Yes, there was. She didn't have authorization to access MySpace's server - she was violating the TOS. Her unauthorized use of that computer resulted in "Physical injury to any person" or "A threat to public health or safety".
I wasn't arguing in favour of option number 1. This situation, the weighing of two lives, and an informed decision as to which has the greater chance of survival, parallels an extreme example of abortion - where carrying a baby to term threatens the life of the mother, and probably the child. I'd hate to be placed in that position, but I'd probably agree with you - in the end, you'd have to play the odds.
Most abortions do not follow this pattern. Most abortions are the destruction of something inconvenient, something that is not acknowledged as human, and thus never thought of. It's not a case of weighing two human lives, and deciding the situation based on what's the best possible outcome. It's saying that whatever the mother wants trumps any rights the embryo might have - including the right to live.
As I've said in other threads, the core of this debate really hinges on the definition of "human".
What's your point? That you'd rather sanction wholesale murder than force people to continue in what they've started?
My point is, that if you are going to draw a line, you need to have a reason. It cannot be arbitrary. Would you object to crushing the skull of a newborn infant? You are happy to let the government use it's power to force women to maintain unwanted children, because you agree with where the line is drawn. But you have no rationale as to why the line should be drawn there, as to why before it is fine, and after it is murder. It's simply a convenient place to position it, much as for the ancient Romans it was convenient to allow infant exposure.
In other words: "I could prove you wrong, but I couldn't be bothered. Just take it on faith that you are, and assume my argument was valid."
Sorry, not convinced.
Besides, if you were reading my post, you'll see I wasn't comparing slavery to abortion. I was pointing out that the same justifications were used in both situations. That doesn't mean that the situations were the same, or even that the justification is wrong in this case. What it does demonstrate is that, historically, atrocities have been committed using that justification. So tread carefully when you claim its authority now.
So when we discovered how to synthesize baby formula, the definition of human shifted to accomodate it? And when (if?) we discover how to sustain an embryo in an artificial womb, will it change again?
The force of law moves both ways. Either I force you to live in a world where you can't control your own body, or you force me to live in a world where murder is endorsed by law.
The core of the debate centres around the definition of "human". I agree, if a fetus is not human, then killing it is not murder. And it seems most people on the other side of the fence would agree that if a fetus was human, killing it would be murder. So it comes down to this one definition. And there is no one point where a developing embryo obviously changes nature - no one second you can point to and say that there is a fundamental difference before it, and after it - except perhaps conception.
I err on the side of caution. I would rather risk restricting the freedom of one human - who, in the majority of cases (not all, but the majority) is in the situation as a result of their own actions - than killing another human, just to simplify the life of another.
Even after birth, a baby is pretty much dependant on it's mother for nourishment. Ok, so it's not blood, but without feeding off a mother's milk the baby's not going to last long either.
Embryoes, fetuses and newborns are all highly dependant upon their mothers. If independance is the requisite for humanity, then killing children before they're weaned should be morally acceptable.
Sorry, but I don't find "birth" a convincing demarkation point between human and non-human.
How about the various form of twinning that occur, which in rare cases leads to one twin actually becoming part of the other, and needing to be removed so that the fully grown twin can live? That other twin (which cannot survive in any scenario) is human, and it is its own entity
There are two entirely different scenarios being posed. In the situation above, you state that there are two human lives at risk - how do you balance between them. It's the same as saying "You're wife and child are dangling from different cliffs. Both could fall at any moment. You have time to save one - which do you choose?" It's a moral dilemma, a no-win situation - whichever way you choose, a human dies, and your choice will be based upon this knowledge.
This is entirely different to "There is one human life, and a bunch of cells. We can do whatever we like to the bunch of cells, because we don't define it as human". In this case, there is no weighing of the life of the embryo, no moral decision - it's considered junk, and treated like it.
At the risk of sounding flamebait-y, this is the same proposition raised during the time when black slavery was acceptable. If you define "human" in such a way that it excludes blacks, then slavery isn't any more wrong than keeping hunting dogs. They're just animals after all. Whenever you start splitting hairs over what is and isn't human, you begin toeing a very fine line.
Or if you suddenly start eating less, you're body can go "Oh crap, I'm starving" and drop your metabolism to compensate. Yes, if you eat less than you burn you will lose weight. The thing is, controlling how much you burn is no easy thing, and some people burn more (read, have a less efficient metabolism) naturally. The body isn't a simple machine, and people who simplify it down to that level are deluding themselves.
It might be your property in theory, but in practice, you still have to beg. We're both arguing for the same point here (ownership implies no activation). You're saying you shouldn't have to beg, and I agree. I'm also saying that regardless of whether you should or not, Microsoft is still making you if you "buy" XP/Vista.
Well sure, if you want to lower the bar that far. But then, with that definition, my hammer is also a self-replicating machine. As long as it's environment happens to include me, my wallet and a hardware store.
I love the idea of the RepRap as much as the next geek. But it's been posted on Slashdot at least three times that I can recall, and the headline or summary has always claimed, as this one does also, the factually incorrect statement that the "Machine Prints 3D Copies Of Itself". It doesn't. It's cool and all, and it's getting there, but it doesn't.
A windmill is made up largely of vertical surfaces, which wouldn't get much direct solar energy. I'm guessing they don't stick solar panels all over them because for the same cost they could build another windmill, or put those same solar panels on a horizontal surface somewhere where they'd actually do some good.
See? The electric windmills don't give the birds water. They are BAD!:-) I think you missed one of the fundamentals when it comes to "floating windmills".
Hey, as soon as I can get a client to provide me (or hell, even sign off on) a mathematically correct specification that covers every aspect of a system, you got a deal.
The last "specification" (and I use that term loosely) I got was something along the lines of "hey, can you add a members section to this website?". Good luck demonstrating the resulting functionality to be mathematically correct.
Technically, a cult is a religious "fork". Christianity is a "cult" of Judaism; Protestantism is a "cult" of Catholicism. Naturally, the dominant religion had a negative perspective on new cults. Over time, this negative connotation has remained, while the technical definition has been lost.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, there was. She didn't have authorization to access MySpace's server - she was violating the TOS. Her unauthorized use of that computer resulted in "Physical injury to any person" or "A threat to public health or safety".
that they are more savage with computers
As opposed to being savvy with their language.
This discussion had moved away from IVF, and towards abortion in general, which is where my comments were directed.
Because everyone knows homosexuality is a genetic trait. That's how it's survived the centuries, being passed from father to son...oh, wait.
I wasn't arguing in favour of option number 1. This situation, the weighing of two lives, and an informed decision as to which has the greater chance of survival, parallels an extreme example of abortion - where carrying a baby to term threatens the life of the mother, and probably the child. I'd hate to be placed in that position, but I'd probably agree with you - in the end, you'd have to play the odds.
Most abortions do not follow this pattern. Most abortions are the destruction of something inconvenient, something that is not acknowledged as human, and thus never thought of. It's not a case of weighing two human lives, and deciding the situation based on what's the best possible outcome. It's saying that whatever the mother wants trumps any rights the embryo might have - including the right to live.
As I've said in other threads, the core of this debate really hinges on the definition of "human".
What's your point? That you'd rather sanction wholesale murder than force people to continue in what they've started?
My point is, that if you are going to draw a line, you need to have a reason. It cannot be arbitrary. Would you object to crushing the skull of a newborn infant? You are happy to let the government use it's power to force women to maintain unwanted children, because you agree with where the line is drawn. But you have no rationale as to why the line should be drawn there, as to why before it is fine, and after it is murder. It's simply a convenient place to position it, much as for the ancient Romans it was convenient to allow infant exposure.
In other words: "I could prove you wrong, but I couldn't be bothered. Just take it on faith that you are, and assume my argument was valid."
Sorry, not convinced.
Besides, if you were reading my post, you'll see I wasn't comparing slavery to abortion. I was pointing out that the same justifications were used in both situations. That doesn't mean that the situations were the same, or even that the justification is wrong in this case. What it does demonstrate is that, historically, atrocities have been committed using that justification. So tread carefully when you claim its authority now.
So when we discovered how to synthesize baby formula, the definition of human shifted to accomodate it? And when (if?) we discover how to sustain an embryo in an artificial womb, will it change again?
The force of law moves both ways. Either I force you to live in a world where you can't control your own body, or you force me to live in a world where murder is endorsed by law.
The core of the debate centres around the definition of "human". I agree, if a fetus is not human, then killing it is not murder. And it seems most people on the other side of the fence would agree that if a fetus was human, killing it would be murder. So it comes down to this one definition. And there is no one point where a developing embryo obviously changes nature - no one second you can point to and say that there is a fundamental difference before it, and after it - except perhaps conception.
I err on the side of caution. I would rather risk restricting the freedom of one human - who, in the majority of cases (not all, but the majority) is in the situation as a result of their own actions - than killing another human, just to simplify the life of another.
Even after birth, a baby is pretty much dependant on it's mother for nourishment. Ok, so it's not blood, but without feeding off a mother's milk the baby's not going to last long either.
Embryoes, fetuses and newborns are all highly dependant upon their mothers. If independance is the requisite for humanity, then killing children before they're weaned should be morally acceptable.
Sorry, but I don't find "birth" a convincing demarkation point between human and non-human.
Both result in more embryonic deaths than would otherwise occur.
There isn't a technical solution proven to work. This is not a cure. This solution is "kill it, and try again".
Now, that may or may not be acceptable to you depending on your definition of "human". But it's most definately not a "solution" for genetic diseases.
How about the various form of twinning that occur, which in rare cases leads to one twin actually becoming part of the other, and needing to be removed so that the fully grown twin can live? That other twin (which cannot survive in any scenario) is human, and it is its own entity
There are two entirely different scenarios being posed. In the situation above, you state that there are two human lives at risk - how do you balance between them. It's the same as saying "You're wife and child are dangling from different cliffs. Both could fall at any moment. You have time to save one - which do you choose?" It's a moral dilemma, a no-win situation - whichever way you choose, a human dies, and your choice will be based upon this knowledge.
This is entirely different to "There is one human life, and a bunch of cells. We can do whatever we like to the bunch of cells, because we don't define it as human". In this case, there is no weighing of the life of the embryo, no moral decision - it's considered junk, and treated like it.
At the risk of sounding flamebait-y, this is the same proposition raised during the time when black slavery was acceptable. If you define "human" in such a way that it excludes blacks, then slavery isn't any more wrong than keeping hunting dogs. They're just animals after all. Whenever you start splitting hairs over what is and isn't human, you begin toeing a very fine line.
So I take it you're a fan of infanticide by exposure then? After all, if it can't survive...
Or if you suddenly start eating less, you're body can go "Oh crap, I'm starving" and drop your metabolism to compensate. Yes, if you eat less than you burn you will lose weight. The thing is, controlling how much you burn is no easy thing, and some people burn more (read, have a less efficient metabolism) naturally. The body isn't a simple machine, and people who simplify it down to that level are deluding themselves.
It might be your property in theory, but in practice, you still have to beg. We're both arguing for the same point here (ownership implies no activation). You're saying you shouldn't have to beg, and I agree. I'm also saying that regardless of whether you should or not, Microsoft is still making you if you "buy" XP/Vista.
I think his point is that if you have to beg someone else's permission to use it, it's not really your property.
Obviously you haven't seen how trucks drive around here.
Well sure, if you want to lower the bar that far. But then, with that definition, my hammer is also a self-replicating machine. As long as it's environment happens to include me, my wallet and a hardware store.
I love the idea of the RepRap as much as the next geek. But it's been posted on Slashdot at least three times that I can recall, and the headline or summary has always claimed, as this one does also, the factually incorrect statement that the "Machine Prints 3D Copies Of Itself". It doesn't. It's cool and all, and it's getting there, but it doesn't.
A windmill is made up largely of vertical surfaces, which wouldn't get much direct solar energy. I'm guessing they don't stick solar panels all over them because for the same cost they could build another windmill, or put those same solar panels on a horizontal surface somewhere where they'd actually do some good.
Stick with what you're good at.
There's not much money in chair-throwing these days.
Hey, as soon as I can get a client to provide me (or hell, even sign off on) a mathematically correct specification that covers every aspect of a system, you got a deal.
The last "specification" (and I use that term loosely) I got was something along the lines of "hey, can you add a members section to this website?". Good luck demonstrating the resulting functionality to be mathematically correct.
Technically, a cult is a religious "fork". Christianity is a "cult" of Judaism; Protestantism is a "cult" of Catholicism. Naturally, the dominant religion had a negative perspective on new cults. Over time, this negative connotation has remained, while the technical definition has been lost.
...if they're letting regular athletes compete in the disabled categories as well. After all, what's good for the goose...