Thanks- hidden in that joke is a very true statement. Yep, that's the technical difference between TIA and this- the number of tables you have to go to for the data.
Heck- given the latest in flexible solar panels, GPS units, and some simple "stay as close to these co-ordinates as possible" automation, this might just be the ultimate 802.11x platform...
Ah- but also included in all that is examples of prior art- which means that even an idiotic message board with a bunch of garbage on it can tell that the patent is garbage- and that big company X is a con artist.
Worse, though, is if you're wife's career is as unstable as your business- in which case you will sink very rapidly into debt. I'm $10,000 in debt over and above my assets- which are also mainly mortgaged to the hilt. It will take me at least 10 years, maybe 20, before I'm worth exactly nothing. My business, unlike yours, and despite doing everything you did, is barely on life support. Thank goodness I found this contract with the State- and I'll be going permanent soon, which means benefits again- because I have lost all faith in private industry and the free market system.
Where I can appreciate some of what the Gates Foundation does- the majority of those three items (immunization, AIDS Research, and anti-poverty work) is far more about opening India and China as markets and sources of cheap labor, than it is about actual philanthropy. It's a clever thing to do with the foundation to look like Bill is helping people when he's really just building a bigger user base for Microsoft. But then again, Bill's object and purpose in life isn't to be a billionaire- and he's not going to be leaving his children with anything other than a legacy and maybe a $100,000 loan (or the equivalent in 2030 dollars to his 1970 dollars that started Microsoft) to start their own legacies- the money is beside the point for him. While I don't respect what he's done or his own technological ability- I do respect him for his REAL purpose behind Microsoft; a computer on every desk running an operating system that is as easy for the end user as a TV set. The billions? They're just what comes from realizing that dream in a totally unethical way.
Yes, IMO, no politician should take an anti-abortion stance without first addressing the huge demands for infants that has made "Chinese adoption broker" a booming career choice. Adoption regulations were intended to protect children, but they apparently go to far.
True enough- it's amazing how hard it is to adopt. The government should not have a say at all in this.
The government doesn't grant permits for concieving a child- why should they make adoption much harder?
Actually it does- that's what civil marriage is really about, though these days the connection has gotten so broken that it is almost useless. Seems to me though that the civil marriage license should be enough to automatically push through the rest of the paperwork on adoption.
They don't exist. Even just a few deliveries a year is enough to import major benefits from an external, capitalist industry. (And even if they didn't use manufactured goods, there's still intangible benefits they are given: protection of their property rights, for example. They are "recieving" defense from rampaging brigands)
The ones I'm thinking of usually had their own defenses against rampaging brigands- they had to, for they were originally designed to withstand the fall of the Roman Empire and the Dark Ages. It was many, many decades before civil government returned at all. Today, some of them have transplanted bits of themselves to the United States- but by and large these communities keep to themselves and take nothing and return nothing to the surrounding community, asside from a place for misfits to go when they can't stand to live in regular society anymore.
His ideas haven't been tested yet. Marx's theories were only applicable in the context of a post-capitalist society. Russia and China never even had capitalism, and you can't be post-X without reaching X first.
True enough- though Cuba had X- and it's arguably the most successfull Marxist rebellion yet. Success being a relative term- it at least provides a better standard of living now than when Organized Crime was in charge....
It is concievable that increasing monopolization of the USA economy could push it towards a post-capitalist, central-planning environment (at least bringing it closer than the USSR ever was)
My favorite is decentralized planning done by adapative expert system programming. McDonald's is testing a system right now that if it was widespread could well be the core to replace the bureaucratic problems that Russia and China ran into (by replacing the bureaucrats with machines). There are several beta test sites around the United States now- just look for the ordering kiosks in the play areas. If you're lucky, a bored and downright redundant low level employee will show you the cooks- the robotic french fry machine, the burger cooker and assembly machine, etc. Very interesting- I personally wouldn't have designed the system with the freezer on the top, but then again, I think the engineers were trying to take advantage of gravity.
And as I just said, "restricted" is a kind of "legal".
Well, then, I should ask- would you support a limitation of abortion to medical (both physical and mental) conditions only? Here's the *only* thing I see is wrong with the current state: people are using abortion for birth control. That's WAY to trival of a reason to have abortion available- we're supposed to be human beings not animals, and there are other forms of birth control available to us. Heck- we don't even HAVE to have sex- it's an option unlike with some lower life forms, we can choose to abstain. I think you could get near unamity on the concept of limiting abortion to medical reasons only. Parental consent isn't quite the sideshow you think it is- parental consent these days is required for just about any medical procedure.
A nationwide vote to legalize weapons without restrictions would never pass either. But guns will still be legal.
So, would the pro-choice side be satisfied with restrictions to protect the life of the mother, and when reasonable, require doctors to treat the fetus as a second patient? Because from my understanding of the Catholic Principle of Double Effect- that'd be a law that it would be a sin NOT to vote for. Abortion would still be legal- heck, it'd even be required in some cases under the medical philosophy principle of triage. Kind of like murder is allowable in cases of self defense- or how a doctor is allowed to let one patient die, so that they can take an aorta graft to save a second patient. And best of all- PAD would be treatable just as any other form of depression is today, as opposed to being hidden away and women scorned for being depressed after an abortion.
I completely agree on the Republican part- they're just using this as an issue to get people to vote against their own pocketbooks. Oddly enough- Kerry has been demonstratably pro-life in his personal life- a lot more than Bush the Betrayer of the Unborn has been (especially when it comes to his own progeny; Kerry has stated that a daughter of his will NEVER be allowed to get an abortion, where Bush has paid for the abortions of both daughters and an old girlfriend).
Alternatively, C, you can photocopy the stupid Cease-and-Desist letter, publish it to slashdot, and let us tear it apart, don't respond, archive the results and wait. When MICROSOFT spends the money to drag you into court, you don't even need to hire a lawyer- just take your printout and file it as an amicus brief. And be sure to send a second copy to the newspapers so that the rest of us can laugh at Microsoft also.
I'd say it's far more likely that it would be specifically restricted. BTW, there's no real need to overturn RoeV.Wade- current scientific evidence can be construed as to support a nearly complete abortion ban within the RoeV.Wade decision (based on life of the mother and the newfound correlation between abortion and death of the mother).
Plus- next month's vote is bound to be far more of a referendum on the actual performance of the President than about a single issue. What I meant by a vote on the topic would be an EXPLICIT nationwide referendum to completely legalize abortion without restrictions- and that, would never pass.
If that drive were as strong as you think it is, then the legality of abortion would be irrelevant, because no rational woman would pass up the opportunity to bear a child.
EXACTY my point and why I'm voting for John Kerry. No rational woman, in abscence of other possibilities, would pass up the opportunity to bear a child. Therefore the real way to decrease abortion (and the use of birth control) in this country isn't to make it illegal- it's to increase the opportunity to raise families. This theory is borne out (no pun inteded) by the fact that abortion has actually gone UP since the passage of the Partial Birth Abortion bill.
Someone who doesn't want children clearly has a defective genome- but will the government go and force her to reproduce?
Nope- but neither should she be having sex. Having said that- you've hit upon the key point in my plan for reducing abortion- increase the ability of women (and men! It's amazing how often the fathers are forgotten in the equation, and yet the grand majority of abortions have a component of significant other coercion in them) to have families and the issue will largely take care of itself (or at least, the abortion rate will fall to that 1%-4% that actually is medically necessary and well within the Catholic Principle of Double Effect).
Communalism is not communism. Those monestaries only survive by trading with the outside, non-communal public. Religous rites in exchange for donation is still a kind of capitalism.
What about those monasteries that are not only self-sufficient, but as a part of their rules require almost no contact with the outside world (asside, that is, from new novices)? Still, you're correct- and I'm personally far more a communalist than a communist!
(Leninism, however, is also not communism. And Stalinism certainly isn't!)
I would venture to say that Marx has been disproven to some extent- given the rigid control structures and the tendency for the winners in a revolution to mimic the previous government, violent revolution isn't the way to go.
But we could sure go a long way to allowing for less abortion if every citizen was guaranteed food, clothing, shelter, clean water, and medical care.
The cool thing is that identical twins are legally allowed to kill each other.
That would be the hole in an individual- the really cool thing would be the fact that they would find themselves unable to if the twin effect is the truth (but that leads into paraphysics). Oh, they could draw the guns on each other- but their own survival instinct would prevent actually pulling the trigger.
One reason that Americans mostly support legalized abortion even though they're the most churchgoing modern nation is the belief that abortion is sometimes moral.
Actually, most Americans do not support completely legalized abortion- latest polls show that over 71% of Americans support some form of restrictions on the "right" of abortion. But it's never been put up to a vote- and even those who support restrictions do not do so as a single issue for the most part.
The litmus test is to ask a hypothetical question about a 15-year old girl who was raped by her own brother. Very few career politicians will admit to opposing abortion in that instance.
Career politicians are not the people- in fact, most of them are out of touch with the people.
But once someone agrees that abortion is justified in one instance, they've crossed the line into saying it isn't the murder of a child, and slip along into permitting it in many other circumstances.
Which is where the principle of double effect comes in. One need not stop calling it murder in situations where a greater evil will happen without the abortion (a second murder).
I still feel like I'm failing to understand something of the definition of a human that you are using. Are you saying that all it takes to be human is the requisite genetic code? If so then answer me this: why is a fertilized ovum a human and a red blood cell is not? Both are single cells that contain human DNA.
I'm saying that what it takes to define a human is the genetic code- and what it takes to define a human INDIVIDUAL is different genetic code than the parent. The fertilized ovum becomes an individual once fertilization by the sperm changes the genetic code. Before that, every sequence can be found in the mother's DNA. Likewise, with sperm- every sequence can be found in the father's DNA. Unfertilized ova and sperm belong to the parent organism. But once fertilized, the cell belongs to the child, not to the parent, because it no longer has the genetic code of the parent.
Yes. But we've had the concept of a species much longer than we've known about genetics. When we talk about genetics species has a very particular meaning. But it is a meaning arbitrarily assigned to it by geneticists. Other people may disagree with the definition.
Absolutely- but in so doing those other people are ignoring a scientific fact. You might disagree that gravity exists, but that doesn't stop the physics from being true.
The question is, are we in law using the same definition of species as we are in science.
No- we're not. The species of the fetus is not in question at all- the personhood is.
Should we be? For the record having given the bill a cursory search I don't believe they once use the word species. But now I'm drifting into semantic waters so I will move on.
The legal aspect is personhood rather than species- and by making somebody a non-person on circumstances of birth, the government is violating the human rights of that individual. Persons are protected by law- the UDHR is saying that all human individuals deserve personhood. The current laws of the United States discriminate against the unborn on this point.
But my whole point is that some people DON'T accept the idea of genetic speciation at least in so far as defining the essential nature of a human. If I accept the idea of genetic speciation then the whole debate is a non-issue. The question is, why should we accept genetic speciation over any (every) other proposed definition, and who are we to make that determination for everyone?
Not quite true- some people don't accept the idea of genetic speciation in so far as defining the essential nature of a PERSON. But to deny it defining the essential nature of a human- is ridiculous on it's face.
I actually didn't know that about Eleanor Roosevelt. That's very interesting. I wouldn't have thought that abortion would have been as big of an issue in 1948, but then as you can no doubt tell, I'm no history major either;-)
If you bother to check her out, also check out the founders of the feminist movement in the 1920s- they had a great deal to say on the subject of abortion (then, like today, the grand majority of abortions were a phenomenon of spousal abuse, where the father refuses to take care of the child and forces the woman into an abortion. I personally say that if we make abortion illegal, then the fathers should be charged with equally with the women. In other words, President Bush for paying for an abortion in Texas in 1971 should have gone to jail).
That's an excellent point. It always astonishes me how some people can extol the virtues of the death penalty in the same breath they're decrying abortion. It always struck me as somewhat hypocritical. If a right to life is indeed a universal human right then it should apply regardless of whether or not the human in question has committed an act we don't approve of.
It's very hypocritical- that's why the Pope has been pushing the Seamless Garment philosophy. In so doing, of c
True enough- but there's a good social reason to ask for such an award. The CPD represents an anti-democratic oligarchial alliance between the major parties that effectively ends US democracy by turning the whole thing into a one party system.
Appearently you and I have very differnt ideas about sex and love. My love isn't a lie just because me and my husband don't want kids, though I don't think I can convince you of that.
You can't convince me of it because I know it isn't true. The drive for survival of the genome is just too strong for that to be true. And since survival of the genome is the ONLY evolutionary reason for love to begin with- the conclusion is painfully obvious.
Actually, there's a lot of couples who have 2-3 kids, and then use some form of birth control to not have any more kids. I don't know anyone who has more than 4 kids, so assuming that's not just dumb luck, I don't know anyone who after discovering "the idea of the fullness of sex being a method of fullfilling life" hasn't "returned".
Artificial birth control isn't necessary after 2-3 kids- there's no time left for sex anyway. At least, not if you're taking care of the kids.
That could be possible. Though I doubt we could get the food and other needs to everyone in an equitable manner - communism tried that and failed miserably.
Actually, communism has never been tried outside of the Catholic Monasteries. And there it's rather successfull and has been for over a thousand years now. What Lenin and Stalin called communism was a con game to get money out of the peasants. It's easy to tell the con game version from the real thing- real communism doesn't need money because it depends on small scale human generosity instead. There's much more to the world than your parents and society have told you- but that's not surprising based on the fact you think that the amount we eat in the United States is normal.
GM life has a tendency to suffer from either being a monoculture (in the case of plants, cloning is the easiest way to make sure the genetic modification is in all seeds/plants) or in an even worse case, a lack of evolution. Skipping steps in evolution is a bad idea in general for a species, as it leads to weakness in the genome.
Note that this isn't necessarily an argument against GM in and of itself- unless market forces dictate the extinction of other, related, wild strains.
Nope- these trees have been around for decades. Now that I think about it, given the growth cycle of a Wyerhouser Super Tree- it's about the right time to begin harvesting the second generation (those that weren't wiped out, anyway, by that disease that ran through Eastern Oregon a while back- since all the trees were clones they had no natural defense). WSTs grow extremely fast- reaching full maturity in about 30 years, as opposed to 80-100 years for other trees of these species. But their wood is ONLY fit for paper products- it's FAR too soft for anything else.
Let me get this straight- nobody's willing to air Fahrenheit 911- an utter lack of journalism but at least about events that happened in the last 4 years- but this will get on the air?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks- hidden in that joke is a very true statement. Yep, that's the technical difference between TIA and this- the number of tables you have to go to for the data.
Heck- given the latest in flexible solar panels, GPS units, and some simple "stay as close to these co-ordinates as possible" automation, this might just be the ultimate 802.11x platform...
Ah- but also included in all that is examples of prior art- which means that even an idiotic message board with a bunch of garbage on it can tell that the patent is garbage- and that big company X is a con artist.
Worse, though, is if you're wife's career is as unstable as your business- in which case you will sink very rapidly into debt. I'm $10,000 in debt over and above my assets- which are also mainly mortgaged to the hilt. It will take me at least 10 years, maybe 20, before I'm worth exactly nothing. My business, unlike yours, and despite doing everything you did, is barely on life support. Thank goodness I found this contract with the State- and I'll be going permanent soon, which means benefits again- because I have lost all faith in private industry and the free market system.
And they couldn't do that with Terrorist, er Total, er Terrorist Information Awareness (whatever it was called this week?)
Where I can appreciate some of what the Gates Foundation does- the majority of those three items (immunization, AIDS Research, and anti-poverty work) is far more about opening India and China as markets and sources of cheap labor, than it is about actual philanthropy. It's a clever thing to do with the foundation to look like Bill is helping people when he's really just building a bigger user base for Microsoft. But then again, Bill's object and purpose in life isn't to be a billionaire- and he's not going to be leaving his children with anything other than a legacy and maybe a $100,000 loan (or the equivalent in 2030 dollars to his 1970 dollars that started Microsoft) to start their own legacies- the money is beside the point for him. While I don't respect what he's done or his own technological ability- I do respect him for his REAL purpose behind Microsoft; a computer on every desk running an operating system that is as easy for the end user as a TV set. The billions? They're just what comes from realizing that dream in a totally unethical way.
How is this any different from any of the other huge connected databases and total knowledge projects?
I don't remember any voting in The Real World- just a lot of illicit sex and gossiping behind people's backs.
Then again, it wasn't exactly a hit....
Or put the whole pod underwater, and claim that the government hasn't given the funding for wetsuits or scuba gear....
Yes, IMO, no politician should take an anti-abortion stance without first addressing the huge demands for infants that has made "Chinese adoption broker" a booming career choice. Adoption regulations were intended to protect children, but they apparently go to far.
True enough- it's amazing how hard it is to adopt. The government should not have a say at all in this.
The government doesn't grant permits for concieving a child- why should they make adoption much harder?
Actually it does- that's what civil marriage is really about, though these days the connection has gotten so broken that it is almost useless. Seems to me though that the civil marriage license should be enough to automatically push through the rest of the paperwork on adoption.
They don't exist. Even just a few deliveries a year is enough to import major benefits from an external, capitalist industry. (And even if they didn't use manufactured goods, there's still intangible benefits they are given: protection of their property rights, for example. They are "recieving" defense from rampaging brigands)
The ones I'm thinking of usually had their own defenses against rampaging brigands- they had to, for they were originally designed to withstand the fall of the Roman Empire and the Dark Ages. It was many, many decades before civil government returned at all. Today, some of them have transplanted bits of themselves to the United States- but by and large these communities keep to themselves and take nothing and return nothing to the surrounding community, asside from a place for misfits to go when they can't stand to live in regular society anymore.
His ideas haven't been tested yet. Marx's theories were only applicable in the context of a post-capitalist society. Russia and China never even had capitalism, and you can't be post-X without reaching X first.
True enough- though Cuba had X- and it's arguably the most successfull Marxist rebellion yet. Success being a relative term- it at least provides a better standard of living now than when Organized Crime was in charge....
It is concievable that increasing monopolization of the USA economy could push it towards a post-capitalist, central-planning environment (at least bringing it closer than the USSR ever was)
My favorite is decentralized planning done by adapative expert system programming. McDonald's is testing a system right now that if it was widespread could well be the core to replace the bureaucratic problems that Russia and China ran into (by replacing the bureaucrats with machines). There are several beta test sites around the United States now- just look for the ordering kiosks in the play areas. If you're lucky, a bored and downright redundant low level employee will show you the cooks- the robotic french fry machine, the burger cooker and assembly machine, etc. Very interesting- I personally wouldn't have designed the system with the freezer on the top, but then again, I think the engineers were trying to take advantage of gravity.
And as I just said, "restricted" is a kind of "legal".
Well, then, I should ask- would you support a limitation of abortion to medical (both physical and mental) conditions only? Here's the *only* thing I see is wrong with the current state: people are using abortion for birth control. That's WAY to trival of a reason to have abortion available- we're supposed to be human beings not animals, and there are other forms of birth control available to us. Heck- we don't even HAVE to have sex- it's an option unlike with some lower life forms, we can choose to abstain. I think you could get near unamity on the concept of limiting abortion to medical reasons only. Parental consent isn't quite the sideshow you think it is- parental consent these days is required for just about any medical procedure.
A nationwide vote to legalize weapons without restrictions would never pass either. But guns will still be legal.
So, would the pro-choice side be satisfied with restrictions to protect the life of the mother, and when reasonable, require doctors to treat the fetus as a second patient? Because from my understanding of the Catholic Principle of Double Effect- that'd be a law that it would be a sin NOT to vote for. Abortion would still be legal- heck, it'd even be required in some cases under the medical philosophy principle of triage. Kind of like murder is allowable in cases of self defense- or how a doctor is allowed to let one patient die, so that they can take an aorta graft to save a second patient. And best of all- PAD would be treatable just as any other form of depression is today, as opposed to being hidden away and women scorned for being depressed after an abortion.
I completely agree on the Republican part- they're just using this as an issue to get people to vote against their own pocketbooks. Oddly enough- Kerry has been demonstratably pro-life in his personal life- a lot more than Bush the Betrayer of the Unborn has been (especially when it comes to his own progeny; Kerry has stated that a daughter of his will NEVER be allowed to get an abortion, where Bush has paid for the abortions of both daughters and an old girlfriend).
Alternatively, C, you can photocopy the stupid Cease-and-Desist letter, publish it to slashdot, and let us tear it apart, don't respond, archive the results and wait. When MICROSOFT spends the money to drag you into court, you don't even need to hire a lawyer- just take your printout and file it as an amicus brief. And be sure to send a second copy to the newspapers so that the rest of us can laugh at Microsoft also.
What about the breakins at Bush Headquarters? This is a pattern- true- but it's a pattern that coveres both sides relatively equally.
I'd say it's far more likely that it would be specifically restricted. BTW, there's no real need to overturn RoeV.Wade- current scientific evidence can be construed as to support a nearly complete abortion ban within the RoeV.Wade decision (based on life of the mother and the newfound correlation between abortion and death of the mother).
Plus- next month's vote is bound to be far more of a referendum on the actual performance of the President than about a single issue. What I meant by a vote on the topic would be an EXPLICIT nationwide referendum to completely legalize abortion without restrictions- and that, would never pass.
If that drive were as strong as you think it is, then the legality of abortion would be irrelevant, because no rational woman would pass up the opportunity to bear a child.
EXACTY my point and why I'm voting for John Kerry. No rational woman, in abscence of other possibilities, would pass up the opportunity to bear a child. Therefore the real way to decrease abortion (and the use of birth control) in this country isn't to make it illegal- it's to increase the opportunity to raise families. This theory is borne out (no pun inteded) by the fact that abortion has actually gone UP since the passage of the Partial Birth Abortion bill.
Someone who doesn't want children clearly has a defective genome- but will the government go and force her to reproduce?
Nope- but neither should she be having sex. Having said that- you've hit upon the key point in my plan for reducing abortion- increase the ability of women (and men! It's amazing how often the fathers are forgotten in the equation, and yet the grand majority of abortions have a component of significant other coercion in them) to have families and the issue will largely take care of itself (or at least, the abortion rate will fall to that 1%-4% that actually is medically necessary and well within the Catholic Principle of Double Effect).
Communalism is not communism. Those monestaries only survive by trading with the outside, non-communal public. Religous rites in exchange for donation is still a kind of capitalism.
What about those monasteries that are not only self-sufficient, but as a part of their rules require almost no contact with the outside world (asside, that is, from new novices)? Still, you're correct- and I'm personally far more a communalist than a communist!
(Leninism, however, is also not communism. And Stalinism certainly isn't!)
I would venture to say that Marx has been disproven to some extent- given the rigid control structures and the tendency for the winners in a revolution to mimic the previous government, violent revolution isn't the way to go.
But we could sure go a long way to allowing for less abortion if every citizen was guaranteed food, clothing, shelter, clean water, and medical care.
The cool thing is that identical twins are legally allowed to kill each other.
That would be the hole in an individual- the really cool thing would be the fact that they would find themselves unable to if the twin effect is the truth (but that leads into paraphysics). Oh, they could draw the guns on each other- but their own survival instinct would prevent actually pulling the trigger.
One reason that Americans mostly support legalized abortion even though they're the most churchgoing modern nation is the belief that abortion is sometimes moral.
Actually, most Americans do not support completely legalized abortion- latest polls show that over 71% of Americans support some form of restrictions on the "right" of abortion. But it's never been put up to a vote- and even those who support restrictions do not do so as a single issue for the most part.
The litmus test is to ask a hypothetical question about a 15-year old girl who was raped by her own brother. Very few career politicians will admit to opposing abortion in that instance.
Career politicians are not the people- in fact, most of them are out of touch with the people.
But once someone agrees that abortion is justified in one instance, they've crossed the line into saying it isn't the murder of a child, and slip along into permitting it in many other circumstances.
Which is where the principle of double effect comes in. One need not stop calling it murder in situations where a greater evil will happen without the abortion (a second murder).
I still feel like I'm failing to understand something of the definition of a human that you are using. Are you saying that all it takes to be human is the requisite genetic code? If so then answer me this: why is a fertilized ovum a human and a red blood cell is not? Both are single cells that contain human DNA.
;-)
I'm saying that what it takes to define a human is the genetic code- and what it takes to define a human INDIVIDUAL is different genetic code than the parent. The fertilized ovum becomes an individual once fertilization by the sperm changes the genetic code. Before that, every sequence can be found in the mother's DNA. Likewise, with sperm- every sequence can be found in the father's DNA. Unfertilized ova and sperm belong to the parent organism. But once fertilized, the cell belongs to the child, not to the parent, because it no longer has the genetic code of the parent.
Yes. But we've had the concept of a species much longer than we've known about genetics. When we talk about genetics species has a very particular meaning. But it is a meaning arbitrarily assigned to it by geneticists. Other people may disagree with the definition.
Absolutely- but in so doing those other people are ignoring a scientific fact. You might disagree that gravity exists, but that doesn't stop the physics from being true.
The question is, are we in law using the same definition of species as we are in science.
No- we're not. The species of the fetus is not in question at all- the personhood is.
Should we be? For the record having given the bill a cursory search I don't believe they once use the word species. But now I'm drifting into semantic waters so I will move on.
The legal aspect is personhood rather than species- and by making somebody a non-person on circumstances of birth, the government is violating the human rights of that individual. Persons are protected by law- the UDHR is saying that all human individuals deserve personhood. The current laws of the United States discriminate against the unborn on this point.
But my whole point is that some people DON'T accept the idea of genetic speciation at least in so far as defining the essential nature of a human. If I accept the idea of genetic speciation then the whole debate is a non-issue. The question is, why should we accept genetic speciation over any (every) other proposed definition, and who are we to make that determination for everyone?
Not quite true- some people don't accept the idea of genetic speciation in so far as defining the essential nature of a PERSON. But to deny it defining the essential nature of a human- is ridiculous on it's face.
I actually didn't know that about Eleanor Roosevelt. That's very interesting. I wouldn't have thought that abortion would have been as big of an issue in 1948, but then as you can no doubt tell, I'm no history major either
If you bother to check her out, also check out the founders of the feminist movement in the 1920s- they had a great deal to say on the subject of abortion (then, like today, the grand majority of abortions were a phenomenon of spousal abuse, where the father refuses to take care of the child and forces the woman into an abortion. I personally say that if we make abortion illegal, then the fathers should be charged with equally with the women. In other words, President Bush for paying for an abortion in Texas in 1971 should have gone to jail).
That's an excellent point. It always astonishes me how some people can extol the virtues of the death penalty in the same breath they're decrying abortion. It always struck me as somewhat hypocritical. If a right to life is indeed a universal human right then it should apply regardless of whether or not the human in question has committed an act we don't approve of.
It's very hypocritical- that's why the Pope has been pushing the Seamless Garment philosophy. In so doing, of c
True enough- but there's a good social reason to ask for such an award. The CPD represents an anti-democratic oligarchial alliance between the major parties that effectively ends US democracy by turning the whole thing into a one party system.
Appearently you and I have very differnt ideas about sex and love. My love isn't a lie just because me and my husband don't want kids, though I don't think I can convince you of that.
You can't convince me of it because I know it isn't true. The drive for survival of the genome is just too strong for that to be true. And since survival of the genome is the ONLY evolutionary reason for love to begin with- the conclusion is painfully obvious.
Actually, there's a lot of couples who have 2-3 kids, and then use some form of birth control to not have any more kids. I don't know anyone who has more than 4 kids, so assuming that's not just dumb luck, I don't know anyone who after discovering "the idea of the fullness of sex being a method of fullfilling life" hasn't "returned".
Artificial birth control isn't necessary after 2-3 kids- there's no time left for sex anyway. At least, not if you're taking care of the kids.
That could be possible. Though I doubt we could get the food and other needs to everyone in an equitable manner - communism tried that and failed miserably.
Actually, communism has never been tried outside of the Catholic Monasteries. And there it's rather successfull and has been for over a thousand years now. What Lenin and Stalin called communism was a con game to get money out of the peasants. It's easy to tell the con game version from the real thing- real communism doesn't need money because it depends on small scale human generosity instead. There's much more to the world than your parents and society have told you- but that's not surprising based on the fact you think that the amount we eat in the United States is normal.
GM life has a tendency to suffer from either being a monoculture (in the case of plants, cloning is the easiest way to make sure the genetic modification is in all seeds/plants) or in an even worse case, a lack of evolution. Skipping steps in evolution is a bad idea in general for a species, as it leads to weakness in the genome.
Note that this isn't necessarily an argument against GM in and of itself- unless market forces dictate the extinction of other, related, wild strains.
continues on to destroy the damned CPD by asking for the equivalent of their 2008 budget for damages.
Yep- that's pretty much the problem with any GM plants.
Nope- these trees have been around for decades. Now that I think about it, given the growth cycle of a Wyerhouser Super Tree- it's about the right time to begin harvesting the second generation (those that weren't wiped out, anyway, by that disease that ran through Eastern Oregon a while back- since all the trees were clones they had no natural defense). WSTs grow extremely fast- reaching full maturity in about 30 years, as opposed to 80-100 years for other trees of these species. But their wood is ONLY fit for paper products- it's FAR too soft for anything else.
Let me get this straight- nobody's willing to air Fahrenheit 911- an utter lack of journalism but at least about events that happened in the last 4 years- but this will get on the air?