Slashdot Mirror


'Predecessor' Neurons to Human Brain Discovered

Yale researchers claim to have found the very first neurons in what eventually becomes the human brain. Developed before most anything else, these neurons are in place just 31 days after fertilization. From the article: "We hypothesize that these predecessor neurons may be a transient population involved in determining the number of functional radial units including the human specific regions of the cerebral cortex mediating higher cognitive functions," Rakic said. "As a next step it is essential to determine their neural stem cell lineage, pattern of gene expression, developmental role and eventual fate."

218 comments

  1. thought this was mapped already? by turtledawn · · Score: 0

    I rather thought that the destiny of the initial cells was known out to about a month- perhaps I'm confusing humans and C. elegans, which i am certain has been fully documented. I'm a tad bit tipsy at the moment- perhaps this tequila worm could tell me, if it weren't pickeled...

    --
    Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
    1. Re:thought this was mapped already? by KokorHekkus · · Score: 0

      rather thought that the destiny of the initial cells was known out to about a month- perhaps I'm confusing humans and C. elegans, which i am certain has been fully documented. I'm a tad bit tipsy at the moment- perhaps this tequila worm could tell me, if it weren't pickeled...

      When your blood alcohol comes down you'll probably realise that you're not going to find much likeness regarding brain development between humans and C. Elegans. Because they don't have much of a brain... in fact they're lacking circulatory and respiratory systems as well.

    2. Re:thought this was mapped already? by turtledawn · · Score: 2, Informative

      I didn't claim that the brain cells of elegans was known- they haven't properly got one, as you point out. I was saying that the fate of ALL cells in the elegans zygote are known- that you can trace the development of a single cell from ferticlization to adult. If you want to know what the cell in the fourth quadrant upper right is (i don't know the mapping schema- I do trees) you can go look it up somewhere, and conversely, if you want to know which cell in the blastocyte produced the segment you're looking at under the microscope you can find that information as well. I had thought this proceudre had been done on humans as well, but I was apparently wrong, that or this article is old news. It is /. after all.

      --
      Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
    3. Re:thought this was mapped already? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      Odd...I was just listening to that song...

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    4. Re:thought this was mapped already? by cnettel · · Score: 1

      It's certainly not been done for humans, as the cell count is already staggering at the age of a month (versus around 1000 cells in total for C. elegans), you can't study the process properly in vitro, and of course ethical issues at some point. AFAIK, it's not been done for mice either, and that would probably be a more reasonable start, although still much more demanding than C. elegans.

    5. Re:thought this was mapped already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I do trees
      Only on Slashdot...

  2. Article failed to mention by riff420 · · Score: 5, Funny

    and on the 32nd day, the currently dim-witted embryo signs up for a myspace account.

    1. Re:Article failed to mention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      On the 35th day, it becomes the President of the United States.

    2. Re:Article failed to mention by riff420 · · Score: 0

      uhh. you mean years. and isn't it 40?

    3. Re:Article failed to mention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After that 35 years, everyone else is eligable for a retroactive abortion.

    4. Re:Article failed to mention by servognome · · Score: 1

      No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

      Is that earth years?

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    5. Re:Article failed to mention by zepher-109 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Where it's writing emo blog entrees about how he's going to get killed by stem cell researchers?

    6. Re:Article failed to mention by Coxside · · Score: 1

      So presumably, a person in the US can be a chimpanzee...

  3. I see... by Kagura · · Score: 5, Funny

    "We hypothesize that these predecessor neurons may be a transient population involved in determining the number of functional radial units including the human specific regions of the cerebral cortex mediating higher cognitive functions..."

    Oh, wow. That's actually pretty clear! It's actually all written right there. I suppose it was a real head-smacking time down at the lab when this statement came down the line, being so obvious.

    1. Re:I see... by HairyCanary · · Score: 1

      I think I have established unequivocally that I do not have enough neurons to understand what the heck they said with that sentence. Yikes.

    2. Re:I see... by DarkNinja75 · · Score: 1

      It was totally obvious. Heck, the transient population and functional radial units were dead give aways.

    3. Re:I see... by Sci-Fri-Guy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Let me help you. I will put it in words you can understand. "We is thinkin that these little thingies is there before the little thingies we call brain thingies that make us think. They ain't stickin' around and if we ain't got 'em, we ain't got no brain parts." Does that help?

    4. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it is clear! They have an idea that these initial brain cells are only temporary, but are involved in setting up the different areas of the brain (including the human-specific parts that allow us to think conciously).

      That's all it says :)

  4. Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I can hear the "human life begins at conception" crowd exploiting this just now.

    1. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by eln · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "pro life" and "pro choice" people are talking past each other anyway. Pro lifers believe everything with the potential for becoming life (zygote onwards in some cases) should be protected, while pro choicers believe things that only things which would be viable life forms outside of the womb should be protected.

      This discovery means nothing in this debate, because the basic concept of what constitutes life (potential life versus viable life) is not affected. Sure, some pro life groups may choose to add this to their stable of propaganda, but it probably isn't going to change the debate in any meaningful way.

    2. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by lbrandy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "pro life" and "pro choice" people are talking past each other anyway. Pro lifers believe everything with the potential for becoming life (zygote onwards in some cases) should be protected, while pro choicers believe things that only things which would be viable life forms outside of the womb should be protected.

      That is an interesting perspective. As science progresses, the set of all life which is "viable outside of the womb" is going to eventually be equal to the set of all "potential for becoming life". The abortion debate seems to be about a disagreement about an interval of time whose limit is zero. That's true, anyway, if we presume your definition of "pro-life" and "pro-choice".

      I do certainly agree they are talking right passed each other. That's why we should just rename the groups "baby-killers" and "woman-haters", and that way we can just skip the second sentence of every innane abortion debate.

    3. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 0, Troll

      while pro choicers believe things that only things which would be viable life forms outside of the womb should be protected.

      You forgot a phrase at the end of that statement ", if the mother wants to keep it."

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    4. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      FTFA: Predecessor cells, unlike mature nerve cells, do not have synaptic connection with other neurons.

      In other words: the cells in question aren't actually linked to anything.

      OTOH, various anti-abortion groups have a tendancy to pick and choose their facts.

      I expect some modified form of these findings will quickly begin making the e-mail circuit and it'll becomes 'common' knowledge (amongst the activists) that babies have "brains" 31 days after fertilization.

      I find it unfortunate that they often end up using bad/mis/dis information in order to support their position.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I guess your post is a preemptive strike.

      You have a huge hurdle to overcome. How do you accuse the pro-lifers of trying to push their religious beliefs on other people if they are using science to justify their position?

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    6. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by localman · · Score: 1

      Almost right. At the extremes (which in this debate includes almost everyone) pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception and pro-choicers believe that life begins at birth. I'll go out on a limb and say that both perspectives are absurd. But thems the lines that have been drawn and there's no hope for reconciliation that I can see.

      My main point in responding is to correct the idea that pro-choicers draw a line at viability -- there are many abortions performed after viability and that is in line with the pro-choice doctrine that I've heard.

      I agree this new info won't have any meaningful impact.

    7. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by lbrandy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How do you accuse the pro-lifers of trying to push their religious beliefs on other people if they are using science to justify their position?

      Right below the post about people "talking passed each other", and you come up with the perfect example of it. I'm not religious, and I'm not really pro-life (I am one of the 9 people in this country who is neither pro-life nor pro-choice... I consider myself a populist on this particular subject.) Religious people aren't "pushing their beliefs on you". That's a fear-mongering tactic used by one side. That's basically equal to asking if you like killing babies. The fundamental question is when does life begin. That's a question that every society must answer. Everyone agrees that killing a person is wrong. The question becomes.. when does society agree that this is, in fact, a person. Pretending pro-life is about a bunch of religious zealots trying to push their religion on you completely and utterly misses the point. It's bordering on an ad hominem fallacy, to be sure.

      This is no more about religious belief as it is about believing in freedom. Everyone believes you should be free to do with your body what you want, and everyone believes that murder should be wrong. The disagreement is when does "your body" become "their body". If you think you have an answer to that question, that defines which side of the line you are on. Adding any of the rest of this tagentially related strawmen (you hate women! you murder babies! religious freak! promiscious whore!) to the picture just inflames the situation and destroys conversation.

    8. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fail to see where this data is pro-anything.
      It's data. DATA doesn't have a political agenda.

    9. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by AJWM · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As science progresses, the set of all life which is "viable outside of the womb" is going to eventually be equal to the set of all "potential for becoming life".

      Not likely, since a lot of that early stuff isn't even viable inside the womb. This is a point that "pro-life" folk tend to ignore. The fact is, most fertilized ova don't even properly implant in the womb, and of those that do many don't make it much past the first month, for purely natural reasons -- including cases where there was never an embryo per se at all (eg empty placenta).

      --
      -- Alastair
    10. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by eliot1785 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it means something to me, if that matters. I support abortion rights only until it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the baby is sentient ("I think therefore I am" seems like the best standard for issues like this). Therefore this means I support abortion rights until appx the 31st day. Prior to this I was actually under the mistaken impression that brain mass developed earlier than it does. So this makes me marginally more pro-choice, though I guess I am still what you would call "pro-life" on balance.

      Here's hoping slashdotters don't decide to turn this thread into an abortion debate.

    11. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't think help the pro-abortion people, seeing as it is proof that at least before 30 days there is absolutely no possibility of brain functionality (unless I misunderstand the finding)? The anti-abortion crowd would typically even be against that, right?

    12. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      Here's hoping slashdotters don't decide to turn this thread into an abortion debate.

            Gosh. I've never heard of such a thing. Is there some sort of disagreement which turns up once in a while on slashdot?

    13. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Religious people aren't "pushing their beliefs on you". That's a fear-mongering tactic used by one side. That's basically equal to asking if you like killing babies.

      Well, except that the second accusation is more often true. :)

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    14. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by eliot1785 · · Score: 1

      You're right, I guess I am just a bit weary since I have spent the past few days arguing about it on my blog with people in the comments section from both sides AND arguing about stem cell research on a email list (in addition to the whole Israel-Lebanon thing...). It can get tiring after a while. But you all carry on!

    15. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The fundamental question is when does life begin.

      This is not the fundamental question, it is safe to assume that a single cell is life. To be more charitable: When does human life begin? Is still not the question. The question is whether or not you (assuming you are female) have a right to your own body. (e.g., the Judy Jarvis Thomson though experiment)

    16. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the religious kooks who assault, bomb, murder, etc. abortion clinics. Other than that, great arguments.

    17. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a Republican... Aren't you? hahaha fag.

    18. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by RulerOf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The fundamental question is when does life begin. That's a question that every society must answer

      IMHO, humans managed to answer that question a long time ago. Life began millenia ago, and, assuming that you believe Darwin knew what he was talking about, it is our obligation as a species to continue the propogation of life. When you take this kind of view, you arrive at the conclusion that not only is abortion "killing babies," but so is everything from effective use of condoms, birth control, and yes, even celibacy. Everyone in this damned country, on both sides of the fence, is so hung up on the matter of timing that they fail to realize that in the end, everyone is a hypocrite. Living in this society, personally, I've come to terms with that, and I rightfully enjoy my hypocrisy.

      Sure, you're going to have people always shouting the completely fallacious argument, "What if your parents had decided to abort you?" I like to follow with, "Then we wouldn't be having this discussion."

      --
      Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
    19. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Jay+Clay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Something that can give insight, though, is how they feel about someone dying. Many pro-lifers consider a person dead if they're brain-dead, even if brain cells exist and the rest of the body is doing just fine (and that's going to the lowest common denominator, past sentience and other standards of whether or not they're "living"). Yet they'll consider a fetus alive with just one cell living, regardless if it's the equivalent of brain-dead or not.

      So although I disagree with pro-lifers, I can at least understand the ones that will draw that equivalent line on both sides. Trouble is, most of the ones that make their voices the loudest do not - hence the stereotype of "a bunch of religious zealots" (and hyprocrites at that).

    20. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between someone that's brain dead and someone that's still a developing embryo. As long as exigent circumstances don't affect the embryo (toxins, trauma, etc.), that embryo will usually develop into a birth-viable fetus. A brain dead adult, barring those same exigent circumstances (excepting, of course, the circumstances that caused brain death in the first place) will not repair its brain or otherwise progress in any way.

    21. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 1, Troll

      Everyone agrees that killing a person is wrong.

      No, everyone does not agree. In an ironic twist, many so-called pro-lifers enthusiastically support capital punishment. Otherwise, a rare display of calm and rational thinking in this debate. Thank you, lbrandy.

    22. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Skinny+Rav · · Score: 1
      This is no more about religious belief as it is about believing in freedom. Everyone believes you should be free to do with your body what you want, and everyone believes that murder should be wrong. The disagreement is when does "your body" become "their body". If you think you have an answer to that question, that defines which side of the line you are on.


      Ok, so let us assume you are on neither side of the line, so you don't think you have an answer to that question. So you admit that both sides may be wrong. In that case, which side is safer to join from your conscience point of view. Is it better to deny women "right to their body" and be wrong, or is it better to allow killing of innocent unborns and be wrong?

      For me the answer is clear. As somebody said, if you're not sure if poison is in the glass, do you risk drinking?

      Cheers

      Raf

      P.S. There is this Australian pro-abortion bio-ethic, don't remember his name, but he is one of few pro-abortion people who really does the argument properly and logically correct, without attack on emotions. What he says is that as we don't know and probably won't know the answer to your question, and if we have any answer - it is just a point of view. So he changes the point of view radically and redefines humanity. And the result is that he considers killing an infant as same crime as killing a dog or a chimp. And though it is drastic, I like the way he thinks. If somebody agrees with abortion, especially late abortion, then being against killing even healthy newborns is hypocritical.
    23. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by the_womble · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not necessarily, you are looking at the extremes of both.

      I am pro-life, but I think that the right to life comes with self-awareness. It is pretty clear that unborn children have developed fairly complex mental activity well within the range within which abortion is allowed in most countries.

      On the other had I know pro-abortion people who are definitely not in favour of abortion up to birth.

      Incidentally abortion is many countries is allowed for babys who would be viable outside the womb - the limit in the UK is 28 weeks, viability with modern medicine is several weeks before that. So viability in itself is probably not a criterion for anyone any more.

      So certainly evidence of brain activity would make a huge difference form my point of view and many others.

    24. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 1

      Even more ironic: many pro-choicers are against the death penalty.

    25. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Sci-Fri-Guy · · Score: 1

      Life begins before conception. How much you value it is what is important. Your comments indicate to me that you are so blithe about "life" that you really don't value it much. I believe this is what the ""human life begins at conception' crowd" is trying to get across. When we allow abortion, life becomes a waste and people feel comfortable throwing it away. Most people can take life, can you give it back again? How sad for you if you believe this to be a game or a two sided fight. How happy for you if this was just a silly comment and you really understand the complex issue here.

    26. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      When does human life begin? Is still not the question. The question is whether or not you (assuming you are female) have a right to your own body.

      Of course a woman has rights to her own body, it is not even up for question to most people. The question of when human life begins needs to be answered though, for these reasons:

      1 - It is established that a parent has a legal responsibility to see that their child is cared for adequately (even if through adoption etc). People can be charged with neglect, not for harming a child (abuse), but for not adequately protecting/providing for it. Therefore if the fetus is determined to be human, there is a strong case for saying that the responsibility of the woman as the parent to protect and provide for the child, and that this responsibility takes a higher priority than the woman's right to her own body.

      2 - Pregnancy is a possible consequence of having sex. You can reduce the likelyhood by contraception, but it remains a possibility. It has been said that you can choose your actions, but you can't choose the consequences. If a woman chooses to have sex, she is exercising her rights of her own body. If that choice results in pregnancy, it does not give her the right to kill any human. Of course, there are circumstances like rape etc that deserver further discussion, but since most abortions are not a result of special circumstances, I will not deal with those in this post.

      I think it is obvious that a woman has rights to her own body, but without determining if the fetus is human, it is impossible to determine what actions the woman may take as a result of those rights. In the US, it is established that you have the right to the pursuit of happiness, but you may not kill other humans in your pursuit of happiness. If the fetus is not human, there is no contest, she should be able to do as she pleases. If the fetus is human, it is murder to kill it.

      So the questions to be answered are: When do we consider the fetus to be legally human? At the stage we consider the fetus to be human, how do we balance the rights of the child and the rights of the mother?

      To say the the only/most important question is does a woman have rights to her body presupposes that the fetus is not human. Many of us want to challenge that presupposition, this discovery (and others) of science being some serious evidence that should be considered.

    27. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2, Funny

      You seem to think the organism is a human life only after reading Descartes. Personally, I think human life begins just after graduate school. Although post-docs are a bit iffy.

    28. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However many pro life people would not really care about "grown up embryos" and dont mind them being shipped off to Iraq to shoot and kill other "grownup embryos" !

    29. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fundamental question is when does life begin. That's a question that every society must answer.

      The disagreement is when does "your body" become "their body".

      I fully agree with you on that. This is indeed a fundamental question that has to be answered by every society, but not by legal means ...
      This question is too weighted. What if tomorrow some physicist comes with the 'soul element', or a neurologist with a way to measure when counsciousness arise? Then you will have to take science into account in a normative way in a legal context, which is bad. But one could set up a non normative legal context within which both the pregnant person and the abortionnist would be free to use their judgement and make their own ethical choices.

      So, the disagreement is when do some people ethical choices are to be forced on to someone else, which has nothing to do with science and everything with religion ...

      AlSeyMer

    30. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by sjs132 · · Score: 1

      Ahhh... I see your point.. This is the same argument that I use against radical environmentalists. They try so hard to protect the environment (burn/blow up HumV & SUV Dealerships, destroy property to liberate trees and/or animals, force government groups to enact so many laws as to make it nonecinomical to build new refineries, etc..)

      In the end they fail to realize that their own existance is makeing a HUGE negative impact on the environment. (waste, harvest and production of food - even Vegans, CO2 exhaled, H2O resources depleted and/or contaminated by it's consumption)

      In the end, All GOOD Radical Envrionmentalists should take a gun to the head (or nife to wrists for a less polluting method) as soon as they come to this realization of the amount of damage that is done to earths delicate balance on their birth.

      But I guess this is a little "off topic" and I expect I'd be labled as such... Damn.

      --
      --- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
    31. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by CoderDog · · Score: 1

      When you all 'em "Pro-Life", you're playing in their court according to their rules, and who knows what the rules are this week or today?

      I've known "Pro-Life" folks on the job, seen 'em on the street and watched 'em in donut shops and cafes before their protests and marches. And then there's the abortion clinic bombers.

      Adherence to the Pro-Life PR mold fits a bell curve. A few actually believe "all life is holy". A few find the Pro-LIfe crowd to be good cover for their serial and mass murders, or a couple hundred death warrants signed. Most are somewhere between those two extremes, seeking popularity, social approval, political gain and whatsnots.

      Most are definitely not Pro-Life, though they most likely are Anti-Abortion. The majority of the anti-abortion types I've run into are wife-beaters, guys that engage in more physical and mental abuse of their spouses and kids than most people I know would consider the norm. Some will apologize after hitting/kicker a pregnant wife in the belly, some won't. Many of them kill all sorts of animals, large and small. On a depressive day, some might kill your dog, if they can corner it, away from your supervision/oversight.

      They probably won't kill anyone or anything that someone else is protecting, while they're sober and have some potential "rereational money" left. Pro-Life is a laugh. Call it what it is, at best, Anti-Abortion.

    32. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article says that presence is confirmed at a certain date, it says nothing about it not being there before then. It could be so minute as to be undetectable by modern scientific equipment (not unlike deities). Unfortunately "faith" is a bitch to disprove, given its unscientific nature.

    33. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Everyone believes you should be free to do with your body what you want..."

      If that is so, why are recreational drugs still illegal?

    34. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by wkitchen · · Score: 1
      "pro life" and "pro choice" people are talking past each other anyway. Pro lifers believe everything with the potential for becoming life (zygote onwards in some cases) should be protected, while pro choicers believe things that only things which would be viable life forms outside of the womb should be protected.
      That's the root of it. But the "talking past each other" extends further. Stemming largely from their belief that life (or really, personhood) begins at or near conception, the pro-life side believes that abortion is morally wrong, even murder, and therefore should be illegal in most (if not all) cases. While many on the pro-choice side, believing either that a fetus is not truly a person until much later, or simply acknowleging that this is inherently a very subjective and uncertain question, believe that it is a decision that should be decided by the individual(s) involved, not dictated by government. In fact, there are some on the pro-choice side that do believe that life begins at or near conception and that abortion is morally wrong. They just don't think that it is such a clear-cut issue that the government should force everyone else to abide by their belief.

      Not only are the two sides arguing from fundamentally different ideas about when life begins, but they're engaging in two entirely different debates. It's "right vs. wrong", vs. "who has the right to decide".
    35. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by maxume · · Score: 1

      Don't some pro choicers argue that you can't protect the baby without violating the mother? I guess it's easy enough to counter that with right to life being more important than right to privacy, but I'm not sure that is really very clear cut.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    36. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by wkitchen · · Score: 1
      Pretending pro-life is about a bunch of religious zealots trying to push their religion on you completely and utterly misses the point. It's bordering on an ad hominem fallacy, to be sure.

      This is no more about religious belief as it is about believing in freedom.
      Causation is questionable. But the correlation is obvious. To claim that it isn't about religious belief is even less defensible than claiming that it is. There clearly IS a relationship of some kind. And regardless of whether you agree that it's religiously motivated, the pro-life movement clearly IS trying to push it's position on others. Legal abortions do not force any pro-lifer to act against his or her conscience. But making abortion illegal most definitely does force the pro-lifers' beliefs on others.
    37. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by dfghjk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      feeling especially biggoted today? Yes, there are people like that but I doubt they are any more pro-life than anything else. I have no illusions of the greatness of "pro-life"-ers but there are crappy people everywhere.

      no doubt the term "pro-life" is a joke. "pro-choice" is a joke as well. just how many "pro-choice"-ers will be in favor of gay marriage for example? probably more than the other side but nowhere near 100%. pro-choice is in favor of choice for the things they'd like to choose. pro-choice means "pro-abortion rights", nothing more.

      I'm always in favor of more rights and more choice. I'm in favor of life too. None of that helps me choose sides in the abortion matter.

      both sides present themselves with appealing names to cover up their hatred of the other.

    38. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      Sentience begins at 5 years old

      the rest is just living cells

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    39. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      you use "everyone" pretty liberally. not everyone believes in your freedoms even regarding your body and not everyone values human life as most do. In the US we have restrictions on what we can do regarding our own health and the health of our families and we also have the death penalty. Mass murderers don't respect the value of life and judges don't respect the sanctity of the body when they order medical treatment against the wishes of the person or the family. If you think your body is yours to choose, try to end your life.

      regardless of the reasonableness of your arguments, pro-life people are, in fact, the religious right. the debate should be had on the facts of the matter but don't think the opponents of abortion are open-minded as you seem to be. you don't convince an anti-abortionist regardless of the arguments you use. they will tell you that life begins at conception, birth control is evil and boys had better not masturbate. so much for the freedom of controlling your own body. without that perspective they can't justify an outright ban on all abortion.

    40. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      "pro life" and "pro choice" people are talking past each other anyway. Pro lifers believe everything with the potential for becoming life (zygote onwards in some cases) should be protected, while pro choicers believe things that only things which would be viable life forms outside of the womb should be protected.

      Strawman. Many pro-choice people believe sentient life should be protected - so they may be against late stage abortion.

      This discovery means nothing in this debate, because the basic concept of what constitutes life (potential life versus viable life) is not affected.

      Some anti-choice people may claim this means fetuses become sentient earlier than we thought.

    41. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by radtea · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The fundamental question is when does life begin. That's a question that every society must answer. Everyone agrees that killing a person is wrong.

      No, no, no.

      Most human societies throughout most of history have had accepted practices for getting rid of unwanted children. These practices usually involved some form of infanticide. Almost everyone almost everywhere agrees that the practice of killing infants is sometimes justified. The Jews were notable exceptions in the ancient world, and were considered weird by the Romans because of it.

      So let's not start the debate with trivial falsehoods.

      Nor has there ever been any doubt about or question about when "life begins" in societies that practice infanticide. The modern Indian or Chinese peasents who allow female children to die are not in any doubt as to the fact that their children are alive! What they are in doubt about is how valuable those lives are. That has been the fundamental question in most human societies throughout most of history.

      Nor is it the case that "everyone agrees that killing a person is wrong." The obvious counter-example, alluded to in other replies, are advocates of capital punishment.

      Stripped on the lies and dishonesty that colour the picture on both sides of the fence, the question regarding abortion is this: Should a mother be allowed by society to choose to end her child's life in early pregnancy? I believe any humane invidual who is aware of the social realities will eventually realize that the answer to this question is clearly, yes. Killing an unwanted child is not a good thing. But giving birth to an unwanted child is a far, far greater evil. And taking the choice away from the adult whose life and body are most greatly affected by the decision, and who can reasonably be assumed to have the child's well-being more strongly in her mind than anyone else, is the greatest evil of all.

      But so long as the debate is clouded by irrelevant non-questions like, "Is a zygote alive?" there will be no resolution. Of course a zygote is alive. Only an idiot would suggest otherwise. Every single cell in our bodies is alive, and with sufficient technological intervention it is quite likely that some day every single one of them will be a "potential human being." So long as the debate centres around this kind of nonsense rather than the real question of how or whether to practice infanticide in the modern world, it will just be a lot of pointless noise.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    42. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      That is an interesting perspective. As science progresses, the set of all life which is "viable outside of the womb" is going to eventually be equal to the set of all "potential for becoming life". The abortion debate seems to be about a disagreement about an interval of time whose limit is zero. That's true, anyway, if we presume your definition of "pro-life" and "pro-choice".

      From the perspective of a pro-choice person, it's not about "life is valuable if it's viable outside the womb", but rather along the lines of "a woman has the right to do what she likes with her body".

      If and when it's possible to grow a fetus in an artificial womb, then fine - instead of our current day abortions, the woman's pregnancy will still be aborted if the woman wishes, but instead the fetus can be grown in an artificial womb and given up for adoption. Hopefully that will satisfy everyone - but I don't think that means there is anything wrong with their point of views.

      It's not about arguing time intervals, it's about a woman's body, and currently the technology doesn't exist to support a fetus without using the woman's body.

    43. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      no doubt the term "pro-life" is a joke. "pro-choice" is a joke as well. just how many "pro-choice"-ers will be in favor of gay marriage for example? probably more than the other side but nowhere near 100%. pro-choice is in favor of choice for the things they'd like to choose. pro-choice means "pro-abortion rights", nothing more.

      Well, it means pro-choice-of-abortion, compared with anti-choice-of-abortion. But that's a bit of a mouthful, so it gets shortened. Pro/Anti-abortion-rights works too, I guess.

      Pro/Anti-life is just misleading altogether, even when applied only to fetuses specifically - pro-choice people don't want to get rid of all fetuses.

      I'm always in favor of more rights and more choice. I'm in favor of life too. None of that helps me choose sides in the abortion matter.

      You have to decide what is more important in this particular situation. Presumably they're not absolutes - I doubt you would defend the right to life of a blade of grass or bacterium, for example. If you're saying you both want the right of a woman to choose to abort her pregnancy, and the right of a fetus to live - well, yes, you do have a problem. But clearly that's not the fault of the names chosen by each side!

    44. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      It is established that a parent has a legal responsibility to see that their child is cared for adequately (even if through adoption etc). People can be charged with neglect, not for harming a child (abuse), but for not adequately protecting/providing for it. Therefore if the fetus is determined to be human, there is a strong case for saying that the responsibility of the woman as the parent to protect and provide for the child, and that this responsibility takes a higher priority than the woman's right to her own body.

      The parent doesn't have to have the responsibility, as they can give the baby up to adoption; what you say only applies if they don't choose that. So that doesn't apply to before birth, since the fetus cannot be removed except by an abortion.

      Of course, there are circumstances like rape etc that deserver further discussion, but since most abortions are not a result of special circumstances, I will not deal with those in this post.

      Of course it is still relevant to this issue, you can't avoid it, unless you are going to deny the choice to women who are raped.

    45. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Careful, self-awareness doesn't start until over a year after birth. I think you mean something else.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    46. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Is it better to deny women "right to their body" and be wrong, or is it better to allow killing of innocent unborns and be wrong?

      I like to file the latter under "can't kill what isn't alive".

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    47. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by sholden · · Score: 1

      That's not ironic, it's consistant. A pro-choicers/anti-death penalty type does not consider a fetus a person but does consider a murderer a person and considers killing people bad - hence they have no problem with abortion but do have a problem with capital punishment.

      A pro-lifer/pro-death penalty type does consider a fetus a person and does consider a murderer a person and yet thinks abortion is wrong but capital punishment is good. This is also consistent, they believe that only "bad" people should be killed and a fetus isn't bad (of course they go against most of christian theology on both those points, but they aren't all Christians so that's fine too).

    48. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by modecx · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm pro-choice all the way, man.. And I don't draw the line of "viable life" upon the exit of the womb! I mean, could that be any more arbitrary? Of course not.

      Personally, I'm all for legislation that legalizes retroactive abortions, up to about age 23 or so... And should such a law come to pass I already have a list of several deserving candidates!

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    49. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no idea what populist means.

    50. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful
      assuming that you believe Darwin knew what he was talking about, it is our obligation as a species to continue the propogation of life. When you take this kind of view, you arrive at the conclusion that not only is abortion "killing babies," but so is everything from effective use of condoms, birth control, and yes, even celibacy.

      Measures that contain sperm, such as abstinence or condom use, extend the life of existing organisms because they ensure that new life does not compete for resources that could be used to sustain existing life. Define "propagation of life" precisely to help solve this dilemma. Is it the maximum number of organisms at any given moment? Is it the sum of the lifespans of all organisms? Is it just the number of diploid cells in existence at once?

      everyone is a hypocrite. Living in this society, personally, I've come to terms with that, and I rightfully enjoy my hypocrisy.

      I too recognize that I am a sinner, but I enjoy improving myself so that I become less of a hypocrite.

      What if your parents had decided to abort you?
      Then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

      And it would be one fewer advocate for the choice of a woman carrying a child within her to end the child's life. You wouldn't be having this discussion, but I still would because thank God I had a good pair of grandparents to adopt me.

    51. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Jay+Clay · · Score: 1

      I got into a similar debate about this, and it breaks down in the hypothetical scenario of should it be illegal to disallow the rest of the body attached to a brain-dead person to die because the brain doesn't work, if there was the ability in the future to regrow the brain. It would be a different person, of course, but should it be considered murder if that technology available?

      Of course it shouldn't be illegal. And that's an acknowledgement that, even if it can potentially be grown into another being living of its own accord, it's still not considered a full-fledged person until the brain activity starts.

    52. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Both groups are disingenuous, to say the least. Most "pro life" people are also for the death penalty. Abortion is OK after the fetus grows up and kills someone, apparently.

      Most "pro-choice" people are perfectly OK with having cocaine and heroin illegal.

      When you have to resort to wordplay and trickery to make your point, it can hardly be valid. Both sides are clearly wrong.

      What about a man's choice? He has none! If he wants the fetus aborted, tough. He's going to pay child support for 18 years anyway, despite the fact that there is no male contraceptive short of surgery (condoms are "couples contraception", if she says "you ain't fuckin' me with that thing on" you know damned well you're taking it off and sticking it in. It's simple biology).

      OTOH if he wants to bring it to term and raise the kid himself, well, tough shit, man. Your kid's (not and never will be) history.

      Personally, I'm pro-choice. An abortion should NOT be done without the father's permission. If both (adult) parents want to abort it, that should be between them, a doctor, and God (whether you believe in Him or not). Like that's ever going to happen in this female dominated politically correct culture.

      And I think all drugs should be legal. ALL of them. If you want to screw your life up, that should be your business.

      I'm also pro life; by that I mean I'm against the death penalty. When I die (and we ALL die) it's most likely going to be very unpleasant; cancer, heart attack, stroke, accident, alzheimers or worse yet, old age with a deteriorated body yet agile mind and everyone you ever knew dead. The worse thing about arthritis is it isn't fatal. Yet the pro-death people want to give a mass murderer a nice painless messless death. I say put the bastard in prison and keep him there!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    53. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terry Schiavo had a couple of brain cells, but that didn't make her alive in any sense. ...I'm not helping, am I?

    54. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by rohan972 · · Score: 1
      The parent doesn't have to have the responsibility, as they can give the baby up to adoption; what you say only applies if they don't choose that. So that doesn't apply to before birth, since the fetus cannot be removed except by an abortion.

      Adoption is a delegation of responsibility, not an abdication of responsibility. It would not be legal to hand over a child to be killed, it must be given to someone who will provide due care and protection. The responsibility to look after the child is intact but delegated. Your assertion that it doesn't apply before birth is based on the assuption that the baby either is not human or doesn't have human rights before birth. This is the contested issue, it needs to be answered.

      Of course, there are circumstances like rape etc that deserver further discussion, but since most abortions are not a result of special circumstances, I will not deal with those in this post.

      Of course it is still relevant to this issue, you can't avoid it, unless you are going to deny the choice to women who are raped.

      No need to avoid it, it is simply not relevant if the feotus is not human, as there would be no reason to deny access to abortion on demand anyway. It only becomes relevant if we assume the fetus is human and has human rights, so that question has to be answered first. Surely you're not saying that if a fetus is not human there might still be any reason to deny access to abortion? No? In any case, many laws have exceptions, so making abortion on demand illegal would not have to mean there were no exceptions for special circumstances.

      Determining when the new life is to be have it's human rights is indeed the only relevant issue at this time. It it is decided that birth is that time, there is no case to ban abortion at all, all other discussion becomes unnecessary. If it is decided that is is an earlier time, then the rights of the child, rights of the mother and responsibilities of the parents need discussion.
    55. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by monkeyporn · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's easy. It's not what you do to your body that's important, it's what you might do (to who and what) while under the influance that is of concern. Which makes me wonder why alcohol and possibly nicotine are seperated legally from drugs such as marijuana.

    56. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy crap, this just made alot of sense, but the problem with men having to be in on the decision of abortion, is that the woman has to carry the baby. Whenever they can take the baby out of the mother, and raise it in a tube, that is when I will be fully anti-abortion, as in that case, there is an alternative and they are just senselessly killing a person. I just can't in my right mind say that someone has to do something that they don't agree with. It's against my nature and how I was brought up, no matter how wrong I think abortion is.

    57. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Adoption is a delegation of responsibility, not an abdication of responsibility. It would not be legal to hand over a child to be killed, it must be given to someone who will provide due care and protection.

      My point is that a comparison to after birth is not possible here. I'm not up to date on the adoption process, but I didn't think it was a woman's responsibility to find someone willing to take it - rather, it's given up for adoption, and the state handles it? The state is more than welcome to take care of the fetus if it likes ... of course, the fetus won't survive, but that's why it's not analogous.

      It only becomes relevant if we assume the fetus is human and has human rights, so that question has to be answered first. Surely you're not saying that if a fetus is not human there might still be any reason to deny access to abortion? No?

      Yes I mean in the situation where we decide the fetus has human rights - although note that many people argue a fetus should have rights not because it is a human being, but because it will become one.

      In any case, many laws have exceptions, so making abortion on demand illegal would not have to mean there were no exceptions for special circumstances.

      How would you make an exception for rape? If it just requires a rape claim, then you're just going to get a lot of people claiming it was rape - at the risk of men being unfairly accused. If a conviction is required, firstly that will probably take too long, and secondly, in most cases there isn't enough evidence to convict.

    58. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      There's also a difference between technology making something possible and something happening naturally without the assistance of technology, so I would say the extrapolation you're making isn't valid.

    59. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Meccanica · · Score: 1
      Measures that contain sperm, such as abstinence or condom use, extend the life of existing organisms because they ensure that new life does not compete for resources that could be used to sustain existing life. Define "propagation of life" precisely to help solve this dilemma. Is it the maximum number of organisms at any given moment? Is it the sum of the lifespans of all organisms? Is it just the number of diploid cells in existence at once?
      Yeah, 'propagation of life' does not just mean 'continuing to breed'. We are most certainly in a position where we need to worry about overpopulation, which is way no-good. The instinct to reproduce doesn't take into account your being THE dominant species on the block. Mother Nature isn't hot enough shit to work that one out on the first try, I guess. Maybe 2 million rises/falls of humanity later, we'll be born with restraint and moderation.
      assuming that you believe Darwin knew what he was talking about, it is our obligation as a species to continue the propogation of life.
      That's the other thing. Natural selection is not a doctrine, no one has ever been commanded to follow its priciples, and it don't obligate anybody nothin'. That's like saying that if you belive in gravity, you are obligated to fall down.
      --
      You live and learn. At least, you live.
    60. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by marxmarv · · Score: 1
      (condoms are "couples contraception", if she says "you ain't fuckin' me with that thing on" you know damned well you're taking it off and sticking it in. It's simple biology).
      Uh, I know damned well I ain't fucking her at all. Simpletons, disease vectors and oopses-waiting-to-happen are NOT allowed in my pants without appropriate protective gear, and only rarely then.

      female dominated politically correct culture
      Ah, clearly she grabbed your (the "royal" your) little head in a testosterone Vise-Grip (tm), demanded you take that thing off and start working it for the three minutes you were worth, and you had NO CHOICE but to slip her the baby batter? I find myself, a male, an unabashed slut and a sexual submissive, in the ironic position of reminding you that abstinence is a viable option!

      -jhp
      --
      /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
    61. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So intentionally miscarrying through the use of, say, abortifacient herbs is more acceptable than attempting to nurse a premature birth back on track. Sounds about right to me.

    62. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      ...but I didn't think it was a woman's responsibility to find someone willing to take it - rather, it's given up for adoption, and the state handles it?

      My point is that she cannot leave it out to die, for example. It has to be given by her into appropriate care. Even if she is giving it to the state on the understanding that they will care/find a carer, it is totally different to not taking responsibility, it is delegating responsibility (in this case, to the state). The fact that during pregnancy it is currently only the mother that is capable of caring for the child does not remove this responsibility.

      Yes I mean in the situation where we decide the fetus has human rights - although note that many people argue a fetus should have rights not because it is a human being, but because it will become one.

      So even to your dicussion, you understand that it must first be decided if the fetus is human/has human rights. I'm not sure now why you disputed this.

      How would you make an exception for rape? ...

      How I would make an exception for any given circumstance is not really relevant. Consider if we had decided (for discussion sake) that legally we would consider a fetus human from conception. Then let's call them pre-children. I'm not sure how many abortions are due to rape, but let's say it's 1% (for discussion sake). Let's use the example of the next million abortions. 10,000 will be due to rape in our example and we have decided that rape is an acceptable reason for a woman to have an abortion. Now, the issues you raised are real. It would be very difficult to make an exception for rape that didn't have unjust consequences. Will we allow 990,000 human pre-children to be killed (right to life violated) because it is legally difficult to protect the rights (right to pursuit of happiness and/or right to liberty) of 10,000 other people? Shouldn't we rather do some work to overcome the difficulty.

      I find it incredible that so many people are prepared to permanently revoke all the right to life of a child in order to remove a largely temporary obstruction to some of the mother's right to liberty/pursuit of happiness.

    63. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good post. I wrote a page about abortion > http://www.newpath4.com/abortionlife101.htm if you'd have a minute. It's an accumulation of pictures of posts I made over a couple year's time. There is some religious thoughts expressed but it isn't all about religion either. It's about when Life begins, whether the Mother has a legal right to abort her child right after having made a decision to kill it. Etc.

    64. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can it be wrong to allow woman sovereignty over their own body? Btw, until you get your religion to change its practice of listing birth dates on head stones in graveyards, you have not even begun to show that there is no difference between human birth and the time preceding it. But it makes a nice straw man for you to use.

    65. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you make an exception for any reason, your arguments about life before birth being so important, etc. are completely negated (i.e., your position becomes wholly inconsistent and completely indefensible). So, to deal with your arguments about life before birth being so important, etc.:

      I find it incredible that so many people are prepared to permanently revoke all the right to life of a child in order to remove a largely temporary obstruction to some of the mother's right to liberty/pursuit of happiness.

      The logical conclusion of this rather flawed line of reasoning (you are calling a fetus a child, putting the horse before the cart, among other things) is that women should be forcibly inseminated solely for the purpose of making children that have a right to live.

      Btw, every year I celebrate the birth of Christ. I do not celebrate the divine insemination or fertilization or whatever you want to call it. The birth is what matters -- it is where life begins in the Christian bible. So, I have to object to your arguments on religious grounds as well. (And that throughout recorded history the birth date has been recorded as the beginning of a person's life, not the insemination/feritlization/etc date. Maybe you can start a movement to change this, since you feel so strongly that thousands of years of recorded history have gotten this wrong?)

    66. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      So even to your dicussion, you understand that it must first be decided if the fetus is human/has human rights. I'm not sure now why you disputed this.

      In general, I would agree that the deciding factor is whether a fetus is a full human being with human rights.

      However, I'm not convinced that, even if we treated a fetus as human, it is required that the mother continues the pregnancy, and I disagree with your analogy to looking after a child. Looking after or not abusing is one thing, but providing life support via your body is another. For example, I don't believe we have mandatory organ donation for mothers if it turns out that one is needed for the child? If a child (i.e., not a fetus, but after birth) developed a condition which required the mother to be hooked up to some life support for 9 months, I don't think everyone would agree that as part of her legal responsibility, she is bound by the law to do so.

      Now, the issues you raised are real. It would be very difficult to make an exception for rape that didn't have unjust consequences.

      Right, if you're saying we shouldn't make an exception, that's fine, I just wanted to know where you stood. Earlier I read it that you thought we could somehow make an exception for rape.

    67. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1
      It certainly is possible to have a net positive effect on the environment. You could spend your time recycling, educating people, or inventing more efficient ways to live.

      I bet the inventor of compact flourescent lightbulbs had a net positive effect on the environment.

      If some engineer made front-loading washers cheap enough for them to catch on in a big way, that'd save trillions of gallons of water a year.

      Sadly, you don't see many environmentalists going into hard science.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    68. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by E++99 · · Score: 1
      I can hear the "human life begins at conception" crowd exploiting this just now.
      As opposed to what other crowd? Who's making the arguement that a growing embryo isn't alive? Certainly not any biologist or person with medical training. Who's making the arguement that that it's not human? What is it then, a monkey? Can I claim teenagers as hyenas? Are we just randomly lobbing people out of the human race now?
    69. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      You've been brainwashed. You're a nerd, look at what you see, not what they tell you.

      How many people do you know who have died of cancer? Heart disease? Accident? Suicide? Aids?

      I know quite a few people who have died of all of the above - except aids. Of all the people I've known, only two have had aids. One was a gay man, and one was a woman who liked it in the back door.

      Aids is a blood disease, not a sex disease. At any rate, at my age I'm more likely to die of a heart attack during sex than of a disease from it. Now, if I had a sore on my penus I'd refrain from all sex, but penis-vagina sex is the least of my worries.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    70. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Why should you have to pay for a child you don't want? She doesn't have to! If she wants to carry it to term, let her - but if she has a choice, so should you.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    71. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by sjs132 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd say it is next to impossible to have a net positive effect on the environment today, unless you went off in the mountains and tried to live like a true native, but they even clear cut, culled large herds over cliffs for easy food, etc..

      You must realize that MOST folks can't control their impact on the environment until they are imancipated (18 avg? in our society), right? Thats 18 years of glutony and waste of environmental resources.

      Notice, I didn't say impossible, because a few GREAT ideas can be a bonus against one's "E-KARMA", like if someone ever does create room temp fusion, etc... But for most of us, it is a Neg. equation from birth...

      So, next time you think that you can save the planet by buying a hybrid car, just pick up a pack of razor blades... because China will output thousands more in CO2 than you or I will ever save with out few E-Cars...

      Don't take this as me saying environmentalism is bad... Just that for most of us, the end result would be better if we just off'ed ourselves upon reaching this enlightenment.

      --
      --- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
    72. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      However, I'm not convinced that, even if we treated a fetus as human, it is required that the mother continues the pregnancy, and I disagree with your analogy to looking after a child. Looking after or not abusing is one thing, but providing life support via your body is another.

      The 'looking after a child' is not an analogy, it's an example of how we legally see a mother's responsibility. Precedent if you will. It is generally accepted that the parent's responsibility is reduced as the childs age/capability increases. The parents could be charged with neglect for not feeding an infant. They could not be charged with neglect for not feeding a 30 year old, in normal circumstances. So, it is already established that the level of the parents responsibility is essentially determined by the requirements of the child, and tends to decrease with time. It is not set by an arbitary level of committment that we feel comfortable with. So if (for the sake of discussion) we accept that the fetus is human, the logical and consistent position would be to say that the parents responsibility is to feed and protect the child as required, and that this requirement is likely to take a higher level of care than a child needs after bith. As the only method of doing this is currently to continue the pregancy, then I believe this is required. Come up with a viable and reliable method of incubating or transplanting fetuses and you would have a solution I would accept.

      Right, if you're saying we shouldn't make an exception, that's fine, I just wanted to know where you stood. Earlier I read it that you thought we could somehow make an exception for rape.

      I haven't said we should or shouldn't. Even if there is not an exception for rape cases, it doesn't mean there should be no exceptions, and any exception would be difficult to implement. My point was that if it should be done, the fact that it is difficult is not a reason not to do it. If it is decided that an exception should be made but it's hard, then work hard to solve the problem instead of giving up.

      For what it's worth, although rape is a terrible crime, I do not think it justifies killing the child of the rapist. We don't let a woman summarily execute the man who raped her, why would we let her kill the man's (and her) child. It really comes down to if you believe the fetus is human again. I can concieve of circumstances where there should be an exception though, so my point stands.

    73. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      If you make an exception for any reason, your arguments about life before birth being so important, etc. are completely negated (i.e., your position becomes wholly inconsistent and completely indefensible). So, to deal with your arguments about life before birth being so important, etc.:

      Not at all. Killing some-one is illegal in most circumstances, but there are exceptions eg: self-defence, police shooting some-one firing a gun at others etc. To think that there may be circumstances when abortion should be legal even if you usually consider it murder is both logically consistent and demonstrable in principle in current laws about other issues.

      The logical conclusion of this rather flawed line of reasoning (you are calling a fetus a child, putting the horse before the cart, among other things) is that women should be forcibly inseminated solely for the purpose of making children that have a right to live.

      Fetuses grow into children, horses do not grow out of carts. It is well understood (but probably no longer common) usage in english to say a pregnant woman is "with child". First definition in the Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary:
      pregnant /preg-nuhnt/ adj. 1 (of a woman or female animal) having a child or young developing in the uterus.

      To say that the logical conclusion of believing people have a responsibility to look after children they produce is that they should be forced to produce more children only displays that you lack either the capacity or the desire to discuss this issue logically.

      Btw, every year I celebrate the birth of Christ. I do not celebrate the divine insemination or fertilization or whatever you want to call it.

      I find your religious beliefs and customs to be irrelevant to this discussion...

      The birth is what matters -- it is where life begins in the Christian bible. So, I have to object to your arguments on religious grounds as well.

      ...and you will notice, if you follow the thread, that I have not brought up religious belief as a justification for any of my arguments. Nevertheless, for the sake of accuracy, I refer you to Exodus 21: 22-25 (NIV)

      If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

      Just in case you missed that, if the baby is born prematurely but not injured, there is only a fine, if the baby is injured or killed, the same penalty applies as for any other person being injured or killed. The passage is not dealing with the injury to the woman, as that is dealt with sufficiently in other passages, it is dealing with injury or death caused to children still in the womb, so sorry, no banana for you, AC. If you are going to use the bible as a reference in a discussion, maybe you should read it first.

      In any case, this is not a discussion about theology.

    74. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      The 'looking after a child' is not an analogy, it's an example of how we legally see a mother's responsibility. Precedent if you will. It is generally accepted that the parent's responsibility is reduced as the childs age/capability increases. The parents could be charged with neglect for not feeding an infant.

      What do you think of the other examples I raised - organ donation or other kind of medical life support - are those a legal responsibility? Just as with pregnancy, there may be no other way to save the child.

      I haven't said we should or shouldn't. Even if there is not an exception for rape cases, it doesn't mean there should be no exceptions, and any exception would be difficult to implement. My point was that if it should be done, the fact that it is difficult is not a reason not to do it. If it is decided that an exception should be made but it's hard, then work hard to solve the problem instead of giving up.

      All I mean is that these issues are things that should be considered at the same time as deciding whether abortion should be illegal or not, rather than hoping it'll work itself out later.

    75. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 1

      Whoa, my first Troll modding. I'm honored, O right-wing mods.

    76. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      What do you think of the other examples I raised - organ donation or other kind of medical life support - are those a legal responsibility? Just as with pregnancy, there may be no other way to save the child.

      The examples you gave are analogies. It would seem that the primary purpose of a womb is to incubate children. There is no organ in the body that has organ donation as it's primary purpose, therefore, it is reasonable for people to be able to use their organs for their primary purpose, and not reasonable to require them to donate them. As organ donation is not legally required even after death (at least in Australia, I assume this is the case in the US) this is in line with current law. I think that trying to compare using a body organ for it's usual purpose for 9 months to having an organ permanently removed is not helpful. Also, during pregnancy, the womb etc really provide food and shelter to the child, not medical treatment ie: a woman doesn't become pregnant in response to a medical condition of a child. So I think that example doesn't affect whether continuing a pregnancy is a reasonable level of care to expect a woman to provide her (already existing in the womb) child.

      As for your other example: If a child (i.e., not a fetus, but after birth) developed a condition which required the mother to be hooked up to some life support for 9 months, I don't think everyone would agree that as part of her legal responsibility, she is bound by the law to do so.
      as far as I am aware, this example is not only hypothetical but there is no case of this being suggested or even possible to happen. If you know of a case, I'd be interested to see a link and then consider this situation. In discussing what laws to implement and how to do so, I think it better to discuss current known reality. Hypothetical cases are fine, but they should at least be currently possible, not science fiction.

    77. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      The examples you gave are analogies.

      The example you gave of a mother looking after its child when it's been born is also an analogy! I was just providing one I felt was closer to pregnancy.

      t would seem that the primary purpose of a womb is to incubate children. There is no organ in the body that has organ donation as it's primary purpose, therefore, it is reasonable for people to be able to use their organs for their primary purpose, and not reasonable to require them to donate them.

      So you've switched your argument from legal responsibilty to purpose. Not being a creationist, I don't believe body parts have a purpose. Therefore, I disagree that a woman should be forced to use her womb for incubating any fetus she conceives.

      As organ donation is not legally required even after death (at least in Australia, I assume this is the case in the US) this is in line with current law.

      And abortion is currently legal, so that's in line with current law.

      as far as I am aware, this example is not only hypothetical but there is no case of this being suggested or even possible to happen.

      Certainly it has been suggested - it's a well known thought experiment to get people to think about the ethics of abortion. Yes, it's hypothetical, obviously, and no it isn't necessary for thought experiments to be possible - that's the whole point of them. So, I'm still curious, would you say that a mother is obliged to give treatment? If not, why does her legal responsibility no longer apply?

    78. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by rohan972 · · Score: 1
      So you've switched your argument from legal responsibilty to purpose.

      Not at all. I'm sure we could find many legal documents that contain the word purpose if we tried. Just one example is the GPL which contains the word purpose 4 times, and is a legal document.

      Not being a creationist, I don't believe body parts have a purpose. Therefore, I disagree that a woman should be forced to use her womb for incubating any fetus she conceives.

      Well, try function then. It is a synonym of purpose, but you won't need to feel like a creationist. I presume you aren't going to say your body parts don't have a function. I've made the changes for you:

      It would seem that the primary function of a womb is to incubate children. There is no organ in the body that has organ donation as it's primary function, therefore, it is reasonable for people to be able to use their organs for their primary function, and not reasonable to require them to donate them. As organ donation is not legally required even after death (at least in Australia, I assume this is the case in the US) this is in line with current law. I think that trying to compare using a body organ for it's usual function for 9 months to having an organ permanently removed is not helpful.

      So I'm saying the normal and expected use of body parts is not to donate them but to have them function in your body. If the use of the womb for the incubation of the child was required (normal use), it would not imply a requirement to donate body parts (contrary to normal use). It is not a comment dependent on creationism or any other religious belief. In any case, I just did "grep -c purpose otoos610.txt" on Charles Darwins "The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, 6th Edition" from Project Gutenburg. The word purpose is in there 75 times. I haven't checked context, but I suspect that it's still ok to use the word purpose even if you're not a creationist. Your "Therefore" needs new thinking.

      And abortion is currently legal, so that's in line with current law.

      I don't dispute this. I just think it shouldn't be for the mojority of cases. It doesn't change my point that there is legal precedent to say that organ donation is not compulsory.

      Certainly it has been suggested - it's a well known thought experiment to get people to think about the ethics of abortion.

      I meant suggested as in suggesting that somebody in particular should do this, or that it should become common practise or the like. Not suggested as in making a philosophical point about it with no intention of bringing it to pass. No matter.

      Yes, it's hypothetical, obviously, and no it isn't necessary for thought experiments to be possible - that's the whole point of them. So, I'm still curious, would you say that a mother is obliged to give treatment? If not, why does her legal responsibility no longer apply?

      OK then, to satisfy your curiosity: If a child (i.e., not a fetus, but after birth) developed a condition which required the mother to be hooked up to some life support for 9 months, I don't think everyone would agree that as part of her legal responsibility, she is bound by the law to do so. ... no I don't think she should be held legally responsible to do this. There are at least two reasons. First is same as the organ donation case, it is not part of normal function, unlike pregnancy. The second is that it's not currently possible, and people should not be legally required to do the impossible. It is worth noting that unlike the case of a child falling sick, by far the majority of pregnancies are a result of consensual sex. The woman is usually pregnant as a result of actions she chose to take (even if she did not intend to get pregnant, and yes, I think the father ought to be taking responsibility also, although he cannot bear the child, b

    79. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Not at all. I'm sure we could find many legal documents that contain the word purpose if we tried. Just one example is the GPL which contains the word purpose 4 times, and is a legal document.

      What on earth does the GPL have to do with anything? Yes, software and documents were created by humans for a purpose, but this doesn't mean that body parts, created by no one, have a purpose. They don't.

      Well, try function then.

      Function is a better word. A womb can function to keep fetuses, whilst an organ can function to keep someone alive, including in another body. Neither case do they have to function in that way - that's up to the person whose body it is. And by the way, nowhere did I say we're not allowed to use the word "purpose", I said that it doesn't apply in that context. So doing a grep of Darwin is pointless unless you show me the context of those usages. After all, I've used the word 3 times in my reply to you!

      First is same as the organ donation case, it is not part of normal function, unlike pregnancy.

      Who decides what is normal and what is not? Remember, you are comparing to a mother's legal responsibility to a child - surely if a child is ill, it is also the mother's legal responsibility to take that child to a doctor? I admit I'm not sure on the law here is - but I'd be surprised if "Oh, but artificial medical procedures aren't normal" would be a good defence to such neglect.

      It is worth noting that unlike the case of a child falling sick, by far the majority of pregnancies are a result of consensual sex. The woman is usually pregnant as a result of actions she chose to take

      And how did that sick child come about? By consensual sex. In all cases, the claim that a woman should live with the consequences and take responsibility because of what she chose applies just as much or as little. In fact, after birth the woman has made even more of a choice, as she had the option of adoption.

      I'm a bit surprised that you would consider a comparison between a woman being forced to donate organs vs providing food/shelter in her body a closer comparison than a woman providing food/shelter in her body vs providing food/shelter outside her body.

      A nice bit of emotive rewording there. Firstly, I consider being forced to give resources from your body to a child for 9 months closer to being forced to give resources from your body to a fetus for 9 months, compared with a legal obligation to feed a child, where you can opt out by giving it up for adoption.

      As for organ donation, it's not about what is closer, it's that it comes under your logic of "legal responsibility to be forced to keep a child alive no matter what".

      On the "thought experiments" as an ethical tool, I have never bothered a great deal with them.

      They are good tools for weeding out what people's actual objections to something are.

      If "thought experiments" are a valid tool to base law on, then so is the Quran, the Bible, Buddism, Confusius etc, etc.

      Eh? You are confusing moral dilemmas (real or fantasy) with what evidence is used to base law on. Nowhere am I citing a thought experiment as evidence - that's nonsensical. If there are thought experiments in the Bible, then we can discuss those too if you prefer. But I fail to see how that's related to basing law on the Bible.

    80. Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      What on earth does the GPL have to do with anything? Yes, software and documents were created by humans for a purpose, but this doesn't mean that body parts, created by no one, have a purpose. They don't.

      It shows that talking about purpose does not stop it being a legal discussion. You said I had switched from talking about legal responsibility to talking about purpose. Just showing you a legal document that contains the word purpose. It shows that the word purpose does not mean that I'm not talking about legality.

      Function is a better word. A womb can function to keep fetuses, whilst an organ can function to keep someone alive, including in another body. Neither case do they have to function in that way - that's up to the person whose body it is. And by the way, nowhere did I say we're not allowed to use the word "purpose", I said that it doesn't apply in that context.

      Function is a synonym for purpose. The fact that function is acceptable to you and purpose isn't really makes it seem like it's becoming more effort to have a sensible discussion with you than I am willing to put in right now. Your assertion that body parts don't have a function except by the choice of the owner of the body is ludicrous. For example, what function are you using your heart for? (I'm guessing pumping blood), kidney's? (you may have donated one, but I'm betting you're using at least one to filter blood), your stomach? (I'm guessing you're using it for digestion) etc etc. And by the way, I said "primary purpose" and "primary function", as in most usual purpose/function. So even if you chose to get a mechanical blood pump and use your heart for a baseball, it has no bearing on the point I was making.

      As for Darwin:
      "and as pollen is formed for the sole purpose of fertilisation" pollen has purpose
      "In rudimentary organs, and in those which have been but little specialised for any particular purpose, and perhaps in polymorphic groups, we see a nearly parallel case;" refering to organ of animals.

      Was Darwin a closet creationist, do you think? If Darwin can refer to plant parts and animal organs as having purpose, it proves it is not a creationist argument, and it does apply in the context I used it.

      Firstly, I consider being forced to give resources from your body to a child for 9 months closer to being forced to give resources from your body to a fetus for 9 months, compared with a legal obligation to feed a child, where you can opt out by giving it up for adoption.

      In most cases, the woman could have opted out of pregnancy beforehand. The woman chose (in most cases) actions that contributed to the production of a human being, who by it's nature is totally dependent on her for a limited time. The fact that she might not want this or might have done it accidentally doesn't give her the right to actively kill the child. No amount of favourable scenarios based on fantasy or science fiction give her the right to kill the child. More in line with your life support example: does a woman have the right to not get pregnant in the first place? Yes, sure. Not getting pregnant doesn't require the killing of a child, so it's fine.

      Nothing you have said provides a reason that a woman's rights over her body make it ok to kill another human being to access said rights. As far as "thought experiments" or fantasy go: You can kill a person in your fantasy for any reason you like, once you come back to the real world, you should no longer kill people for your convenience.

  5. Substrates by headkase · · Score: 3, Funny

    Some are afraid of artificial intelligence. I'm afraid I'll have to get my kid "enhanced" just so he can keep up in school. Meat is programmable too. Knowledge is good but ethics will hopefully ease our future obsolescence.

    --
    Shh.
    1. Re:Substrates by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speaking as a genius plus, intelligence isn't nearly as useful as people make it out to be. Sure, it helps, but it can also screw you good.

      For instance, you tend to see things as obvious which aren't to most people, so you don't explain as much. Figuring out what needs extra exposition is actually hard. Conversely, school before college is so boring and slow that you may have trouble staying awake. Psychologically, you may get an attitude because you know more than others, or you may hole yourself up in some specialty that matters only to you.

      What matters is drive and ambition combined with enough smarts to not get snowed. This is achievable by a whole lot of people, at least compared to the number of really smart people out there. Also, learning how to talk to people in whatever language they speak is invaluable. If they think you're one of them, they're more likely to trust you.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:Substrates by simcop2387 · · Score: 1

      you watch too much DS9, just because julian was, doesn't mean that its a good idea, just remember the other whacko's who had that done and ended up nut cases.

    3. Re:Substrates by headkase · · Score: 1

      They were dysfunctional individually but in some episodes they worked together to compute things that were beyond even starfleet's capabilities. Ultimately they were wrong but that was because of unknown factors such as the plague that affected the shapeshifters.

      On long time scales (1000+ years), unless we're stupid enough to kill all of ourselves, genetic programming is inevitable. Just say it takes centuries to become reliable and palatable enough to take root. Once the knowledge and ability is present then it's easy to imagine humans tailored to survive on say Mars without artificial life support. And if your creating tailored humans for specific environments you might as well make them smarter while your at it.

      Collectively humanity must define it's ethics because the ability to do these things is fast approaching.

      --
      Shh.
    4. Re:Substrates by MECC · · Score: 1

      Figuring out what needs extra exposition is actually hard

      Even for a genius plus?

      --
      "We are all geniuses when we dream"
      - E.M. Cioran
    5. Re:Substrates by servognome · · Score: 1
      I'm afraid I'll have to get my kid "enhanced" just so he can keep up in school. Meat is programmable too. Knowledge is good but ethics will hopefully ease our future obsolescence

      How can you not want your kid to posess superior intellect
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    6. Re:Substrates by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Yeah, even for a genius plus. You'd think it'd be easy to find out what's easy and what's hard for someone else, or an audience of normal intelligence, but nooooo.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    7. Re:Substrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People already enchance their children. What are those called.. preschool or something propably, where you go before actual school to learn things that you would normally learn at school. Hell, some people even start at kinderkarden before they can even talk, by teaching the children second language in there.

      And then we have all these wonderfull drugs that helps the children to concentrate.

    8. Re:Substrates by pureevilmatt · · Score: 1

      Before I populate Mars with genetically engineered miners, I want to make sure they're easy to control, and I'm going to do that by genetically engineering them to be stupider than my class.

    9. Re:Substrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, even for a genius plus. You'd think it'd be easy to find out what's easy and what's hard for someone else, or an audience of normal intelligence, but nooooo.

      Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

    10. Re:Substrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait 'til I get going! ... Where was I? :)

    11. Re:Substrates by MECC · · Score: 1

      Is it possible that a genius might exist such that their developed ability would be to easily figure out what's easy and what's hard for someone else?

      I just think it must be at least theoretically possible, since I've know people with what seem to be remarkable predispositions for certain intellectual specializations, like math or physics. When I read your earlier comment, I wondered if it might not be possible for someone to possess an intellectual predisposition for knowing what's easy and hard for others to grasp, and also possible to have developed that intellectual gift.

      --
      "We are all geniuses when we dream"
      - E.M. Cioran
    12. Re:Substrates by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      And if your creating tailored humans for specific environments you might as well make them smarter while your at it.

      Not necessarily, more intelligence is expensive in terms of energy and material use so you'd need more food for smarter humans. On a world with fewer food sources you might need to cut their intelligence to lower levels to make them function optimally.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    13. Re:Substrates by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Is it possible that a genius might exist such that their developed ability would be to easily figure out what's easy and what's hard for someone else?

      Sure, that's even probable, but we don't measure for that when doing IQ tests.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    14. Re:Substrates by feronti · · Score: 1

      I would say especially for a genius plus. I'm not quite that smart, though I am significantly enough above average that I have the same problem. If you can't tell whether or not your audience will understand, you wind up either not explaining enough, in which case they feel stupid and are embarrassed that they don't understand and get irritated with you for making them look stupid, or you explain too much, in which case they get irritated with you for treating them like a moron. There's a very fine line between the two. Getting the perfect balance is extremely difficult, and requires a special level of patience and understanding of people. Which unfortunately, is something that being above average in intelligence often leaves you without.

    15. Re:Substrates by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Why all the hate? You don't ask for proof of board certification when someone claims to be a doctor, do you?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    16. Re:Substrates by Dannon · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid I'll have to get my kid "enhanced" just so he can keep up in school.

      Not to worry. With the way the powers that be seem to be bent on lowering school standards, you just might be called on to "de-enhance" your kid, instead.

      --
      Good judgment comes from experience.
      Experience comes from bad judgment.
    17. Re:Substrates by MECC · · Score: 1

      Sure, that's even probable, but we don't measure for that when doing IQ tests.

      That sounds like a job for a genius

      --
      "We are all geniuses when we dream"
      - E.M. Cioran
    18. Re:Substrates by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1
      Part of the problem is that intelligence isn't a 1-axis entity. It's especially inapt regarding interacting with others. Many borderline retards are great at reading others and make great salesmen/politicians. Many geniuses are bad at interacting with others, even minimally.

      I think there's definitely an ability to communicate effectively. It's probably partly innate, partly cultivated.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
  6. science, or fiction? by macadamia_harold · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yale researchers claim to have found the very first neurons in what eventually becomes the human brain.

    The human brain isn't made out of neurons. It is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

    1. Re:science, or fiction? by s13g3 · · Score: 1

      While your quote in context is humorous, it does remind me to mention that a handfull of neurons does not in any way equate intelligence. In terms of computing, where the adult human brain is roughly equivalent to 1E+18 operations/sec., and the brain stores roughly one petabyte of data, even an abacus is a more complex computational device in terms of processing power and even data storage. I'm sure it has some remarkably limited function at that point, but nowhere near enough so to make any real difference to the abortion debate.

      --
      "Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
    2. Re:science, or fiction? by mlewan · · Score: 1
      "the adult human brain is roughly equivalent to 1E+18 operations/sec., and the brain stores roughly one petabyte of data"

      Do you have sources for that? I had assumed our knowledge on how data was stored and processed in our brain was so limited that any calculation of its power were wild guesses. Sure, we can count the number of brain cells and connections, but we do not know how much information is stored there. The idea of a quantum brain for example may not be very likely, but neither has anyone been able to falsify it.

    3. Re:science, or fiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In terms of computing, where the adult human brain is roughly equivalent to 1E+18 operations/sec., and the brain stores roughly one petabyte of data, even an abacus is a more complex computational device in terms of processing power and even data storage.

      That's one damn big abacus!

    4. Re:science, or fiction? by Eljas · · Score: 1

      To keep them tubes clean, just remember to intoduce your kid (embryo?) to state lotteries and horse races as early as possible.

      Thank god for lottery balls and horse races.

    5. Re:science, or fiction? by s13g3 · · Score: 2, Informative
      From a Unesco Courier article siderbar: "According to Moore's Law, computing power doubles every two years. By around 2020, a personal computer will have exactly the same processing power as a single human brain."

      I remember reading something similiar ages ago, though the projected date was somewhere between 2020 and 2025, allowing for variances in the actual rate of progess before a desktop-grade PC would reach the roughly 1 billion billion ops/sec @ 1 petabyte storage that was the stated theoretical digital equivalent.

      From a 1993 article in Nanobiology Magazine:

      Processing Power

      The processing power of the system of neurons in the brain can be roughly evaluated by the number of events which may occur in this system per second. The number of neurons is about 10e+10 and their switching time is about 10e+2 sec, so the number of events per second is about 10e+12. This figure is comparable with the number of operations per second in massively parallel computer systems approaching the teraop barrier. Thus, the information processing power of the system of neurons does not drastically exceed that available through modern microelectronic technology. In the expanded construction suggested in [2] the number of binary events per second may reach 10e+23 to 10e+25. However, as in all massively parallel systems a problem arises whether a substantial portion of this estimated raw computational power can be effectually utilized.


      Poster's note: Obviously, many of these connections are utilized for non-cognitive functions are are tied in to motor skills. I believe the original figure I quoted (10e+18) is meant to represent available capacity outside of pure maintenance functions (i.e., it does not include the neural equivalent of TCP overhead, etc. [depends on whether you're running WinDome or CerebRIX, actual mileage may vary depending upon the amount of OEM RAM you came with])

      Come on... Laugh! You know it was funny ^.^

      Memory Capacity

      The capacity of the long term human memory is virtually unlimited. According to von Neumann [5], estimated by the amount of information which can be transferred to a human brain during its lifetime, the lower bound of this capacity is about 2.8× 1020 bits. To be stored in the brain of about 103 cm3 this requires density of informational storage about at least 3× 1017 bits/cm-3. The time of content-addressable retrieval is rather short and essentially independent from the amount of stored information. Once recorded, information in the brain is supposed to be retained permanently. Thus, images don't fade with time and can be easily recognized over decades.


      This last is an oversimplifcation without solid root in neurobiology. Due to a browser crash, I lost what I'd just added here, but it is easily shown that the brain most certainly performs it's own regular disk-maintnance (delete old files, defrag, index and cross-correlate data, and delete cookies and other temporary files that have been determined to be irrelvant though indexing and defragging - such as excatly what you paid for breakfast at McD's last Tuesday or what color socks the bosses' secretary wore yesterday) and does not possess anywhere the necessary capacity to store in digital detail every event of every day.

      From a PsychologyToday article:

      "By the year 2020, your $1,000 personal computer will have the processing power of the human brain--20 million billion calculations per second (100 billion neurons times 1,000 connections per neuron times 200 calculations per second per connection). By 2030, it will take a village of human brains to match a $1,000 computer. By 2050, $1,000 worth of computing will equal the processing power of all human brains on earth."

      This seems to be a generally expected figure, though t

      --
      "Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
    6. Re:science, or fiction? by s13g3 · · Score: 1

      Obviously, that statement should have read:

      "In terms of computing, where the adult human brain is roughly equivalent to 1E+18 operations/sec., and the brain stores roughly one petabyte of data, even an abacus is a more complex computational device in terms of processing power and even data storage than is a 31-day old fetus' brain."

      --
      "Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
  7. That reminds me of a NOFX song by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clams have feelings too

    Birds are dumb, 'cause small bird brains
    But so are kids and old people
    Some birds talk, most others sing
    I don't see you eat a talking bird

    Pigs smell bad, they roll in poo
    But so do kids and elderly
    I don't see you chop off an old man's feet
    Put 'em in a mason jar and pickle them

    No chowder for you, 'cause clams have feelings too
    Actually they don't have central nervousness
    No manhatten style, clams have the right to smile
    Come to think about it, they don't have a face

    They have no face, no place for ears
    There's no clam eyes, to cry clam tears
    No spinal cord, they must get bored
    Might as well just put them out of misery

    I don't beleive it's selfish
    To eat defenceless shellfish

    No chowder for you, clams have feelings too
    It could happen to you, clams have feelings too
    I don't think they do, clams have feelings too

    1. Re:That reminds me of a NOFX song by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus, NOFX really suck balls these days.

  8. Re:thought this was mapped already?, YES! by posterlogo · · Score: 5, Informative

    When your blood alcohol comes down you'll probably realise that you're not going to find much likeness regarding brain development between humans and C. Elegans. Because they don't have much of a brain... in fact they're lacking circulatory and respiratory systems as well.

    WRONG. Maybe worms don't have a "brain" as we know it, but they are a very good model for nervous systems. Nearly 1/3 of the cells of C. elegans worms are neurons, and the entire lineage of every cell in the adult worm is well mapped. Worms are a good animal model system, and combined with research from flies (Drosophila) and mice, much is known about neural development. Since we are humans, clearly, we are often most interested specifically in what is know about our own development. So the Yale study, while not entirely novel, certainly is an important study in a long line of great research to help us understand the development and wiring of the brain.

  9. Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great... ...If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate....

    If the souls of aborted babies go to heaven, then shoudn't the christians ENCOURAGE abortion as much as possible? Especially in athiests? I mean, saving the child's soul is the most important thing, right? What kind of loving parent would allow the child's soul to come in danger of eternal torment, when salvation is just an abortion away? :)

    1. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by lbrandy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If the souls of aborted babies go to heaven, then shoudn't the christians ENCOURAGE abortion as much as possible? Especially in athiests? I mean, saving the child's soul is the most important thing, right? What kind of loving parent would allow the child's soul to come in danger of eternal torment, when salvation is just an abortion away? :)

      Sarcasm doesn't work to point out the goofiness of religion when you get the premise wrong. The Catholic Church says, quite literally, "We don't know what happens to unbaptised babies who die... we just assume God does the right thing".

      As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"[63] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.
      Source: Some official Church thing circa 1992. John Paul II said something very similar later on in one of his little letters on abortion.

      As I understand it... the Church basically admits, on this particular issue, that God may "let" people into heaven through ways "unknown" to the Church. This concept intruiges me.

    2. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was raised Catholic. I've even needed to suffer through Catholic school.

      Yes, more recently the Catholic Church has been more liberal about the whole "get baptized or go to hell" thing. But that is not what they've always said. Before recently (relatively speaking), it was that we should pray for the babies in purgatory. And even before that, it was their stance that they just go to hell. In fact, that's the very reason why babies started being baptised. It used to be adults, but people didn't want their children going to hell if they died before they were old enough. (Which of coarse works to the church's benefit. A baby can't say no...)

      But note that even now they don't say, "getting into heaven has nothing to do if you are baptized or not". They leave some doubt. They say, "we don't know..." but give you a little nudge and a wink. Pascal's Wager gets people to give them the benefit of the doubt.

    3. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by Basehart · · Score: 1

      All I want to know is do I get to go to heaven if I buy a big truck and put a BushCheney sticker on it?

    4. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by lav-chan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Catholic Church says, quite literally, "We don't know what happens to unbaptised babies who die... we just assume God does the right thing".

      It'd be cool if they applied that line of thought to... anybody else, really.

      It's funny how the Church seems to know exactly what God is thinking when it comes to homosexuals and transgendered people and pre-marital sex and all that jazz, but when it turns the subject of babies they're suddenly too humble to speculate.

    5. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by gowen · · Score: 1
      All I want to know is do I get to go to heaven if I buy a big truck and put a BushCheney sticker on it?
      I think you'll find that John Prine had this question covered 35 years ago.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    6. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it would be good if they said that wrong is right, even better if they all just curled up and died, but other than that I'm a very tolerant person, and I think everyone has the right to hold any views (as long as they are similar to mine, of course)

    7. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by Lady+Jazzica · · Score: 1

      Well, the souls of aborted babies may or may not go to heaven, but even if they did, it would be wrong to encourage people to have abortions. The end doesn't justify the means. So if you convinced someone to have an abortion, maybe the baby would go to heaven, but you and the person who had the abortion probably wouldn't, since she had her child murdered, and you encouraged someone to commit murder.

      By your logic, we should kill baptized infants, since they definitely are going to heaven if they die. But that would be murder, so it's wrong to do so, even if we had a good intention. Again, the end doesn't justify the means.

    8. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by Lady+Jazzica · · Score: 2, Informative

      The difference is that the Bible and the teachings of the Apostles (and natural law, in many cases) explicitly tell us that extramarital sex, homosexual acts, etc. are wrong; but the Bible doesn't say anything about what happens to unbaptized children who die.

      Unbaptized children don't have justifying grace (which is normally received through baptism), and so they shouldn't be able to go to heaven. On the other hand, they haven't personally sinned, so they shouldn't go to hell either. One theory that attempts to resolve this problem is that unbaptized babies go to Limbo, which is a place without the supernatural happiness of heaven (since they don't have justifying grace), but with perfect natural happiness (since they don't deserve punishment). So unbaptized babies would live for eternity happier than anyone ever did on Earth. This is pretty nice, and I tend to agree with the Limbo idea. The good thing about this theory is that Limbo at least has a Biblical parallel in the Limbo of the Fathers, where good people from Old Testament times went until the opening of heaven to them by Christ (Luke 16:22).

      On the other hand, maybe God gives unbaptized babies something similar to a baptism of desire, and so they can go to heaven... This is a bit more speculative than the Limbo idea, but not impossible.

    9. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by Lady+Jazzica · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And even before that, it was their stance that they just go to hell. In fact, that's the very reason why babies started being baptised. It used to be adults, but people didn't want their children going to hell if they died before they were old enough.

      Actually, the Bible says that, in Apostolic times, entire families were baptized, not just adults.

      Acts 16:15
      And when she was baptized, and her household...

      Acts 16:33
      And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

      1 Corinthians 1:16
      And I baptized also the household of Stephanas...

    10. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by marsu_k · · Score: 1
      The difference is that the Bible and the teachings of the Apostles (and natural law, in many cases) explicitly tell us that extramarital sex, homosexual acts, etc. are wrong
      Not to mention shellfish!
    11. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by Lady+Jazzica · · Score: 1

      That's part of the Law of Moses, and doesn't apply anymore.

      Acts 10:10-16
      And he became hungry and desired something to eat; but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air.
      And there came a voice to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."
      But Peter said, "No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean."
      And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has cleansed, you must not call common." This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

    12. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but let's not discard all of the old testament since we couldn't hate gays then

    13. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and what about adults who've never been exposed to the teachings of Christ? how are they any different than children? it's clear that they have no opportunity to enter heaven. like you said though, maybe God gives babies a "baptism exemption". how stupid.

      i thought separation from God was "the punishment". why don't babies deserve that? who says they haven't sinned? only God knows that.

      why do people struggle with this? babies who don't get the chance are out of luck just like everyone else. that's why baptism as a hard requirement is silly.

    14. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck are you saying?

    15. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      the church doesn't admit it, it hopes for it.

    16. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by Lady+Jazzica · · Score: 1

      We don't discard the Old Testament, it's just that the ceremonial laws of the Jews and similar things don't apply to Christians. As for homosexuals, we don't hate them, any more than we hate murderers, thieves, liars, etc. What we hate is sin. We don't hate sinners, since all of us are sinners. Anyway, the New Testament does talk about homosexuality, for instance in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Romans 1:18-27, etc.

    17. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by Lady+Jazzica · · Score: 1
      and what about adults who've never been exposed to the teachings of Christ? how are they any different than children?

      The difference is that adults can make moral choices, and thus can sin. Infants don't have the intellectual capacity for that yet.

      it's clear that they have no opportunity to enter heaven.

      That's not necessarily so. Think about Acts 17:22-23, where Paul said that the Athenians were worshipping God without knowing it:

      Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you."
      Someone who never heard of Christ could theoretically receive a baptism of desire, even though he doesn't know what baptism is. After all, God does give everyone the grace to come to Him, so it's possible for someone to respond to that grace even if he has never heard of Jesus. However, since such people don't have access to the sacraments or to the teachings of the Church, it would be more difficult for them to avoid sin. And if they do commit a mortal sin, it would be very unlikely that they would repent enough to be forgiven. That's why God gave us the sacraments, to make it easier for us to ultimately go to heaven.

      i thought separation from God was "the punishment".

      Well, technically we can't be separated from God, since He is everywhere, and keeps us in existence through His presence. But those in hell have decided to turn away from God; perhaps one might say that they close their eyes to Him. Infants haven't.

      why don't babies deserve that? who says they haven't sinned? only God knows that.

      Babies can't sin, since they can't make moral decisions yet.

      why do people struggle with this? babies who don't get the chance are out of luck just like everyone else.

      Maybe, and maybe not. We don't know for sure.
    18. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >By your logic, we should kill baptized infants,
      >since they definitely are going to heaven if
      >they die. But that would be murder, so it's
      >wrong to do so, even if we had a good
      >intention.
      >Again, the end doesn't justify the means.

      Well, yes it's wrong, but I'd say the end does justify it.

      So what if I go to hell if I can save hundreds of souls. The only reason you don't is you are too much of a coward. If you really wanted to save souls, you'd sacrifice your own for the greater good.

    19. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      No, but you should be welcome in Texas.

    20. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      Life is like a friendly golf game, the baby takes a mulligan. It doesn't become competitive until the about the mid-way point.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    21. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by Lady+Jazzica · · Score: 1
      The end never justifies the means. You are never allowed to do evil, for whatever reason.

      From the Catechism:
      1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation.

      Also, have a look at the following passage from the Bible:

      Romans 3:8
      "That would be the same as saying: 'Do evil as a means to good.' Some slanderers have accused us of teaching this, but they are justly condemned."

      So both Paul and his accusers understood that the end does not justify the means.

    22. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1
      Whoever scored as a troll the post saying

      It's funny how the Church seems to know exactly what God is thinking when it comes to homosexuals and transgendered people and pre-marital sex and all that jazz, but when it turns the subject of babies they're suddenly too humble to speculate.

      is either clueless or humorless or all the above. If I had mod points I'd rectify the situation. On the other hand, maybe Slashdot DOES has readers in the Bible belt. Let me test this. Hey -- any of you all married your sister?

    23. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by TheDormouse · · Score: 1

      Hmmm.

      According to Jonathan Edwards, an 18th century theologian (not Catholic though), the road to Hell is paved with the skulls of unbaptized babies.

    24. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by lav-chan · · Score: 1

      The difference is that the Bible and the teachings of the Apostles (and natural law, in many cases) explicitly tell us that extramarital sex, homosexual acts, etc. are wrong

      The only 'explicit' mention of homosexuality is in Leviticus (that's the 'Law of Moses' that doesn't apply to you anymore, as you point out below), right after the part where it says adulterers should be put to death, and right before the part where it says a man and woman who sleep together during the woman's period ('sickness') should be cut off from their people.

      The only mentions of homosexuality in the New Testament (and there are very few) use crazy obscure words that never appear in the literature before-hand and don't really have clear meanings. And most of those references, even if you assume that they are 'explicit' condemnations of homosexuals, are accompanied by similar condemnations of the 'irreligious' and the 'drunkards', neither of which are barred from marriage or military service or spousal benefits or adoption (OK maybe drunkards are there) the way homosexuals are.

      Also, even if every single one of those passages is explicit and applicable to modern life, none of them, as the Church itself points out, condemns homosexuality, but rather the practice of homosexual intercourse. If the Church really hates the sin (intercourse) and not the sinner (the person), there is even less arguement for discrimination against homosexuals in marriage and adoption and all that jazz, because those things have little to do with intercourse.

    25. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by mmortal03 · · Score: 1

      Marriage actually has a lot to do with intercourse. And yes, I know that that doesn't mean that you can't have intercourse outside of marriage.

    26. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by lav-chan · · Score: 1

      Marriage actually has a lot to do with intercourse.

      Well, right, but that's kind of like saying race has a lot to do with gun violence. The relationship is circumstantial, neither one (intercourse or marriage) begets the other. The only sin (according to the Bible and the logical part of the Church's interpretation of it) is the intercourse -- not the feelings, not the relationship, not the marriage -- so there should be no opposition to the marriage itself.

    27. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, according to the Catholic Church, sexual intercourse is indeed very tied in with marriage. In the case of couples that can not have children (ie, infertility, etc.), I believe the Church urges them to refrain from sexual intercourse.

    28. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by Bookem+Danno · · Score: 1

      You spelled "Y'all" wrong.

    29. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's completely unambiguous.

    30. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by mmortal03 · · Score: 1

      Going along with what you are saying, are you arguing that homosexual marriage is therefore not a sin according to the Bible and the Catholic Church, as long as the two men or the two women do not have sex? This is incorrect.

      As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, what would be considered a marriage between two men or two women is a greatly disordered arrangement, one reason being because the anthropological ability and propensity towards the propagation of mankind is never present in that relationship. (Note that I did not say that the physical ability had to be there, e.g. women or men who cannot physically have children are not disallowed from being married)

      This makes the very relationship forbidden in the eyes of the Church, and, down the line from what I wrote of the above definition, lust, which we all know as a sin, would be the very categorization of any sexual feelings within this relationship, even if no physical act occurs, because the marriage itself would not be valid, and so there would be no context for proper sexual conduct even in ones thoughts.

      This is similar to the Churches rules regarding birth control: What God defined as inherently anthropological limitations to having children are deemed what would be considered "natural" (the time in a woman's rhythm where she is infertile can be applied, under certain circumstances, to postpone when a couple has children, i.e. Natural Family Planning). Any other form of birth control is not "natural" in light of how we were designed for procreation, but more importantly, when we use some artificial form of birth control, we are absolutely determining that we are the ones that get to choose, not God, when it comes to the creation of life, which is like saying, "Hey God, you don't have any say on THIS possibility for life, because WE are going to choose take away any significant chance for conception."

      But, getting back to the main issue, just as an FYI to let you know of my socio-political viewpoint, and not what my Church defines, I would personally like the US government to completely remove "marriage" from its jurisdiction, and only legally permit "civil unions" of which can be unisexual or male-female in their possible partner combinations. That would solve the gay marriage issue politically.

    31. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by lav-chan · · Score: 1

      Going along with what you are saying, are you arguing that homosexual marriage is therefore not a sin according to the Bible and the Catholic Church, as long as the two men or the two women do not have sex? This is incorrect.

      Not according to the Catholic Church, no. Their logic takes it that way initially but then they kind of change course.


      As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, what would be considered a marriage between two men or two women is a greatly disordered arrangement, one reason being because the anthropological ability and propensity towards the propagation of mankind is never present in that relationship.

      Well, this is false from the very beginning. The ability may not be there, but the propensity certainly is, as illustrated by the many homosexuals who become artificially inseminated or (try to) adopt. And even if that wasn't true, the logic still doesn't hold. As you said, opposite-sex couples who can't or don't want to have children are not barred from marriage. Why would it matter why they can't? They can't, that's the bottom line, you don't have to read into it.


      This makes the very relationship forbidden in the eyes of the Church, and, down the line from what I wrote of the above definition, lust, which we all know as a sin, would be the very categorization of any sexual feelings within this relationship, even if no physical act occurs, because the marriage itself would not be valid, and so there would be no context for proper sexual conduct even in ones thoughts.

      This is news to me. As far as i knew the Church's feelings on the matter were that you were OK as long as you controlled the urge (they realise that homosexuality itself may not controllable, a surprisingly humane position for them).


      I would personally like the US government to completely remove "marriage" from its jurisdiction, and only legally permit "civil unions" of which can be unisexual or male-female in their possible partner combinations. That would solve the gay marriage issue politically.

      This i agree with though. Too bad it'll probably never happen.
    32. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by mmortal03 · · Score: 1

      I think you are confusing homosexuality in general with homosexual marriage. The Church does not allow for homosexual marriage. I don't follow why you would assume that it would be okay by the Church to marry two men or two women. They don't allow for it, in and of itself.

      You mention "homosexuals who want to become artificially inseminated or (try to) adopt."

      Artificial insemination is not within the anthropological (and other adjectives) design of God, according to the Church. It does not have all the proper components to make it ordered. It doesn't matter if they want to have children. That is why I said "anthropological ability AND propensity", and not OR. There are often many AND statements in what the Church requires. Also, don't forget about heterosexual couples who want to artificially inseminate because one or the other is sterile. This is not allowed either. The church suggests adoption.

      Also, in the next part, you are lumping Opposite-sex couples who can't have children in with opposite-sex couples who don't want to have children. There is a difference there. Not wanting to have children is not favored by the Church, not that I guess you couldn't still choose to not have kids.

      "Why would it matter why they can't? They can't, that's the bottom line, you don't have to read into it."

      It isn't simply that they can't, it has to do with the anthropology of it. The Church holds that God created humans in a certain way for a reason, again, anthropologically speaking. THAT is the difference. It is along the lines of, "God didn't create humans to have homosexual relationships and/or marriage." It goes much deeper philosophically, and the Church is definitely more articulate on the issue than I am, but I am just trying to summarize it as best as I can to apply to the current discussion.

      "This is news to me. As far as i knew the Church's feelings on the matter were that you were OK as long as you controlled the urge (they realize that homosexuality itself may not controllable, a surprisingly humane position for them)."

      You are right that they DO realize that homosexuality itself may be difficult to control, and they also have TONS of support for those who are homosexual, and even more for those who have AIDS. Also, I am not saying that the persons themselves are wrong here at all. It is always the actions. Even heterosexual feelings, outside the context of what the Church defines as marriage, can be lust, too. The difference I was pointing out was that since a homosexual marriage within the Church is not possible, not allowed, and considered disordered, any sexual thoughts within that arrangement would be disordered as well. Homosexual marriage is an action that does not lead to what the Church considers an ordered relationship, i.e. how God created it to be.

    33. Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... by lav-chan · · Score: 1

      That is why I said "anthropological ability AND propensity", and not OR.

      That does make the difference, never mind i suppose.


      The rest i guess i can't really comment on, since ultimately i couldn't care less what the Church thinks anyway.

  10. Yale's Research Development Team by mojowantshappy · · Score: 1

    Oh, awesome! Yale researchers have discovered the new Pro-Life debate! Those guys are amazing.

    --

    This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!

  11. University press releases are scams by BilZ0r · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All this is evidence of is how efficient the marketing departments of large institutions like Yale and Oxford are. This paper is novel for one reason: it is in human embryos. Sure, they found a population of neurons earlier than, and different from, those in any other species, but the role of these neurons or even if they survive for long, is unknown. It is worth noting that these embryos were harvested from a Russian abortion clinic. Makes me wonder whether they shipped the whole embryo, the slices of the brain, or just the data over to Oxford. -BilZ0r www.ilikethings.net

    1. Re:University press releases are scams by drunken_boxer777 · · Score: 1
      Since you know where the embryos came from, then you too looked at the article. It is in Nature Neuroscience, not some shabby journal, but a fairly well-respected one in the field. Sure, finding this cell population in humans adds to the novelty, but finding a totally new neuronal population is novel in and of its own.

      Also, you should have noted that 3 of the 4 authors are affiliated with the Russian Institute. All of the research was probably done there, with only photographs ever leaving the country. (Given the process used to analyze the tissue, it would be pointless to fly/ship the slides to England or the U.S., and I can't imagine the nightmare of trying to ship a human embryo.)

      Of course, that again points to the marketing departments of Yale and Oxford. But that does not diminish the value of the science.

    2. Re:University press releases are scams by incom · · Score: 1

      But it also shows large prospects for brain genetics. To know the pattern of gene expression at this stage could point to specific genes that cause some of the structural variation in human brains. IOW, identifying genes that contribute to disease or high intelligence, both interesting and potentially useful.

      --
      True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
    3. Re:University press releases are scams by BilZ0r · · Score: 1

      Sure, Nature Neuroscience is the best neuroscience journal available, but that does not mean all its editorial descissions are sound. Just my opinion, but I don't really see the big deal. Only 1 of the authors is affiliated with a Russian Institute, so says nature: Irina Bystron1, 2, Pasko Rakic3, Zoltán Molnár1 & Colin Blakemore1 1 Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford, Oxfordshire OX13PT, UK. 2 Department of Morphology, Institute of Experimental Medicine, St. Petersburg, Russia. 3 Department of Neurobiology and Kavli Institute of Neuroscience, Yale University Medical School, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8001, USA. Why would they ship emreyoes or slices thereof around the world? Because the Russian lab might not have access to the antibodies and flourescent techneques needs. Also, having the name Rakic on your paper helps things get published in big outlets.

    4. Re:University press releases are scams by drunken_boxer777 · · Score: 1
      Well, I clearly misread the superscript; I must've confused '1' and '2'. Yes, attaching the name 'Rakic' will get your paper published in a better journal. And I did (needlessly) assume the embryos were kept in Russia because I imagine it would be a nightmare to ship them. Perhaps not. (Incidentally, the last reference cited is the UK regulations for using human fetal tissue. Whether the Oxford scientists work under the stipulation that any foreign colleagues obey those regulations as well is anyone's guess, but they could've been shipped to the UK.)

      Is the paper hyped in the media? Probably. However, we can't say right now. We won't really know until more is learned about this population of cells. It just so happens that this discovery can be easily related to the public, and a pseudoscience newspaper article written up. I personally would rather see more cutting edge science fed to the public than kept away from them. Unfortunately, most of that science will go over the heads of the untrained, which is almost everyone. Therefore the only thing to do is give them the easy to digest stuff. Just my two cents.

    5. Re:University press releases are scams by BilZ0r · · Score: 1

      Fair enough comments. Maybe it's because I'm an electrophysiologist; but this kind of stuff doesn't seem that big to me. It probably got feed to the media so easily because it's not that complicated (at least on the surface, i.e. "brains first neurons discovered"). It's just in that same issue there were some things that seemed far more interested and novel to me, the paper on attention, and I would have thought the obesity obsessed media would have eaten up the paper on the role of hypothalamic Foxo1 and energy regulation.

  12. Clarification by eonlabs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm only speaking for myself and anyone who decides to agree with me after I've made this statement.

    I'm pro-choice.
    Life begins before conception.
    It is continued through conception, and lasts onward through birth.

    Before about the sixth month, a human baby will not be able to
    develop a fully functional brain if removed from the uterus.
    Up until that point, I feel that if a woman doesn't feel they can
    raise a child properly, they should have the right to stop their
    pregnancy in a method safe for themselves. It's better than the
    alternatives for them. I think it's also important to allow doctors
    who could use the same techniques to save lives if it is deemed a
    birth would kill a woman.

    I think that it's a hard decision to decide to stop a pregnancy,
    and I think it should be, which is why I'm not trying to sway any
    'pro-lifers' off their fence. They can have it. I think it's sick
    what the extremist pro-lifers do, but you don't see pro-choicers
    running around aborting every fetus they can find, no matter how
    extreme they are, so pardon me while I hold the argument that you
    need to get the people on the far side of the fence into some level
    of control. Those people are seriously sick and need attention for
    it.

    I find the results of this cool. It's exciting research. Keep the
    pro-X bullshit out of it. I will love it when one day I've got a kid
    on the way and I can plot out what part of it is growing when. There's
    a lot of value in that.

    --
    I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    1. Re:Clarification by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

      The fanatical pro-lifers that you're trolling for here aren't going to respond.

      Why? Simply put, because fanatical pro-lifer types aren't very technically inclined. I am sure that most of them think of the Internet as a series of tubes and is probably easily offended by daily "Internets" to their inboxes advertising viagra.

      Seriously though, I've spoken with many pro-lifers. My experience suggests that pro-lifers generally have a low IQ (sub 100). They are fanatical about their beliefs and their opinions.

      As an after thought, Scientologists should target this group. Win/win.

    2. Re:Clarification by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Actually, the fanatical pro-lifers have been very good about using the Internet to organize and target folks.

      Type "pro-life website" for a Google search once, there are tons of websites out there. Also search for "pro-life website target" and you will find many references to sites being used to organize and target organizations and individuals by the Pro-Life movement.

  13. Re:thought this was mapped already?, YES! by pureevilmatt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This worm is quite interesting, in that it has evolved to use OTHER animals nervous systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nematomorpha

  14. Re:wehufihue by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    I'm too afraid to click.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  15. Re:wehufihue by pembo13 · · Score: 1

    Well I was extremely curious myself. PLus I am in Fedora, not XP...anyways, it's all asian. Looks like spam sites to me, just fodder for blacklisting.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  16. Finally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Slashdot: 'Predecessor' Neurons to Human Brain Discovered

    Me: Whee! Does this mean I can finally get laid?

  17. Testicles have tubes too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That human brains == tube theory explains a lot about why males sometime think with their testicles - they are also made of tubes!!

  18. Its only a matter of time... by NexFlamma · · Score: 1

    Fantastic!

    Now it's only a matter of time before I can create my invincible army of mind-controlled fetal cyborg soldiers!

  19. Translation.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. need more grants... Give us money...

  20. Does God clean the shrimp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has cleansed, you must not call common."


    I see, so in this recipe, in the part that says "Peel and devein shrimp (or have your seafood guy do it for you)", the seafood guy is God? How should I prepare that dish, will a simple prayer get the shrimp peeled and deveined by miracle? I believe not, because Jesus specifically mentioned in Matthew:


    6:8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father
        knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
    6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art
        in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
    etc...


    Conclusion: if the Bible is right, then the shrimp will automatically become peeled and deveined.


    Alternative explanation: if God exists, then He doesn't speak through either the Bible or any other text which is claimed to be inspired by Him. Priests and religious leaders are just a bunch of greedy old bastards who like giving orders and the power that the faith gives them.

  21. But shouldn't bishops be married? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The difference is that the Bible and the teachings of the Apostles (and natural law, in many cases) explicitly tell us that extramarital sex, homosexual acts, etc. are wrong;


    You seem to imply that the church of Rome follows the teachings of the Bible. Then how do you explain what's said in I Timothy 3? A bishop should be married, because, it's explained there, if he has no experience in handling a family he isn't able to handle a church. It's a logical explanation, very clear and concise. Yet the "bishop" of Rome has always been an unmarried man, with the possible exceptions of Rodrigo Borgia a.k.a. "Alexander VI" and maybe a woman who may have been pope between Benedict III and Nicholas I.


    Paul of Tarsus himself urged people to marry, because otherwise they could fall in temptation. The church of Rome insists on not following Paul's teachings. A consequence of that is that the church is a haven for pederasts, as proved by several cases judged in courts of justice.


    For a church that has existed for so many centuries, a church that insists so much on performing a logical analysis of matters relating to faith, to have such glaring inconsistencies is fatal. If you insist on a logical analysis then you must accept the results of that analysis. The church cannot pick what analytical results please them and reject the others. If they insist that artificial contraceptive methods are sinful, they cannot have artificial death prevention methods either. If it's God's will that called a man to heaven, is it right to try to prolong his life in this earth through medicine or surgery?


    The teachings of the church of Rome, in the end, have nothing to do with morals, it's their own pocket they are trying to defend. Many catholics are either abandoning religion altogether or converting to other faiths, pentecostal, for instance. In order to have a steady source of new catholics they need people being born and baptized by their parents. From the point of view of the church of Rome it's better to have people contracting AIDS, as long as they have children that will go to the church and give alms, than to let them use condoms.

    1. Re:But shouldn't bishops be married? by Lady+Jazzica · · Score: 1

      You seem to imply that the church of Rome follows the teachings of the Bible. Then how do you explain what's said in I Timothy 3? A bishop should be married

      What Paul is saying is that a bishop shouldn't be a married to more than one woman (i.e. divorced and remarried). Paul says that a bishop should be "beyond reproach", and includes being married to one woman in a list of non-reproachful characteristics. If a bishop were married to more than one woman, then he wouldn't be "beyond reproach". Paul isn't saying that a bishop has to be married, because otherwise that would mean that it's reproachful to be single, which is clearly not the case. Besides, Paul himself was unmarried, so by your logic, he shouldn't have had authority in the Church.

      1 Tim 3:2-3
      Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money.

      if he has no experience in handling a family he isn't able to handle a church.

      No, Paul says that if he can't handle his own family, then he wouldn't be able to handle a church.

      1 Tim 3:4-5
      He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God's church?

      Yet the "bishop" of Rome has always been an unmarried man

      No, some of the first bishops, including the first Pope (Peter) were married.

      Paul of Tarsus himself urged people to marry, because otherwise they could fall in temptation.

      He says that if you can't control yourself, then you should get married. But he also says that if you want to serve God, it's better to remain celibate like Paul.

      1 Corinthians 7:7-9
      For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

      1 Corinthians 7:32-33
      But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

      Jesus also recommends celibacy:

      Matthew 19:12
      For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

      The church of Rome insists on not following Paul's teachings. A consequence of that is that the church is a haven for pederasts, as proved by several cases judged in courts of justice.

      Since pederasts tend to be homosexuals, I don't think getting married would help them to avoid that particular sin. The problem is not with celibacy (there have been similar cases among Protestants, for instance), but rather with the tendency starting in the 1960s to allow unsuitable men to become priests. But things have been improving ever since John Paul II became Pope.

      If they insist that artificial contraceptive methods are sinful, they cannot have artificial death prevention methods either.

      One obvious difference is that the first prevents a good thing, and the other prevents a bad thing.

      Anyway, contraceptives are used to explicitly reject the whole reason for having sex in the first place. Sex is for two things: producing children, and uniting the husband and wife. The use of contraceptives implies both a rejection of the children that sex would produce, and also a rejection of one's spouse. One is supposed to give oneself fully to one's spouse, but contraceptives imply that you're holding back the reproductive aspect of yourself, and rejectin

    2. Re:But shouldn't bishops be married? by lav-chan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since pederasts tend to be homosexuals

      FYI this is false. Heterosexual men are vastly more likely to abuse children (including boys) than homosexual men.

  22. Well, then, obviously, the trick is.... by GnomeChompsky · · Score: 1

    to give birth, baptise the kid, and then strangle them before they get the chance to reject God. Salvation 100% guaranteed.

    (Honestly though, I love children. It's just that I could never eat a whole one...)

    1. Re:Well, then, obviously, the trick is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sell them for scientific experiments.

  23. Well Posedness by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

    The fundamental question is when does life begin.

    That question isn't well posed. Eggs are alive. Sperm are alive. Zygotes and embryos and fetuses and infants are all alive. A better question needs to be asked.

    The disagreement is when does "your body" become "their body"

    I view it as a disagreement over whether the state can force you to give birth or not. The only reason this has become such an issue in recent human history is because, for the first time, the state has taken an active interest in abortion. Something it never really cared about before. I happen to see the logical conclusion of the pro-life movement as women of childbearing age having to register and undergo regular gynecological checkups to see if abortions have taken place. The logic of their position demands it.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  24. Predecessor cells? by drunken_boxer777 · · Score: 1
    A generic name for such a potentially interesting cell population. What is cool about these neurons is that their equivalent has never been seen in any model organisms (animals that research scientists study as 'models' of human development - rats, mice, fruit flies, nematodes, chick embryos, etc). The authors hint that they may not even exist in model organisms.

    Of course, that will make studying them all the more difficult if they are a uniquely human cell population, as currently there have been no public attempts to surgically or genetically modify human embryos in the name of science.

    I also found it interesting that 3 of the 4 authors are affiliated with the Institute of Experimental Medicine in Russia, yet TFA mentions 'Yale' and 'Oxford' only.

  25. While we are on the topic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are going to argue that "only things which would be viable life forms outside of the womb should be protected," I have to retort that any senator that argues in this manor should be placed in the middle of nowhere without any tools (weapons, handtools, etc.) and see how "viable" his/her life form is. I doubt that this person would survive very long on his or her own.

  26. Boot loader? by RockyMountain · · Score: 1

    "We hypothesize that these predecessor neurons may be a transient population involved in determining the number of functional radial units including the human specific regions of the cerebral cortex mediating higher cognitive functions..."
    Is that a fancy way of saying the neurons are a boot loader?

  27. In Error by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    I've seen the exact same arguments applied to banning the eating of pork. The parent post's position would be similar for that but not get mod up.

    Its hair splitting based on beliefs. The way the republic is supposed to work is that disputed beliefs are not imposed on others.

    Both sides of the argument are NOT the same. One actually IMPOSES on you legal definitions which as a result takes away freedoms; the other does not, because you can't impose freedom by definition.

    If you can't eat pork because its sacrilege, don't eat it then.

  28. Fry Me Up A Skillet O' Embryos... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    for a yummy breakfast!

    Love my job disposin' o' embryos. (sounds like a song in the embryonic stage)

  29. Guilt by tepples · · Score: 1
    many so-called pro-lifers enthusiastically support capital punishment.

    That's because a felon on death row is guilty of sin ("thou shalt not commit murder"), while the unborn baby girl inside her mother is not.

    1. Re:Guilt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what about original sin?

    2. Re:Guilt by tepples · · Score: 1

      (Context: Ethical issues about embryonic study, including ethical issues about the abortion of pregnancy, leading to guilt to distinguish abortion from capital punishment)

      I don't believe in original sin, just original propensity to sin. Where does the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Qur'an, or even the Book of Mormon state that Seth inherited the guilt of Adam and Eve?

    3. Re:Guilt by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Romans 3:10 - As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one"
      Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

      No exceptions, not even for a newborn babe. All. Not even one. Pretty clear on this subject.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
  30. Premature birth is evidence by tepples · · Score: 1
    is it better to allow killing of innocent unborns and be wrong?
    I like to file the latter under "can't kill what isn't alive".

    So until what week would you claim that a fetus (Latin for "unborn child") "isn't alive"? To set an outer limit, starting at about week 26, the baby is obviously alive because it can be born and nursed to health in a neonatal ICU.

    1. Re:Premature birth is evidence by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Local laws say 14 IIRC (weeks to "rien ne va plus" and years to age of consent ;) ). I'd have to reference a table what happens when to form any oppinion on the exact date (but really, I don't feel like forming any oppinions on that) but generally the first month shouldn't be an issue.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  31. quantum hand waving by dfedfe · · Score: 1

    While I haven't thoroughly read the quantum brain proposals, everything I have read makes me think it's all pretty silly stuff. Proponents of the ideas seem to think that since there's no clear way that neurons can produce consciousness, that it must be a quantum effect, without ever showing how that actually helps at all (as far as I have seen).

    In my mind, the analogy is roughly:
    string theory:physics::quantum consciousness:neuroscience

    But really, that's giving quantum consciousness theories too much credit. That may just be personal bias, given that my own research is at a neural network level so I just have a tendency to assume that a lot of things can be explained at that level, many of which are yet to come, I expect. But I suppose they ought to carry on with their quantum consciousness research, just in case it does end up being true (or at the very least it might end up making a prediction that someone can test).

  32. No child is unwanted by tepples · · Score: 1
    But giving birth to an unwanted child is a far, far greater evil.

    No child is unwanted. There are thousands of couples who are waiting to adopt your baby; what they lack in fertility they have in loving kindness.

    1. Re:No child is unwanted by Johnboi+Waltune · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if the baby is Caucasian and healthy, and the mother wasn't on drugs or alcohol, there wasn't any abuse in foster homes... etc, then there's a chance of adoption. People will rarely adpot a child that's a different race or has any kind of developmental problems. Many potential adopters want to know the genetic history of the mother... was she tall, attractive, did she get good grades in school, etc, and will reject the baby based on that.

      So if you were born to a black crack whore, your chances of getting adopted are just about zero.

      --
      "The advanced societies of the future will be driven by competing systems of psychopathology." -JG Ballard
  33. Beef contaminated with pork by tepples · · Score: 1
    If you can't eat pork because its sacrilege, don't eat it then.

    What if almost every widely available brand of beef is contaminated with pork byproducts due to being hung on the same meat hooks? I'm just glad that there's one brand that still "answer[s] to a higher authority".

  34. Fascinating by dacarr · · Score: 1

    They've apparently discovered one of the processes stemming from the ultimate make. I mean, here's God doing 'make -j$infinity' on a human genome source tree, and 31 days into the actual build, this happens. Interesting. I think.

    --
    This sig no verb.
  35. Re:thought this was mapped already?, YES! by hawfizzle · · Score: 1

    "In Spinochordodes tellinii, which has grasshoppers as its vector, the infection acts on the grasshopper's brain and causes it to seek water and drown itself, thus returning the nematomorph to water." Hah! Thats' what the end of "400 Blows" means! ^^

  36. It's Amusing by hawfizzle · · Score: 1

    60% of this thread is occupied by the Abortion debate.

  37. Great answer! by mlewan · · Score: 1

    Thanks for that answer! It was exactly what my brain was looking for.

    1. Re:Great answer! by s13g3 · · Score: 1

      Thank you ^.^ I do try my best. Now if I could just get a moderator to take note =)

      --
      "Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
  38. What about the Taoists, Buddhists & Hindus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many Buddhists and Taoists believe that unguided children and babies go to a place like hell. Here they are tormented so the parents prey to various gods (depending upon what religious sect they are from) to protect their unborn or very young children. And some folks just want to rake the Catholics over the coals. Catholics, Christians, share a belief much like many others, care and concern just like many others. Don't even get me started on Hindus and gays, today in some parts of India and neighboring countries homosexual activity is capital crime. But there is no heaven for them they just get reborn as something else, maybe a heterosexual? But when it comes down to it it's all very interesting, fun, not much to get heated over after all it's all faith and theories. Just as long as they aren't seriously screwing with everyone else, murder and the like.

  39. Did ya know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Human brains can know the effect without the meaning,
    be not finished they have to laugh, know u cause u and sense is your ass KILLED!

  40. Misleading Article Title by God+of+Lemmings · · Score: 1

    Hrm.. Article seems to have a very misleading title. The neuron depicted in the
    image certainly has nothing to do with thinking; It clearly has very little if any
    dendrites, although it does have a clearly definable axon, and thus this is a unipolar
    neuron, already known to exist in embryonic tissue!

    Neuron types

    It doesn't article seem to be very groundbreaking work, however it does seem to jive well
    with the function of the Cajal-Retzius cells found in Layer 1 of the cerebral cortex. It is
    probable that these cells mature into Cajal-Retzius cells, or perform a similar function
    earlier in development.

    --
    Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
  41. Sex cannot have side effects? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The use of contraceptives implies both a rejection of the children that sex would produce, and also a rejection of one's spouse.


    Then why does the church allow the use of abstinence as a contraceptive method? Isn't abstinence from sex a rejection of one's spouse? And isn't celibacy a rejection of children as well? If priests married they would have children that aren't born under celibacy.


    And if pleasure is an unacceptable side effect of sex, how come catholics use flowers in decorating their churches? Flowers are visually appealing for one reason only, to attract insects to perform the sexual act, since plants cannot move to meet their partners. The visual pleasure that flowers give to humans is as much a side effect of sex as orgasm. Oh, never mind that, I suppose you believe that Nature is ours to destroy, right? If you have no respect for Nature and want to destroy it through runaway overpopulation, what do a few flowers matter?

  42. Re:thought this was mapped already?, YES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nearly 1/3 of the cells of C. elegans worms are neurons,

    Yes, this can tell us a lot about the brain of the stomach, not so much about the brain of the head.

  43. The intergalactic expressway is coming!! by smchris · · Score: 2, Funny

    Unfortunately, fetal experimentation will be against the law so when they test it on mice, mice _will_ be the most intelligent species on earth.

  44. an adult fly .. by Blu-Ray · · Score: 1

    an adult fly is said to have about 100.000 neurons, so If you want to identify human life by the initial development of a handfull of neurons ..

  45. Narrow minded people? by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    Because those people did not ever try or know the real effects of weed; it's a never-ending-battle. For one it's good and for the other it's bad. I'd rather want weed to be legal instead of alcohol; I know what alcohol does (have seen enough of it in my family) and I sure also know it breaks more than smoking a joint or bong ...

    It's the ignorance (yet again) and the thougth "its the best thing to do for everyone" although such thinking leads to both more use in cigarettes and alcohol because it IS legal: it must be better than drugs .. right? heh

    I wish I could be more responsible of myself instead of being born with hunderds of rules to protect "myself" against harm; while the real harm (alcohol etc..) is still out there ... I don't like such superficial bullshittery...

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  46. Mod me up! by mlewan · · Score: 1
    "Now if I could just get a moderator to take note."

    I agree. They seem to be lazy today. Could be the heat, I guess. But aren't there some moderators Iceland? They could mod you up.

  47. Original sin by tepples · · Score: 1

    (Context: experimentation on embryos -> abortion -> abortion vs. capital punishment -> innocence vs. guilt -> original sin)

    No exceptions, not even for a newborn babe. All. Not even one. Pretty clear on this subject.

    Christian teachers are divided in their interpretation of this scripture, as to whether or not God the Most Merciful extends forgiveness to those who have not had a chance to understand sin. Consider this scripture:

    "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." And after laying His hands on them, He departed. (Matthew 19:13-15)

    You may find a further analysis interesting.