And yes, if blacks and hispanics were the majority users of abortion, the bible thumpers would be screaming for the government to provide abortions for free.
In terms of raw numbers, abortions by white mothers outnumber those by black mothers, but this may just mean that a black minority is disappearing ever so much faster.
Whatever you mean by "aura" -- I'm guessing it's like "tone" or "color", vague hippie lit professor concerns IMHO -- is at best a side issue, at worst a distracting, undefinable tangent....
I'm sorry but this seems like some kinda market-droid speak.
I was using the word aura in the market-droid sense... people market products, but they also market ideas.
"Babies", "persons" and now apparently "children" are clearly, clearly not fetuses.
Readadictionary recently? I'm not suggesting that all babies/persons/children are fetuses, but that all fetuses are babies/persons/children.
I'll agree that fetus is a word that could be used to describe a prenatal child, but the word doesn't have the same aura as the word child. As I've stated, it's an attempt to cast the conversation in the sort of light that you'd like to see it in.
I was simply referring to the usage of particular words to cast things in a more appealing light as part of an ideological conflict. Another example that pops to mind is the changing of the word gay to represent homosexuals.
On the other hand, I don't see pornography as a terrible thing to be outlawed. I don't think it's victimless, but I'm not going to condmen a man for being what evolution made him.
So then, you view it as most people today view alcohol (ie. not necessarily harmful, but with the potential for abuse)?
Regarding your view that it's not victimless, how many victims must there be before there should be legislation against something? This could apply to pornography, drunk driving, abortion, imprisonment without trial b/c of the patriot act, etc.
Also, regarding your idea that I'm not going to condmen a man for being what evolution made him, what about instances of rape for example... is this also ok because it is simply a matter of evolutionary programming? I do believe that a individual is more than simply the sum of their genes.
If intelligent people must be constrained into choosing between two monolithic amalgamations of policies, then what good is intelligence at all; for you've lost the granularity necessary to real choice and you're left with nothing but a tragic muddle.
I have to agree with that. If I were an American citizen, I would likely haved voted anti-Kerry (Bush), but given some of the legislation that's passed in the United States these past several years, it would be a vote cast with great reluctance.
You might want to find yourself a more credible source of information than a LaRouche cult rag
Well, the reason it ended up there was that it was one of the first things to pop on a google search for adult stem cell research. How about Wired.com, the Washington Post?
Now, do you have any reasons for opposing fetal stem-cell research?
I see it as unethical to create human life with the purpose of destroying it, particularly when an alternative exists (they even suggest that adult stem cell research has proven more effective, although I haven't really taken the time to fully explore this claim).
A lot of conservatives who voted had 1 single issue. Abortion, same sex marriage,t-ism, the childen, the church told them too,etc. Logic and intelligence have no effect on these people.
Sounds like somewhat more than one issue to me.
Put yourself in the position of one who believes, as I do, that a fetus possesses the same right to life as anyone else. Given the amount of people I've heard saying that Bush's actions in Iraq were unjustified, and let to the death of a whole pile of innocent lives (somewhere in the neighborhood of perhaps 100000 or so), try looking at some abortion statistics which indicate about 2500 deaths a day due to this procedure. In a little over a month you've outnumbered the amount of deaths in Iraq.
I am quite cynical about the war in Iraq, dislike the patriot act, etc. but at the same time feel that there are greater issues of concern.
You have to be very careful sorting out cause and effect, especially in sociology where control groups can be hard to come by.
The original claim was that if the teenage pregnancy/std rate rose when abstinence-based sex ed was being more heavily emphasized then abstinence-based sex ed must be at false. Can't we apply the same logic (in reverse) to your comments?
Well, I didn't get through, and the next day, he presented me a book (which I found quite outrageous) published by a campus Church group explaining why "religions are different" and how "they'll all find salvation at the feet of Christ". How can you hope to write a so called unbiased book, if your conclusion is that they'll be "Saved" only if they follow Christianity?.
Well, you decide to refer to your debate as being unbiased - which to me seems an inaccurate assertion. Everyone possesses bias, and the key is to attempt to recognize your own.
Anyway, the point which I had wanted to make is that there are a *surprisingly* large number of people who refuse to believe that the best service to their religion that they can probably do is to increase tolerance towards other religions rather than denounce them and try to proselytize the masses under the guise of "saving them".
Well, the perspective on religion that you've adopted is that they're all essentially the same, and therefore such an attitude makes sense. However, if you open your mind to the possibility that one religion is correct (there are contradictory elements so they can't possibly all be), then perhaps proselytizing begins to make sense. I think that you're equally as guilty of bias as those whose views you denounce.
ow, we could assume that flipping a switch is in fact a proxy for a prayer to god.
That's one approach that a lot of people adopt towards God... they see God as a utility company: pay the bills (pray/sacrifice/whatever), and you'll be rewarded (the lightbulb turns on when you flip the switch). That I would argue is the wrong approach.
But what we have found is that god is very predictable, and answers our prayers much readily when we take time and have the respect to understand the wold she created, and use the rules she created to make new things happen, rather than just sitting in a room wishing it would happen.
Seems reasonable to me. If God creates a set of laws like gravity for the universe, it makes a lot of sense that God decides (at least most of the time) to abide by them. That doesn't necessarily imply though that intervention never takes place.
I am sure that most of the conservatives believe that the homeless would be much better off getting a job rather than sitting on the corner praying for money.
There's one expression I've heard a number of times that sort of sums up what you're saying: "God helps those who help themselves." I would say that you're being irresponsible if you expect God to simply drop things in your lap all the time, but taking action yourself also doesn't necessarily imply that God does nothing.
And the post specifically states that selfishness is always wrong. It is just that most of the time when someone is trying to thwart knowledge, it is because they are afraid of losing power. Which is a little different that delivering novel knowledge to the world, and in exchange recieving some rewards.
If we take a look at this story, a good chunk of it seems to be related the desire of profs to retain power (ie. a greater number of grad students means more power) whether or not there exist jobs out there that these grad students can later fill.
I am a believer in equal-opportunity idiocy, as I like to call it. I have no problems admitting that the church has made mistakes and still has problems, but on the other hand I think that these problems exist equally elsewhere.
teach our kids that the scientific method is wrong
Not wrong per say, but perhaps not applicable to everything. One problem area might be attempting to study whether or not prayer is "effective".
Consider, for example, Newtonian mechanics. Using that makes sense for most activities, but at times you need to take into account relativity. Is the scientific method capable of dealing with a "God factor"?
I am, however, against the use of religion, or anything else for that matter, solely for the purpose of personal gain
How exactly does personal gain fit into the picture here with science and religion? And, assuming that you're referring to people in positions of power attempting to maintain a grasp on it, how exactly is science any different from religion in this respect?
That leaves about 2.00-2.50 USD to the artist per album when I subtract the allofmp3 costs.
I did a little bit of digging on AllofMP3.com, but nowhere did I come across statistics on just how big a piece of the pie the artists are getting. Where are you getting your numbers from?
If you haven't noticed any of the above commenters saying the same thing, try RedFlagDeals.com.
Re:and while we're at it - international shipping!
on
Websites For The Frugal?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
That reminds me of the several times that I've attempted to place an order at Half.com. They do actually ship to where I live (Canada), but do so using a service called BorderFree.com.
I order a fair number of things from eBay, and also AbeBooks.com (nice for buying used textbooks) so I don't really feel that I'm out of touch with international shipping rates. However, using BorderFree at Half.com results in absolutely outrageous shipping fees. If I spend $15US, once BorderFree's fees are added in I tend to end up with a bill of maybe $45US, versus somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 - $10 for shipping a similar item from other online retailers.
I find it hard to believe that the world was flooded so much that a ship landed on top of a 17,000ft high mountain.
Perhaps it wasn't 17000 feet tall at the time. Simply because the earth currently has "deep" oceans and "high" mountains doesn't mean that it always did.
I'm sure some smart SlashDotter will be able to work out the cubic volume of water that must have been needed to do that, and I'm guessing it is more water than is available in the entire planet.
There's a fair bit of water on the planet. If you hypothesize a flatter planet then it seems definitely possible that the whole of it could be covered with water, assuming that your hypothesis holds.
For all those attempting to sneak around Mandrake's attempt to force you to register for the club to get immediate access to the ISOs... I figured that I would mention that this is the older "Community" release not the new "Official" one.
Take a look, for example, at one of the latest KDE releases for example. Looks of distributions have released packages, even some gnome-centric ones. Where are the Mandrake packages?
You might be able to apply some security patches to Mandrake releases, but the only package updates visible to me in 9.2, is a little bit of documentation.
Unfortunately a lot of songs in the niche that I enjoy aren't found at Allofmp3.com, so I haven't bothered to shop there.
However, I am Canadian, and thanks to the annoying levy paid on media here downloading has been labelled as legal by the Canadian Copyright Board. If the source is legally allowed to upload according to Russa, and I'm legally permitted to download, why not.
I switch between Windows, Mac, and Linux machines, hence the DRM-enabled Canadian music store, puretracks.com is completely useless to me as it will only operate on Windows. If they won't sell me the product in a useable form, why shouldn't I get it from elsewhere?
Where are you going to draw the line? Do you really want a bunch of kids being born to parents incapable of raising them?
I am one who believe in the existance of absolutes, and when in doubt about the extent of these limits I would urge caution to be exercised.
So you're suggesting that if a person loses a limb, or becomes paralyzed (eg) then they may be executed as many may be "incapable of raising them"?
Was there anything wrong with the Nazi concentration camps?
If it's permissable to kill a fetus, then why shouldn't I be able to kill a 1-year-old? why not a toddler? A disabled parent, sibling, child, etc.? The mere inability to survive without dependance on the assistance of others doesn't mean that you're deserving of death.
You actually want to increase the amount of suffering in this World? You heartless bastard! Why don't you follow your way of thinking, don't get an abortion, and leave those that don't think like you to do as they please?... Leave the poor people getting abortions alone, as they are going through enough stress as it is, and worry about your own problems.
Considering, for example, that the very instigator of the Roe vs. Wade court decision has changed her mind, becoming pro-life. There are a number of women who have come to regret their decision, and hence, even if you believe abortion is an acceptable choice, for the emotional well-being of these women shouldn't they be made aware of the full implications of their decision?
killing a fetus whose brain isn't developed enough to know that it's missing out on anything
Consider the following article which deals with the ability of a fetus to feel pain.
Slashdot Mirror
According the Center for Disease control: "The abortion ratio for black women (491 per 1,000 live births) was 3.0 times the ratio for white women (165 per 1,000)".
In terms of raw numbers, abortions by white mothers outnumber those by black mothers, but this may just mean that a black minority is disappearing ever so much faster.
Whatever you mean by "aura" -- I'm guessing it's like "tone" or "color", vague hippie lit professor concerns IMHO -- is at best a side issue, at worst a distracting, undefinable tangent. ...
I'm sorry but this seems like some kinda market-droid speak.
I was using the word aura in the market-droid sense ... people market products, but they also market ideas.
"Babies", "persons" and now apparently "children" are clearly, clearly not fetuses.
Read a dictionary recently? I'm not suggesting that all babies/persons/children are fetuses, but that all fetuses are babies/persons/children.
I'll agree that fetus is a word that could be used to describe a prenatal child, but the word doesn't have the same aura as the word child. As I've stated, it's an attempt to cast the conversation in the sort of light that you'd like to see it in.
Why should these two issues be related?
I was simply referring to the usage of particular words to cast things in a more appealing light as part of an ideological conflict. Another example that pops to mind is the changing of the word gay to represent homosexuals.
On the other hand, I don't see pornography as a terrible thing to be outlawed. I don't think it's victimless, but I'm not going to condmen a man for being what evolution made him.
So then, you view it as most people today view alcohol (ie. not necessarily harmful, but with the potential for abuse)?
Regarding your view that it's not victimless, how many victims must there be before there should be legislation against something? This could apply to pornography, drunk driving, abortion, imprisonment without trial b/c of the patriot act, etc.
Also, regarding your idea that I'm not going to condmen a man for being what evolution made him, what about instances of rape for example... is this also ok because it is simply a matter of evolutionary programming? I do believe that a individual is more than simply the sum of their genes.
If intelligent people must be constrained into choosing between two monolithic amalgamations of policies, then what good is intelligence at all; for you've lost the granularity necessary to real choice and you're left with nothing but a tragic muddle.
I have to agree with that. If I were an American citizen, I would likely haved voted anti-Kerry (Bush), but given some of the legislation that's passed in the United States these past several years, it would be a vote cast with great reluctance.
Or, in the opposite fashion the attempt to rebrand baby/person as merely a fetus
Well, the reason it ended up there was that it was one of the first things to pop on a google search for adult stem cell research. How about Wired.com, the Washington Post?
Now, do you have any reasons for opposing fetal stem-cell research?
I see it as unethical to create human life with the purpose of destroying it, particularly when an alternative exists (they even suggest that adult stem cell research has proven more effective, although I haven't really taken the time to fully explore this claim).
I'm fully in favour of stem-cell research - just not using fetal cells. Consider the alternative.
Sounds like somewhat more than one issue to me.
Put yourself in the position of one who believes, as I do, that a fetus possesses the same right to life as anyone else. Given the amount of people I've heard saying that Bush's actions in Iraq were unjustified, and let to the death of a whole pile of innocent lives (somewhere in the neighborhood of perhaps 100000 or so), try looking at some abortion statistics which indicate about 2500 deaths a day due to this procedure. In a little over a month you've outnumbered the amount of deaths in Iraq.
I am quite cynical about the war in Iraq, dislike the patriot act, etc. but at the same time feel that there are greater issues of concern.
How about a a draft bill introduced by a bunch of democrats?
The original claim was that if the teenage pregnancy/std rate rose when abstinence-based sex ed was being more heavily emphasized then abstinence-based sex ed must be at false. Can't we apply the same logic (in reverse) to your comments?
Except of course stem cell research is banned in the USA.
Fetal stem cell research is indeed banned, but as far as I know adult stem cell research isn't.
Well, you decide to refer to your debate as being unbiased - which to me seems an inaccurate assertion. Everyone possesses bias, and the key is to attempt to recognize your own.
Anyway, the point which I had wanted to make is that there are a *surprisingly* large number of people who refuse to believe that the best service to their religion that they can probably do is to increase tolerance towards other religions rather than denounce them and try to proselytize the masses under the guise of "saving them".
Well, the perspective on religion that you've adopted is that they're all essentially the same, and therefore such an attitude makes sense. However, if you open your mind to the possibility that one religion is correct (there are contradictory elements so they can't possibly all be), then perhaps proselytizing begins to make sense. I think that you're equally as guilty of bias as those whose views you denounce.
Well, even if noone believes a fact, that doesn't mean that the fact isn't true.
That's one approach that a lot of people adopt towards God... they see God as a utility company: pay the bills (pray/sacrifice/whatever), and you'll be rewarded (the lightbulb turns on when you flip the switch). That I would argue is the wrong approach.
But what we have found is that god is very predictable, and answers our prayers much readily when we take time and have the respect to understand the wold she created, and use the rules she created to make new things happen, rather than just sitting in a room wishing it would happen.
Seems reasonable to me. If God creates a set of laws like gravity for the universe, it makes a lot of sense that God decides (at least most of the time) to abide by them. That doesn't necessarily imply though that intervention never takes place.
I am sure that most of the conservatives believe that the homeless would be much better off getting a job rather than sitting on the corner praying for money.
There's one expression I've heard a number of times that sort of sums up what you're saying: "God helps those who help themselves." I would say that you're being irresponsible if you expect God to simply drop things in your lap all the time, but taking action yourself also doesn't necessarily imply that God does nothing.
And the post specifically states that selfishness is always wrong. It is just that most of the time when someone is trying to thwart knowledge, it is because they are afraid of losing power. Which is a little different that delivering novel knowledge to the world, and in exchange recieving some rewards.
If we take a look at this story, a good chunk of it seems to be related the desire of profs to retain power (ie. a greater number of grad students means more power) whether or not there exist jobs out there that these grad students can later fill.
I am a believer in equal-opportunity idiocy, as I like to call it. I have no problems admitting that the church has made mistakes and still has problems, but on the other hand I think that these problems exist equally elsewhere.
Not wrong per say, but perhaps not applicable to everything. One problem area might be attempting to study whether or not prayer is "effective".
Consider, for example, Newtonian mechanics. Using that makes sense for most activities, but at times you need to take into account relativity. Is the scientific method capable of dealing with a "God factor"?
I am, however, against the use of religion, or anything else for that matter, solely for the purpose of personal gain
How exactly does personal gain fit into the picture here with science and religion? And, assuming that you're referring to people in positions of power attempting to maintain a grasp on it, how exactly is science any different from religion in this respect?
I did a little bit of digging on AllofMP3.com, but nowhere did I come across statistics on just how big a piece of the pie the artists are getting. Where are you getting your numbers from?
Wasn't the original copyright period in the US something like 14 years (with a possible 14 year renewal)?
Seems like its been more than 28 years since 1973.
If you haven't noticed any of the above commenters saying the same thing, try RedFlagDeals.com.
I order a fair number of things from eBay, and also AbeBooks.com (nice for buying used textbooks) so I don't really feel that I'm out of touch with international shipping rates. However, using BorderFree at Half.com results in absolutely outrageous shipping fees. If I spend $15US, once BorderFree's fees are added in I tend to end up with a bill of maybe $45US, versus somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 - $10 for shipping a similar item from other online retailers.
Perhaps it wasn't 17000 feet tall at the time. Simply because the earth currently has "deep" oceans and "high" mountains doesn't mean that it always did.
I'm sure some smart SlashDotter will be able to work out the cubic volume of water that must have been needed to do that, and I'm guessing it is more water than is available in the entire planet.
There's a fair bit of water on the planet. If you hypothesize a flatter planet then it seems definitely possible that the whole of it could be covered with water, assuming that your hypothesis holds.
For all those attempting to sneak around Mandrake's attempt to force you to register for the club to get immediate access to the ISOs... I figured that I would mention that this is the older "Community" release not the new "Official" one.
Take a look, for example, at one of the latest KDE releases for example. Looks of distributions have released packages, even some gnome-centric ones. Where are the Mandrake packages?
You might be able to apply some security patches to Mandrake releases, but the only package updates visible to me in 9.2, is a little bit of documentation.
IAAMCM (I am a Mandrake Club Member)
Not everyone lives in the USA... eg. Canada
Unfortunately a lot of songs in the niche that I enjoy aren't found at Allofmp3.com, so I haven't bothered to shop there.
However, I am Canadian, and thanks to the annoying levy paid on media here downloading has been labelled as legal by the Canadian Copyright Board. If the source is legally allowed to upload according to Russa, and I'm legally permitted to download, why not.
I switch between Windows, Mac, and Linux machines, hence the DRM-enabled Canadian music store, puretracks.com is completely useless to me as it will only operate on Windows. If they won't sell me the product in a useable form, why shouldn't I get it from elsewhere?
Where are you going to draw the line? Do you really want a bunch of kids being born to parents incapable of raising them?
... Leave the poor people getting abortions alone, as they are going through enough stress as it is, and worry about your own problems.
I am one who believe in the existance of absolutes, and when in doubt about the extent of these limits I would urge caution to be exercised.
So you're suggesting that if a person loses a limb, or becomes paralyzed (eg) then they may be executed as many may be "incapable of raising them"?
Was there anything wrong with the Nazi concentration camps?
If it's permissable to kill a fetus, then why shouldn't I be able to kill a 1-year-old? why not a toddler? A disabled parent, sibling, child, etc.? The mere inability to survive without dependance on the assistance of others doesn't mean that you're deserving of death.
You actually want to increase the amount of suffering in this World? You heartless bastard! Why don't you follow your way of thinking, don't get an abortion, and leave those that don't think like you to do as they please?
Considering, for example, that the very instigator of the Roe vs. Wade court decision has changed her mind, becoming pro-life. There are a number of women who have come to regret their decision, and hence, even if you believe abortion is an acceptable choice, for the emotional well-being of these women shouldn't they be made aware of the full implications of their decision?
killing a fetus whose brain isn't developed enough to know that it's missing out on anything
Consider the following article which deals with the ability of a fetus to feel pain.