Slashdot Mirror
Prescription Handguns For the Elderly and Disabled
Repton writes "Thanks to the Second Amendment, even the elderly have the right to keep and bear arms. The problem is that many of the guns out there are a bit unwieldy for an older person to handle. However, the inventors of the Palm Pistol are planning to change all that with a weapon that is ideal for both the elderly and the physically disabled. In a statement submitted to Medgadget, the manufacturer, Constitution Arms, has revealed the following: 'We thought you might be interested to learn that the FDA has completed its "Device/Not a Device" determination and concluded the handgun will be listed as a Class I Medical Device.' Physicians will be able to prescribe the Palm Pistol for qualified patients who may seek reimbursement through Medicare or private health insurance companies."
The interesting thing with the "self-defence" debate in the US is that the same rights/means which alledgedly give possibility to "self-defend" oneself are THE SAME rights/means given to the potential aggressors to "attack."
To me seems like a lose/lose situation.
Atheism is a non-prophet organisation
Yes, thie is arbitrary. it's just as arbitrary as 'life begins at conception.
On the other hand, the conservative dissonance that you shouldn't kill a kid inside the womb because murder is so, so wrong, but it's OK to kill the kid outside the womb because, uhm, whatever.
This dissonance is the same for pro-choicers who believe that life begins at conception, a fetus is a life worth killing, but then condemn killing people outside the womb -- however those are rare because most pro-lifers don't believe that life begins at conception.
The real problem with the abortion debate is that the debate over when life begins (conception, birth or somewhere in between) is as much a religious issue as anything else. Most pro-lifers consider it to start at conception while most pro-choicers consider it to begin at birth (or somewhere in between). Once you choose when you think life begins, the rest of the debate is generally a given.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
That is not arbitrary in the slightest - it is in fact the best possible definition of when featus becomes a separate entity with rights.
When it actually, medically, becomes capable of existing as a separate entity!
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
it's "retarded", retard
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
A human fetus at age 5 months (i.e. born 4 months premature) can not be legally killed if it is outside the mother. It is considered murder.
Likewise the moment when a human fetus can be transferred into an "incubator" at age 0, then killing a human fetus will be considered murder. Or at the very least, it will create a great schism of public opinion, as happened in the U.S. circa 1850 regarding the status of african-americans.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Why should Medicaid buy a gun? No idea. I don't really care, because I think there are more important issues (like the 1500,000,000,000 given to wealthy corporations as bailouts). A few dollars spent on a gun doesn't interest me.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
I think the GP said it best to clear it up (at least for me)...when the fetus is able to thrive without the mother having to live too.
To me, that at least narrows it down quite a bit. Sure there will be outlier cases...but, in general, I can live with that definition.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I don't run around trying to convince anyone of anything, because I like to think I have better things to do than mistake my perception for some sort of "correct" one.
But have no doubt, I really am pro-abortion in the same sense that I am pro-science and pro-education. It is (and please don't mistake this for an argument) my position that everyone who can have one should have at least one. How could I possibly think this? Am I deranged?
Maybe. But here's my reasoning:
Given #1: whether or not life begins in the uterus of a woman is irrelevant, since it depends directly on the definition of "life", which is itself strongly prone to interpretation.
Given #2: irony is a strong motivator
So, if every woman who is physically capable of having an abortion has at least one, then the ivory-tower arguments offered by the pro-orphan people are disarmed, which will make it ultimately much easier for women to get abortions in general.
If every woman can get a cheap and easy abortion without all of that messy "ethical" business, certain memetic structures become easier to introduce across cultures, such as "abortion is cool!". Once the memetic structures guaranteeing avalanches of abortions all over the world are in place, we may finally be able to dilute our species' population trends enough to reverse some (but not all) of the horrific things we've done to our environment and food supplies.
What I'm saying, in so many words, is that if you're pro-orphan (and therefore anti abortion), you don't care about feeding the hungry and eliminating pollution. Don't believe me if you don't want to; Thomas Paine said it much more articulately in a number of his pamphlets.