His calls for strict adherence to a rather peculiar and narrow interpretation of the Constitution that more closely resembles the thinking of the Antifederalists that were against the US Constitution rather than the thinking of the Federalists who ratified it.
The claim that ``The Chinese economy has peaked'' is refuted by the claim ``Their economy may double in size one more time''.
I suppose you could fix that by altering the first claim to ``The Chinese economy is about to peak.' Or, perhaps, altering it to ``China's phenomenal economic growth rate has peaked.'' I think most economists would agree with this latter claim. I don't think anyone expected China's double digit growth rate to hold forever. Future growth will continue to slow as the Chinese economy matures.
And, it is unlikely that if the Chinese economy doubles, it will still be smaller than the US economy. In 2011, the Chinese economy (GDP of 7,298,147) was almost half of the US economy (GDP of 15,094,025). And in 2012, China (over 8% growth in Q1) was growing far faster than the US (2.2% growth in Q1). So if China has one more doubling left in it, it will almost certainly eclipse the US in size.
The other day, I pulled up behind a lady driving a Smart four two. In one hand, she had a phone held to her ear. In the other, she had a cigarette that she was ashing out the window.
Prior to that, I've seen people watching DVDs on portable players on their dashboard while driving.
Prior to that, I've seen women putting on their makeup, men shaving, people of both sexes eating with both hands while driving.
Prior to that, I've seen couples making out while driving.
I'm not going to argue that any of this is good. But the fact of the matter is that some drivers will always be unfit behind the wheel. If they aren't playing Angry Birds, they'll be finding some other way to distract themselves and other drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and small furry animals will find themselves at their mercy.
The solution isn't to worry about apps on the dashboard. The solution is to be more careful about who gets a license to begin with and to be more vigilant about taking it away when a driver proves themselves to be unfit to be on the road.
The point of bringing in Feyerabend's reading of the Galileo affair is that Galileo's dissent from the geocentric orthodoxy of his time was a propaganda campaign based on lies and deception. So if dissent based on lies and deception is non-productive, then we have to cast Galileo out of the realm of significant figures of the history of science.
That's probably the most ironic bit about the situation. Once Einstein put frames of reference into play, it turns out that both heliocentric and geocentric theories were ``correct.''
But that's also an incidental point. The underlying issue is not really whether Galileo or Ptolemy was right but the basis on which Galileo's views can be said to be scientific. If the dividing line between science and non-science is empirical observation, then Galileo and his heliocentric theories do not qualify as science because he proceeded counterinductively. He pursued his theory despite the observable evidence indicating that it could not be correct.
I realize that it was Einstein being discussed. But I think the same point about Einstein can be made about Galileo.
We see that Galileo's view of the origin of Copernicanism differs markedly from the more familiar historical accounts. He neither points to new facts which offer inductive support to the idea of the moving earth, nor does he mention any observations that would refute the geocentric point of view but be accounted for by Copernicanism. On the contrary, he emphasizes that not only Ptolemy, but Copernicus as well, is refuted by the facts, and he praises Aristarchus and Copernicus for not having given up in the face of such tremendous difficulties. He praises them for having proceeded counterinductively. [Feyerabend, Paul. Against Method. Verso (London and New York): 2010. Pages 77-88]
Galileo's observations, even the ones with the telescope, were arguments against his own heliocentric theory just as much as they were evidence against some forms of geocentrism (keep in mind that Tycho Brahe created a form of geocentrism that worked quite nicely). It wasn't until Kepler that a form of heliocentrism fit the observed facts any better than geocentrism. Despite the observed facts telling him his theory could not be correct, Galileo continued to pursue his theory. He did so by means of a propaganda campaign that sought to promulgate his (quite wrong) theory of optics, its accompanying technology (his telescopes), and his metaphysics. Eventually, he got other scientists to look at the world from a different point of view and, once he did that, new facts could come to light and enable such men as Kepler to develop theories to account for those facts.
In the end, I'm not certain that distinguishing between `honest' and `dishonest' dissent is very fruitful. Whether honest or not, dissent is important to prevent falling into a morbid state of what Feyerabend calls ``conceptual conservatism.''
This does not mean that one can't make the argument that most climate change deniers aren't kooks. It just means that when making policy decisions, it can be profitable to look at their analysis and examine what has to hold for it to be an accurate analysis and what would be the end result if it is accurate. This can be compared to the consensus view and a reasonable decision arrived at. And it will be a stronger, more reasoned decision than if the kooks were just ignored.
In the US, 2 out of every 5 people you meet won't believe in evolution and think that the earth is 6,000 years old or less and 1 out of 5 people you meet will think that Barrack Obama is a Muslim. So I'm not certain that 1 out 5 people in the US believing a certain thing tells us much.
Not to mention, there are things far more damaging to the the public's perception of the government, e.g. the 2005 court case over a young girl being arrested for eating french fries on public transit going all the way to the Supreme Court and the court deciding against that young girl.
``Through the combination of social and economic change, trade union organizations experience greater difficulty in carrying out their task of representing the interests of workers, partly because Governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labour unions. Hence traditional networks of solidarity have more and more obstacles to overcome. The repeated calls issued within the Church's social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum, for the promotion of workers' associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honoured today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level.''
I guess he's just another one of those liberalist pantywaists that would like to see communism take over the world.
Or not.
The way that many in the US conflate unions with communism baffles me. It was, to a large extent, a trade union (Solidarity) that brought down the communist regime in Poland. And it was this event that signaled the coming down of the entire iron curtain.
From a strict Libertarian perspective, the judgment would be something like, ``cool, these private workers signed contracts with each other so that they could negotiate collectively and wield more clout in the same way that shareholders signed contracts with each other so that they do things collectively and make more profit and these two groups worked out a contract and this shows how the free market should work.''
But from the Randian point of view that dominates the US, the judgment is something like, `OMFG, COMMUNISM!'
Uh, what? That makes no sense.
Granted, not all of the US of A reasons like that. But the group that does is exceeding loud and appears to be growing in both numbers and in political power.
Set A: the set of all Java programs written to date Set B: the set of all Java programs that have been written and ever will be written Set C: the set of all Java programs that could be written
A is a finite set. B is not known to be a finite set. C is an infinite set.
Certain events, the passing out of existence of Java as a programming language, heat death of the universe, et cetera could make set B into a finite set. But if the universe continues on infinitely and programs continue to use Java infinitedly, then set B would end up being an infinite set.
Most people interpret the Bible to mean that humanity is a tripartite being of body, soul, and spirit. Over time some groups have claimed that the "real" person is only one of these or the other. Most of those groups have condemned as heretics.
Also, the idea that the human soul pre-exists the human body is a minority position within the groups that hold that the Bible is holy writ. In some forms, such as Originism, it has been condemned as heretical from a fairly early date.
Granted, 'more people believe x than believe not-x' is not in itself a cogent reason to hold that proposition x is true. But I do think that it is a good guide to finding truth. It points the way towards the issues that ought to be closely scrutinized. If most people believe that proposition x is true, it's usually worth considering why so many people believe that it is true. Sometimes this illuminates whether x is true or fale. Other times it illuminates why x is perceived as being true without saying anything about whether or not it is true. In both cases, something valuable is learned.
That's a practical matter, not different in kind than, say, not being able to find a job if one moved to Michigan. Moreover, there are nations that will accept just about anyone.
If you're attracted at all to Ron Paul or Libertarianism, this sort of choice is at the center of their conception of freedom. For example, everyone needs a source of income in order to survive. Therefore, not working is not a real choice for most people not born into an independently wealthy family. But since one is free to choose from any of many posible jobs, working is seen as something entirely voluntary even if as a practical matter, there is only one job available. If this is, in fact, a real choice, then it's hard for me to see why residency in this nation or that nation is not also a real choice/regardless/ of whether one is able to find a new place or not.
So I think if you're going to use the inability to find another place to reside in should one leave the US as an example of how residency (or citizenship if you prefer) is not a free choice, then I think you ought to closely examine the underpinnings of Ron Paul's political theories because it is based on the same sort of premise.
If that's your case, that we are spiritual beings that precede the physical being, then it follows that abortion of the physical body is of no consequence.
The passage you quoted can be interpreted to arrive at the conclusion you present. But it is not worded in a way where such a conclusion is the only possible literal interpretation.
That same argument applies to nations, not just states/provinces within a nation. Unlike many countries, the US does not impede egress. Several hundreds of people every year renounce their US citizenship, usually for tax purposes.
If the US were more like North Korea where the citizens need state approval to leave the country, I think that you would have a good argument.
That passage illustrates the unclarity of which I spoke.
Imagine two possible states of affairs: (1) the rational soul is imparted at conception (2) the rational soul is imparted in utero after the physical brain develops but prior to birth
Both of these states of affairs are compatible with the verse you quoted from Jeremiah.
You've got some open questions that aren't addressed by what you quoted.
First, the verb translated as "formed." Does it refer to the human person being fully formed (i.e. before the entire process of being formed is completed) or does it refer to the beginning of the process of being formed?
Second, does the entire passage refer to the soul, the body/soul composite, the body, or the future knowledge that the prophet would be created?
Third, if you're taking the Old Testament literally, God knew Adam before He breathed a rational soul into him (Gen. 1:6-7). Or would you say that God did not know the man made out of dust in Gen. 1:6 before breathing his rational soul into him in Gen. 1:7?
If it is true theologically that we are all Adam, then it would seem to be fitting that the human body body came first, and once formed, God breathed a rational soul into our bodies. At the very least, such a belief is compatible with a literal reading of the Old Testament. To say that it is not compatible, you have to import ideas from outside of the Bible. I'm personally fine with that. But I would like it if such outside ideas are made explicit so that we can recognize them for what they are.
If you're interested in philosophical treatment of the human soul, I would refer you to Plato's Phaedo, Aristotle's De Anima (On the Soul), and the various ancient and medieval commentaries on them by the likes of the Stoics, Plotinus, Alexander, Damascene, John of Damascus, al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, Maimonides, Ibn Rush'd, Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, et cetera. Most of these are available in English translation.
Ron Paul is the sole sponsor of the Sanctity of LIfe Act of 2011 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1096 so I think it fair to say that he certainly believes that the definition of where human life begins is a federal issue.
For some people, this is a big reason to support Ron Paul.
Personally, I think that there are moral, medical, scientific, legal, philosophical, and theological arguments against the idea of a human zygote being the same sort of thing as is delivered about nine months later. This is not to say that I think the same thing can be said for human fetuses at 10, 20, 30, or 40 weeks of gestation. I'm not someone who thinks that a woman, the day before her expected due date, should have unqualified freedom to choose an elective abortion.
Philosophically and theologically, I think the crux of the matter is not the human part, but the rational part. In philosophical terms, when does the rational part of the human soul develop? In theological terms, at what point does God grant humans the sort of soul that makes them into the image and likeness of God? I don't think that there are any clear answers to those questions. I don't know that many people would disagree that it happens some time before birth. Yet Christians (and other faiths) have been all over the map at whether or not it happens at conception. For example, for much of the Medieval era, it was thought to happen at `quickening', the point at which the fetus can move on its own.
Medically, the question is who is most capable of making decisions regarding the health of both mother and child. I'm not certain that the state should be putting itself between the woman and her doctor on that question.
Scientifically, the question is getting exceedingly murky. If it turns out that pluripotent stem cells are biologically equivalent to fertilized eggs with regards to their capacity to develop into human beings, then all sorts of procedures become problematic, e.g. IVF, some forms of stem cell therapy, et cetera. For example, cells can be removed from an embryo non-destructively. After such removal both the existing embryo and the cell which was removed are still alive. But the cell removed can develop into a human being so it seems that such a removal is less a removal of a stem cell and more the creation of a new human person if it is true that life begins at conception (or its equivalent).
(a) http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/, search for "end birthright citizenship", this would require repealing (or amending) the 14th ammendment which states, ``All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.'' (b) you don't understand what the gold standard is if you thing banks are on a gold standard: hint, no banks would have needed to be bailed out if they were (c) citation please (d) Ron Paul is THE sponsor of the sanctity of life act, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1096 which `` Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life.'' (e) the civil rights act is generally thought to be explicitly constitutional based on the commerce clause and the 14th amendment. (f) wrong. states have no abilities to grant new rights. rights already exist and are not limited to the bill of rights. Ron Paul supports the rights of states to take away those rights, e.g. the right of two people to get married. and, seriously, you think states have the right to declare what sex acts in your bedroom are legal and which are not?
On all of those specific issues, I think it pretty easy to decide if Obama is better than Ron Paul or vice versa depending on your views. Take just three issues:
Do you really want to live in a US where citizenship is something earned rather than something imparted by birth? If so, Ron Paul is your man. If not, Barrack Obama.
(d) Ron Paul is THE sponsor of the sanctity of life act, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1096 [govtrack.us] which `` Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life.''
Do you really want all murder and manslaughter criminal laws to immediately apply to the unborn unless states take action to revise the language of statutes currently on the books? If so, Ron Paul is your guy. If not, Barrack Obama.
(f) The elimination of the federal right to privacy in light of state sovereignty
Do you want to live in a nation where states can outlaw specific sex acts conducted in private, e.g. oral sex between lawfully married spouses? If so, Ron Paul is your guy. If not, Barrack Obama.
I'll concede that there are some issues where I prefer Ron Paul's positions to Barrack Obama's positions. For example, I'm for decriminalization of drugs at the federal level and ending the drug war.
There are also issues where I think both are wrong. For example, with regard to the size of the military, I think Obama errs in keeping it too large but that Paul would err in keeping it too small.
Generally speaking, what is at stake for Ron Paul is an effort to turn the US Constitution into the Articles of Confederacy. The Federalists first won that debate when they US Constitution was ratified. The intellectual descendants of the Federalists won again in the US Civil War. And again with the rise of federal trustbusting. And again with the fight over the New Deal. And most recently with regard to civil rights.
Personally, I don't want to return to a nation where lunch counters can turn away customers simply because of the color of their skin. Nor do I want to live in a nation where state run schools can legally segregate based on race. I find it problematic that states like Maryland (where I currently live) can deny granting divorces to lawfully married gay couples (who either moved to Maryland or were married out of state where same-sex marriage is legal) because they do not recognized gay marriage. And I think that, on balance, these sorts of issues end up being more important than the places where Ron Paul has a more attractive position than Barrack Obama.
(a) wants to repeal the 14th amendment and is willing to do it through judicial activism or legislation rather than a proper constitutional convention. (b) wants to abolish the fed and return to the gold standard, two things which would be suicide according to virtually every economist with any sort of reputation (c) wants to reduce the US military to effectively being state militias (d) wants to legally declare that life begins at conception (e) thinks that the civil rights act was unconstitutional, or at least bad law (f) thinks states have the right to restrict individual freedoms, e.g. state laws forbidding abortions, forbidding same-sex partners to marry, outlaw sodomy
As a general rule of thumb, Ron Paul is very good at honestly bringing up very real problems, but then he puts forth the most extreme solution available to solving it.
Many times, perhaps most times, candidates cede the race while in debt. If they discontinue the campaign entirely, they can no longer fundraise to cover those debts.
There are other also other reasons, e.g. the ability to pay campaign staffers to wind things down, control over delegates, control over remaining campaign funds. But the big one is usually debt, especially if the candidate is well-heeled and partially funded his or her self by making personal loans to the campaign.
According to wiki, Slovenia banned the class of pesticides made up of neonicotinoids in 2003 after Monsanto's lobbying. The primary manufacturer of pesticides made from the neonicotinoid family is Bayer, a competitor of Monsanto.
So it would not be surprising if Monsanto had funded the research leading to this study. I'm not personally aware of any links. But it is clear that in the past, they have funded such.
But, to be clear, the source of the funding matters less than if the results can be replicated. I'm not really interested in the question of who might benefit from the results of the study so much as if the results of the study are true.
Slashdot Mirror
His calls for strict adherence to a rather peculiar and narrow interpretation of the Constitution that more closely resembles the thinking of the Antifederalists that were against the US Constitution rather than the thinking of the Federalists who ratified it.
``even at 2%''
Two percent (at least in real dollars) is better than the US has managed over the past 10 years.
The claim that ``The Chinese economy has peaked'' is refuted by the claim ``Their economy may double in size one more time''.
I suppose you could fix that by altering the first claim to ``The Chinese economy is about to peak.' Or, perhaps, altering it to ``China's phenomenal economic growth rate has peaked.'' I think most economists would agree with this latter claim. I don't think anyone expected China's double digit growth rate to hold forever. Future growth will continue to slow as the Chinese economy matures.
And, it is unlikely that if the Chinese economy doubles, it will still be smaller than the US economy. In 2011, the Chinese economy (GDP of 7,298,147) was almost half of the US economy (GDP of 15,094,025). And in 2012, China (over 8% growth in Q1) was growing far faster than the US (2.2% growth in Q1). So if China has one more doubling left in it, it will almost certainly eclipse the US in size.
The other day, I pulled up behind a lady driving a Smart four two. In one hand, she had a phone held to her ear. In the other, she had a cigarette that she was ashing out the window.
Prior to that, I've seen people watching DVDs on portable players on their dashboard while driving.
Prior to that, I've seen women putting on their makeup, men shaving, people of both sexes eating with both hands while driving.
Prior to that, I've seen couples making out while driving.
I'm not going to argue that any of this is good. But the fact of the matter is that some drivers will always be unfit behind the wheel. If they aren't playing Angry Birds, they'll be finding some other way to distract themselves and other drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and small furry animals will find themselves at their mercy.
The solution isn't to worry about apps on the dashboard. The solution is to be more careful about who gets a license to begin with and to be more vigilant about taking it away when a driver proves themselves to be unfit to be on the road.
The point of bringing in Feyerabend's reading of the Galileo affair is that Galileo's dissent from the geocentric orthodoxy of his time was a propaganda campaign based on lies and deception. So if dissent based on lies and deception is non-productive, then we have to cast Galileo out of the realm of significant figures of the history of science.
That's probably the most ironic bit about the situation. Once Einstein put frames of reference into play, it turns out that both heliocentric and geocentric theories were ``correct.''
But that's also an incidental point. The underlying issue is not really whether Galileo or Ptolemy was right but the basis on which Galileo's views can be said to be scientific. If the dividing line between science and non-science is empirical observation, then Galileo and his heliocentric theories do not qualify as science because he proceeded counterinductively. He pursued his theory despite the observable evidence indicating that it could not be correct.
I realize that it was Einstein being discussed. But I think the same point about Einstein can be made about Galileo.
Galileo's observations, even the ones with the telescope, were arguments against his own heliocentric theory just as much as they were evidence against some forms of geocentrism (keep in mind that Tycho Brahe created a form of geocentrism that worked quite nicely). It wasn't until Kepler that a form of heliocentrism fit the observed facts any better than geocentrism. Despite the observed facts telling him his theory could not be correct, Galileo continued to pursue his theory. He did so by means of a propaganda campaign that sought to promulgate his (quite wrong) theory of optics, its accompanying technology (his telescopes), and his metaphysics. Eventually, he got other scientists to look at the world from a different point of view and, once he did that, new facts could come to light and enable such men as Kepler to develop theories to account for those facts.
In the end, I'm not certain that distinguishing between `honest' and `dishonest' dissent is very fruitful. Whether honest or not, dissent is important to prevent falling into a morbid state of what Feyerabend calls ``conceptual conservatism.''
This does not mean that one can't make the argument that most climate change deniers aren't kooks. It just means that when making policy decisions, it can be profitable to look at their analysis and examine what has to hold for it to be an accurate analysis and what would be the end result if it is accurate. This can be compared to the consensus view and a reasonable decision arrived at. And it will be a stronger, more reasoned decision than if the kooks were just ignored.
In the US, 2 out of every 5 people you meet won't believe in evolution and think that the earth is 6,000 years old or less and 1 out of 5 people you meet will think that Barrack Obama is a Muslim. So I'm not certain that 1 out 5 people in the US believing a certain thing tells us much.
Not to mention, there are things far more damaging to the the public's perception of the government, e.g. the 2005 court case over a young girl being arrested for eating french fries on public transit going all the way to the Supreme Court and the court deciding against that young girl.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html
``Through the combination of social and economic change, trade union organizations experience greater difficulty in carrying out their task of representing the interests of workers, partly because Governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labour unions. Hence traditional networks of solidarity have more and more obstacles to overcome. The repeated calls issued within the Church's social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum, for the promotion of workers' associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honoured today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level.''
I guess he's just another one of those liberalist pantywaists that would like to see communism take over the world.
Or not.
The way that many in the US conflate unions with communism baffles me. It was, to a large extent, a trade union (Solidarity) that brought down the communist regime in Poland. And it was this event that signaled the coming down of the entire iron curtain.
From a strict Libertarian perspective, the judgment would be something like, ``cool, these private workers signed contracts with each other so that they could negotiate collectively and wield more clout in the same way that shareholders signed contracts with each other so that they do things collectively and make more profit and these two groups worked out a contract and this shows how the free market should work.''
But from the Randian point of view that dominates the US, the judgment is something like, `OMFG, COMMUNISM!'
Uh, what? That makes no sense.
Granted, not all of the US of A reasons like that. But the group that does is exceeding loud and appears to be growing in both numbers and in political power.
You're thinking too big. They start dropping pieces of asteroid on major metropolitan areas one by one until the entire world capitulates.
Control of a sufficiently sized asteroid could potentially make the men and women who control it rulers of the entire planet.
Set A: the set of all Java programs written to date
Set B: the set of all Java programs that have been written and ever will be written
Set C: the set of all Java programs that could be written
A is a finite set.
B is not known to be a finite set.
C is an infinite set.
Certain events, the passing out of existence of Java as a programming language, heat death of the universe, et cetera could make set B into a finite set. But if the universe continues on infinitely and programs continue to use Java infinitedly, then set B would end up being an infinite set.
I'm not certain why, but my first response to this ended up attached to my own comment instead of yours.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2777927&cid=39650761
Two other issues that might be worth considering.
Most people interpret the Bible to mean that humanity is a tripartite being of body, soul, and spirit. Over time some groups have claimed that the "real" person is only one of these or the other. Most of those groups have condemned as heretics.
Also, the idea that the human soul pre-exists the human body is a minority position within the groups that hold that the Bible is holy writ. In some forms, such as Originism, it has been condemned as heretical from a fairly early date.
Granted, 'more people believe x than believe not-x' is not in itself a cogent reason to hold that proposition x is true. But I do think that it is a good guide to finding truth. It points the way towards the issues that ought to be closely scrutinized. If most people believe that proposition x is true, it's usually worth considering why so many people believe that it is true. Sometimes this illuminates whether x is true or fale. Other times it illuminates why x is perceived as being true without saying anything about whether or not it is true. In both cases, something valuable is learned.
That's a practical matter, not different in kind than, say, not being able to find a job if one moved to Michigan. Moreover, there are nations that will accept just about anyone.
If you're attracted at all to Ron Paul or Libertarianism, this sort of choice is at the center of their conception of freedom. For example, everyone needs a source of income in order to survive. Therefore, not working is not a real choice for most people not born into an independently wealthy family. But since one is free to choose from any of many posible jobs, working is seen as something entirely voluntary even if as a practical matter, there is only one job available. If this is, in fact, a real choice, then it's hard for me to see why residency in this nation or that nation is not also a real choice /regardless/ of whether one is able to find a new place or not.
So I think if you're going to use the inability to find another place to reside in should one leave the US as an example of how residency (or citizenship if you prefer) is not a free choice, then I think you ought to closely examine the underpinnings of Ron Paul's political theories because it is based on the same sort of premise.
If that's your case, that we are spiritual beings that precede the physical being, then it follows that abortion of the physical body is of no consequence.
The passage you quoted can be interpreted to arrive at the conclusion you present. But it is not worded in a way where such a conclusion is the only possible literal interpretation.
That same argument applies to nations, not just states/provinces within a nation. Unlike many countries, the US does not impede egress. Several hundreds of people every year renounce their US citizenship, usually for tax purposes.
If the US were more like North Korea where the citizens need state approval to leave the country, I think that you would have a good argument.
That passage illustrates the unclarity of which I spoke.
Imagine two possible states of affairs:
(1) the rational soul is imparted at conception
(2) the rational soul is imparted in utero after the physical brain develops but prior to birth
Both of these states of affairs are compatible with the verse you quoted from Jeremiah.
You've got some open questions that aren't addressed by what you quoted.
First, the verb translated as "formed." Does it refer to the human person being fully formed (i.e. before the entire process of being formed is completed) or does it refer to the beginning of the process of being formed?
Second, does the entire passage refer to the soul, the body/soul composite, the body, or the future knowledge that the prophet would be created?
Third, if you're taking the Old Testament literally, God knew Adam before He breathed a rational soul into him (Gen. 1:6-7). Or would you say that God did not know the man made out of dust in Gen. 1:6 before breathing his rational soul into him in Gen. 1:7?
If it is true theologically that we are all Adam, then it would seem to be fitting that the human body body came first, and once formed, God breathed a rational soul into our bodies. At the very least, such a belief is compatible with a literal reading of the Old Testament. To say that it is not compatible, you have to import ideas from outside of the Bible. I'm personally fine with that. But I would like it if such outside ideas are made explicit so that we can recognize them for what they are.
If you're interested in philosophical treatment of the human soul, I would refer you to Plato's Phaedo, Aristotle's De Anima (On the Soul), and the various ancient and medieval commentaries on them by the likes of the Stoics, Plotinus, Alexander, Damascene, John of Damascus, al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, Maimonides, Ibn Rush'd, Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, et cetera. Most of these are available in English translation.
Ron Paul is the sole sponsor of the Sanctity of LIfe Act of 2011 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1096 so I think it fair to say that he certainly believes that the definition of where human life begins is a federal issue.
For some people, this is a big reason to support Ron Paul.
Personally, I think that there are moral, medical, scientific, legal, philosophical, and theological arguments against the idea of a human zygote being the same sort of thing as is delivered about nine months later. This is not to say that I think the same thing can be said for human fetuses at 10, 20, 30, or 40 weeks of gestation. I'm not someone who thinks that a woman, the day before her expected due date, should have unqualified freedom to choose an elective abortion.
Philosophically and theologically, I think the crux of the matter is not the human part, but the rational part. In philosophical terms, when does the rational part of the human soul develop? In theological terms, at what point does God grant humans the sort of soul that makes them into the image and likeness of God? I don't think that there are any clear answers to those questions. I don't know that many people would disagree that it happens some time before birth. Yet Christians (and other faiths) have been all over the map at whether or not it happens at conception. For example, for much of the Medieval era, it was thought to happen at `quickening', the point at which the fetus can move on its own.
Medically, the question is who is most capable of making decisions regarding the health of both mother and child. I'm not certain that the state should be putting itself between the woman and her doctor on that question.
Scientifically, the question is getting exceedingly murky. If it turns out that pluripotent stem cells are biologically equivalent to fertilized eggs with regards to their capacity to develop into human beings, then all sorts of procedures become problematic, e.g. IVF, some forms of stem cell therapy, et cetera. For example, cells can be removed from an embryo non-destructively. After such removal both the existing embryo and the cell which was removed are still alive. But the cell removed can develop into a human being so it seems that such a removal is less a removal of a stem cell and more the creation of a new human person if it is true that life begins at conception (or its equivalent).
(a) http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/, search for "end birthright citizenship", this would require repealing (or amending) the 14th ammendment which states, ``All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.''
(b) you don't understand what the gold standard is if you thing banks are on a gold standard: hint, no banks would have needed to be bailed out if they were
(c) citation please
(d) Ron Paul is THE sponsor of the sanctity of life act, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1096 which `` Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life.''
(e) the civil rights act is generally thought to be explicitly constitutional based on the commerce clause and the 14th amendment.
(f) wrong. states have no abilities to grant new rights. rights already exist and are not limited to the bill of rights. Ron Paul supports the rights of states to take away those rights, e.g. the right of two people to get married. and, seriously, you think states have the right to declare what sex acts in your bedroom are legal and which are not?
On all of those specific issues, I think it pretty easy to decide if Obama is better than Ron Paul or vice versa depending on your views. Take just three issues:
(a) http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/
Do you really want to live in a US where citizenship is something earned rather than something imparted by birth? If so, Ron Paul is your man. If not, Barrack Obama.
(d) Ron Paul is THE sponsor of the sanctity of life act, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1096 [govtrack.us] which `` Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life.''
Do you really want all murder and manslaughter criminal laws to immediately apply to the unborn unless states take action to revise the language of statutes currently on the books? If so, Ron Paul is your guy. If not, Barrack Obama.
(f) The elimination of the federal right to privacy in light of state sovereignty
Do you want to live in a nation where states can outlaw specific sex acts conducted in private, e.g. oral sex between lawfully married spouses? If so, Ron Paul is your guy. If not, Barrack Obama.
I'll concede that there are some issues where I prefer Ron Paul's positions to Barrack Obama's positions. For example, I'm for decriminalization of drugs at the federal level and ending the drug war.
There are also issues where I think both are wrong. For example, with regard to the size of the military, I think Obama errs in keeping it too large but that Paul would err in keeping it too small.
Generally speaking, what is at stake for Ron Paul is an effort to turn the US Constitution into the Articles of Confederacy. The Federalists first won that debate when they US Constitution was ratified. The intellectual descendants of the Federalists won again in the US Civil War. And again with the rise of federal trustbusting. And again with the fight over the New Deal. And most recently with regard to civil rights.
Personally, I don't want to return to a nation where lunch counters can turn away customers simply because of the color of their skin. Nor do I want to live in a nation where state run schools can legally segregate based on race. I find it problematic that states like Maryland (where I currently live) can deny granting divorces to lawfully married gay couples (who either moved to Maryland or were married out of state where same-sex marriage is legal) because they do not recognized gay marriage. And I think that, on balance, these sorts of issues end up being more important than the places where Ron Paul has a more attractive position than Barrack Obama.
(a) wants to repeal the 14th amendment and is willing to do it through judicial activism or legislation rather than a proper constitutional convention.
(b) wants to abolish the fed and return to the gold standard, two things which would be suicide according to virtually every economist with any sort of reputation
(c) wants to reduce the US military to effectively being state militias
(d) wants to legally declare that life begins at conception
(e) thinks that the civil rights act was unconstitutional, or at least bad law
(f) thinks states have the right to restrict individual freedoms, e.g. state laws forbidding abortions, forbidding same-sex partners to marry, outlaw sodomy
As a general rule of thumb, Ron Paul is very good at honestly bringing up very real problems, but then he puts forth the most extreme solution available to solving it.
Many times, perhaps most times, candidates cede the race while in debt. If they discontinue the campaign entirely, they can no longer fundraise to cover those debts.
There are other also other reasons, e.g. the ability to pay campaign staffers to wind things down, control over delegates, control over remaining campaign funds. But the big one is usually debt, especially if the candidate is well-heeled and partially funded his or her self by making personal loans to the campaign.
According to wiki, Slovenia banned the class of pesticides made up of neonicotinoids in 2003 after Monsanto's lobbying. The primary manufacturer of pesticides made from the neonicotinoid family is Bayer, a competitor of Monsanto.
So it would not be surprising if Monsanto had funded the research leading to this study. I'm not personally aware of any links. But it is clear that in the past, they have funded such.
But, to be clear, the source of the funding matters less than if the results can be replicated. I'm not really interested in the question of who might benefit from the results of the study so much as if the results of the study are true.