Which properties of life do the other types of cells in the human body not exhibit? A culture of almost any type of cell in the human body will continue to grow and exhibt all properties of life when placed in liquid nutrients.
Universal ("totipotent") differentiation is a property exhibited only by the embryo and embryonic stem cells. Development as an organism that matures and reproduces is a property exhibited only by embryos.
Note carefully that a life form must exhibit these characteristics at least once within its existence: (from Wikipedia)
"In biology, a life form has traditionally been considered to be a member of a population whose members can exhibit all the following phenomena at least once during their existence:
Growth, full development, maturity
Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste
Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion
Reproduction, the ability of individuals to create entities that are similar to, but separate from, themselves
Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions. This property is also called homeostasis.
Cells, a basic unit of reproduction."
An embryo, when given proper nutrients and environment, develops and exhibits those characteristics during its lifetime. Naturally, it does not exhibit them all during the embryonic stage of development; no more does a child. Nevertheless, the embryo by definition qualifies as a life form, just as a child does.
No other type of human cell does. Can you cite any evidence to the contrary?
You're claim that embryos are human beings is not based on philosophical arguments. They are based on arbitrary beliefs (which are most likely religiously inspired). The only thing you've supported your claim with is a dubious definition of what a human being is, paying no attention to the biological distinction between various stages of human reproduction.
I'm annoyed and unimpressed with the claim that my position is religiously based, which you have repeated multiple times but never presented any evidence for. I've given clear, cogent arguments supported by evidence. That doesn't mean you agree with them. It just means that I have reasons for what I claim. I'm within my epistemic rights. None, not one of those reasons has appealed to a religious belief. And even if some of them had appealed to a religious belief, that would not have made my arguments false. Nevertheless, I have intentionally left religion out of the question because I think that a rational atheist and I can agree on the point that a living human organism is a human being. Many do.
So it is entirely obscure to me, or any reasonable person, why you would think it logical or helpful to assert that my beliefs on the beginning of personhood are religiously grounded. I haven't asserted any such basis. Please, as one person to another, give it a rest. Argument by forceful repetition is not valid.
Here's the argument, in case I was unclear:
When an egg is fertilized, a living human organism is created that did not previously exist. It is human for obvious genetic reasons; it is a living organism because it fits the standard biological definition as cited above.
That human organism then undergoes various stages of development.
As it develops, it acquires abilities and physical features that it did not previously have, but it remains the same organism. In this case, I would consider the special case of twinning to be a type of asexual reproduction rather than development, but the argument does not depend on that interpretation.
By the time that organism is born, and throughout the rest of its life through even mor
We'll just have to disagree about the understanding of the term "person."
In closing, three points need making:
Diploid cells in humans can be considered organism. Many types of cells in the human body can continue to grow and exhibit properties of life even when they are removed from surrounding cells. So why aren't they called human beings?
Because those cells exhibit some rather than all of the properties of living organisms. Search Wikipedia for "life form."
Once again, if embryos are human beings, why is it not a concern when almost 80% of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted?
Because we can't control spontaneous abortions. Doctors have a "triage" perspective in medicine: do the good you can, where you can. I promise you, if we could prevent spontaneous miscarriages and the heartache that women often experience with them, both pro-life and pro-choice groups would support the use of such knowledge.
It doesn't make sense to say that "life" begins when an egg is fertilized because gametes are living tissue too.
As I've indicated previously, the fertilization of an egg is the beginning of a new human organism. On this point biologists, doctors, and ethicists are all agreed. The point in contention is whether that organism counts as a person. That question is not medical, but philosophical.
So saying that once an egg is fertilized that it becomes unethical to kill it is based on arbitrary religious beliefs.
I would strongly encourage you to rethink your claim that my arguments are based on arbitrary religious beliefs. You will notice that I have made no religious arguments here, nor do the documents of my particular religion (Christianity) make an iron-clad case for the beginning of life. It *is* true that my religious beliefs make me more determined to resist murder, but they do not define murder for me. Some attempt to paint all pro-life arguments as "religious", but that's just poisoning the well.
The medical community makes the distinction between gamtes, embryos, fetuses, and infants, for a reason.
True, but that reason is not the desire to distinguish between person and non-person. The medical community also distinguishes between "neonate", "infant", "toddler", and "child", but for medical diagnosis reasons, not to grant one a greater status of personhood over the other.
The medical community is quite divided over the issue of when a "person" has come into being. Some see personhood as developing later; many see personhood as beginning at conception. It's important to note that even if someone believes that the embryo is a person, she might still be pro-choice for other reasons, such as the primacy of the woman's right to choose, or the perceived utilitarian good which comes out of a pro-choice policy.
So at best, the percentage of the medical community that believes that personhood does not begin at conception will be smaller than the percentage of the medical community that is pro-choice.
Secondly, by your definition of what's a human being, then any diploid cell in a human being is also a human beng in itself--after all, it's living (biologically), and it's human (genetically) right?
No, the difference here is clear: diploid cells in humans are not organisms. Embryos are. THIS point, unlike the definition of "person", is biologically well-defined.
If you want to know why it's ok to allow an embryo to die...Talk to some medical professionals.
Perhaps I should introduce you to my wife, a pediatrician trained at Johns Hopkins, and her friends who are all Hopkins-trained doctors and researchers. My wife and her friends all believe that (a) life begins at conception, and (b) that there is a substantial difference between allowing a death to occur and actively causing a death. The medical community in general -- whether pro-life or pro-choice -- supports that distinction very strongly. Thus: withdrawing life support? Ethical under appropriate circumstances. Prescribing lethal drugs? Unethical. The VAST majority of physicians support this idea. Allowing nature to take its course with pregnancies? Ethical. Actively killing the baby inside? Controversial, depending on the doctor's other moral commitments. Among my wife's friends, "unethical."
I'm not sure where you got the idea that the medical community is united in support of pro-choice views, but your sources appear to be faulty.
(1) An embryo is not a person. (2) Taking emergency contraception pills isn't murder. (3) Spontaneous abortion is not involuntary manslaughter. (4) Your argument is based on false premises. (5) An embryo is not a function human being no matter how many times the religious right decries abortion as murder.
It's fairly clear that the truth of (2) and (3) rests on the truth of (1). But what argument would you advance for the truth of (1)? Statement (1) is a valid argument only if there is an established, accepted definition of person. But unfortunately, that's the argument at hand: we disagree about what it means to be a "person." Some would advance the notion of brain function (your position, IIRC), others would appeal to ability to perceive pain, still others the ability to demonstrate reasoning ability.
But it is not self-evident OR written in stone in the great Book of Truth that a "person" is any one of those.
I would argue that a definite biological change takes place when the egg is fertilized; an organism exists that previously did not. That organism then undergoes development of various sorts. It makes sense to me that the organism *is* a human being at all stages of its development, since it is living (biologically), human (genetically), and functioning like any other organism.
The only other options I see are to call the embryo a "potential person" and then mark some arbitrary line -- like brain function -- as the transition point into personhood. But I can see no biological reason for doing so; only political reasons or arbitrary preferences for certain values (like valuing rationality or freedom of choice). Put another way: in any other species, biologists call the young phases "larva" or "baby" organisms, not "potential" organisms. Why should we make a special exception for homo sapiens?
As for (5)... well, it's not your best argument. The fact that members of the religious right decry abortion as murder is neither here nor there, unless their arguments happen to be sound. In which case, their religiosities or positions on the political spectrum are irrelevant, and should not be a factor to be held against their positions.
... if embryonic stem-cell research is cannibalism, then so are the practices of organ donation and blood transfusion.
Organ donation and blood transfusion aren't cannibalism because we don't permit people to kill others in order to harvest their organs or take their blood. By contrast, embryos -- which are functioning human organisms -- are destroyed in order to "harvest" their stem cells. If researchers can find ways to get stem cells without destroying the organism, then I have no problem with the practice.
If you want to protest fertility clinics for "murdering babies," then go ahead, but embryonic stem-cell research is only making use of the waste material they produce.
Clinics' waste material is in fact... embryos. Functioning, human organisms. Which, by the way, is the basis for your claim to protections under the law.
Somehow, impassioned religious rhetoric seems to make irrational beliefs appear legitimate--until those arguments come under closer scrutiny.
I suppose this statement would be relevant if I had uttered some impassioned religious rhetoric or expressed an irrational belief. But neither is true, so your statement appears to be an odd non-sequitur, under closer scrutiny.
All of this pales, however, in view of the greendollarsigns that float in front of researcher's eyes. Somehow, money seems to make morally outrageous actions seem legit. I have no problem turning off the flow of cash to research that amounts to cannibalism.
Some reaserch reward structures make fraud more attractive. Governments that provide large amounts of money for scientific research without adequate oversight would fall in this category -- the temptation dangles in front of the researcher, and the odds of getting rich outweigh the odds of getting caught.
Governments that punish failure are also in this category; a scientist who finds himself damned either way will feel the pressure to produce.
The argument is that the current source of embryonic stem cells destroys something that is human life, not something that has the potential to be human life. Now, that obviously raises the question of what counts as human life, but the argument is not over potential.
(It should also be noted that Catholics who are pro-life are often (not always) anti-contraceptive because of their understanding of sexuality. See here for a sample.)
The medical community has never decided that the embyro is not alive. Just because pregnancy is defined to begin with implantation does not mean that the embryo's life is defined to begin with implantation. Obviously, until implantation occurs, the fertilized zygote is functioning as a simple organism, but is not yet attached to the woman. Therefore, she is not pregnant, but the zygote -- well, biologically, it is alive. Tricky? Not really. When the woman gives birth after nine months, she is no longer pregnant, but the baby is nevertheless alive.
The mistake that is commonly made is to think of the zygote's/fetus's/baby's life as somehow being dependent on its connection to the mother. It's an understandable mistake, because up until the last thirty years, the baby could not survive without the mother. But now, live embryos can survive "outside the womb", be frozen and stored, and be implanted into other women and develop into babies. That fact alone shows that the baby and mother are separate organisms that lead interconnected, but distinguishably different, lives.
So: the beginning of pregnancy cannot be used to mark the beginning of life.
You won't go far with that attitude. In life, it is impossible to know whether or not you really know something. Science, for example, makes no pretentions about "truth"; it simply presents models concerning the best possible interpretations of the evidence. See here and here.
Ah. Well, that's approximately correct. Ionic compounds come in formula units, molecular compounds come in molecules. The type of compound is determined by the type of bond (ionic or covalent), and the type of bond is determined by the difference in electronegativity (EN) between the bonding elements. Large differences cause ionic bonds because the electrons are pulled almost exclusively to the more electronegative atom; small differences cause covalent bonds because the electrons are mostly evenly shared between the atoms.
Metals tend to have low ENs, nonmetals tend to have high ENs. So, metal + nonmetal tends to form an ionic bond, thus leading indirectly to the rule you learned.
But you can imagine that there are a lot of "boundary" cases, especially for metals towards the right of the periodic table. Lead and carbon, for example, have almost identical ENs, so compounds like tetraethyl lead Pb(C2H5)4 are molecular even though lead is a "metal" and carbon a "nonmetal."
But close. Molecules like AlCl3 are frequently used as catalysts in certain organic reactions, and the entire class of organometallic compounds are exceptions to your rule.
But your overall point, that metals tend to be so electropositive that they form ionic bonds, is what I teach my 1st year chem students.
Since indentical twins are two organisms beyond the 8-cell division stage, I think the potential for confusion is low, nicht wahr?
Genetic distinction does not equate to genetic uniqueness. For two objects to be "distinct" means that they can be separated from one another. So for example, I have millions of bacteria within my body. They are not promoted to human status simply because they reside within me; instead, because they are genetically distinct, they can be marked as separate organisms.
It's not great language, I admit, because of the confusion between "distinct" and "unique." I'm open to suggestions for change...
...and if you add up all of the values of the letters in "Mersenne" according to our special letter codes, you get... 1995. That's right, for just $19.95, you too can own a piece of Mersenne prime history. You can get a Mersenne prime named after you OR a loved one. The Mersenne prime along with its name, chosen by you, will be recorded in book form in the U.S. Copyright Office. Give a gift that REALLY counts this holiday season. Send your money in an envelope to
Prime Offer 97 Euclid Way Abuja, Nigera.
Cash only, please. No refunds. Offer not valid in all countries. Employees of the FBI or CIA may not participate. Please.
It wasn't the language -- it was the OS model. I learned assembly and even ML opcodes for the 6510. What made the Commodore so special was that writing to the screen was a simple matter of writing bytes to the screen memory, around $C000, IIRC. Writing text was as simple as loading a character into the accumulator and calling a routine; all of the routines were well-documented and stored in the same jump table around $FF00.
Contrast that with writing machine code for Intel machines running WinNT family OSes: the routines are poorly documented, and you have to make multiple function calls just to get data on the screen. Getting text output means first creating a window, processing its data structure, and then you can get down to business.
In short, the C64 was a much cleaner tool to learn with. The runners-up are Unix/Linux boxes. Windows is most definitely at the bottom of the list in terms of hacker-friendliness.
You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that a even a minority of the American populace
Knows what is going on.
I just listened yesterday to the C-SPAN coverage of SR1389, the Senate version of the bill to re-authorize the USAPATRIOT act.
Harry Reid, filibustering: "This bill contains no judicial oversight of section 215."
Arlen Specter in news conference after the failed cloture vote: "This bill is being misunderstood. Some have claimed that there is no judicial oversight over section 215. But there is."
John Sununu in news conference: "There is no effective judicial oversight over section 215."
Now, here's Section 215. Can you tell me what it means and whether there is or is not effective judicial oversight over section 215?!
I can't, and I have a college education and am used to reading hard things like philosophy and math texts. I can see that the bill allows for judicial review (Sections (e),(f))... but I have no idea whether the judicial review is "effective."
Honestly, even the most informed of us have no clue what is going on. I'm told by people close to the budget process that NO ONE SINGLE PERSON understands the U.S. budget. I don't know whether that's true, but... wow.
So who do I vote for? The people claiming they are trying to protect me from the terrorists? Or the people claiming they are trying to protect me from the people who are claiming they are trying to protect me from the terrorists?!
We've long since passed the point of accepting limits on our Constitutional rights in order to protect the public good (e.g., you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater). But now, our laws have become so chaotic that we don't know which rights we have, which ones we have unless we are criminals, and which people are classified as criminals. We are so incredibly unknowledgeable about what our laws actually mean, that are completely depedent on news sources to distill legislative actions for us. We might as well just let the newspapers vote, and forget about voting ourselves. [/cynicalmode]
Alright, I'm willing to give the story general credibility given the recent track record of the administration.
Nevertheless, I find the details fishy:
Why would a student have to write down a SSN for a book loan, but not have to write down the class for which he is requesting the book?
If he *did* have to write down his class, then why would the NSA waste resources on this case?
Why would a book by Mao be on a watch list? Surely the NSA isn't having flashbacks to the 1950's!
Why does it seem just a little too convenient that this unnamed student is being investigated by the NSA while doing research for a class on "fascism and totalitarianism"?
Why are none of Robert PontBriand's classes (the professor in question, according to TFA) listed as "fascism and totalitarianism"?
No doubt there are good answers to these questions... but I'm not ready to believe the story just because it fits with my preconceived notions about the administration.
Alright, define "authority." If you accept the challenge, you have set yourself up as an authority by claiming that "Nobody can possibly be an authority on anything at all", which means that your statement is incoherent and disregardable. If you decline the challenge, your statement is void of content. Either way, on simply logical grounds, your statement falls apart.
The point is that all of us reading this thread are fully aware of Kant's distinction between phenomenal and noumenal realms, and are fully aware that, beginning with the senses, it is impossible to achieve perfectly justified knowledge. Nevertheless, there are also clearly *some* people who have taken the time to investigate area X and come to conclusions, regardless of their "objectivity." Unless their conclusions are outrageous -- another "non-objective" term! -- we choose to call them "authorities on X", and tend to accept their judgment in matters regarding X, possibly even in preference to our own judgment in that area. It's not a matter of objective knowledge; it's a concession to our finite time and resources (No doubt amply demonstrated by my posting comments on Slashdot).
BTW, before you get too excited about knowledge being unattainable and humans being incapable of objectivity, you might want to consider the philosophical consequences of accepting relativism.
The article's long, but highly enlightening. It might rescue you from a silly epistemological fate.
I'm sorry; that's unbelievably simplistic. Or perhaps trollsome.
We're talking about advertisers intentionally making it *more* difficult for parents to instill discipline in their children, and you're blaming the parents?!
Reality check: being a parent of a two-year-old and a six-month-old means that you are devoting approximately 30% of your processor time already to making sure that the kids aren't (a) harming themselves, (b) harming others, (c) making a mess, (e) being properly fed and clothed, and (f) learning how to interact like reasonable human beings. That's the involved parents; the loser parents just ignore the kids until they scream.
Walking down the grocery store aisle with one kid in the seat and one kid walking means that *if* you want to actually choose a product and place it in the cart, you will have to stop holding the two-year-old's hand and focus on the products.
Your two-year-old, being smart like her daddy, might just decide that now is the optimal moment to go for something interesting, like flashing cereal boxes. Now what, Dr. Spock? I suppose you're going to "instill discipline" right there and she'll just straighten right up for you.
News flash: unless you want to make every infraction a capital [1] offense, your kid will buck your will on a regular basis. The smart parent will decide which battles are worth fighting and which ones are worth reasoning through... and reasoning through with them takes time.
In short, getting a kid to the point where he or she has self-discipline requires... um... time and patience [2]. You have to have self-discipline yourself to pull it off, which means that you can't expect to press the magical "discipline" button and have them behave. Have fun raising your own kids.
[1] Nothing short of the death penalty will guarantee compliance. My daughter responds pretty well to time-outs, but I spent part of my childhood proving that my dad couldn't spank me hard enough to make me obey him.
[2] As in, I haven't had time for any hobby coding projects since my first daughter was born.
Slashdot Mirror
Universal ("totipotent") differentiation is a property exhibited only by the embryo and embryonic stem cells. Development as an organism that matures and reproduces is a property exhibited only by embryos.
Note carefully that a life form must exhibit these characteristics at least once within its existence: (from Wikipedia)
"In biology, a life form has traditionally been considered to be a member of a population whose members can exhibit all the following phenomena at least once during their existence:
An embryo, when given proper nutrients and environment, develops and exhibits those characteristics during its lifetime. Naturally, it does not exhibit them all during the embryonic stage of development; no more does a child. Nevertheless, the embryo by definition qualifies as a life form, just as a child does.
No other type of human cell does. Can you cite any evidence to the contrary?
You're claim that embryos are human beings is not based on philosophical arguments. They are based on arbitrary beliefs (which are most likely religiously inspired). The only thing you've supported your claim with is a dubious definition of what a human being is, paying no attention to the biological distinction between various stages of human reproduction.
I'm annoyed and unimpressed with the claim that my position is religiously based, which you have repeated multiple times but never presented any evidence for. I've given clear, cogent arguments supported by evidence. That doesn't mean you agree with them. It just means that I have reasons for what I claim. I'm within my epistemic rights. None, not one of those reasons has appealed to a religious belief. And even if some of them had appealed to a religious belief, that would not have made my arguments false. Nevertheless, I have intentionally left religion out of the question because I think that a rational atheist and I can agree on the point that a living human organism is a human being. Many do.
So it is entirely obscure to me, or any reasonable person, why you would think it logical or helpful to assert that my beliefs on the beginning of personhood are religiously grounded. I haven't asserted any such basis. Please, as one person to another, give it a rest. Argument by forceful repetition is not valid.
Here's the argument, in case I was unclear:
In closing, three points need making:
Diploid cells in humans can be considered organism. Many types of cells in the human body can continue to grow and exhibit properties of life even when they are removed from surrounding cells. So why aren't they called human beings?
Because those cells exhibit some rather than all of the properties of living organisms. Search Wikipedia for "life form."
Once again, if embryos are human beings, why is it not a concern when almost 80% of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted?
Because we can't control spontaneous abortions. Doctors have a "triage" perspective in medicine: do the good you can, where you can. I promise you, if we could prevent spontaneous miscarriages and the heartache that women often experience with them, both pro-life and pro-choice groups would support the use of such knowledge.
It doesn't make sense to say that "life" begins when an egg is fertilized because gametes are living tissue too.
As I've indicated previously, the fertilization of an egg is the beginning of a new human organism. On this point biologists, doctors, and ethicists are all agreed. The point in contention is whether that organism counts as a person. That question is not medical, but philosophical.
So saying that once an egg is fertilized that it becomes unethical to kill it is based on arbitrary religious beliefs.
I would strongly encourage you to rethink your claim that my arguments are based on arbitrary religious beliefs. You will notice that I have made no religious arguments here, nor do the documents of my particular religion (Christianity) make an iron-clad case for the beginning of life. It *is* true that my religious beliefs make me more determined to resist murder, but they do not define murder for me. Some attempt to paint all pro-life arguments as "religious", but that's just poisoning the well.
True, but that reason is not the desire to distinguish between person and non-person. The medical community also distinguishes between "neonate", "infant", "toddler", and "child", but for medical diagnosis reasons, not to grant one a greater status of personhood over the other.
The medical community is quite divided over the issue of when a "person" has come into being. Some see personhood as developing later; many see personhood as beginning at conception. It's important to note that even if someone believes that the embryo is a person, she might still be pro-choice for other reasons, such as the primacy of the woman's right to choose, or the perceived utilitarian good which comes out of a pro-choice policy.
So at best, the percentage of the medical community that believes that personhood does not begin at conception will be smaller than the percentage of the medical community that is pro-choice.
Secondly, by your definition of what's a human being, then any diploid cell in a human being is also a human beng in itself--after all, it's living (biologically), and it's human (genetically) right?
No, the difference here is clear: diploid cells in humans are not organisms. Embryos are. THIS point, unlike the definition of "person", is biologically well-defined.
If you want to know why it's ok to allow an embryo to die...Talk to some medical professionals.
Perhaps I should introduce you to my wife, a pediatrician trained at Johns Hopkins, and her friends who are all Hopkins-trained doctors and researchers. My wife and her friends all believe that (a) life begins at conception, and (b) that there is a substantial difference between allowing a death to occur and actively causing a death. The medical community in general -- whether pro-life or pro-choice -- supports that distinction very strongly. Thus: withdrawing life support? Ethical under appropriate circumstances. Prescribing lethal drugs? Unethical. The VAST majority of physicians support this idea. Allowing nature to take its course with pregnancies? Ethical. Actively killing the baby inside? Controversial, depending on the doctor's other moral commitments. Among my wife's friends, "unethical."
I'm not sure where you got the idea that the medical community is united in support of pro-choice views, but your sources appear to be faulty.
(2) Taking emergency contraception pills isn't murder.
(3) Spontaneous abortion is not involuntary manslaughter.
(4) Your argument is based on false premises.
(5) An embryo is not a function human being no matter how many times the religious right decries abortion as murder.
It's fairly clear that the truth of (2) and (3) rests on the truth of (1). But what argument would you advance for the truth of (1)? Statement (1) is a valid argument only if there is an established, accepted definition of person. But unfortunately, that's the argument at hand: we disagree about what it means to be a "person." Some would advance the notion of brain function (your position, IIRC), others would appeal to ability to perceive pain, still others the ability to demonstrate reasoning ability.
But it is not self-evident OR written in stone in the great Book of Truth that a "person" is any one of those.
I would argue that a definite biological change takes place when the egg is fertilized; an organism exists that previously did not. That organism then undergoes development of various sorts. It makes sense to me that the organism *is* a human being at all stages of its development, since it is living (biologically), human (genetically), and functioning like any other organism.
The only other options I see are to call the embryo a "potential person" and then mark some arbitrary line -- like brain function -- as the transition point into personhood. But I can see no biological reason for doing so; only political reasons or arbitrary preferences for certain values (like valuing rationality or freedom of choice). Put another way: in any other species, biologists call the young phases "larva" or "baby" organisms, not "potential" organisms. Why should we make a special exception for homo sapiens?
As for (5) ... well, it's not your best argument. The fact that members of the religious right decry abortion as murder is neither here nor there, unless their arguments happen to be sound. In which case, their religiosities or positions on the political spectrum are irrelevant, and should not be a factor to be held against their positions.
Organ donation and blood transfusion aren't cannibalism because we don't permit people to kill others in order to harvest their organs or take their blood. By contrast, embryos -- which are functioning human organisms -- are destroyed in order to "harvest" their stem cells. If researchers can find ways to get stem cells without destroying the organism, then I have no problem with the practice.
If you want to protest fertility clinics for "murdering babies," then go ahead, but embryonic stem-cell research is only making use of the waste material they produce.
Clinics' waste material is in fact ... embryos. Functioning, human organisms. Which, by the way, is the basis for your claim to protections under the law.
Somehow, impassioned religious rhetoric seems to make irrational beliefs appear legitimate--until those arguments come under closer scrutiny.
I suppose this statement would be relevant if I had uttered some impassioned religious rhetoric or expressed an irrational belief. But neither is true, so your statement appears to be an odd non-sequitur, under closer scrutiny.
"Independence" is a nonsensical test for personhood.
Non-embryonic stem-cell research is already miles ahead in providing cures
Embryonic lines consistently develop mutations that make them unusable.
Non-embryonic lines are progressing towards embryonic flexibility.
All of this pales, however, in view of the green dollar signs that float in front of researcher's eyes. Somehow, money seems to make morally outrageous actions seem legit. I have no problem turning off the flow of cash to research that amounts to cannibalism.
Governments that punish failure are also in this category; a scientist who finds himself damned either way will feel the pressure to produce.
(a) I'm irritated with the computer?
(b) I'm irritated with the content that I'm being shown?, or
(c) I'm trying to beat the 5PM code delivery time?
Emotions? You can't handle my emotions!
The argument is that the current source of embryonic stem cells destroys something that is human life, not something that has the potential to be human life. Now, that obviously raises the question of what counts as human life, but the argument is not over potential.
(It should also be noted that Catholics who are pro-life are often (not always) anti-contraceptive because of their understanding of sexuality. See here for a sample.)
The medical community has never decided that the embyro is not alive. Just because pregnancy is defined to begin with implantation does not mean that the embryo's life is defined to begin with implantation. Obviously, until implantation occurs, the fertilized zygote is functioning as a simple organism, but is not yet attached to the woman. Therefore, she is not pregnant, but the zygote -- well, biologically, it is alive. Tricky? Not really. When the woman gives birth after nine months, she is no longer pregnant, but the baby is nevertheless alive.
The mistake that is commonly made is to think of the zygote's/fetus's/baby's life as somehow being dependent on its connection to the mother. It's an understandable mistake, because up until the last thirty years, the baby could not survive without the mother. But now, live embryos can survive "outside the womb", be frozen and stored, and be implanted into other women and develop into babies. That fact alone shows that the baby and mother are separate organisms that lead interconnected, but distinguishably different, lives.
So: the beginning of pregnancy cannot be used to mark the beginning of life.
Move along.
You won't go far with that attitude. In life, it is impossible to know whether or not you really know something. Science, for example, makes no pretentions about "truth"; it simply presents models concerning the best possible interpretations of the evidence. See here and here.
Metals tend to have low ENs, nonmetals tend to have high ENs. So, metal + nonmetal tends to form an ionic bond, thus leading indirectly to the rule you learned.
But you can imagine that there are a lot of "boundary" cases, especially for metals towards the right of the periodic table. Lead and carbon, for example, have almost identical ENs, so compounds like tetraethyl lead Pb(C2H5)4 are molecular even though lead is a "metal" and carbon a "nonmetal."
Good luck with your chem studies!
Jeff Cagle
But your overall point, that metals tend to be so electropositive that they form ionic bonds, is what I teach my 1st year chem students.
Genetic distinction does not equate to genetic uniqueness. For two objects to be "distinct" means that they can be separated from one another. So for example, I have millions of bacteria within my body. They are not promoted to human status simply because they reside within me; instead, because they are genetically distinct, they can be marked as separate organisms.
It's not great language, I admit, because of the confusion between "distinct" and "unique." I'm open to suggestions for change...
Just guessing.
In Sanger's case, it's a PhD. According to TFA, at least.
Prime Offer
97 Euclid Way
Abuja, Nigera.
Cash only, please. No refunds. Offer not valid in all countries. Employees of the FBI or CIA may not participate. Please.
Contrast that with writing machine code for Intel machines running WinNT family OSes: the routines are poorly documented, and you have to make multiple function calls just to get data on the screen. Getting text output means first creating a window, processing its data structure, and then you can get down to business.
In short, the C64 was a much cleaner tool to learn with. The runners-up are Unix/Linux boxes. Windows is most definitely at the bottom of the list in terms of hacker-friendliness.
I just listened yesterday to the C-SPAN coverage of SR1389, the Senate version of the bill to re-authorize the USAPATRIOT act.
Harry Reid, filibustering: "This bill contains no judicial oversight of section 215."
Arlen Specter in news conference after the failed cloture vote: "This bill is being misunderstood. Some have claimed that there is no judicial oversight over section 215. But there is."
John Sununu in news conference: "There is no effective judicial oversight over section 215."
Now, here's Section 215. Can you tell me what it means and whether there is or is not effective judicial oversight over section 215?!
I can't, and I have a college education and am used to reading hard things like philosophy and math texts. I can see that the bill allows for judicial review (Sections (e),(f))... but I have no idea whether the judicial review is "effective."
Honestly, even the most informed of us have no clue what is going on. I'm told by people close to the budget process that NO ONE SINGLE PERSON understands the U.S. budget. I don't know whether that's true, but ... wow.
So who do I vote for? The people claiming they are trying to protect me from the terrorists? Or the people claiming they are trying to protect me from the people who are claiming they are trying to protect me from the terrorists?!
We've long since passed the point of accepting limits on our Constitutional rights in order to protect the public good (e.g., you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater). But now, our laws have become so chaotic that we don't know which rights we have, which ones we have unless we are criminals, and which people are classified as criminals. We are so incredibly unknowledgeable about what our laws actually mean, that are completely depedent on news sources to distill legislative actions for us. We might as well just let the newspapers vote, and forget about voting ourselves. [/cynicalmode]
Thanks for the solid answers, you who responded. And sorry about the NSA glitch; I had NSA on the brain because of the recent flap in the NY Times.
Gone are the days of single-layer hardware/drivers/system calls, all accessible with the magic words PEEK( ), POKE( ), and CALL( ).
*sigh*
Nevertheless, I find the details fishy:
- Why would a student have to write down a SSN for a book loan, but not have to write down the class for which he is requesting the book?
- If he *did* have to write down his class, then why would the NSA waste resources on this case?
- Why would a book by Mao be on a watch list? Surely the NSA isn't having flashbacks to the 1950's!
- Why does it seem just a little too convenient that this unnamed student is being investigated by the NSA while doing research for a class on "fascism and totalitarianism"?
- Why are none of Robert PontBriand's classes (the professor in question, according to TFA) listed as "fascism and totalitarianism"?
No doubt there are good answers to these questionsThe point is that all of us reading this thread are fully aware of Kant's distinction between phenomenal and noumenal realms, and are fully aware that, beginning with the senses, it is impossible to achieve perfectly justified knowledge. Nevertheless, there are also clearly *some* people who have taken the time to investigate area X and come to conclusions, regardless of their "objectivity." Unless their conclusions are outrageous -- another "non-objective" term! -- we choose to call them "authorities on X", and tend to accept their judgment in matters regarding X, possibly even in preference to our own judgment in that area. It's not a matter of objective knowledge; it's a concession to our finite time and resources (No doubt amply demonstrated by my posting comments on Slashdot).
BTW, before you get too excited about knowledge being unattainable and humans being incapable of objectivity, you might want to consider the philosophical consequences of accepting relativism.
The article's long, but highly enlightening. It might rescue you from a silly epistemological fate.
We're talking about advertisers intentionally making it *more* difficult for parents to instill discipline in their children, and you're blaming the parents?!
Reality check: being a parent of a two-year-old and a six-month-old means that you are devoting approximately 30% of your processor time already to making sure that the kids aren't (a) harming themselves, (b) harming others, (c) making a mess, (e) being properly fed and clothed, and (f) learning how to interact like reasonable human beings. That's the involved parents; the loser parents just ignore the kids until they scream.
Walking down the grocery store aisle with one kid in the seat and one kid walking means that *if* you want to actually choose a product and place it in the cart, you will have to stop holding the two-year-old's hand and focus on the products.
Your two-year-old, being smart like her daddy, might just decide that now is the optimal moment to go for something interesting, like flashing cereal boxes. Now what, Dr. Spock? I suppose you're going to "instill discipline" right there and she'll just straighten right up for you.
News flash: unless you want to make every infraction a capital [1] offense, your kid will buck your will on a regular basis. The smart parent will decide which battles are worth fighting and which ones are worth reasoning through ... and reasoning through with them takes time.
In short, getting a kid to the point where he or she has self-discipline requires ... um ... time and patience [2]. You have to have self-discipline yourself to pull it off, which means that you can't expect to press the magical "discipline" button and have them behave. Have fun raising your own kids.
[1] Nothing short of the death penalty will guarantee compliance. My daughter responds pretty well to time-outs, but I spent part of my childhood proving that my dad couldn't spank me hard enough to make me obey him.
[2] As in, I haven't had time for any hobby coding projects since my first daughter was born.