If you're not allowed to exist, you can't bring other beings into existence, either.
There you go again, taking an extreme intepretation of what I said, and making conclusions that don't even follow from that interpretation. Nothing about life not being a right implies that you're not allowed (by whom?) to be alive. Driving isn't a right either, and yet we are still allowed to drive. See how that works?
Easy. It is possible to guarantee reproductive freedom. It is not possible to guarantee life. Since rights are guarantees, it is at least possible for reproductive freedom to be a right, but not even cromulent to think of life as a right.
The idea that life is not a right should not be controversial in the slightest. Our lives exist only because we take the lives of other beings. Even vegetarians can't escape this.
I should have known it was fruitless to try to discuss the issue and positions in this debate.
Have you actually tried to do so? All I saw was handwaving and assertions that "it's complicated".
Or I'll do it for you, since you don't think anyone should be allowed to stop me.
When exactly did I say that? I mean, even if you take the most extreme interpretation of what I said (that is, rights are nonexistant, which isn't what I meant) it would follow that you wouldn't have the right to kill either. And you wouldn't have the right to be free from other people preventing you from killing.
I think it would be useful for you to actually try to explain to me in detail where this "right to exist" derives.
I can't, which is my point. It's really complicated, and both sides have valid positions, even if there are a lot of really radically uncompromising ones from both camps.
You can't come up with any evidence to support your side, and you still assert that both sides have valid positions?
Do we have a right to exist?
No, of course not. We have to struggle every day to continue existing. If our laws against killing were based on a right to exist, then there war would be illegal.
About the only empirical evidence of that is that we are here, so we have a right to be here.
By that logic vegetables have a right to exist. Are you saying that eating salad is equivalent to abortion? You know, I'd agree with that actually.
No, it makes it less striking. Chimeras occur naturally when fraternal twin zygotes fuse at an early stage. The interesting result here isn't the production of the chimeras. There's no technical reason that we would want to create chimeras. The chimera is just proof that the stem cells they used were totipotent.
I didn't advocate any such thing. The only issue that should be considered by a just government is when to intervene on behalf of citizens threatened with violence and death at the hand of another.
Then why did you bring up the effects of abortion on people's families when we were talking about appropriate limits of government power?
A one-day-old is considered a person and his right to life is recognized. But to put that line at birth means there's no protection for a child the day before or even during labor, if the mother decides she wants to kill it.
I agree, the line at birth is arbitrary. But if you want to improve on it, you're going to have to come up with some non-arbitrary measure. How would you demonstrate empirically that a right to life exists, let alone that it is possessed by a fetus?
To dismiss the physical, emotional and other issues women go through is pretty narrow-minded.
I'm not dismissing them, I just don't know how it's relevant to the discussion. Any physical, emotional, or other issues a woman goes through during and after the abortion are her issues to deal with. Not the state government, not the federal government.
Not irrelevant - abortion affects lots of people. It affects everyone that loves the woman
Every decision I make affects the people that love me. By your criteria, that means I essentially have no rights at all. The state can compel me to do anything it wants in the interests of those who care about me. This is an extremely troubling position for you to take.
If you want true liberty, you must be willing to take responsibility, and accept the consequences of your actions.
I agree. And getting an abortion is one of the least costly ways to do so.
But it was inferior due to a slow serial interface, making loading programs from disk take far longer than any competing computer. To this day, I play more games on my Apple II because they boot right up. My C128(in C64 mode) takes several minutes to launch a game, or I can use a fast loader and a mystical incantation to load it faster, but still slower than the Apple II.
You're including BOTH reproductive systems involved, then, right?
Sure. As long as your reproductive system is required for a pregnancy, you have the right to withdraw your consent. Once your reproductive system isn't required, it's too late. This works for both males and females.
Although, I'd argue that there is good reason to give males the same ability to opt out of a pregnancy that females have. But that's a discussion for more enlightened times.
Abortion is traumatic for the women involved, and few understand just how traumatic it is before they actually go through it.
Abortion is traumatic for some women, largely because of guilt complexes they wouldn't have if people would mind their own business.
Just as if you own land you can't just go dumping any old toxic chemical into the streams running through it because it will poison your neighbor's land, you're expected to avoid creating babies with fetal alcohol syndrome that can't control their own violent outbursts.
I agree, but given that abortions don't affect anyone but yourself, it's irrelevant to the issue.
20% and 15% are huge margins. You're talking about 5 times the margins they pull in practice. If this is a problem for them, it's not because of their customers. It's because their organization is incredibly inefficient and deserves to fail in the market.
Do you really think price caps are going to be what keeps a private insurance company from competing with a non-profit? If a private insurance company charges the maximum allowed by law and can't compete with a non-profit, are they going to be able to steal customers from the non-profit by raising prices?
The only unconstitutional part of Roe v. Wade was that it didn't base the constitutional right to privacy on the 9th amendment. It's still a correct decision, but possibly for the wrong reasons.
The federal government should be completely out of making decisions about abortion completely. For the same reasons, the state governments should be completely out of making decisions about abortion completely.
Anyone who would assert that reproductive rights should be governed by anyone but the owner of the reproductive system isn't interested in liberty in any way shape or form.
. In a software industry there is always room for a certain number of players. The problem with open source is that it cuts down the number of competitors to winner takes all. So in the database arena we have a couple of big players, and the open source players. There are no more smaller binary only software vendors.
This is not a problem with open source software. This is progress towards the explicit goal of open source software. Eventually, there will be no binary only software vendors at all.
It's not surprising that he's getting a larger amount of money from corporations this time, considering how successful the GOP has been at stymieing attempts at fixing really anything. That and his willingness to put private insurers out of business and his audacity to actually appoint somebody to run the new consumer protection agency.
He's getting huge donations from corporations this time because they know he won't do anything to temper their rapacious greed. Obama didn't put private insurers out of business, he delivered them millions of mandatory customers, the young, healthy, valuable ones. His creation of the consumer protection agency is equally misleading. The CPA's budget is half that of the SEC, which already doesn't have the budget to investigate the investment banks it regulates. The CPA's scope is even bigger.
Anything Obama has done to appeal to the people over corporations is a facade that crumbles on the slightest inspection. He is a big government, big corporation, crony capitalist just like all the rest.
Mitt Romney represents corporations and business interests.
Barack Obama represents the 'Washington consensus' on most issues
The "Washington consensus" is that the interests of corporations and business interests trump everything else. Romney might as well be Obama (and for that matter Obama might as well be Reagan). As a result, this will be one of the least democratic elections in decades, at least in terms of a real choice being given to the American people.
Because of the lack of actual differences between the candidates, we can expect the minor insignificant differences to be exaggerated with extreme vitriol. This will be one of the nastiest elections in memory.
In the real world, people irrationality leads to them being more reckless than an idealized agent. If they are already disobeying copyright law, what makes you think they'd obey a shorter termed copyright law? Especially when most pirated material is less than 20 years old?
Also, the law doesn't always act as a reminder of how one is "supposed" to behave. For most of us it is just a reminder of how the rich and powerful think we should behave. Not for our own benefit, but for theirs. This is especially evident when the law is in such conflict when the natural order of things. Passing such unenforceable laws damages respect for the law among the people and leads to a less civil society.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're not allowed to exist, you can't bring other beings into existence, either.
There you go again, taking an extreme intepretation of what I said, and making conclusions that don't even follow from that interpretation. Nothing about life not being a right implies that you're not allowed (by whom?) to be alive. Driving isn't a right either, and yet we are still allowed to drive. See how that works?
Easy. It is possible to guarantee reproductive freedom. It is not possible to guarantee life. Since rights are guarantees, it is at least possible for reproductive freedom to be a right, but not even cromulent to think of life as a right.
The idea that life is not a right should not be controversial in the slightest. Our lives exist only because we take the lives of other beings. Even vegetarians can't escape this.
I should have known it was fruitless to try to discuss the issue and positions in this debate.
Have you actually tried to do so? All I saw was handwaving and assertions that "it's complicated".
Or I'll do it for you, since you don't think anyone should be allowed to stop me.
When exactly did I say that? I mean, even if you take the most extreme interpretation of what I said (that is, rights are nonexistant, which isn't what I meant) it would follow that you wouldn't have the right to kill either. And you wouldn't have the right to be free from other people preventing you from killing.
I think it would be useful for you to actually try to explain to me in detail where this "right to exist" derives.
Yes, but that's already been done. Injecting transgenes into blastocysts where transfection efficiency is less than 100% is a pretty different procedure than mixing together two or more blastocysts from unique individuals.
Oh yes it is, but it's not a new result by any means.
I can't, which is my point. It's really complicated, and both sides have valid positions, even if there are a lot of really radically uncompromising ones from both camps.
You can't come up with any evidence to support your side, and you still assert that both sides have valid positions?
Do we have a right to exist?
No, of course not. We have to struggle every day to continue existing. If our laws against killing were based on a right to exist, then there war would be illegal.
About the only empirical evidence of that is that we are here, so we have a right to be here.
By that logic vegetables have a right to exist. Are you saying that eating salad is equivalent to abortion? You know, I'd agree with that actually.
No, it makes it less striking. Chimeras occur naturally when fraternal twin zygotes fuse at an early stage. The interesting result here isn't the production of the chimeras. There's no technical reason that we would want to create chimeras. The chimera is just proof that the stem cells they used were totipotent.
I didn't advocate any such thing. The only issue that should be considered by a just government is when to intervene on behalf of citizens threatened with violence and death at the hand of another.
Then why did you bring up the effects of abortion on people's families when we were talking about appropriate limits of government power?
A one-day-old is considered a person and his right to life is recognized. But to put that line at birth means there's no protection for a child the day before or even during labor, if the mother decides she wants to kill it.
I agree, the line at birth is arbitrary. But if you want to improve on it, you're going to have to come up with some non-arbitrary measure. How would you demonstrate empirically that a right to life exists, let alone that it is possessed by a fetus?
that requires decryption, and could be considered hacking
Decryption is math, which is a fundamental right.
and requires personal info to be stored which involves data protection
Data protection laws violate free speech, which is another fundamental right.
True, but after the fact it's a lot less costly than raising a kid for 18 years.
To dismiss the physical, emotional and other issues women go through is pretty narrow-minded.
I'm not dismissing them, I just don't know how it's relevant to the discussion. Any physical, emotional, or other issues a woman goes through during and after the abortion are her issues to deal with. Not the state government, not the federal government.
Not irrelevant - abortion affects lots of people. It affects everyone that loves the woman
Every decision I make affects the people that love me. By your criteria, that means I essentially have no rights at all. The state can compel me to do anything it wants in the interests of those who care about me. This is an extremely troubling position for you to take.
If you want true liberty, you must be willing to take responsibility, and accept the consequences of your actions.
I agree. And getting an abortion is one of the least costly ways to do so.
Sure, the C64 booted instantly. But if you wanted to do anything with it, you had to wait 5 minutes for the 1541 to read the disk.
But it was inferior due to a slow serial interface, making loading programs from disk take far longer than any competing computer. To this day, I play more games on my Apple II because they boot right up. My C128(in C64 mode) takes several minutes to launch a game, or I can use a fast loader and a mystical incantation to load it faster, but still slower than the Apple II.
You're including BOTH reproductive systems involved, then, right?
Sure. As long as your reproductive system is required for a pregnancy, you have the right to withdraw your consent. Once your reproductive system isn't required, it's too late. This works for both males and females.
Although, I'd argue that there is good reason to give males the same ability to opt out of a pregnancy that females have. But that's a discussion for more enlightened times.
Abortion is traumatic for the women involved, and few understand just how traumatic it is before they actually go through it.
Abortion is traumatic for some women, largely because of guilt complexes they wouldn't have if people would mind their own business.
Just as if you own land you can't just go dumping any old toxic chemical into the streams running through it because it will poison your neighbor's land, you're expected to avoid creating babies with fetal alcohol syndrome that can't control their own violent outbursts.
I agree, but given that abortions don't affect anyone but yourself, it's irrelevant to the issue.
20% and 15% are huge margins. You're talking about 5 times the margins they pull in practice. If this is a problem for them, it's not because of their customers. It's because their organization is incredibly inefficient and deserves to fail in the market.
Do you really think price caps are going to be what keeps a private insurance company from competing with a non-profit? If a private insurance company charges the maximum allowed by law and can't compete with a non-profit, are they going to be able to steal customers from the non-profit by raising prices?
The only unconstitutional part of Roe v. Wade was that it didn't base the constitutional right to privacy on the 9th amendment. It's still a correct decision, but possibly for the wrong reasons.
It wasn't liberalism that did Greece in, it was fraud. Transparency is a liberal principle, so if you want less fraud, you want more liberalism.
The federal government should be completely out of making decisions about abortion completely. For the same reasons, the state governments should be completely out of making decisions about abortion completely.
Anyone who would assert that reproductive rights should be governed by anyone but the owner of the reproductive system isn't interested in liberty in any way shape or form.
The fact that whether you can get an abortion is up to the states, as opposed to the individual as it is now, is an increase in government power.
Of course they are, they're accurate. Reality has a well known liberal bias.
. In a software industry there is always room for a certain number of players. The problem with open source is that it cuts down the number of competitors to winner takes all. So in the database arena we have a couple of big players, and the open source players. There are no more smaller binary only software vendors.
This is not a problem with open source software. This is progress towards the explicit goal of open source software. Eventually, there will be no binary only software vendors at all.
It's not surprising that he's getting a larger amount of money from corporations this time, considering how successful the GOP has been at stymieing attempts at fixing really anything. That and his willingness to put private insurers out of business and his audacity to actually appoint somebody to run the new consumer protection agency.
He's getting huge donations from corporations this time because they know he won't do anything to temper their rapacious greed. Obama didn't put private insurers out of business, he delivered them millions of mandatory customers, the young, healthy, valuable ones. His creation of the consumer protection agency is equally misleading. The CPA's budget is half that of the SEC, which already doesn't have the budget to investigate the investment banks it regulates. The CPA's scope is even bigger.
Anything Obama has done to appeal to the people over corporations is a facade that crumbles on the slightest inspection. He is a big government, big corporation, crony capitalist just like all the rest.
Mitt Romney represents corporations and business interests.
Barack Obama represents the 'Washington consensus' on most issues
The "Washington consensus" is that the interests of corporations and business interests trump everything else. Romney might as well be Obama (and for that matter Obama might as well be Reagan). As a result, this will be one of the least democratic elections in decades, at least in terms of a real choice being given to the American people.
Because of the lack of actual differences between the candidates, we can expect the minor insignificant differences to be exaggerated with extreme vitriol. This will be one of the nastiest elections in memory.
Being a libertarian who would assert government power over reproductive rights is a bit hypocritical.
In the real world, people irrationality leads to them being more reckless than an idealized agent. If they are already disobeying copyright law, what makes you think they'd obey a shorter termed copyright law? Especially when most pirated material is less than 20 years old?
Also, the law doesn't always act as a reminder of how one is "supposed" to behave. For most of us it is just a reminder of how the rich and powerful think we should behave. Not for our own benefit, but for theirs. This is especially evident when the law is in such conflict when the natural order of things. Passing such unenforceable laws damages respect for the law among the people and leads to a less civil society.