Should the FDA regulate tobacco?

[GenSeneca]

But, if the definition of when life has ended and death has occurred is the cessation of respiration and heartbeat, then the definition of when life has begun must be the same.

Now you're just being silly.... You know that's a fallacy of logic...

All dogs have tails and fur,
That animal (cat) has a tail and fur,
Therefore that animal is a dog.

Do you agree with the basic principle that all life has only two options; continue or die?

I don't know, and I don't care, when life first began because its irrelevent to understanding that principle. Equally, any philosophical and/or theological belief is irrelevent to understanding and accepting the principle set forward. Philosophical, theological and ideological concerns can, however, cause one to reject that principle. I have yet to see science offer a third option for life, which would be needed to reject the principle on the basis of science.

If an individual has a heart that is no longer beating, and it has lungs but is no longer breathing, can that individual continue to live?

I would hope we can agree that a life, dependent on a heartbeat and lung function to continue living, cannot continue to live when those systems cease working. Without the ability to continue, life dies.

Now... we focus our attention on a living sperm, combine it with a living egg (neither of which have a heartbeat or perform the act of breathing yet you have already accepted them as both being alive) and in that process, life continues as a distinct individual.

What I'm saying is that it can't have a legal definition, as we don't know just when it begins.

By that logic, we can't know when life ends either and therefore cannot have a legal definition of death... yet we do.

You have your opinion, based on DNA, but it doesn't coincide with your definition of death, and isn't shared by everyone.

My opinion is based on following the rules of logic and there are no contradictions in my definition of life and death. Either life can continue, or it cannot.

You may be right that life begins at conception, and you do make a good case, but to say that that's how it is, and everyone has to accept it is not acceptable from a libertarian point of view.

I'm not saying everyone has to accept my argument... Some people still believe the earth is flat and they are welcome to that opinion. As a Libertarian, I fail to see why its not acceptable from a libertarian point of view... We both consider ourselves libertarian conservatives so why is your view more libertarian than mine? Isn't your insistence that we can never reach a definition, therefore we should not try, a bit authoritarian on your part?

What it is is an authoritarian point of view that has been adopted by the "conservatives."

At some point, someone suggested a definition for death, that definition has been accepted. Was that person a Conservative? Was that person being authoritarian in their suggestion? Did everyone agree with the definition before it was adopted as the legal definition? Did their definition conform to the libertarian viewpoint?

I'm sorry my friend, but you are continually using such fallacies both in support of your opinion and in an attempt to dismiss mine... so I must ask: Are you against bans on abortion? Holding such a position would explain your constant criticism of unanswered (and unanswerable) ethereal questions that I have not claimed to try and resolve.

 

[Petunia]

becuse being sick for years of cancer at 60 is cheaper then at 70 with something else?

Because of total medicare cost for the longer life span. Statistics have shown it to be a wash.

 

[PLC1]

Now you're just being silly.... You know that's a fallacy of logic...

All dogs have tails and fur,
That animal (cat) has a tail and fur,
Therefore that animal is a dog.

Do you agree with the basic principle that all life has only two options; continue or die?

I don't know, and I don't care, when life first began because its irrelevent to understanding that principle. Equally, any philosophical and/or theological belief is irrelevent to understanding and accepting the principle set forward. Philosophical, theological and ideological concerns can, however, cause one to reject that principle. I have yet to see science offer a third option for life, which would be needed to reject the principle on the basis of science.

If an individual has a heart that is no longer beating, and it has lungs but is no longer breathing, can that individual continue to live?

I would hope we can agree that a life, dependent on a heartbeat and lung function to continue living, cannot continue to live when those systems cease working. Without the ability to continue, life dies.

Now... we focus our attention on a living sperm, combine it with a living egg (neither of which have a heartbeat or perform the act of breathing yet you have already accepted them as both being alive) and in that process, life continues as a distinct individual.


By that logic, we can't know when life ends either and therefore cannot have a legal definition of death... yet we do.


My opinion is based on following the rules of logic and there are no contradictions in my definition of life and death. Either life can continue, or it cannot.


I'm not saying everyone has to accept my argument... Some people still believe the earth is flat and they are welcome to that opinion. As a Libertarian, I fail to see why its not acceptable from a libertarian point of view... We both consider ourselves libertarian conservatives so why is your view more libertarian than mine? Isn't your insistence that we can never reach a definition, therefore we should not try, a bit authoritarian on your part?

At some point, someone suggested a definition for death, that definition has been accepted. Was that person a Conservative? Was that person being authoritarian in their suggestion? Did everyone agree with the definition before it was adopted as the legal definition? Did their definition conform to the libertarian viewpoint?

I'm sorry my friend, but you are continually using such fallacies both in support of your opinion and in an attempt to dismiss mine... so I must ask: Are you against bans on abortion? Holding such a position would explain your constant criticism of unanswered (and unanswerable) ethereal questions that I have not claimed to try and resolve.

Finally, we get to the crux of the matter. If life begins at conception, then all abortion is tantamount to infanticide, and so must be banned. Therefore, it is of supreme importance that everyone accept the idea that life does indeed begin at conception so that a ban on abortion can go forward.

If abortion is really murder, as some say, then of course it has to be banned.

If you want to believe that life begins at conception, and want to consider abortion a capital crime or even a mortal sin, then that's OK. You may even be right, I don't know. If you want to enforce the conclusion that life begins at conception, and then impose that conclusion on everyone else by force of law, i.e., a ban on abortion, then you are entitled to your opinion, but have lost several libertarian points by your position.

That's OK, too, as an extreme libertarian point of view is a lot like anarchy, which, I think we'd agree, doesn't work.

Oh, yes, my point of view: I don't buy the idea that you or anyone else has proven that life begins at conception, but still I think that abortion is a terrible thing, at least once the fetus has indeed become a fetus. Abortion should be discouraged if at all possible by making sure that everyone is informed about birth control, and by making sure that adoption is a viable option.

I don't think we should ban abortion outright, for two reasons:

It gives the government the power to make a decision that is best left to individuals, and

It can't be enforced.

 

[Andy]

Oh, yes, my point of view: I don't buy the idea that you or anyone else has proven that life begins at conception, but still I think that abortion is a terrible thing, at least once the fetus has indeed become a fetus. Abortion should be discouraged if at all possible by making sure that everyone is informed about birth control, and by making sure that adoption is a viable option.

I don't think we should ban abortion outright, for two reasons:

It gives the government the power to make a decision that is best left to individuals, and

It can't be enforced.

So when do you suggest life begins? And on what basis?

If murder was best left to individuals, things would be pretty bad.

Why can't it be enforced? It was enforced before. Why not know?

 

[GenSeneca]

Finally, we get to the crux of the matter.

Indeed we have...

You stated:

"It gives the government the power to make a decision that is best left to individuals.."

An individual is created at the point of conception yet that individual has no say in the decision to abort... Additionally, the father is another individual who was necessary for the creation of the third individual but he also has no say in the decision to abort. So that leaves one individual who makes a decision that affects the lives of two individuals and, depending on the decision, ends the life of a third.

I agree government shouldn't ban abortion outright, but in the meantime busy bodies are banning trans fats, raising punitive taxes on tobacco, taxing carbon based fuels and any number of other things... When it comes to abortion, those same busy bodies claim to be the defenders of "Choice" but when they disagree with the choices other people make, they do all they can to limit or eliminate an individuals choice.

 

[PLC1]

Indeed we have...

You stated:

"It gives the government the power to make a decision that is best left to individuals.."

An individual is created at the point of conception yet that individual has no say in the decision to abort... Additionally, the father is another individual who was necessary for the creation of the third individual but he also has no say in the decision to abort. So that leaves one individual who makes a decision that affects the lives of two individuals and, depending on the decision, ends the life of a third.

I agree government shouldn't ban abortion outright, but in the meantime busy bodies are banning trans fats, raising punitive taxes on tobacco, taxing carbon based fuels and any number of other things... When it comes to abortion, those same busy bodies claim to be the defenders of "Choice" but when they disagree with the choices other people make, they do all they can to limit or eliminate an individuals choice.

Correct. There are authoritarians on both the "right" and the "left". The only consistent philosophy is the Libertarian point of view, that it is the individual who should decide when abortion is justified, and supports the individual right to choose on the other issues you mention as well.

If government doesn't ban abortion outright, then what rules should it impose? If abortion is murder, then when is murder justified? Questions like that really have no answers. Government is not the best arbiter of individual choices.

Your freedom ends where my nose begins. If your actions don't impinge on my freedom, then what right do I have to try to limit your choices through the force of government? I don't, and neither do you. That is the consistent philosophy, advocated in the libertarian point of view.

 

[Andy]

Correct. There are authoritarians on both the "right" and the "left". The only consistent philosophy is the Libertarian point of view, that it is the individual who should decide when abortion is justified, and supports the individual right to choose on the other issues you mention as well.

If government doesn't ban abortion outright, then what rules should it impose? If abortion is murder, then when is murder justified? Questions like that really have no answers. Government is not the best arbiter of individual choices.

Your freedom ends where my nose begins. If your actions don't impinge on my freedom, then what right do I have to try to limit your choices through the force of government? I don't, and neither do you. That is the consistent philosophy, advocated in the libertarian point of view.

So based on that theory, we should allow the mines in Alaska to go fourth as planned.

 

[PLC1]

So based on that theory, we should allow the mines in Alaska to go fourth as planned.

Based on that philosophy, freedom is not absolute:

Your freedom ends where my nose begins.

Far too many stand to lose out if the mine goes forth as planned. There are too many noses in the way of that freedom.

Based on that philosophy, I still couldn't start a toxic waste dump in my suburban backyard, as it would impact the freedom of others.

It would be OK, however, if I wanted to grow a few pot plants, as that wouldn't be any more of an impact on my neighbors than a tomato plant or two. I might even share.

 

[Andy]

Based on that philosophy, freedom is not absolute:

Far too many stand to lose out if the mine goes forth as planned. There are too many noses in the way of that freedom.

Based on that philosophy, I still couldn't start a toxic waste dump in my suburban backyard, as it would impact the freedom of others.

It would be OK, however, if I wanted to grow a few pot plants, as that wouldn't be any more of an impact on my neighbors than a tomato plant or two. I might even share.

Based on that theory, we should ban alcohol. 2.1 Million fatal accidents related to alcohol last year, plus an additional 3 million violent crimes against other people, related to alcohol.

Freedom is not absolute.

Assuming the mine will be built with massive retention ponds, and assuming there is an earthquake, and assuming it will break in the earthquake...

The number of people effected, is far fewer, and far less dangerous, then alcohol which has killed millions on a yearly basis.

So if the possible number of noses harmed by a theoretical event, is more than enough to ban ones rights... why is the same standard not applied to Alcohol?

 

[PLC1]

Based on that theory, we should ban alcohol. 2.1 Million fatal accidents related to alcohol last year, plus an additional 3 million violent crimes against other people, related to alcohol.

Freedom is not absolute.

Assuming the mine will be built with massive retention ponds, and assuming there is an earthquake, and assuming it will break in the earthquake...

The number of people effected, is far fewer, and far less dangerous, then alcohol which has killed millions on a yearly basis.

So if the possible number of noses harmed by a theoretical event, is more than enough to ban ones rights... why is the same standard not applied to Alcohol?

Based on that philosophy, there is a good argument that alcohol should be banned. The problem is, alcohol was banned, and it was found that banning simply does not work. It is painfully obvious that banning other drugs doesn't work any better, so what would a good pragmatic libertarian advocate? How about holding people accountable for their actions while under the influence of a drug? Tough impaired driving laws? The ability to sue when someone else's decisions impinge on individual freedoms?

That is what will work. Authoritarian laws telling us what we can and can't do with our own bodies don't work. Why should the government tell me I can't have a glass of wine with dinner, because someone else will drink the whole bottle and then try to drive home? Why should they be allowed to tell someone that they can't smoke a joint, because someone else smoked one and then caused an accident?