Okay, you successfully pointed out that I didn't know the context of this quote, why Einstein said it, or even his personality for that matter. But I feel that the portion that was given should have been up for interpretation. So I may not have understood this part the way he intended for me to interpret it, but I still hold my beliefs. :)
Finally, a famous quote (that I have never heard before) that backs up my sentiment perfectly! Religion and science go hand in hand. I've always believed that science answers the question "How does it happen?" and religion answers the question "Why does it happen?"
Maybe I'm just saying this because I'll be registering to vote later on this month or next month. :)
I think by the time you're 18, you're more mature than you ever have been, obviously. Although not all 18-year-olds are mature enough to vote, a good portion are mature enough. And the ones that are not usually don't vote anyway, so it all works out. The thing that's always bothered me, however, is how 18 is such a magical number. I don't see how somebody who is 18 years, 1 month is more mature, legally, than somebody who is 17 years, 11 months. It's as if suddenly, you turn 18 and a whole new world opens. I think there should be a big thing once you get a high school diploma or something. I still had to get working papers to work (this is a side note), even though I already graduated. But I don't turn 18 until the 20th... =/
"Organ donation upon death should be mandatory."
Well it is mandatory unless requested otherwise in some places, like Belgium I believe. So in that case, it's a great idea. But I think we should at least have a choice. It makes the actual donation that much more precious, sincere, and important.
"My soul won't transcend to some higher plane..."
As much as I disagree with that part, I do agree that after we die, our bodies are just going to lie there and rot. But lets go ahead and discuss the afterlife some other time, shall we? :)
There are problems with every form of government and society, I'm sure. Capitalism is great because it allows people to actually work for their money and understand the value of it. Socialism could be a problem for the same reason because the poorest people in society would then be getting, in a way, government hand-outs and would not appreciate them. Suddenly, they realize they don't need to try as hard and the former upper class is working harder to maintain stability in society. Then they realize there's no point in doing this and society collapses.
Now, if we were all robots or if we all actually wanted to work together without laziness or greed or jealousy, then yes, I'm sure socialism could definitely work. In fact, I think it could work on a much smaller scale in some cases.
Debating online gives me time to think about what I'm going to say without looking like an idiot and research a multitude of topics easily. Also, when I get really pissed at people, there is a 0% chance I will charge at them and try to hurt them. :)
I really like the idea and I'm sure if it picks up more steam, I'll be using it more and more often, but I don't know about everyone else. I'm not sure how many people would join and I'm also not sure if it would last for months to come. =/
I recently read an article in Popular Science about how using the computer will actually make you smarter, depending on how you use it of course. They did a study and found that people who use computers regularly, to search for things on the internet for example, had greater brain activity while surfing the web than people who have never used a computer before, showing how they were actually becoming smarter from computer use. Of course, bad posture and carpal tunnel syndrome are negative side effects, but you can get those from other activities other than going on the computer.
"This sounds reasonable to me. But, of course, embryos are incapable of feeling pain."
I have to strongly disagree with this. An embryo can feel pain as early as eight weeks, when it first develops brain activity and a heartbeat. And even before this, the mother can feel pain by realizing that she just gave up her own flesh and blood. I've heard stories of would-be mothers feeling extreme guilt or sadness from aborting a baby at any point during the pregnancy.
Okay, maybe that wasn't the best answer. Honestly, I've never thought about why the things I believe are wrong are in fact wrong. They just all seem wrong and I'm sure most people feel the same way about their own morals, but I've been thinking about this more throughout the day... We do the right thing because we don't want to cause pain. And when we do want to cause pain in others, it's out of spite and we may feel bad about that later on. Our morals revolve around the Golden Rule, "Do onto others what you would have them do onto you." If you don't want somebody to do something to you, then don't do it to them.
I believe it is wrong to take innocent or defenseless life. Typically, that would be for God to decide and I don't think we have the right to take away the life of another without a consequence. But let's just say God didn't exist, for the argument's sake. Even then, most people would feel bad for killing another, especially when he or she didn't deserve it and/or couldn't protect him or herself. I believe this is the basis of all of our morals: would you feel guilty or bad for doing that? The only time killing another human being is justified is when it will benefit society as a whole. This is where capital punishment enters the picture (take a life, lose your own). As for wars, I would LOVE to see a world in complete peace, but there are evil people out there and the only way to stop them sometimes is by fighting them and their armies.
"An embryo is not a human, it is a potential human."
Saying it is a potential human means that it may become a human and it may not, but it all depends on actions and factors, etc. An embryo WILL develop into a fully-formed human being, who may be missing a body part unfortunately, unless it is miscarried (or aborted).
Because it WILL BE a fully functional human being, granted there is no miscarriage nor mental or physical dysfunction. It is not the same as a gamete, which may or may not become a zygote and will die without another gamete being joined. As soon as that sperm cell goes inside of that egg and forms the first few cells of a fetus, it is destined to be a baby. It is technically alive, according to science, and there is no way you cannot consider it a human being. What else would it be? Does is gradually change its species and eventually morph into a human? No, it starts as a human and develops to become more and more recognizable.
Vegans don't kill humans for no reason other than the fact that they don't want a baby! Well they might, but that's not the point. Human life is sacred ans special. So sorry for not specifying that we were discussing human life. I kind of thought that was a given. We are the only organisms on Earth, as far as I know, that have a rational soul, that we can think logically and reason as a species.
"In this case I would say killing that hollow shell of a person is acceptable for the same reason killing an embryo is acceptable."
Well then we are never going to agree on this issue. :) Because I am opposed to the direct killing of either, unless necessary.
Once again, 1 million is a huge number, but I truly believe it is nothing in comparison to what it could have been and what there has been in wars of the past.
"Countries need to establish Democracy on their own."
If it were that simple, then yes, let them run wild and eventually tame themselves. It doesn't even matter if a nation has a democracy or a monarchy or a dictatorship to me, as long as the government does not oppress its people or abuse its power (or terrorize the world).
Well life does begin at conception. End of story. "a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information. They undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations." -Wikipedia
Let's see... A zygote is a cell that is comprised of water and carbon-based molecules, among other things.
It has genetic information, more importantly a complete set of human DNA.
It has a metabolism- it "eats" the yolk of the egg for energy.
It has homeostasis because it is maintained by the mother's body temperature.
It grows and it's cells divide.
It can respond to stimuli, more and more as it grows.
It doesn't reproduce yet, but hey... neither does a child, which is clearly alive.
And natural selection refers to the species, not the individual, and is true for all species anyway.
So how is it not alive?
True, making abortions illegal would not stop all of them, but it would surely stop some. So many women get abortions and then soon realize it was a mistake to do so. And it is a mistake. It's destroying life, as explained above.
So you're inferring that it's okay to "murder" a fetus that has not yet experienced brain activity but will and at the same time, it's not okay to "murder" a comatose patient that has already experienced brain activity and never will again. I'm referring to brain activity as thoughts and feelings, not motor functions and bodily functions. Even so, a baby has its first brain activity as early as 8 weeks, along with a heartbeat! I still believe life begins at conception and that all unnecessary abortion is wrong, but I can at least tolerate an abortion up to, but not including, this milestone. I can't stand how there are abortions after this point just because of viability.
Of course, parole and prison breaks were hypothetical situations I derived to prove a point that the death penalty is permanent, which is a good thing. But since Democrats agree with the death penalty, let's leave it at that. :)
"Here's a scenario: We left Iraq alone. Saddam eventually falls out of power and is swept into the dustbin of history, like all petty dictators. Iraq eventually develops Democracy on its own, much like the rest of the world has. We as a country are fiscally sound due to not having wasted a ton of money. An inconceivable amount of pain and suffering have been avoided. Doesn't that sound like a better outcome to you?"
That outcome sounds amazing and I wish it were that simple, but how long would we have to wait for Saddam Hussein to die and stop killing his own people? And what if he had a son who took his place and was just as evil? I'm sure in a nation like Iraq, there would have been plenty of people willing to take Hussein's place after he died and would have been just as evil or even more evil. So an "inconceivable amount of pain and suffering have been avoided"..... by Americans. The same can be said about the Holocaust. If we never got involved, it's no big deal for us, but it we did get involved. Yes, Japan attacked us first, but we really had no other reason to invade Europe other than stopping the Nazis and helping the allies.
"It is only alive in the strict biological sense"
Just like somebody in a coma, right? Aborting a baby can be compared to killing a comatose patient, but in a completely inhumane way only because his or her mother doesn't want him or her anymore. Now, indirect euthanasia is okay, as in removing any machines from the patient, but murdering the comatose is unethical, just like abortion.
"removes evil doers from society just as effectively"
Prison can be like a paradise for some of these criminals. So removing the death penalty could cause an surge of crimes because people don't have three square meals a day and a shower and bed. Regardless of this, keeping these murderers alive in prison always leaves the chance of parole, if available, or a prison break, which would be rare but still possible. I see the death penalty as the biggest deterrent for murder- kill and be killed. If the death penalty were removed, I'm sure people wouldn't hesitate to murder based on consequences because this would lead to a consequence of meals, showers, and beds, as opposed to death.
"How many would it take for you to draw the line?"
There is no line to be drawn- only comparisons to be made and scenarios to be though about. Scenarios meaning thinking about what the world or region would be like without the war ever have existed. Yes, one million people is a lot of people, but did they die in vain? Was it really that big of a loss in comparison to any war of human history?
Well I feel many of these women could easily give the children up for adoption, which is very successful. And I know a lot of people think anti-abortion stances are religious, but they don't have to be. I look at the facts and I never blindly follow my religion based on what religious leaders say, like the Pope. I see abortion as murder of innocent life because I truly believe the fetus is alive at conception. Gametes are alive as well, but they are not humans in and of themselves. When they meet and form a zygote, they transform into a single-celled version of a human being.
I never said Democrats want abortions to occur, but they sure don't want them to stop. It's not as if Democrats go out and urge women to abort their babies, but I don't think women should be given the choice of an abortion unless there are certain circumstances, like endangerment of the mother's health or rape, as long as the abortion is early on, like in the first month or two.
And yes, we're finishing the war. Are you guys all happy? Because I sure as hell feel a lot more safe! Oh wait... no I don't. Oh that's right, I feel leaving the region entirely might spark a revolt by any remaining radicals and the nation might revert to the way it was in 2001! That sounds like a lot of fun.
Oh it's on like Donkey Kong. :)
The only circumstance where abortion is logical and ethical is when the fetus threatens the mother's health with an ectopic pregnancy, a cancerous uterus, etc. I also feel some cases of rape could call for very early abortions. However, life begins at conception. At this point, the zygote, still a single cell, has the same number of chromosomes as a developed human being and carries on the same life processes found in every living organism.
Although it may be more costly to execute a prisoner, I see the death penalty as a way to rid society of those not worthy to belong in it. The death penalty should not be used lightly, of course, as if we lived in the Middle Ages, but should be used only on criminals guilty of first degree murder or crimes as evil as this. The way I see it, people guilty of first degree murder thought about their actions beforehand and planned to murder others prior to the incident. It is not a freak accident or a crime of passion- these people are inherently evil and have no respect to life. And with the advent of DNA technology, the number of people wrongfully accused of a crime has dwindled. There will never be a foolproof justice system, but we are closer than we ever have been.
I think if you compare Iraq now to how it was in 2001, the nation is much better off. They no longer live under an evil dictator, they finally have freedom and democratic elections (government of the people!), and the economy there is improving to stability. So we have done a lot of good there.
"Almost a trillion dollars" I agree that's a lot of money, but at least it wasn't spent in vain.
"thousands of American lives" This is nothing. I feel a sense of honor for each soldier who is serving now, who has served, and who has died for this country. I salute them and I think they are the greatest Americans, but compare this to any other major war in American history, and it is smaller than many individual battles! In wars of the past (not Vietnam), people didn't complain about numbers of dead soldiers, they praised these men (and now women) for their dedication and honor! And every war in our history has been greater, casualty-wise, than the Iraq war. The problem is that the media goes on air and says "This many people died this week in Iraq," which is constantly exaggerating the war. We are not dying that much over there.
"over one million dead Iraqis" This is truly sad, but think about how many of these people were on the other side of the war to begin with. Also, think about how many people would have lived in terror or died because of Saddam Hussein. I think one million dead Iraqis is better than an entire nation terrorized constantly by their leader or dying from radical Muslims.
