That was then of course changed to reflect modern thinking. Research also shows that not all of them thought this was right, it was one of many compromises to get the constitution ratified at all.
While what the founding fathers thought or did may not be relevant what they wrote in the constitution is. It's logical to take a look at American society and based on that note not everyone is Christian and changing the views of our government to reflect Christian ideals doesn't do anything to represent the people. Christianity is the majority religion in the US (at least the last time I checked) however that may not be the case forever as our population changes in other ways. Putting Christian ideals before what's best for everyone is a bad thing. That's basically what I was trying to get at.
Conception is convenient but we can track the development of every stage of the fetus. There are of course parts of it we would like to understand better, but it is certainly safe to say that through at least 26 weeks (as another poster pointed out) the womb is necessary. Why can't a women decide if before that time she wants to terminate the pregnancy? The use of said technology is a choice.
....The problem with abortion is that if the would-be victim is an entity that has rights, you're committing a horrible atrocity, and if they don't, what you're doing is fine. And while you may be okay with unilaterally deciding whether they do or not, this gets into a dangerous area of where the authority to make such decisions comes from.
It's a matter of proving to everyone that a fertalized egg is indeed life. So far I've yet to hear a convincing argument for that. Arguments that technology can sustain it without the mother really don't mean much. Technology will always change the bounds of what we can/can't do.
As far as the authority issue goes we are talking about a woman with something growing inside her. Without the technological advances we have this "entity" (as you call it) has no chance of survival without her. So we are talking about taking the rights/wishes/will of this woman away for something that depends utterly on her.
One person might decide animals have no rights, and puree live kittens in a blender. Another might decide some ethnic group have no rights, and keep some of them as slaves. If someone objects to this behavior, even though their different viewpoint about the rights of the purported victims might stem from a religious perspective, are they really imposing their religious views?
I actually covered this is another post as you pointed out I missed the "as long as you aren't hurting anybody else" part in my original post. Not that I didn't/don't think that, it's just knowing you think something and remembering to put it in words every time doesn't always happen. Having made that extention we come back to the problem of getting everyone to agree that life begins at conception and that an embryo has the same basic rights as the woman bearing it.
So what? A tapeworm can't survive outside of its host... is it alive?
No it can't, and in some respects an unwanted fetus could even be likened to a parasite. It requires the mothers womb to survive and without the womb it dies. Of course part of development changes that so it can survive, and of course technology allows us to cheat nature and preserve "life" beyond a point that it might not have otherwise survived. Why should the decision be taken away from the "host" before that time?
Remove suspended animation/cryogenics and don't provide a mother for that embryo... As far as changes in technology it becomes a question of should you do such a thing at all. In cases where parents can't have children on thier own (biological reasons) I'm sure you will see such technology used. I'm sure that will raise a furor also. However those are people that WANT to have children and are taking extroidanairy steps to have those children. It really has little basis on what would happen without that technology and the will of someone that doesn't want to have a child and is in the early stages of pregnancy.
When the constitution was written you said there were tons of people of different religions--are you referring to denominations of the Protestant Christians or actual religions?
I was of course referring to the various Christian denominations though it would be foolish to ignore Judaism as a prominant religion at the time. It certainly wasn't a large portion of the population but it was a portion.
And our founding fathers did not intend for us to be a Christian nation, but a Christian-influenced nation.
This is one interpretation. Another interpretation is that they realized that religions change and that people are influenced by differant religions at differant times. They realized that religious influence was not a bad thing, but a state sponsorship of any one religion was (be it a denomination of Christianity or another religion entirely). There are of course books that profess this point of view.
I believe that was already answered in my post. To many people life doesn't begin until the fetus/baby could survive outside the mothers womb. Can a two month old fetus live outside the womb?
I think you need to re-read what I wrote. I'm not disagreeing that there aren't ways that religious can be handled within schools without infringing someone elses rights. I'm pointing to the issue of prayer during class which seems to be where the argument usually lies.
What if my religion said murder was ok? Should the federal government force the states to legalize murder?
The majority has decided that murder infringes on anothers right to life, of course this leads right into your next point and I'm sure that's why you made it.
The moment the sperm meets ovum, it is a life, and a human life, and that life has all of the same rights as he/she will after birth nine months later. He/she has 46 chromosomes, distinct from either the mother and the father. He/she begins to divide on its own. His/her gender, blood type, hair color, eye color, and all other genetic physiological traits are determined. And this person should be treated with the rights and dignity of a human person from birth to natural death.
Ah yes and at that moment this "life" cannot survive outside the mothers womb. Should something happen to the mother the "life" in her womb dies also. This isn't true further along in the pregnancy. Also, is there conciousness at this point? Can you prove it? If I fertalize an egg in a test tube is that life? It certainly won't survive without being moved into a womb. If it dies does that make me a murderer? It's only a few cells? Again, your answer will probably differ from mine based on differances of opinion, philosophy, or religion. This is a highly philosophical issue, not scientific and is completely off topic.
I didn't get into that in detail because I didn't think it was terribly important to the original topic. So to go a little off topic here... When life begins is a much more philosophical than scientific issue. Often this philosophical issue is determined by religion. I have several very religious friends that believe at the moment of conception there is "life" in the womb. I have several non religious friends who don't believe it's life until it has consiousness and/or can survive outside the womb. Their opinions (and my own) are highly influenced by our beliefs.
So how can the government possibly make any decision when philosophy is shaping the debate more than science?
Why should prayer be allowed or encouraged? In most cases it seems to be an issue of prayer being allowed during class time, or having a moment of prayer at the start of the first class. This isn't the right time or place for that. It's time to start class and get to work. Students should be allowed and encouraged to do their prayer (if they want) before or after school or classes. I think that's the issue really. School resources should be used to educate our children. After school is another issue. I personally never attended a school where religous groups (of students) were not allowed to use the classes or what not to meet. Occassionally you read about some school where that has happened, but they seem to be in the minority and I think if you evaluate them you'll find it's some overzealous adminstrator making that bad decision.
Seperation of church and state is meant to go both ways. The state controlled the church in Europe, but the church also controlled the state for long periods of time. If a monarch didn't do what the Pope wanted the Pope would have him excommunicated. Go re-read your history because you clearly seem to have forgotten that. One of the things to remember is that at the time the Constitution was written you had many members of many differant religions and many people remembered the lack of religious tolerance in England (and other European nations, often state sponsored) just a 100 years previously. Religious influence on the state can be harmful to those of other religions hence it's a good idea to seperate religious doctrine from state decisions, any state decisions.
Just because your religion says abortion is wrong doesn't mean that mine agrees with you. Hence the government should stay out of the way as it can often come down to a religious belief. I'm not saying that a politician can't or shouldn't allow thier religion to influence thier decisions or morality, but they have to keep in mind that not everyone shares thier religious beliefs. With that in mind they should do what is best for the majority, not just what is best in the eyes of thier church.
Why would your mother-in-law driving off a cliff in your new Cadillac cause you to have mixed emotions? Unless of course your new Cadillac is uninsured.
Yes, there were only three, now there are five, and shortly there will be six. He's not talking about the "original" six he's talking about ALL of the movies which will inevitably be released in one big box of six movies.
That's a stretch of what I originally said. Yes it's reasonable for an insurance company to not cover you if you break the law. However in my experience they actually look for new and improved reasons to not have to pay for claims all the time. The goal of an insurance company is to make money, not to pay out claims to people. Hence it's becomes more difficult to get life insurance as you get older. The older you get the more likely you are to die, the more likely they have to shell out cash, the less likely you are a profitable customer. My above example is taking things a stretch further and saying that by providing all of the data about your driving every year you provide the insurance company with trends you may not even be aware of. Say you are a normally law abiding and safe driver but during your 30 mile commute to work every day there is a 5 mile stretch of road where you drive 5mph over the speed limit. While you may drive appropriately 95% of the time you can play with all that data to make it appear like you speed most of the time. I wouldn't put it past an insurance company to do such a thing to not have to pay a claim.
Now don't get me wrong not all insurance companies are like this but I've dealt with a couple that have been. My wife also worked in insurance for quite some time and the companies she dealt with on a daily basis that had exactly that attitude.
Well yes most people have insurance because it's required by law; however, most people don't carry the bare minimum coverage. The laws in Nevada require you to have coverage of at least liability but many (most?) carry much more coverage than that. The reason you carry more insurance isn't because you are required to but because your insurance company picks up much more of the bill if you involved in or are responsible for an accident.
I believe my point still stands and I also believe you can see similar trends with other types of insurance including health care and life.
It's only troubling if ALL insurance companies _require_ you to use this device. This is vonluntary and what people should be worried about is legislation requiring this type of device or of black boxes in all new cars. Which is a much more real and current issue.
Well the whole reason you have insurance is so that if something bad happens while driving etc you don't have to foot the whole bill yourself. This seems much more like a tactic for the insurance companies to get out of liability should you be in an accident.
Say you are in one, the insurance company then pulls out your data and says: You drive an average of 3 mph over the speed limit based on the data you have provided for the last couple of years and that puts you in violation of our terms so you're on your own buddy.
While it may reduce the costs for some customers initially there is a point when all insurance companies will require it (assuming consumers don't complain and it's likely they won't). Then there will be no reason to give any one a price cut for using it and they can get out of paying for more claims as so many people violate the speed limit laws etc.
Then again maybe I'm just paranoid when it comes to corporations, privacy, etc.
I got the whole thing in under 2 minutes from the torrent... and the md5 matches. It's easier and quicker than waiting for the connection limited MS site.
Slashdot Mirror
That was then of course changed to reflect modern thinking. Research also shows that not all of them thought this was right, it was one of many compromises to get the constitution ratified at all.
While what the founding fathers thought or did may not be relevant what they wrote in the constitution is. It's logical to take a look at American society and based on that note not everyone is Christian and changing the views of our government to reflect Christian ideals doesn't do anything to represent the people. Christianity is the majority religion in the US (at least the last time I checked) however that may not be the case forever as our population changes in other ways. Putting Christian ideals before what's best for everyone is a bad thing. That's basically what I was trying to get at.
Conception is convenient but we can track the development of every stage of the fetus. There are of course parts of it we would like to understand better, but it is certainly safe to say that through at least 26 weeks (as another poster pointed out) the womb is necessary. Why can't a women decide if before that time she wants to terminate the pregnancy? The use of said technology is a choice.
....The problem with abortion is that if the would-be victim is an entity that has rights, you're committing a horrible atrocity, and if they don't, what you're doing is fine. And while you may be okay with unilaterally deciding whether they do or not, this gets into a dangerous area of where the authority to make such decisions comes from.
It's a matter of proving to everyone that a fertalized egg is indeed life. So far I've yet to hear a convincing argument for that. Arguments that technology can sustain it without the mother really don't mean much. Technology will always change the bounds of what we can/can't do.
As far as the authority issue goes we are talking about a woman with something growing inside her. Without the technological advances we have this "entity" (as you call it) has no chance of survival without her. So we are talking about taking the rights/wishes/will of this woman away for something that depends utterly on her.
One person might decide animals have no rights, and puree live kittens in a blender. Another might decide some ethnic group have no rights, and keep some of them as slaves. If someone objects to this behavior, even though their different viewpoint about the rights of the purported victims might stem from a religious perspective, are they really imposing their religious views?
I actually covered this is another post as you pointed out I missed the "as long as you aren't hurting anybody else" part in my original post. Not that I didn't/don't think that, it's just knowing you think something and remembering to put it in words every time doesn't always happen. Having made that extention we come back to the problem of getting everyone to agree that life begins at conception and that an embryo has the same basic rights as the woman bearing it.
So what? A tapeworm can't survive outside of its host... is it alive?
No it can't, and in some respects an unwanted fetus could even be likened to a parasite. It requires the mothers womb to survive and without the womb it dies. Of course part of development changes that so it can survive, and of course technology allows us to cheat nature and preserve "life" beyond a point that it might not have otherwise survived. Why should the decision be taken away from the "host" before that time?
Remove suspended animation/cryogenics and don't provide a mother for that embryo... As far as changes in technology it becomes a question of should you do such a thing at all. In cases where parents can't have children on thier own (biological reasons) I'm sure you will see such technology used. I'm sure that will raise a furor also. However those are people that WANT to have children and are taking extroidanairy steps to have those children. It really has little basis on what would happen without that technology and the will of someone that doesn't want to have a child and is in the early stages of pregnancy.
Thanks, you summed up most of what I would have responded with anyway.
That's hardly surviving and it's hardly a person. Take away the cryogenics and it won't survive.
When the constitution was written you said there were tons of people of different religions--are you referring to denominations of the Protestant Christians or actual religions?
I was of course referring to the various Christian denominations though it would be foolish to ignore Judaism as a prominant religion at the time. It certainly wasn't a large portion of the population but it was a portion.
And our founding fathers did not intend for us to be a Christian nation, but a Christian-influenced nation.
This is one interpretation. Another interpretation is that they realized that religions change and that people are influenced by differant religions at differant times. They realized that religious influence was not a bad thing, but a state sponsorship of any one religion was (be it a denomination of Christianity or another religion entirely). There are of course books that profess this point of view.
I believe that was already answered in my post. To many people life doesn't begin until the fetus/baby could survive outside the mothers womb. Can a two month old fetus live outside the womb?
I think you need to re-read what I wrote. I'm not disagreeing that there aren't ways that religious can be handled within schools without infringing someone elses rights. I'm pointing to the issue of prayer during class which seems to be where the argument usually lies.
What if my religion said murder was ok? Should the federal government force the states to legalize murder?
The majority has decided that murder infringes on anothers right to life, of course this leads right into your next point and I'm sure that's why you made it.
The moment the sperm meets ovum, it is a life, and a human life, and that life has all of the same rights as he/she will after birth nine months later. He/she has 46 chromosomes, distinct from either the mother and the father. He/she begins to divide on its own. His/her gender, blood type, hair color, eye color, and all other genetic physiological traits are determined. And this person should be treated with the rights and dignity of a human person from birth to natural death.
Ah yes and at that moment this "life" cannot survive outside the mothers womb. Should something happen to the mother the "life" in her womb dies also. This isn't true further along in the pregnancy. Also, is there conciousness at this point? Can you prove it? If I fertalize an egg in a test tube is that life? It certainly won't survive without being moved into a womb. If it dies does that make me a murderer? It's only a few cells? Again, your answer will probably differ from mine based on differances of opinion, philosophy, or religion. This is a highly philosophical issue, not scientific and is completely off topic.
I didn't get into that in detail because I didn't think it was terribly important to the original topic. So to go a little off topic here... When life begins is a much more philosophical than scientific issue. Often this philosophical issue is determined by religion. I have several very religious friends that believe at the moment of conception there is "life" in the womb. I have several non religious friends who don't believe it's life until it has consiousness and/or can survive outside the womb. Their opinions (and my own) are highly influenced by our beliefs.
So how can the government possibly make any decision when philosophy is shaping the debate more than science?
Why should prayer be allowed or encouraged? In most cases it seems to be an issue of prayer being allowed during class time, or having a moment of prayer at the start of the first class. This isn't the right time or place for that. It's time to start class and get to work. Students should be allowed and encouraged to do their prayer (if they want) before or after school or classes. I think that's the issue really. School resources should be used to educate our children. After school is another issue. I personally never attended a school where religous groups (of students) were not allowed to use the classes or what not to meet. Occassionally you read about some school where that has happened, but they seem to be in the minority and I think if you evaluate them you'll find it's some overzealous adminstrator making that bad decision.
Seperation of church and state is meant to go both ways. The state controlled the church in Europe, but the church also controlled the state for long periods of time. If a monarch didn't do what the Pope wanted the Pope would have him excommunicated. Go re-read your history because you clearly seem to have forgotten that. One of the things to remember is that at the time the Constitution was written you had many members of many differant religions and many people remembered the lack of religious tolerance in England (and other European nations, often state sponsored) just a 100 years previously. Religious influence on the state can be harmful to those of other religions hence it's a good idea to seperate religious doctrine from state decisions, any state decisions.
Just because your religion says abortion is wrong doesn't mean that mine agrees with you. Hence the government should stay out of the way as it can often come down to a religious belief. I'm not saying that a politician can't or shouldn't allow thier religion to influence thier decisions or morality, but they have to keep in mind that not everyone shares thier religious beliefs. With that in mind they should do what is best for the majority, not just what is best in the eyes of thier church.
It certainly falls into the awful category, but the other two make you go blind so I think they have a leg up on apache.slashdot.org.
Maybe OSDN is too poor now to pay to have someone on staff that isn't color blind?
Why would your mother-in-law driving off a cliff in your new Cadillac cause you to have mixed emotions? Unless of course your new Cadillac is uninsured.
it.slashdot.org? That's nothing compared to games.slashdot.org, that's where you really need the custom stylesheet.
Yes, there were only three, now there are five, and shortly there will be six. He's not talking about the "original" six he's talking about ALL of the movies which will inevitably be released in one big box of six movies.
That could have more to do with trends in the marketplace than with people "wanting" to work for IBM.
That's a stretch of what I originally said. Yes it's reasonable for an insurance company to not cover you if you break the law. However in my experience they actually look for new and improved reasons to not have to pay for claims all the time. The goal of an insurance company is to make money, not to pay out claims to people. Hence it's becomes more difficult to get life insurance as you get older. The older you get the more likely you are to die, the more likely they have to shell out cash, the less likely you are a profitable customer. My above example is taking things a stretch further and saying that by providing all of the data about your driving every year you provide the insurance company with trends you may not even be aware of. Say you are a normally law abiding and safe driver but during your 30 mile commute to work every day there is a 5 mile stretch of road where you drive 5mph over the speed limit. While you may drive appropriately 95% of the time you can play with all that data to make it appear like you speed most of the time. I wouldn't put it past an insurance company to do such a thing to not have to pay a claim.
Now don't get me wrong not all insurance companies are like this but I've dealt with a couple that have been. My wife also worked in insurance for quite some time and the companies she dealt with on a daily basis that had exactly that attitude.
Stranger things have happened.
Well yes most people have insurance because it's required by law; however, most people don't carry the bare minimum coverage. The laws in Nevada require you to have coverage of at least liability but many (most?) carry much more coverage than that. The reason you carry more insurance isn't because you are required to but because your insurance company picks up much more of the bill if you involved in or are responsible for an accident.
I believe my point still stands and I also believe you can see similar trends with other types of insurance including health care and life.
It's only troubling if ALL insurance companies _require_ you to use this device. This is vonluntary and what people should be worried about is legislation requiring this type of device or of black boxes in all new cars. Which is a much more real and current issue.
Well the whole reason you have insurance is so that if something bad happens while driving etc you don't have to foot the whole bill yourself. This seems much more like a tactic for the insurance companies to get out of liability should you be in an accident.
Say you are in one, the insurance company then pulls out your data and says: You drive an average of 3 mph over the speed limit based on the data you have provided for the last couple of years and that puts you in violation of our terms so you're on your own buddy.
While it may reduce the costs for some customers initially there is a point when all insurance companies will require it (assuming consumers don't complain and it's likely they won't). Then there will be no reason to give any one a price cut for using it and they can get out of paying for more claims as so many people violate the speed limit laws etc.
Then again maybe I'm just paranoid when it comes to corporations, privacy, etc.
I got the whole thing in under 2 minutes from the torrent... and the md5 matches. It's easier and quicker than waiting for the connection limited MS site.