Really... Perhaps you think too much of yourself. There is a difference between knowledge and stupidity. Are you in a position to understand the position the non-computer tech/ non-c.s. etc must contend with while on the internet? These aren't all dumb people. These are people with different focuses in life. I bet many of them are aware of dangers in other mediums that you would not even notice. So fuck off snob.
If one invites another to his home only to kill them when an inconvenience arises, then we have an ill-mannered host. The fetus did not have the choice of hosts, but the mother (in most cases) made the choice of rounding up guests for the party.
If you make an argument based on one's rights being subservient to another person's, then I'd say that there is ample arguments for the fetus's primacy.
Again, the best way out of the issue is to develop good birth control, and get it into the population reliably.
Furthermore, I will fix my analogy: A person puts a plate of cookies on the school playground, and waits for a child to come get a cookie. Then the person charges the child like a linebacker would with 240+ pounds, thus killing the poor child, all to ensure that their cookies remain untouched whilst on the playground.
The government, to some extent does treat driving differently than your own body... But not so much if the act is hurting someone else.
Lastly, I agree that the rape cases do not fit, which is why many believe that even these children/fetuses should be allowed to live. After all, it is an American principle and part of our constitution, that the sins of the fathers will not be (legally) visited upon the children. If my father were to steal a car, then I will not be sent to prison for his crime. However, it can be argued that rape precludes the woman's choice of making the invitation in the first place(my argument above).
Perhaps it would be profitable to look at is this way: Suppose a person were to lure a child in a driveway with a plate of cookies. Then that person decides to drive their car. Is it ok for that person to run her over so she can leave?
Flashy aren't you.
I am on welfare. Under welfare rules in California, a mother needs to be on a birth control such as an IUD since if a new pregnancy OCCURRED while receiving aid, THEN AID would end unless you have a doctor's signature on the existence of birth control. Note: This birth control does not include the pill or condoms. I am talking about the long lasting shot, IUD, etc.These are inserted by a doctor and removed by a doctor. That is all the proof that one would need.
In America we have freedom of movement, yet we require a license and insurance to drive a motor vehicle.
The central question is not whether a woman has a right, but whether the fetus has rights, since the former falls out of the first. Since this central question is unanswerable, and is hotly debated in America, it seems appropriate to find a solution/compromise that reduces unwanted pregnancies in the first place. It would reduce the pregnancies by increasing use of contraception, instead of using abortion AS contraception. It would provide and pay and distribute to high schools to reduce unwanted pregnancies, thus alleviating the economic impact of teen pregnancy.
The main thing is this: We do not know for sure whether the fetus has rights, or moral worth, and it demands at least a compromise be made: A responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancies. By binding responsibility and rights together we can at least say this: She took reasonable steps to prevent this unwanted pregnancy. I personally don't agree with it, but at least she can say it. She wasn't irresponsible. She is a modern woman who knows how to take care of herself,and be proactive.
I posit that there are two sides of Republican platforms: Social/political/economic conservative.. and moral conservative. I am only suggesting that many moral conservatives are, at heart, socially/politically/economically liberal, but who will not accept certain tenets of the Democratic party, namely right to an abortion.
I do not suggest that the other issues that you mention in your post are not important to a great many republicans. I just suggest that there are many people for whom neither the republicans or the democrats represent their stand on the issues. For many of these issues are separable. e.g. It is possible to be Christian, and want to have more social programs.
Choice? Democrats traditionally is bout social programs...Eliminating poverty, civil liberties, etc. Abortion is just a small part of that platform, whose inclusion is dependent upon an assumption, namely that the unborn is not losing a choice when the woman is given one. This is an assumption, or perhaps a reasonable loss for the greater good.
If this assumption was made in error, and in fact the fetus is deserving of 'choice', a choice to live, then it is easily seen that Pro-Life would not in fact contradict the ideals of the Democrats which are civil liberties, economic equality and opportunity etc.
I am in fact one of those who adopt this platform. Liberal social issues, conservative moral issues. They do not contradict each other.
Lastly, I posit that women do have a choice, when they choose sex without appropriate contraception. Don't mention rape, because rape cases can be dealt with separately.
Lastly, I would present this solution to the abortion issue: A woman may have an abortion if at the time of conception, measures were taken to prevent conception by a government approved contraceptive device such as an IUD, except in cases of rape. Furthermore, such contraception will be made freely available to the public free of charge, by the government. Possibly including the distribution of the contraceptives in our public school system. (Notice I'm not a stock republican here)
Thus, the privileged to have an abortion, like driving a car, may be exercised only when certain requirements are met: namely, like insurance and a drivers test, you took reasonable steps to prevent pregnancy. If, as did my wife, you get pregnant while on an approved contraception, a woman may rid her self of the baby/fetus.
This is a compromise. It does not remove all abortions, and it does not remove the choice of women.
The power of this solution lies in its ability to move the debate into new ground. Conservatives will still want to stop abortion, but a large portions of abortions AND unwanted pregnancies would be prevented a,d this they could not say no too. Liberals may win smaller, but the give up less: however choice is validified by being coupled with a strong and established concept: Responsibility.
No choice without responsibility. No responsibility without choice.
When will Democrats learn... The reason those women voted for Bush is because their church told them they should. The reason that the church told them they should vote for Bush instead of Kerry centers on one issue only: Abortion.
Give them a hardcore left liberal, but who happened to be pro-life, and neutral/quiet on gay issues, and you'd have a viable candidate for the nation's republicans. IT IS the only reason many people vote republican.
I try to keep it simple. If the field depends on the scientific method, then it is a science. In the past physics and chemistry were the true hard sciences, but today such pinnacles as the standard theory and superstring theory, etc cannot always directly measure the things they are interested in.
They have instead developed methods to indirectly measure the phenomena. In short they use transcendental reasoning. This involves the construction of a model by inferring its rules from the available evidence, then make predictions based off that hypothetical model, and devising tests for those predictions. After gathering the new evidence, either adjust your hypothesis to fit the new facts or if it withstood the predictions keep the hypothesis.
Today, as opposed to its horrible past, psychology is a science. Cognitive psychology employs transcendental reasoning and the scientific method. Many sciences do.
Wikipedia, to me, is meant for the casual person who wants a centralized, fairly reliable source of information about the world. In this Wikipedia succeeds magnificently. I am willing to bet that most wikipedia queries are from people who are looking for overview primer materials. Even academics can use it for these purposes profitably.
However, academics should go past wikipedia in their research simply because it is usually better to read actual research articles published in the scientific journals which they have access to. Academics need more than an overview, they need the meat, bones, and fat of the subject.
For those who say that this well and good for scientists, but offers little to the debate concerning non-science academic use of Wikipedia. Well my answer may be less satisfying than some. But it goes something like this: If its not science then it shouldn't be considered academic.
Lastly, I think the use of encyclopedias in academics is generally an issue of laziness and an unwillingness to do serious research into the subject.
Ahh yes that the one I was looking for, thank you. I also have a friend who is into literary criticism. Nice guy, but I try to keep my disdain for his work under wraps.
Lastly, what I meant to include: I am mostly speaking to old school philosophy, and literature majors.. To those who pride themselves on have reading the classics, can give quotes at will, and who did try to base their terminology on shaky concepts.
Slashdot Mirror
Really... Perhaps you think too much of yourself. There is a difference between knowledge and stupidity. Are you in a position to understand the position the non-computer tech/ non-c.s. etc must contend with while on the internet? These aren't all dumb people. These are people with different focuses in life. I bet many of them are aware of dangers in other mediums that you would not even notice. So fuck off snob.
If you make an argument based on one's rights being subservient to another person's, then I'd say that there is ample arguments for the fetus's primacy.
Again, the best way out of the issue is to develop good birth control, and get it into the population reliably.
Furthermore, I will fix my analogy: A person puts a plate of cookies on the school playground, and waits for a child to come get a cookie. Then the person charges the child like a linebacker would with 240+ pounds, thus killing the poor child, all to ensure that their cookies remain untouched whilst on the playground.
The government, to some extent does treat driving differently than your own body... But not so much if the act is hurting someone else.
Lastly, I agree that the rape cases do not fit, which is why many believe that even these children/fetuses should be allowed to live. After all, it is an American principle and part of our constitution, that the sins of the fathers will not be (legally) visited upon the children. If my father were to steal a car, then I will not be sent to prison for his crime. However, it can be argued that rape precludes the woman's choice of making the invitation in the first place(my argument above).
Perhaps it would be profitable to look at is this way: Suppose a person were to lure a child in a driveway with a plate of cookies. Then that person decides to drive their car. Is it ok for that person to run her over so she can leave?
1.That is a belief also, and you are trying to tell me to follow it. 2.Prove that you are a person. 3.shut up.
In America we have freedom of movement, yet we require a license and insurance to drive a motor vehicle.
The central question is not whether a woman has a right, but whether the fetus has rights, since the former falls out of the first. Since this central question is unanswerable, and is hotly debated in America, it seems appropriate to find a solution/compromise that reduces unwanted pregnancies in the first place. It would reduce the pregnancies by increasing use of contraception, instead of using abortion AS contraception. It would provide and pay and distribute to high schools to reduce unwanted pregnancies, thus alleviating the economic impact of teen pregnancy.
The main thing is this: We do not know for sure whether the fetus has rights, or moral worth, and it demands at least a compromise be made: A responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancies. By binding responsibility and rights together we can at least say this: She took reasonable steps to prevent this unwanted pregnancy. I personally don't agree with it, but at least she can say it. She wasn't irresponsible. She is a modern woman who knows how to take care of herself,and be proactive.
I do believe that the number of abortions is larger than those other deaths.
I do not suggest that the other issues that you mention in your post are not important to a great many republicans. I just suggest that there are many people for whom neither the republicans or the democrats represent their stand on the issues. For many of these issues are separable. e.g. It is possible to be Christian, and want to have more social programs.
If this assumption was made in error, and in fact the fetus is deserving of 'choice', a choice to live, then it is easily seen that Pro-Life would not in fact contradict the ideals of the Democrats which are civil liberties, economic equality and opportunity etc.
I am in fact one of those who adopt this platform. Liberal social issues, conservative moral issues. They do not contradict each other.
Lastly, I posit that women do have a choice, when they choose sex without appropriate contraception. Don't mention rape, because rape cases can be dealt with separately.
Lastly, I would present this solution to the abortion issue: A woman may have an abortion if at the time of conception, measures were taken to prevent conception by a government approved contraceptive device such as an IUD, except in cases of rape. Furthermore, such contraception will be made freely available to the public free of charge, by the government. Possibly including the distribution of the contraceptives in our public school system. (Notice I'm not a stock republican here)
Thus, the privileged to have an abortion, like driving a car, may be exercised only when certain requirements are met: namely, like insurance and a drivers test, you took reasonable steps to prevent pregnancy. If, as did my wife, you get pregnant while on an approved contraception, a woman may rid her self of the baby/fetus.
This is a compromise. It does not remove all abortions, and it does not remove the choice of women.
The power of this solution lies in its ability to move the debate into new ground. Conservatives will still want to stop abortion, but a large portions of abortions AND unwanted pregnancies would be prevented a,d this they could not say no too. Liberals may win smaller, but the give up less: however choice is validified by being coupled with a strong and established concept: Responsibility.
No choice without responsibility. No responsibility without choice.
Sounds like taxes and the Boston Tea Party.
Give them a hardcore left liberal, but who happened to be pro-life, and neutral/quiet on gay issues, and you'd have a viable candidate for the nation's republicans. IT IS the only reason many people vote republican.
My baby is being born! Stop typing!
where's that from?
No more, please and thank you.
Don't jump to conclusions, friend. I said consider. Considering a position is not the same as adopting a position.
I think you mean: The CIA as sent in agents to infiltrate Google as new hires. You know, like they do with news papers and magazines like Time.
Perhaps...But then again... We must consider the sample of people likely to report problems..
Thanks for my first harty harr harr of the morning.
Plasticine Horses and Kaleidoscope eyes.
I forgot to mention that.
They have instead developed methods to indirectly measure the phenomena. In short they use transcendental reasoning. This involves the construction of a model by inferring its rules from the available evidence, then make predictions based off that hypothetical model, and devising tests for those predictions. After gathering the new evidence, either adjust your hypothesis to fit the new facts or if it withstood the predictions keep the hypothesis.
Today, as opposed to its horrible past, psychology is a science. Cognitive psychology employs transcendental reasoning and the scientific method. Many sciences do.
Half-Troll, seriously..
Exaggeration it may be, but only just.
Wikipedia, to me, is meant for the casual person who wants a centralized, fairly reliable source of information about the world. In this Wikipedia succeeds magnificently. I am willing to bet that most wikipedia queries are from people who are looking for overview primer materials. Even academics can use it for these purposes profitably.
However, academics should go past wikipedia in their research simply because it is usually better to read actual research articles published in the scientific journals which they have access to. Academics need more than an overview, they need the meat, bones, and fat of the subject.
For those who say that this well and good for scientists, but offers little to the debate concerning non-science academic use of Wikipedia. Well my answer may be less satisfying than some. But it goes something like this: If its not science then it shouldn't be considered academic.
Lastly, I think the use of encyclopedias in academics is generally an issue of laziness and an unwillingness to do serious research into the subject.
Another Idea: A computer Science School should buy hell.com
Ahh yes that the one I was looking for, thank you. I also have a friend who is into literary criticism. Nice guy, but I try to keep my disdain for his work under wraps.
Lastly, what I meant to include: I am mostly speaking to old school philosophy, and literature majors.. To those who pride themselves on have reading the classics, can give quotes at will, and who did try to base their terminology on shaky concepts.