I agree with your comments. I've had an IOGear model G-CS104U for almost 3 years now. Never had a problem with the KVM, and every device I've plugged into it has worked as expected.
Also, the nicest thing about the unit is the fact that it came with all the necessary cables: 4 monitor cables and 4 USB square-type cables. I've never had the need to purchase additional cables specifically for the KVM. If only all products gave you everything you need...
Larry Ellison, Poster Child for Open Source
on
'Unbreakable Linux'
·
· Score: 1, Troll
Ellison quote from the article:
"The problem with traditional database is that you are constantly in an endless upgrade cycle."
What Larry is saying here is that his current business model doesn't have much steam left in it, and it's time for a change to something "non-traditional" that will, of course, require upgrades to just about everything.
Replace "traditional database" with "traditional database vendor", and the picture becomes clearer. The answer is obvious: migrate to a non-traditional database and break the cycle.
However, that pseudo code can actually be run if it's done in Python. Python is often described as "executable pseudo code". The syntax is very clear and very simple, but it is also amazingly powerful. Check it.
I saw a blurb on Big Media Television that said this album was going to hit the shelves on Sunday of this week, instead of the industry-usual Tuesday, precisely because the label wanted to curb the piracy of the album.
The best gun by far is the BFG. If I recall, the canonical definition is Big Fucking Gun, but I suppose it would be reasonable to use the phase Best Fucking Gun, as it is just as accurate.
Your mileage will vary, of course, but I have always preferred the Rocket Launcher.
First Thing We Do
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 3, Funny
"First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
--Shakespeare, King Henry VI, Part II, IV, ii
Yes, yes, I know the quote is out of context, but it's still damn insightful.
If you're going to work for the Man for 30+ years, you'd be better off finding out what you really love to do, and work towards being the best that you can be at that. Anything else says you're just in it for the money. That's certainly not a crime, but it will probably show in your work when compared to someone who really does love what they do.
While I don't particularly care for MS and their products, I can see the guys point. Java, by its very nature, does not interoperate with anything but Java at the process level. That's what he's talking about and he's absolutely correct from that perspective.
And of course, anything that goes over a standard network protocol can interoperate, but if that's the case, then you sure don't need Java as any language/environment/library that implements the protocol in question would work.
You don't need OO for that. You could have some template, a table record per page for example. Somewhere you specify what the default is for the app, and *unless* you give a specific style sheet name, it uses that default (blank = default).
Of course you don't need OO for that; everything we've talked about is Turing-complete.
OO taking credit for defaults is kind of Al Gorish.
As much as I appreciate any swipe at the former Veep, I think you're missing the point. Sure, I know you can code a function to do the correct style sheet lookup, but the difference is in the effort. Instead of trying to maintain a single massive, monolithic function that is essentially a big case statement, using OO and acquisition in Zope moves the burden from the developer to the system. The code becomes smaller and more logical, not larger and more difficult to comprehend.
The style sheet example was just that: an example. There are plenty ways that the OO nature of Zope saves time. I won't bore you with them because you really don't seem interested.
However, the tricker part is in granularity management. With methods, inheritance is all or nothing. You can't override 1/3 of a method without duplication or refactoring.
True, inheritance is not the be-all end-all technique of reusing code, hence the shift in emphasis in the OO community away from inheritance and towards composition. And with Python, you also have the option of using meta-classes (the risk, of course, is that your brain may explode).
Could you be more specific about what is "web stuff"?
Sure. Web stuff is using a web server to serve a GUI to a client or to act as an RPC end-point (e.g., XMLRPC over HTTP, SOAP over HTTP, or roll-yer-own over HTTP).
Zope excels at the GUI by truly separating presentation from logic. Check out Zope Page Templates, which use an attribute markup language to embed presentation control in XHTML tags. Simply mind-blowing. Also, Zope is the only web server I've run across (I'm sure there are others...) that realizes the promise of reuse thru Object-Orientation. The quintessential example is style sheets. Under IIS/CFM/J2Whatever, you typically have to include a style sheet in every document that should use it. Under Zope, you instantiate it once, include it once, and sub objects inherit it automatically. Even better, that behavior can be overridden by careful instantiation of other objects in the hierarchy.
As to the RPC, again Zope is stellar. It does XMLRPC out of the box, and I hear SOAP support is coming soon (I seem to recall a package that makes this possible today, but I'm too lazy to surf over there and find the link for you). I mentioned a Zope app I recently deployed earlier in this thread, and with that app, we act as both RPC client and server. Using Zope/Python made the RPC stuff almost trivial, and our Marketing people were simply floored by how much we implemented in so little time.
Does that answer your question? Please let me know if I can answer anything further about Python or Zope. I've been programming almost 15 years, and I know 13 languages last count. Python is the only one about which I've ever felt passion.
Not really -- I never asserted that since most people agree (or disagree) that therefore I must be right (or wrong). That was a simple statement to counter your assertion that "many others" disagree and I was simply trying to narrow the perspective...
Then why the repeated references to your opinion being that of the majority? Either you are intellectually lazy, or you are trying to skew the discussion by introducing irrelevant but popular sentiment. In either case, all of your position looses merit.
Actually, I was calling myself and those that are like-minded kooky. You are trying to read a personal insult to you in my post that does not exist.
If the insult truly does not exist, I suggest you take greater care in your choice of words.
I suggest you stop dwelling on it.
I cannot stop what I have not begun.
However, there is a continous effort by groups in this country (usually of superstitous persuasions) to change the law of the land in regards to that matter and so it becomes an ongoing issue.
And what is the point of this? Are you such a liberal that you would deny the right of those with whom you do not agree to advocate changing the law of the land? Or perhaps you simply could not discuss this subject rationally without taking a swipe at people who have faith and/or religion ("superstition" to use your term)?
I would argue that a newborn's ability to communicate via vocalizations (crying when its hungry/etc) and react to environmental stimuli via touch suggests that it has a well developed and functioning nervous system that goes well beyond rudimentary perception.
Well that's all fine and dandy today. But tomorrow, you or someone just like you will make the argument that newborns perceptions are not as developed as yours and mine, and therefore it is just as appropriate to kill said newborn.
I'll try to clarify that credible scientific evidence suggests that a fetus in development has a nervous system incapable of relaying any sensory information as far into development as 15 weeks. Without a nervous system it is incapable of even the most rudimentary preception as a result.
Key word here: suggests. Until next week, when the evidence "suggests" something to the contrary. Which leads straight back to my original point: what if you're wrong about the "when"? If so, you would be guilty of advocating murder. Plain and simple. And it's my opinion that, barring conclusive evidence to the contrary, it is best to err on the side of caution. Is that concept so difficult to grasp?
Your statement leads me to believe you have either failed to read my post carefully or have failed to comprehend my position.
I have failed to do neither, but instead have chosen to take issue with your position. Or is your opinion above reproach?
Going beyond that into the second trimester, however, my argument starts to get on shaky ground as we are dealing with a developing fetus that is potentially capable of feeling things like pain.
Potentially. Perhaps you should admit to yourself that you simply do not know exactly when any given fetus can feel pain, and therefore any criteria used to determine when an abortion is "morally acceptable" is arbitrary and flawed at best, and at the worst, murder.
I'm sure neither NASA nor Disney would consider using Python for everything.
True, true. But the guy from NASA I met at the last Python conference (IPC10) told me NASA uses python for all their testing. To me, that speaks volumes.
Competent programmers know that different tools are useful for different purposes.
Again, right on the money. But the OP was asking for something that works as well *cough* as J2EEEEE (tm) for web stuff.
i can tell you that python, and more specifically, zope, do scale just as well, if not better, to the enterprise. python allows you to extend via C/C++ relatively easily, and that provides a very easy path to scalability.
as an example, i just deployed a site that will has at least 20k unique users per day. granted, that isn't true internet-scale, but i guarentee you that it will scale farther, faster, and easier than anything that comes outta Sun(tm).
whether or not python/zope are used in other enterprise solutions or not is a different question entirely, of course, but i did want to offer some evidence to the idea that there are alternatives to the java marketing machine.
thank you for making a damned good point. more importantly, thank you for labeling me pro-life in lieu of "anti-abortion" or "abortion foe" or some such tripe. you don't know the agony it is to be mislabeled so frequently by the mass media and it's adherents.
truth be told, i don't give a rats ass about karma, but i did want this particular post to be read. again, thanks.
when you are faced with the reality that you do not have the financial resources or maturity to responsibly raise a child.
do you have kids? i don't ask to enflame the issue, merely to grasp your understanding of the financial responsibility of raising children. a relative of mine summed it up quite nicely: you never have enough money to raise kids. granted, that's only a quip, but the flip side is simple in that if you cannot afford to raise a child, the State will happily help you out (in America, at least, where the ruling took place).
You can't just walk into an abortion clinic nine months pregnant and get an abortion, by the way
ever heard of partial-birth abortion? it's a procedure that is used to "terminate a pregnancy" right up until the last minute. and it's legal in some states, IIRC.
It would be nice if, once in my life, I could debate this with someone who doesn't need to make references to various nazis or dumpsters full of body parts when presenting their case. (not that you are that kind of person pnatural, it's just a general complaint.)
point taken. but also consider the motivations of those who do make those arguments in that they typically do not make them out of malice, but out of desperation to have what they (and I!) believe to be murder ended.
Most people that speak from an educated position on the matter do not disagree with me.
so since "most people" do not disagree with you, you must be right? Logical fallacy.
You are simply trying to deflect the conversation onto something irrelevant by trying to take my statement as a personal attack.
I'm sorry, but being called "kooky" (your word) "uneducated" (your term) and "unenlightened" (again, all you) constitutes a personal attack in my book. I think it is you who are trying to deflect the argument.
I accuse no one that disagrees with me on something that is of a non-factual basis un-enlightened or un-educated.
Wrong: you just did.
I will accuse someone that obstinately argues from a position based on factual error that can be credibly disproven of being either ignornant or unenlightened and having an ulterior motive to ignore fact.
Or perhaps said person has a set of facts that contradict your own? Or perhaps interprets the facts differently than you?
However, once again I will state that the assertion that I laid out to be quite prevelant among people that I would personally consider educated and enlightened on the particular issue.
Again, since the view is prevelant [sic], it must be correct? You do seem to be the product of American higher "education" if you believe that the majority is always right.
The right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy did not exist at the federal level until RvW.
your original post, emphasis mine:
and it is those ideals that are used to deny women the right of controlling their reproductive processes through law
you said "are used", present tense. The period before RvW is the past. Again: tell me what law exists today that "denies" a woman these "rights"?
Regardless, the issue for me comes down to the belief of whether or not a fetus that hasn't developed to the point of even being able to have rudimentary perception is morally worthy of consideration over the moral rights of a woman to control her reproductive processes.
have you ever seen a new born baby? I have: three of my own. And let me tell you, their perception of the world is far below rudimentary. Should it therefore be acceptable to "abort" them after birth?
In a broder sense it also includes whether one considers it a moral right of a human to exercise control over their bodies.
and what about the moral rights of the fetus? You admitted above that even a blastocyst is alive. Does it not then have the right to exercise control over its own body?
Earn some first year biology -- a blastocyst is not a human being
thanks, i did take bio 101. and you'll get no argument from me about a blastocyst not being a human. however, the question remains: is that blastocyst alive? you did not answer that question, and even if you did, you'd be met with plenty (read: more than 1) disagreement.
A vegetable is not morally worthy of consideration when you apply rights to it that supercede the rights of a grown human being to self-determination.
not morally worthy to you perhaps, but certainly to many others.
Plus there is always the extremely kooky idea among the educated and/or enlightened that your body is actually your own and that you have the right to exert control over the natural processes that of your body.
so if someone does not agree with this idea, they are not educated? wrong: i'm plenty educated and i do not. am i not enligthened? that's certainly arguable, and if being enlightened means sharing in your group-think, i'll happily describe myself as unenlightened.
and it is those ideals that are used to deny women the right of controlling their reproductive processes through law.
i'm sorry, to what law are you refering? is there a law on the books in the US that "denies" a woman these "rights"?
For all practical purposes, even a newborn child is barely able to survive. Without care it won't last long; even more so - children born prematurely, just couple of weeks earlier than they should.
by that line of thinking it would be okay to "abort" a pregnancy after birth. what a concept.
In civilized countries (Europe) people don't debate this issue so intensely.
and what in the name of spider-man does that have to do with anything? last i checked, this post was about a ruling in america.
oh, but of course: everything the europeans do is correct because, well, they're europeans.
People are cheap, and unborn people are even cheaper.
and soon, me and people like me will be the cheapest of all because we disagree with the State. don't worry, they'll never come for you.
What this world needs is better life for those who are already born, and for those children who are wanted.
what this world needs is for all life to be valued.
If this discussion [in the society] continues, soon it will be a crime to not marry; it will be also a crime not to have sex with everyone around you
sorry, that's a logical fallacy, namely the slippery slope. try again.
rather; will it have parents to love it and care for it.
ok, let us think about this gem for a minute.
say johnny is born to a loving family. mom and dad do everything just right, and little johnny is plenty happy. 4, 5, 6 years pass. then one day, the unthinkable happens: the parents both die in a car wreck. there are no other living relatives to take care of little johnny. with your line of thinking, it would then be time to kill the boy, 'cause there's no parents left to "love it and care for it".
(nope, i'm not an american)
don't worry, we won't hold that against you when some big bad man takes over your country and we have to come save you.
i used to think abortion was okay. i used to think i was "enlightened" for thinking so.
but after careful, deliberate thought something occurred to me: we don't know with absolute certainty that a fetus is not a living being. sure, the supreme court says that a fetus isn't viable until 6 months and therefore can be aborted, but i don't trust the supreme court any farther than i can throw clarance thomas.
what do the scientists say? they seem to be just as divided on this subject as the rest of the population. and this is the heart of the matter: we cannot say with absolute certainty when a fetus is a living being.
now, in almost every other aspect of human life, when the stakes are high, we tend to exercise more restraint. "err on the side of caution" as the saying goes. why are we so certain in this case that, since we can't be sure, it's okay to abort these pregnancies when we don't really know?
the last was rhetorical, of course. if i made you stop and think for a second, i've done my job. if you jerk your knee and retreat into the same old tired arguments, i've failed.
i hope you just stop and think. don't blindly believe what your teachers told you, don't believe what eMpTV tells you, and please, for the love of everything sacred, don't believe what CNN tells you. stop and think.
certainly not. however, there is debate as to if they are human. they may be, they may be not. it seems to me, that with such high stakes (potentially taking human life) that it would only be prudent to exercise some iota of caution.
what possible other explanation could an anti-abortion site have for listing Doctors that peform the abortions addresses,etc. other than for harrasment/possible violence?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your comments. I've had an IOGear model G-CS104U for almost 3 years now. Never had a problem with the KVM, and every device I've plugged into it has worked as expected.
Also, the nicest thing about the unit is the fact that it came with all the necessary cables: 4 monitor cables and 4 USB square-type cables. I've never had the need to purchase additional cables specifically for the KVM. If only all products gave you everything you need...
Ellison quote from the article:
"The problem with traditional database is that you are constantly in an endless upgrade cycle."
What Larry is saying here is that his current business model doesn't have much steam left in it, and it's time for a change to something "non-traditional" that will, of course, require upgrades to just about everything.
Replace "traditional database" with "traditional database vendor", and the picture becomes clearer. The answer is obvious: migrate to a non-traditional database and break the cycle.
Your comments about pseudo code are spot-on.
However, that pseudo code can actually be run if it's done in Python. Python is often described as "executable pseudo code". The syntax is very clear and very simple, but it is also amazingly powerful. Check it.
I saw a blurb on Big Media Television that said this album was going to hit the shelves on Sunday of this week, instead of the industry-usual Tuesday, precisely because the label wanted to curb the piracy of the album.
There is no "best gun" (unless you count a BMG)
The best gun by far is the BFG. If I recall, the canonical definition is Big Fucking Gun, but I suppose it would be reasonable to use the phase Best Fucking Gun, as it is just as accurate.
Your mileage will vary, of course, but I have always preferred the Rocket Launcher.
"First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
--Shakespeare, King Henry VI, Part II, IV, ii
Yes, yes, I know the quote is out of context, but it's still damn insightful.
If you're going to work for the Man for 30+ years, you'd be better off finding out what you really love to do, and work towards being the best that you can be at that. Anything else says you're just in it for the money. That's certainly not a crime, but it will probably show in your work when compared to someone who really does love what they do.
Just my US $0.02.
Oh, please.
While I don't particularly care for MS and their products, I can see the guys point. Java, by its very nature, does not interoperate with anything but Java at the process level. That's what he's talking about and he's absolutely correct from that perspective.
And of course, anything that goes over a standard network protocol can interoperate, but if that's the case, then you sure don't need Java as any language/environment/library that implements the protocol in question would work.
You don't need OO for that. You could have some template, a table record per page for example. Somewhere you specify what the default is for the app, and *unless* you give a specific style sheet name, it uses that default (blank = default).
Of course you don't need OO for that; everything we've talked about is Turing-complete.
OO taking credit for defaults is kind of Al Gorish.
As much as I appreciate any swipe at the former Veep, I think you're missing the point. Sure, I know you can code a function to do the correct style sheet lookup, but the difference is in the effort. Instead of trying to maintain a single massive, monolithic function that is essentially a big case statement, using OO and acquisition in Zope moves the burden from the developer to the system. The code becomes smaller and more logical, not larger and more difficult to comprehend.
The style sheet example was just that: an example. There are plenty ways that the OO nature of Zope saves time. I won't bore you with them because you really don't seem interested.
However, the tricker part is in granularity management. With methods, inheritance is all or nothing. You can't override 1/3 of a method without duplication or refactoring.
True, inheritance is not the be-all end-all technique of reusing code, hence the shift in emphasis in the OO community away from inheritance and towards composition. And with Python, you also have the option of using meta-classes (the risk, of course, is that your brain may explode).
but 42 is an integer!
and ease of administration
could someone explain how a microprocessor is administered?
Could you be more specific about what is "web stuff"?
Sure. Web stuff is using a web server to serve a GUI to a client or to act as an RPC end-point (e.g., XMLRPC over HTTP, SOAP over HTTP, or roll-yer-own over HTTP).
Zope excels at the GUI by truly separating presentation from logic. Check out Zope Page Templates, which use an attribute markup language to embed presentation control in XHTML tags. Simply mind-blowing. Also, Zope is the only web server I've run across (I'm sure there are others...) that realizes the promise of reuse thru Object-Orientation. The quintessential example is style sheets. Under IIS/CFM/J2Whatever, you typically have to include a style sheet in every document that should use it. Under Zope, you instantiate it once, include it once, and sub objects inherit it automatically. Even better, that behavior can be overridden by careful instantiation of other objects in the hierarchy.
As to the RPC, again Zope is stellar. It does XMLRPC out of the box, and I hear SOAP support is coming soon (I seem to recall a package that makes this possible today, but I'm too lazy to surf over there and find the link for you). I mentioned a Zope app I recently deployed earlier in this thread, and with that app, we act as both RPC client and server. Using Zope/Python made the RPC stuff almost trivial, and our Marketing people were simply floored by how much we implemented in so little time.
Does that answer your question? Please let me know if I can answer anything further about Python or Zope. I've been programming almost 15 years, and I know 13 languages last count. Python is the only one about which I've ever felt passion.
You can get Zope here.
Not really -- I never asserted that since most people agree (or disagree) that therefore I must be right (or wrong). That was a simple statement to counter your assertion that "many others" disagree and I was simply trying to narrow the perspective ...
Then why the repeated references to your opinion being that of the majority? Either you are intellectually lazy, or you are trying to skew the discussion by introducing irrelevant but popular sentiment. In either case, all of your position looses merit.
Actually, I was calling myself and those that are like-minded kooky. You are trying to read a personal insult to you in my post that does not exist.
If the insult truly does not exist, I suggest you take greater care in your choice of words.
I suggest you stop dwelling on it.
I cannot stop what I have not begun.
However, there is a continous effort by groups in this country (usually of superstitous persuasions) to change the law of the land in regards to that matter and so it becomes an ongoing issue.
And what is the point of this? Are you such a liberal that you would deny the right of those with whom you do not agree to advocate changing the law of the land? Or perhaps you simply could not discuss this subject rationally without taking a swipe at people who have faith and/or religion ("superstition" to use your term)?
I would argue that a newborn's ability to communicate via vocalizations (crying when its hungry/etc) and react to environmental stimuli via touch suggests that it has a well developed and functioning nervous system that goes well beyond rudimentary perception.
Well that's all fine and dandy today. But tomorrow, you or someone just like you will make the argument that newborns perceptions are not as developed as yours and mine, and therefore it is just as appropriate to kill said newborn.
I'll try to clarify that credible scientific evidence suggests that a fetus in development has a nervous system incapable of relaying any sensory information as far into development as 15 weeks. Without a nervous system it is incapable of even the most rudimentary preception as a result.
Key word here: suggests. Until next week, when the evidence "suggests" something to the contrary. Which leads straight back to my original point: what if you're wrong about the "when"? If so, you would be guilty of advocating murder. Plain and simple. And it's my opinion that, barring conclusive evidence to the contrary, it is best to err on the side of caution. Is that concept so difficult to grasp?
Your statement leads me to believe you have either failed to read my post carefully or have failed to comprehend my position.
I have failed to do neither, but instead have chosen to take issue with your position. Or is your opinion above reproach?
Going beyond that into the second trimester, however, my argument starts to get on shaky ground as we are dealing with a developing fetus that is potentially capable of feeling things like pain.
Potentially. Perhaps you should admit to yourself that you simply do not know exactly when any given fetus can feel pain, and therefore any criteria used to determine when an abortion is "morally acceptable" is arbitrary and flawed at best, and at the worst, murder.
I'm sure neither NASA nor Disney would consider using Python for everything.
True, true. But the guy from NASA I met at the last Python conference (IPC10) told me NASA uses python for all their testing. To me, that speaks volumes.
Competent programmers know that different tools are useful for different purposes.
Again, right on the money. But the OP was asking for something that works as well *cough* as J2EEEEE (tm) for web stuff.
i can tell you that python, and more specifically, zope, do scale just as well, if not better, to the enterprise. python allows you to extend via C/C++ relatively easily, and that provides a very easy path to scalability.
:)
as an example, i just deployed a site that will has at least 20k unique users per day. granted, that isn't true internet-scale, but i guarentee you that it will scale farther, faster, and easier than anything that comes outta Sun(tm).
whether or not python/zope are used in other enterprise solutions or not is a different question entirely, of course, but i did want to offer some evidence to the idea that there are alternatives to the java marketing machine.
btw, i'm glad you like python.
oh my word, thank you.
thank you for making a damned good point. more importantly, thank you for labeling me pro-life in lieu of "anti-abortion" or "abortion foe" or some such tripe. you don't know the agony it is to be mislabeled so frequently by the mass media and it's adherents.
truth be told, i don't give a rats ass about karma, but i did want this particular post to be read. again, thanks.
when you are faced with the reality that you do not have the financial resources or maturity to responsibly raise a child.
do you have kids? i don't ask to enflame the issue, merely to grasp your understanding of the financial responsibility of raising children. a relative of mine summed it up quite nicely: you never have enough money to raise kids. granted, that's only a quip, but the flip side is simple in that if you cannot afford to raise a child, the State will happily help you out (in America, at least, where the ruling took place).
You can't just walk into an abortion clinic nine months pregnant and get an abortion, by the way
ever heard of partial-birth abortion? it's a procedure that is used to "terminate a pregnancy" right up until the last minute. and it's legal in some states, IIRC.
It would be nice if, once in my life, I could debate this with someone who doesn't need to make references to various nazis or dumpsters full of body parts when presenting their case. (not that you are that kind of person pnatural, it's just a general complaint.)
point taken. but also consider the motivations of those who do make those arguments in that they typically do not make them out of malice, but out of desperation to have what they (and I!) believe to be murder ended.
Most people that speak from an educated position on the matter do not disagree with me.
so since "most people" do not disagree with you, you must be right? Logical fallacy.
You are simply trying to deflect the conversation onto something irrelevant by trying to take my statement as a personal attack.
I'm sorry, but being called "kooky" (your word) "uneducated" (your term) and "unenlightened" (again, all you) constitutes a personal attack in my book. I think it is you who are trying to deflect the argument.
I accuse no one that disagrees with me on something that is of a non-factual basis un-enlightened or un-educated.
Wrong: you just did.
I will accuse someone that obstinately argues from a position based on factual error that can be credibly disproven of being either ignornant or unenlightened and having an ulterior motive to ignore fact.
Or perhaps said person has a set of facts that contradict your own? Or perhaps interprets the facts differently than you?
However, once again I will state that the assertion that I laid out to be quite prevelant among people that I would personally consider educated and enlightened on the particular issue.
Again, since the view is prevelant [sic], it must be correct? You do seem to be the product of American higher "education" if you believe that the majority is always right.
The right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy did not exist at the federal level until RvW.
your original post, emphasis mine:
and it is those ideals that are used to deny women the right of controlling their reproductive processes through law
you said "are used", present tense. The period before RvW is the past. Again: tell me what law exists today that "denies" a woman these "rights"?
Regardless, the issue for me comes down to the belief of whether or not a fetus that hasn't developed to the point of even being able to have rudimentary perception is morally worthy of consideration over the moral rights of a woman to control her reproductive processes.
have you ever seen a new born baby? I have: three of my own. And let me tell you, their perception of the world is far below rudimentary. Should it therefore be acceptable to "abort" them after birth?
In a broder sense it also includes whether one considers it a moral right of a human to exercise control over their bodies.
and what about the moral rights of the fetus? You admitted above that even a blastocyst is alive. Does it not then have the right to exercise control over its own body?
Earn some first year biology -- a blastocyst is not a human being
thanks, i did take bio 101. and you'll get no argument from me about a blastocyst not being a human. however, the question remains: is that blastocyst alive? you did not answer that question, and even if you did, you'd be met with plenty (read: more than 1) disagreement.
A vegetable is not morally worthy of consideration when you apply rights to it that supercede the rights of a grown human being to self-determination.
not morally worthy to you perhaps, but certainly to many others.
Plus there is always the extremely kooky idea among the educated and/or enlightened that your body is actually your own and that you have the right to exert control over the natural processes that of your body.
so if someone does not agree with this idea, they are not educated? wrong: i'm plenty educated and i do not. am i not enligthened? that's certainly arguable, and if being enlightened means sharing in your group-think, i'll happily describe myself as unenlightened.
and it is those ideals that are used to deny women the right of controlling their reproductive processes through law.
i'm sorry, to what law are you refering? is there a law on the books in the US that "denies" a woman these "rights"?
For all practical purposes, even a newborn child is barely able to survive. Without care it won't last long; even more so - children born prematurely, just couple of weeks earlier than they should.
by that line of thinking it would be okay to "abort" a pregnancy after birth. what a concept.
In civilized countries (Europe) people don't debate this issue so intensely.
and what in the name of spider-man does that have to do with anything? last i checked, this post was about a ruling in america.
oh, but of course: everything the europeans do is correct because, well, they're europeans.
People are cheap, and unborn people are even cheaper.
and soon, me and people like me will be the cheapest of all because we disagree with the State. don't worry, they'll never come for you.
What this world needs is better life for those who are already born, and for those children who are wanted.
what this world needs is for all life to be valued.
If this discussion [in the society] continues, soon it will be a crime to not marry; it will be also a crime not to have sex with everyone around you
sorry, that's a logical fallacy, namely the slippery slope. try again.
rather; will it have parents to love it and care for it.
ok, let us think about this gem for a minute.
say johnny is born to a loving family. mom and dad do everything just right, and little johnny is plenty happy. 4, 5, 6 years pass. then one day, the unthinkable happens: the parents both die in a car wreck. there are no other living relatives to take care of little johnny. with your line of thinking, it would then be time to kill the boy, 'cause there's no parents left to "love it and care for it".
(nope, i'm not an american)
don't worry, we won't hold that against you when some big bad man takes over your country and we have to come save you.
but i wish i could.
i used to think abortion was okay. i used to think i was "enlightened" for thinking so.
but after careful, deliberate thought something occurred to me: we don't know with absolute certainty that a fetus is not a living being. sure, the supreme court says that a fetus isn't viable until 6 months and therefore can be aborted, but i don't trust the supreme court any farther than i can throw clarance thomas.
what do the scientists say? they seem to be just as divided on this subject as the rest of the population. and this is the heart of the matter: we cannot say with absolute certainty when a fetus is a living being.
now, in almost every other aspect of human life, when the stakes are high, we tend to exercise more restraint. "err on the side of caution" as the saying goes. why are we so certain in this case that, since we can't be sure, it's okay to abort these pregnancies when we don't really know?
the last was rhetorical, of course. if i made you stop and think for a second, i've done my job. if you jerk your knee and retreat into the same old tired arguments, i've failed.
i hope you just stop and think. don't blindly believe what your teachers told you, don't believe what eMpTV tells you, and please, for the love of everything sacred, don't believe what CNN tells you. stop and think.
Fetuses are not children.
certainly not. however, there is debate as to if they are human. they may be, they may be not. it seems to me, that with such high stakes (potentially taking human life) that it would only be prudent to exercise some iota of caution.
what possible other explanation could an anti-abortion site have for listing Doctors that peform the abortions addresses,etc. other than for harrasment/possible violence?
it's called free speech. oh, wait...