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."
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"
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.
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.
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
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
-BilZ0r www.ilikethings.net
This worm is quite interesting, in that it has evolved to use OTHER animals nervous systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nematomorpha
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.
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...
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.
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.