is the same thing. They both end up advancing our knowledge and advancing out knowledge is the only way to create new technologies and medicines. Directed research is a misnomer.

Primates are not human, embryos, as I you are aware I am arguing, are.

No they aren't but it was you who brought them up. Also, being non-human does not mean being incapable of suffering or not deserving of rights and protections under the law.

Most of the DNA in a somatic cell is not expressed. In an embryo the majority DNA is expressed. An embryo is on the path to become an adult and its DNA is being used intensively. A somatic cell spends most of its existence in the dormant G phase and it never develops into an adult. Science makes observations and interprets them. We observe the characteristics of an embryo and it is entirely unique amongst any other cell it has the ability to become an adult human.

[/quote][/quote]

And yet more white noise? The difference between somatic cells and gametes are completely inconsequential here. IS A SINGLE MOLECULE A HUMAN PERSON?

[Haunted]

I have not forgotten President Obama.

On this anniversary, we must also recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons: the chance to attain a world-class education; to have fulfilling careers in any industry; to be treated fairly and paid equally for their work and to have no limits on their dreams, [...] that is what I want for women everywhere.

Gold. You really want inequality for women? Because the only thing in this quote is endorsement for equality. Shall we start with the vote?

While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion and support women and families in the choices they make. [...] To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information and preventative services.

Yup, still failing to see the evil here. So I take it you aren't interested in reducing abortion or supporting women and families?

Given his words above, I cannot see how his strong commitment to widening access to abortion will engage those that oppose it.

Widening access to abortion is not mutually exclusive from wanting to reduce it. We don't say that widening access to liposuction is an endorsement of obesity do we?

[LonelyPilgrim]

The Bush Administration's way was far more neutral, abortion was not abolished or re-criminalised but it was not encouraged either. Nor was abortion encouraged overseas through funding of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).

Excuse me? What? The Bush Administration, particularly the Justice Department actively supported state laws that left abortion technically legal, but practically impossible. Such as limiting abortion clinics to only one in a state, and requiring a two week waiting period between initial consultation and the proceedure - this shortens the time available to a) recognise one is pregnant and b) decide to get an abortion before the pregnancy progresses to a point the option is no longer legally available. In rural states, the dearth of clinics and the waiting period have the effect of pricing those most in need of the services out of the market since attaining an abortion would require travel and a two week stay away from home/work.

The Bush Administration perfected the use of the 'end-run' around the law in order to remove abortion as a practical option while still leaving Roe vs. Wade on the books. Whatever your views on abortion, you CANNOT make a straight-faced claim that the Bush government was 'neutral' to the issue. If they could have overturned Roe v. Wade, they would have, and stated so. Don't assume that a lack of success on this front equates to a lack of desire. That's the equivalent of stating that the side that lost any given war was 'neutral' because they didn't win.

[macgamer]

It's also worth pointing out that infants below the age of two are not self aware, technically not sentient. They fail the mirror test that elephants dolphins and primates can pass. The human consciousness keeps developing until the late teens.

To be honest I think the debate is about personhood. It is human life from a purely biological sense. That is why I have respect for Peter Singer. He denies that an embryo or a foetus has personhood and by extension the personhood of two year olds. If an embryo foetus is not a person I do not see why infanticide is wrong. This is what the debate is really about.

It's a question that bothers me because there is no clear answer. A molecule is not a human, a cell is not a human, a foetus with a neural network is not a human but it is considered a higher form of life compared to a cell, and may even feel pain. Legally, we need a clear line cf. age of consent. I am happy with the current situation. And I do consider abortions after the development of neural systems to be killing. However, we already accept killing can be justified under the right circumstances.

This molecule is now capable of holding all the human rights we ascribe to adults?

Completely, there is no clear answer if you attempt to put a limit on abortion based on developmental milestones. Abortion in my view is a conflict of human rights. The rights of the mother over the rights of the unborn. Again not molecule but zygote, and yes the right to life.

So when anything fails we must destroy everything because to reuse something or recycle it is therefore endorsement of it failing? Embryo's get created artificially these days, it's routine, it help's couples who have trouble conceiving naturally, it is within the law now, I suggest you get used to it.

The fact that embryos are created in this fashion are very much regrettable. I suppose if IVF was banned tomorrow and I had to decide what to do with the embryos, I'd put them up for 'adoption' so to speak. Allow them to be implanted into women who wanted them so that they have a chance of life. In this country the law dictates morality, if it is isn't illegal it is moral.

You still haven't justified anything you just keep answering with white noise ala the following:

The sexual act can be broken down into two aspects unitive and the procreative. The unitive is the complementary union of male and female in the sexual act, also an expression of love, the procreative is the end purpose of that union of male and female, sperm and ovum: progeny.

I find that a perfectly good explanation of the terms unitive and procreative aspects of sex. You'll need to be more specific.

This absent mindedness on my part is a severe sting. I remember now when this story came out and I was excited. Your point is, very humbly, taken.

When I heard I thought it was amazing, very exciting stuff!

Research for the sake of research is the same thing. They both end up advancing our knowledge and advancing out knowledge is the only way to create new technologies and medicines. Directed research is a misnomer.

Yes but given that I am trying to argue for the personhood starting at conception, I question the morality of the use of embryos in research. Which is why I then brought up the use of primates below. Research councils do consider the ethics of the research which they fund.

No they aren't but it was you who brought them up. Also, being non-human does not mean being incapable of suffering or not deserving of rights and protections under the law.

I completely agree with the law used to govern the use of primates in research. Suffering and pain is hard to assess, here is a recent new item on the subject of infant pain: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7468765.stm

And yet more white noise? The difference between somatic cells and gametes are completely inconsequential here. IS A SINGLE MOLECULE A HUMAN PERSON?

No a single molecule is not a human person, but a zygote is. A zygote is not a single molecule. Single molecules do not become human adults.

[macgamer]

Gold. You really want inequality for women? Because the only thing in this quote is endorsement for equality. Shall we start with the vote?

What I object about this statement from President Obama is the concept that abortion is the route to equality or at least an ethical route to equality.

Yup, still failing to see the evil here. So I take it you aren't interested in reducing abortion or supporting women and families?

Widening access to abortion is not mutually exclusive from wanting to reduce it. We don't say that widening access to liposuction is an endorsement of obesity do we?

We have seen that when access to abortion is increased and encouraged, it is not viewed as a such a 'big choice' and so abortion rates increase. I disagree with Obama's approach to reducing the abortion rate. I whole heartly agree with supporting women with crisis pregnancy this is the key to reducing the number of abortions. I can mention two organisations in Britain that work with women in crisis pregnancy: LIFE http://www.lifecharity.org.uk/ and the Cardinal Winning Pro-Life Initiative http://cardinalwinningprolifeinitiative.wordpress.com/about-us/. Also the government in my view does not make it easy enough for women to work and start a family if they what to. Working women have poor rights in terms of the right to family life. More accommodating industrial laws on this matter will also help to reduce the abortion rate.

[Haunted]

To be honest I think the debate is about personhood. It is human life from a purely biological sense. That is why I have respect for Peter Singer. He denies that an embryo or a foetus has personhood and by extension the personhood of two year olds. If an embryo foetus is not a person I do not see why infanticide is wrong. This is what the debate is really about.

This is probably as close as I can get you to an agreement. Singer argues that killing is justified and I agree but also argue that a single cell is not a human person capable of holding rights.

Completely, there is no clear answer if you attempt to put a limit on abortion based on developmental milestones. Abortion in my view is a conflict of human rights. The rights of the mother over the rights of the unborn. Again not molecule but zygote, and yes the right to life.

I'm not why you find it easier say zygote rather than molecule. The word molecule, intrinsically implies lifeless (which I'll admit is why I'm using it), however a single cell is merely a group of molecules. Fundamentally I am perhaps asking you to draw the line between life and non-life. Molecule = non-life, several molecules = life? Where is the cutoff?
Again though, within a zygote (which actually starts as two cells, not one. When the sperm and oocyte fusion is complete they become two identical cells, the single cell before was still the incomplete female gamete), it is the DNA molecule that is the business. The other organelles are only there to replicate and protect the DNA, if the DNA is not life, then they aren't either.

The fact that embryos are created in this fashion are very much regrettable. I suppose if IVF was banned tomorrow and I had to decide what to do with the embryos, I'd put them up for 'adoption' so to speak. Allow them to be implanted into women who wanted them so that they have a chance of life.

Far better than wasting them, however, assuming such adoption programs weren't successful and the embryo's had to be destroyed, then why not put them under the microscope first?

In this country the law dictates morality, if it is isn't illegal it is moral.

I fundamentally disagree with this. The law is not there to dictate morality, it is there to protect social order. There's no law against being an immoral jerk, nor should there be since morality is fairly subjective. I generally don't consider personal drug use immoral (I have exceptions of course), but it is largely illegal.

The sexual act can be broken down into two aspects unitive and the procreative. The unitive is the complementary union of male and female in the sexual act, also an expression of love, the procreative is the end purpose of that union of male and female, sperm and ovum: progeny.
I find that a perfectly good explanation of the terms unitive and procreative aspects of sex. You'll need to be more specific.

It doesn't say anything. Sex can be expression of love and it does facilitate procreation, this does not mean that it is exclusively for procreation or love. Even in nature it isn't, Bonobo apes are well known to throw wild sex orgies when they discover a new food supply. You might be interested in the details of their extreme homosexual activity as well.

Yes but given that I am trying to argue for the personhood starting at conception, I question the morality of the use of embryos in research. Which is why I then brought up the use of primates below. Research councils do consider the ethics of the research which they fund.

If the premise is that a complete DNA molecule in a phospholipid shell is a person then one is forced to say that deliberate attempts to break down that molecule is murder or at least killing. My problem is with the premise and even it were granted, since it is big grey area, I still argue that killing under certain circumstances is justified.

No a single molecule is not a human person, but a zygote is. A zygote is not a single molecule. Single molecules do not become human adults.

The machinery in the zygote exists solely to replicate and preserve the DNA, it is merely a vehicle for the DNA. It is also the DNA that provides the potential for a human adult, the cell organelles merely replicate and offer protection. Without the DNA the zygote will not become anything, but the DNA can still grow if it is implanted in another cell.

[Anon.]

Also the government in my view does not make it easy enough for women to work and start a family if they what to. Working women have poor rights in terms of the right to family life.

Working men have worse rights.

[jollytiddlywink]

Unfortunately, I have to point out that this has dissolved into a very long-winded debate. Not that it isn't interesting to read, mind you, but it has virtually nothing to do with the topic of the thread!

I watched him being sworn in, and listened to his speech. I found both the style and the substance of his message uplifting. His oratory was excellent. Of course, anybody could sound like a latter-day Churchill just by making sure to speak after 8 years of Bush, but still, the speech was not just good-by-comparison. It was good. He's got his head and his policies screwed on the right way, too!

And it looks like the only 'Drill, baby, drill' the US will be getting now is the holes for lots of new wind-turbines, which I think even the non-believers amongst us can react to with a 'hallelujah!'

[Anon.]

And it looks like the only 'Drill, baby, drill' the US will be getting now is the holes for lots of new wind-turbines, which I think even the non-believers amongst us can react to with a 'hallelujah!'

Hallelujah my arse. Even the thought, let alone the sight, of wind-turbines fills me with rage.

I live in Cumbria (formerly one of the most beautiful places in England) which is being slowly smothered in the ghastly things. One could put up with it, thinking of the planet (funny how a supposedly-environmentally-friendly measure wreaks such havoc on the environment, by the way) were it not for the fact that they are BLOODY USELESS. The only reason they are so popular is because it's a relatively cheap way for the government to say "look how much we're doing on renewable energy" with minimal actual effort. If they actually gave a flying brief relationship about renewable energy they'd be putting their subsidies into improving the efficiency and affordability of photovoltaic solar panels for every new house built, instead. Every new building should be as self-sufficient as possible, to reduce to a minimum, or ideally nothing, any energy drawn from the national grid. Of course (and sorry to be sounding like a conspiracy-theorist hippy here) that wouldn't go down well with the energy companies - including those wind power blackguards - which supply electricity to the grid, so it doesn't happen.

Wind turbines. GAAH!!

[LonelyPilgrim]

"wreaks such havoc on the environment"? How so? And you'd better not mention killing birds.

As far as PV cells, yes, by all means... but let's please clean up the manufacturing process first, eh?

[Haunted]

Anyone with half a brain knows it has to be nuclear.

[Zanbato]

Anon. What do you base this "useless" theory on?

As for them being an eyesore, I disagree. To me, they are a hundred times prettier than most of the dingy grey or soot coloured buildings found in every city. I'd rather look at windturbines than a wasteground.

Personally, the best idea I heard was for a small scale solution to the energy crisis. A few wind turbines located near towns, rather than grouped in huge fields as they are now, and several smaller scale nuclear plants.

To use a local scale example, it would be like St. Andrews having a couple of wind turbines, along with Tayport and Ceres for example, with a central and very small nuclear station located in near Dundee for example. I guess the downside is that people wouldnt want a nuclear plant on their doorstep.

[Power Metal Dom]

I'm hijacking this thread with some wonderful photos of the inauguration.

Seriously look at a few of these, they are breathtaking:

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/01/the_inauguration_of_president.html

[macgamer]

Anyone with half a brain knows it has to be nuclear.

I couldn't agree more. Nuclear has my vote.

[Frank]

Anyone with half a brain knows it has to be nuclear.

I couldn't agree more. Nuclear has my vote.

And mine. There was a silly letter in today's Telegraph on an anti-nuclear bandwagon. I wish I'd been better informed to write a hard-hitting, interest-prompting reply. But I'm not as well informed as I feel I should be, hence I'm informing myself in the meantime.

[Lid]

I see that picture and raise you http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/36000/36729/inauguration_ge1_2009020_lrg.jpg.

Here is a low-res crop, but the high-res one is well worth it:

[sideshow bob]

I will never understand why some athiests take such a hostile view toward people of faith. I'll acknowledge a certain irrationality in religious belief, but for crying out loud people... this does not automatically mean someone is going to make stupid decisions as a head of state. We all have irrational beliefs, albeit not all of us have *religious* irrational beliefs.
In what conceivable way will a pro-choice, pro-science, pro-multiculturalism, pro-internationalist president be negatively influenced by religious beliefs in his policy-making? I think it's quite safe to say, considering President Obama's record and public comments that he doesn't subscribe to either Biblical infallibility or the sort of narrow-minded and exclusionary head-in-the-sand sort of faith that President Bush often exhibited. So, I ask again, what negative impact are you folks so irrationally afraid of?

Christianity, along with all other theistic belief systems, is the fraud of the age. It serves to detach the species from the natural world, and likewise, each other. It supports blind submission to authority. It reduces human responsibility to the effect that "God" controls everything, and in turn awful crimes can be justified in the name of Divine Pursuit. And most importantly, it empowers those who know the truth but use the myth to manipulate and control societies. The religious myth is the most powerful device ever created, and serves as the psychological soil upon which other myths can flourish.