Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

CaledonianCraig wrote:

GSC wrote:The Scots voted to remain part of the UK.

The UK voted to leave the EU. Every Scottish vote counted the same as every other UK citizen. I don't see the issue.

The Scots (a good number if you look at post-ref stats from neutral sources) decided to vote no on varying issues. One of the main ones was because they feared losing their place in Europe. That won loads of votes for Better Together and has proved to be fruitless for the voters as they are now out of Europe.

The issue is that many Scots sees Scotland as its own country - sure not independent - but very close to it as they have their own government. However, when they vote by 62% to remain in Europe and end up being taken out of Europe it becomes a big issue to many. Yes we know the UK voted to exit but there are perhaps a million plus Scots who fail to recognize or accept being part of the UK or see themselves Scottish first and foremost and feel how they vote should hold more water than it does in the current union.

Sorry Craig, but that's democracy. Why should somebody in Edinburghs vote count more than someone's in London? Almost as ridiculous as Mhairi Black complaining that a region with more inhabitants had more MPs representing it than another region with less MPs.

But such is the politics of the SNP, always phrasing as Scotland vs the rest of the UK (or more accurately England) when Scotland voted to be part of the UK.

What doesn't make what wrong?

The law accepting it doesn't make it wrong.

But you could argue that any law doesn't make anything right or wrong.

I think it works quite well to be honest ENT, the embryo's can survive if you've got the right packing case (which in the moral situation they're in).

I don't think everyone agrees life begins at conception, hence why you can get an abortion (as is your right) up to x weeks.

Isn't the Catholic church against IVF anyway?

The x weeks is just an arbitrary line drawn though. Pre term babies have survived at younger than that. Life most definitely begins at conception.

The moral scenarios don't work as you can just create endless versions of them to suit your own point of view.

Ent wrote:The x weeks is just an arbitrary line drawn though. Pre term babies have survived at younger than that. Life most definitely begins at conception.

The moral scenarios don't work as you can just create endless versions of them to suit your own point of view.

Life begins before conception, sperm are alive.

It's not arbitrary, but it's not precise.

Even if we accept that life beings at conception (not everyone does), the moral question remains as to whether an embryo at 2 seconds old has the same rights as a child or an adult human. Moral scenarios fuel that kind of ethical debate. We can't and shouldn't avoid them just because we can find some that 'suit our point of view'. Otherwise their would be no debate at all.

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's not arbitrary, but it's not precise.

Even if we accept that life beings at conception (not everyone does), the moral question remains as to whether an embryo at 2 seconds old has the same rights as a child or an adult human. Moral scenarios fuel that kind of ethical debate. We can't and shouldn't avoid them just because we can find some that 'suit our point of view'. Otherwise their would be no debate at all.

Shame.

Galted wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's not arbitrary, but it's not precise.

Even if we accept that life beings at conception (not everyone does), the moral question remains as to whether an embryo at 2 seconds old has the same rights as a child or an adult human. Moral scenarios fuel that kind of ethical debate. We can't and shouldn't avoid them just because we can find some that 'suit our point of view'. Otherwise their would be no debate at all.

Shame.

Yes it is. You are quite right to point it out.

If you don't bring up scenarios then i agree with Julies that it can't be discussed properly. Found the link for it
https://www.boredpanda.com/pro-life-anti-abortion-argument-patrick-s-tomlinson/

It's a really really tough one to be honest and I can't honestly say i see anyone as completely wrong or right. I think there's a lot of variables for each different case

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Galted wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's not arbitrary, but it's not precise.

Even if we accept that life beings at conception (not everyone does), the moral question remains as to whether an embryo at 2 seconds old has the same rights as a child or an adult human. Moral scenarios fuel that kind of ethical debate. We can't and shouldn't avoid them just because we can find some that 'suit our point of view'. Otherwise their would be no debate at all.

Shame.

Yes it is. You are quite right to point it out.

Thank you for seeing it that way. It broke my heart doing it but I had to to keep the honour of the CC intact.

RIP Tino

Scottrf wrote:

Ent wrote:The x weeks is just an arbitrary line drawn though. Pre term babies have survived at younger than that. Life most definitely begins at conception.

The moral scenarios don't work as you can just create endless versions of them to suit your own point of view.

sperm are alive.

So are Coma patients................The right to switch machines off is taken as read.... Sometimes with or without family consent..

Part of life is making decisions for people without a voice....It can be unpleasant at times.

Scottrf wrote:

Ent wrote:The x weeks is just an arbitrary line drawn though. Pre term babies have survived at younger than that. Life most definitely begins at conception.

The moral scenarios don't work as you can just create endless versions of them to suit your own point of view.

Life begins before conception, sperm are alive.

In the same way skin cells are. A bit of knowledge on the matter would do you no harm here.

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's not arbitrary, but it's not precise.

Even if we accept that life beings at conception (not everyone does), the moral question remains as to whether an embryo at 2 seconds old has the same rights as a child or an adult human. Moral scenarios fuel that kind of ethical debate. We can't and shouldn't avoid them just because we can find some that 'suit our point of view'. Otherwise their would be no debate at all.

I feel it detracts from the debate.

Oh you are against abortion but what about this bizarre scenario I've come up with.

Great stuff.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Ent wrote:The x weeks is just an arbitrary line drawn though. Pre term babies have survived at younger than that. Life most definitely begins at conception.

The moral scenarios don't work as you can just create endless versions of them to suit your own point of view.

sperm are alive.

So are Coma patients................The right to switch machines off is taken as read.... Sometimes with or without family consent..

Part of life is making decisions for people without a voice....It can be unpleasant at times.

Not true. Usually requires individual high court decision if family disagree.

Ent wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Ent wrote:The x weeks is just an arbitrary line drawn though. Pre term babies have survived at younger than that. Life most definitely begins at conception.

The moral scenarios don't work as you can just create endless versions of them to suit your own point of view.

Life begins before conception, sperm are alive.

In the same way skin cells are. A bit of knowledge on the matter would do you no harm here.

You're such a Winkle. 'My definition of life is XX, anyone with a different view of what is correct/moral is an idiot.'

You don't get to choose what life is or what is moral.

Not my fault you are ignorant of the subject matter and basic biology.

Maybe do some research instead of flinging insults.

A sperm is a living organism, capable of life outside of the person's body.

I think it's you that doesn't understand biology.

Things are getting personal here, enough is enough. Hammer will start to swing and subjects will be locked if things continue.

Much the same way that anyone who disagrees with that view seems to think they have the moral high ground, it's a far from easy subject to debate, I'm personally an advocate for pro choice but can understand the opposing viewpoint.

They are specially modified cells for delivery of genetic material.

They aren't organisms.

Seriously do some sort of research/reading.

Ent wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's not arbitrary, but it's not precise.

Even if we accept that life beings at conception (not everyone does), the moral question remains as to whether an embryo at 2 seconds old has the same rights as a child or an adult human. Moral scenarios fuel that kind of ethical debate. We can't and shouldn't avoid them just because we can find some that 'suit our point of view'. Otherwise their would be no debate at all.

I feel it detracts from the debate.

Oh you are against abortion but what about this bizarre scenario I've come up with.

Great stuff.

I don't recall that I came up with any bizarre scenarios. You simply used someone else's as a way of avoiding debate. You said you wished 'to establish facts' but did not make clear what facts you wished to establish.

Ent wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Ent wrote:The x weeks is just an arbitrary line drawn though. Pre term babies have survived at younger than that. Life most definitely begins at conception.

The moral scenarios don't work as you can just create endless versions of them to suit your own point of view.

sperm are alive.

So are Coma patients................The right to switch machines off is taken as read.... Sometimes with or without family consent..

Part of life is making decisions for people without a voice....It can be unpleasant at times.

Not true. Usually requires individual high court decision if family disagree.

You can't say it isn't true and then say "Usually"

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Ent wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Ent wrote:The x weeks is just an arbitrary line drawn though. Pre term babies have survived at younger than that. Life most definitely begins at conception.

The moral scenarios don't work as you can just create endless versions of them to suit your own point of view.

sperm are alive.

So are Coma patients................The right to switch machines off is taken as read.... Sometimes with or without family consent..

Part of life is making decisions for people without a voice....It can be unpleasant at times.

Not true. Usually requires individual high court decision if family disagree.

You can't say it isn't true and then say "Usually"

I actually can, as it isn't taken as read. You cannot switch off a ventilator on a comatose patient without the families assent. Proceeding against a families wishes usually requires a high court order but sometimes it goes to even higher couets

Ent wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Ent wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Ent wrote:The x weeks is just an arbitrary line drawn though. Pre term babies have survived at younger than that. Life most definitely begins at conception.

The moral scenarios don't work as you can just create endless versions of them to suit your own point of view.

sperm are alive.

So are Coma patients................The right to switch machines off is taken as read.... Sometimes with or without family consent..

Part of life is making decisions for people without a voice....It can be unpleasant at times.

Not true. Usually requires individual high court decision if family disagree.

You can't say it isn't true and then say "Usually"

I actually can, as it isn't taken as read. You cannot switch off a ventilator on a comatose patient without the families assent. Proceeding against a families wishes usually requires a high court order but sometimes it goes to even higher couets

So you concede that a family can make this judgement in the absence of any court ruling?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Ent wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's not arbitrary, but it's not precise.

Even if we accept that life beings at conception (not everyone does), the moral question remains as to whether an embryo at 2 seconds old has the same rights as a child or an adult human. Moral scenarios fuel that kind of ethical debate. We can't and shouldn't avoid them just because we can find some that 'suit our point of view'. Otherwise their would be no debate at all.

I feel it detracts from the debate.

Oh you are against abortion but what about this bizarre scenario I've come up with.

Great stuff.

I don't recall that I came up with any bizarre scenarios. You simply used someone else's as a way of avoiding debate. You said you wished 'to establish facts' but did not make clear what facts you wished to establish.

Not avoiding debate at all, I don't feel that coming up with moral scenarios is useful for debate on any topic as you can just keep coming up with scenarios that suit your point of view without ever actually having a discussion. "But what about x, well what about y, ah but what about z" etc

Just ask the question you want to ask, don't hide it away in some scenario hoping to trip someone up or catch them out.

Pr4wn wrote:

Ent wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Ent wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Ent wrote:The x weeks is just an arbitrary line drawn though. Pre term babies have survived at younger than that. Life most definitely begins at conception.

The moral scenarios don't work as you can just create endless versions of them to suit your own point of view.

sperm are alive.

So are Coma patients................The right to switch machines off is taken as read.... Sometimes with or without family consent..

Part of life is making decisions for people without a voice....It can be unpleasant at times.

Not true. Usually requires individual high court decision if family disagree.

You can't say it isn't true and then say "Usually"

I actually can, as it isn't taken as read. You cannot switch off a ventilator on a comatose patient without the families assent. Proceeding against a families wishes usually requires a high court order but sometimes it goes to even higher couets

So you concede that a family can make this judgement in the absence of any court ruling?

I never said a family couldn't agree with a medical decision/plan, the statement that it is taken as read with or without family consent is incorrect.

Apparently the Tories are worried this sexual harassment stuff is going to be bigger than the expenses scandal.

Not what you need with a minority administration.

Sexual assault allegations against former President George H W Bush start to build up....never mind, Kevin Spacey's on the front page now! Double whammy as he also comes out in the process, adding more controversy and fuel to the fire.

Forget all about the former President.

Ent wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Ent wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's not arbitrary, but it's not precise.

Even if we accept that life beings at conception (not everyone does), the moral question remains as to whether an embryo at 2 seconds old has the same rights as a child or an adult human. Moral scenarios fuel that kind of ethical debate. We can't and shouldn't avoid them just because we can find some that 'suit our point of view'. Otherwise their would be no debate at all.

I feel it detracts from the debate.

Oh you are against abortion but what about this bizarre scenario I've come up with.

Great stuff.

I don't recall that I came up with any bizarre scenarios. You simply used someone else's as a way of avoiding debate. You said you wished 'to establish facts' but did not make clear what facts you wished to establish.

Not avoiding debate at all, I don't feel that coming up with moral scenarios is useful for debate on any topic as you can just keep coming up with scenarios that suit your point of view without ever actually having a discussion. "But what about x, well what about y, ah but what about z" etc

Just ask the question you want to ask, don't hide it away in some scenario hoping to trip someone up or catch them out.

OK then - for the third time - what facts do you wish to be established?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Ent wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Ent wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's not arbitrary, but it's not precise.

Even if we accept that life beings at conception (not everyone does), the moral question remains as to whether an embryo at 2 seconds old has the same rights as a child or an adult human. Moral scenarios fuel that kind of ethical debate. We can't and shouldn't avoid them just because we can find some that 'suit our point of view'. Otherwise their would be no debate at all.

I feel it detracts from the debate.

Oh you are against abortion but what about this bizarre scenario I've come up with.

Great stuff.

I don't recall that I came up with any bizarre scenarios. You simply used someone else's as a way of avoiding debate. You said you wished 'to establish facts' but did not make clear what facts you wished to establish.

Not avoiding debate at all, I don't feel that coming up with moral scenarios is useful for debate on any topic as you can just keep coming up with scenarios that suit your point of view without ever actually having a discussion. "But what about x, well what about y, ah but what about z" etc

Just ask the question you want to ask, don't hide it away in some scenario hoping to trip someone up or catch them out.

OK then - for the third time - what facts do you wish to be established?

OK then -

Which would you choose for a day/night out and why?

1. An Adult Human League Concert (full of 2 second embryos) at Glastonbury, or
2. Prince Live in the Tower (with some adults).

Please keep your answer short. Thank you.

2.

To be honest ENT i thought it was an interesting discussion to be had, I know the guy who came up with it is a bit of an arse in some of his answers but I still find it interesting.

It's a very very tough debate and there's points from both sides, even thinking of it now i can flip and flop over certain aspects of it all.

Derbymanc wrote:To be honest ENT i thought it was an interesting discussion to be had, I know the guy who came up with it is a bit of an arse in some of his answers but I still find it interesting.

It's a very very tough debate and there's points from both sides, even thinking of it now i can flip and flop over certain aspects of it all.

One thing I am certain of and it's where I disagree strongly with JRM is that women who are pregnant as the result of r*** should 100% have the choice.

LionsV2 wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:To be honest ENT i thought it was an interesting discussion to be had, I know the guy who came up with it is a bit of an arse in some of his answers but I still find it interesting.

It's a very very tough debate and there's points from both sides, even thinking of it now i can flip and flop over certain aspects of it all.

One thing I am certain of and it's where I disagree strongly with JRM is that women who are pregnant as the result of r*** should 100% have the choice.

Definitely bud

JuliusHMarx wrote:2.

Me 2

Breaking story...MP is being investigated because he hasn't been accused of inappropriate behaviour..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Breaking story...MP is being investigated because he hasn't been accused of inappropriate behaviour..

These stories are ridiculous now. Natural human interactions are now abuse to be discussed in the same breathe as actual sexual harrassment and assault. Devalues the whole movement. Sandler being attacked for a gesture of affection that the recipient wasn't even worried about. Politicians being investigated for touching a knee years ago or sending a text asking someone out for a drink?

It's swung from hiding the abuse of pedophiles for decades to normal human affection or misjudged advances being seen as outrageous. Insanity.

Scottrf wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Breaking story...MP is being investigated because he hasn't been accused of inappropriate behaviour..

These stories are ridiculous now. Natural human interactions are now abuse to be discussed in the same breathe as actual sexual harrassment and assault. Devalues the whole movement. Sandler being attacked for a gesture of affection that the recipient wasn't even worried about. Politicians being investigated for touching a knee years ago or sending a text asking someone out for a drink?

It's swung from hiding the abuse of pedophiles for decades to normal human affection or misjudged advances being seen as outrageous. Insanity.

Maybe some people will see things differently but I fully agree with that, it's ridiculous to say the least and it's as if any physical contact whatsoever is now frowned upon. It's going to get to the point where life becomes impossible for people who are in fear of accusations for saying or doing anything.

Anyone fancy a drink later?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Anyone fancy a drink later?

PIG.

I wrote a thread a while back commenting that Labour should push for 17 year olds to be able to vote....Nothing ideological about it...just primarily because the Liberal parties will share 90 percent of their votes and every little helps..

I see Labour are lobbying for 16 yr olds to get a vote too..

Smart move.....

Defence Secretary gone..

He has set the precedent for all the parties and all he did was feel a few knees and get told by a woman he'd get a slap.

Thank goodness I'm not in politics..

It's a self centred move, what a great idea giving school children the vote, they're going to have a real knowledge of how the world works.

LionsV2 wrote:It's a self centred move, what a great idea giving school children the vote, they're going to have a real knowledge of how the world works.

They can fight and die on a frontline somewhere or, at least, they have. They can marry. Etc. You only wouldn't like this as it's likely the majority would have more liberal tendencies.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Defence Secretary gone..

He has set the precedent for all the parties and all he did was feel a few knees and get told by a woman he'd get a slap.

Thank goodness I'm not in politics..

Yeah. Hartley-Brewer is now trying to claim that she's surprised he's Fallon on this sword. I'm fed up to the back teeth with this utterly pathetic trial by social media we have on everything now. Would serve a lot of people right, if someone bit back and basically said "Prove it or I'll see you in court".

It has nothing to do with their likely voting intention but all to do with what they understand about the things they're voting for; all the other things you mention are personal choices whereas this is a decision that affects everyone.

There's been enough arguing over people not understanding what they were voting for over Brexit, add a bunch of 16 year olds into the mix and we'll all be pulling our hair out.

On a side note, Some 16 year olds would be ready for the vote and could debate it all quite passionatly, most of the ones near me would vote for whichever party would let them set fireworks off at midnight and hang around in groups drinking White Lightning :-)

LionsV2 wrote:It has nothing to do with their likely voting intention but all to do with what they understand about the things they're voting for; all the other things you mention are personal choices whereas this is a decision that affects everyone.

Like Brexit and how that is going to affect everyone.....Give me a break.

LionsV2 wrote:It has nothing to do with their likely voting intention but all to do with what they understand about the things they're voting for; all the other things you mention are personal choices whereas this is a decision that affects everyone.

I don't believe you I'm afraid, although accept the personal choice angle you mention, to some extent.
Maybe we should introduce an upper age limit as well, while we're at it? While many 'elderly' people are completely compos mentis, a lot don't know which way is up anymore.

If it's about understanding, engage with them and educate them politically. Whose fault is it if you're right that they know little of what they're voting for? Anyway, it's laughable. You just have to look at what the wider 'adult' voters think is factually correct when they're making their decisions to see that point is pretty much a nonsense. No-one has an accurate picture of what any of the political policies are going to mean - not a clue - and to make matters worse, all the parties lie through their teeth when publishing Manifestos. Best thing that could happen there is as derbymanc (I think) suggested and make all Manifestos a legally binding document.