God is good. He grants us free will to make decisions between good options and evil options. After all, a good decision is meaningless if you don't have the free will to choose otherwise.
At one time, all humans understood what was right and wrong, as God was their source for such knowledge. When Adam and Eve ate the apple, it did exactly what Satan told them it would do-- it allowed them to judge "right" and "wrong" for themselves, thus throwing all of us into these problems.
God is unknowable by our own will, yes, but that does not mean that He cannot reveal truths to us. God has given us Natural Law, His prophets, and Himself on the cross so that we may learn what is truly good and evil.
Fertility treatments regularly destroy many embryos, yet I don't see you saying that people trying to have a baby are evil.
I don't see him saying otherwise, either. Perhaps he really does have proper morals and *does* oppose such treatments.
What about a miscarriage from a woman who did not know she was pregnant and kept up her party lifestyle? Should she be regarded as a murderer? Would that be considered "criminal negligence"?
Why not? She certainly made an attempt to get pregnant (sexually uniting with (hopefully) her husband). Testing for success is available over-the-counter, too.
Now, what if stem cells from an embryo from a mother could be used to save her other two kids from a painful debilitating disease that will eventually be fatal?
Can any doctor *ever* be completely sure of such a death? Miracles happen every day (conception is one of them)-- the answer is no, nobody can ever be sure. Thus, killing the one child would still be wrong.
If every embryo is a human life then we better start funding research into the biggest killer of our time, the miscarriage.
Better to support honourable research such as this suggestion than to support research which involves murdering innocent humans.
But somehow, I don't think we'll see a headline for that anytime soon.
Why don't you just legalise murder regardless of age? Last I checked, discrimination based on age is illegal, so you need to legalise it for all ages or none. God have mercy on your soul...
No, they have a legally backed monopoly on duplication of the information. The unjust laws granting this allow them to violate your rights to modify and redistribute information by telling you what you can or can't do with it.
And what happens when some idiot breaks your fibre? Isn't it expensive enough to repair modern fibre communications? Now someone thinks it's a good idea to make you replace the complete 'wire'?
I don't know about you, but I enjoy my rights. I can bring my Linksys PAP2-NA box with me when I'm travelling and use my phone just as if I were at home... quite useful. I have no intention of ever signing my right to move my equipment. Oh, I also own my own cable modem. If necessary, that can move anywhere my ISP has service also.
Pick (almost) any number between 2130706433 and 2147483646 to give someone. People usually recognise the x.x.x.x notation, but not often a single decimal number.
The test certainly doesn't *seem* standards-compliant...or even functional. Tell me, WTF is "data:application/x-unknown,ERROR"? Why would *any* browser know how to handle that? And a 404 on the middle of the page?
Standards testing should be conducted with feature-intensive *standards-compliant* data, not by checking to see what a program does when it gets illegal/broken/standard-incompliant data...
If it's not meant to be somewhat secure, then why was it illegal for a long time (perhaps even today) for anyone other than your employer and the IRS to require it?
Slashdot Mirror
Until you end up with prostate cancer.
Doing anything solely for pleasure is wrong.
God is good. He grants us free will to make decisions between good options and evil options. After all, a good decision is meaningless if you don't have the free will to choose otherwise.
At one time, all humans understood what was right and wrong, as God was their source for such knowledge. When Adam and Eve ate the apple, it did exactly what Satan told them it would do-- it allowed them to judge "right" and "wrong" for themselves, thus throwing all of us into these problems.
God is unknowable by our own will, yes, but that does not mean that He cannot reveal truths to us. God has given us Natural Law, His prophets, and Himself on the cross so that we may learn what is truly good and evil.
I don't see him saying otherwise, either.
Perhaps he really does have proper morals and *does* oppose such treatments.
Why not? She certainly made an attempt to get pregnant (sexually uniting with (hopefully) her husband). Testing for success is available over-the-counter, too.
Can any doctor *ever* be completely sure of such a death? Miracles happen every day (conception is one of them)-- the answer is no, nobody can ever be sure. Thus, killing the one child would still be wrong.
Better to support honourable research such as this suggestion than to support research which involves murdering innocent humans.
And that's the sad state society is in today.
and this is exactly why "fertility treatments" are wrong.
Humans have souls. Animals do not.
Animals are purely physical, just as angels are purely spiritual. Humans are "amphibians" and both physical and spiritual.
Why don't you just legalise murder regardless of age? Last I checked, discrimination based on age is illegal, so you need to legalise it for all ages or none.
God have mercy on your soul...
No, they have a legally backed monopoly on duplication of the information. The unjust laws granting this allow them to violate your rights to modify and redistribute information by telling you what you can or can't do with it.
My Sent folder goes back to July 2000... I could probably dig up some archives if I wanted to go back further...
Actually, most VoIP providers (including Vonage, IIRC) tell you that you *should* test 911 service.
Exercising your natural rights to share information (aka violating copyright) is not wrong.
Copyright itself is wrong.
Natural Law gives everyone the right to redistribute information.
KHTML is LGPL, not GPL. These reasons are exactly why RMS has been arguing that the GPL should be used instead of the LGPL on *all* new software.
Konqueror is much superior to FireFox... so who cares what FF devs complain to Konq devs about?
Slashdot looks great in Konqueror too, as do most standards-compliant webpages...
Actually, KHTML uses Subversion. From what I've heard, it's Apple that uses CVS...
And what happens when some idiot breaks your fibre? Isn't it expensive enough to repair modern fibre communications? Now someone thinks it's a good idea to make you replace the complete 'wire'?
FireFox may be the best browser available for Windows, but it's more on the low end for *nix platforms.
They have a billing address.
Nothing stops me from moving my cable equipment to another part of the country and using it there.
I don't know about you, but I enjoy my rights. I can bring my Linksys PAP2-NA box with me when I'm travelling and use my phone just as if I were at home... quite useful. I have no intention of ever signing my right to move my equipment.
Oh, I also own my own cable modem. If necessary, that can move anywhere my ISP has service also.
Do you realise that you forgot to check the "Post Anonymously" checkbox?
Pick (almost) any number between 2130706433 and 2147483646 to give someone. People usually recognise the x.x.x.x notation, but not often a single decimal number.
You know, RMS had a job at MIT before he quit to work on the GNU system...
Abolishing copyright laws only solve part of the problem. The other part is laws protecting our rights to modify and redistribute information.
The test certainly doesn't *seem* standards-compliant...or even functional.
Tell me, WTF is "data:application/x-unknown,ERROR"? Why would *any* browser know how to handle that?
And a 404 on the middle of the page?
Standards testing should be conducted with feature-intensive *standards-compliant* data, not by checking to see what a program does when it gets illegal/broken/standard-incompliant data...
If it's not meant to be somewhat secure, then why was it illegal for a long time (perhaps even today) for anyone other than your employer and the IRS to require it?