The obvious fact is this: yes, a fertilized egg _is_ life - an individual human life at that.
This life began before the mother was termed pregnant by the modern Western medical definition.
It's an obvious fact that many fertilized eggs fail to implant in the uterine lining - it's at least one in five by most studies, perhaps over fifty percent. It's a washout process for problems with the fertilized egg and the mother.
By your lights, you worship a god who kills at least 20% and maybe 50% of all human life before the first month of gestation. That may make sense to you, but not so much to me.
Why does life begin at conception? Why doesn't each egg, or each sperm have a soul? They are potential life, as a fertilized egg is potential life.
Definitely agree that many parents are falling down in their responsibility to prepare their kids for schools and to raise their kids in an environment that values education.
(I boggle at the other post who feels that "teacher's unions" are interchangable with "parents".)
Bottlenecks in space? Hmm... I didn't know space gets narrow at points
There's a concept called "metaphor" you should check out. As well as "Lagrange points"; I think that's a good illustration that some space is more equal than others.
From Space.com: The U.S. military tracks about 9,000 big pieces of debris orbiting the Earth. Small pieces, such as micrometeorites or paint specks chipped off old rocket segments or satellites, can't be seen. The shuttle and the debris are zipping around the Earth as fast as six miles per second, making collisions with even the tiniest fragments potentially lethal.
I'm sure once you explain that there's nothing to keep that debris in low earth orbit, it'll fall out of the sky and clear things up.
The point of this thread is "space weapons". These space weapons will tend to orbit the earth, since that's where we keep our stuff. When these weapons get blown up - as frequently happens in wartime - shrapnel will result in orbit. Thus polluting space.
There's a different theory about the decline of Islamic civilization that I find more compelling:
For a while, the middle east was the crossroads of the world. Then, longer sea voyages became popular, and Europe started trading directly with Africa, India, and Asia. The middle east became an isolated backwater, and retreated into the "Good old days" as compensation.
No argument from me that income disparity is a major problem, particularly when you're talking about democracy.
It astonishes me how many people forget about the anthrax attacks. Especially in the context of proclaiming what a great job Bush has done vis-a-vis terrorism.
Strangely enough, I disagree with almost everything you said, but I still think you're on the right track.
Companies sue each other far more frequently than people sue companies. Inter-corporate lawsuits are more likely to be dismissed as 'frivolous'.
In the infamous McDonald's case, the size of the jury award The victim was found partially liable, which reduced her judgement. Later, the judgemnet was reduced much further on appeal. Corporations are trying to forsake responsibility and shift it to the public - privatizing profits, socializing risk. Do you know who pays for cleanup after a nuclear accident? Who paid to clean up the S&L mess? Not the people who can afford to hire lobbyists.
Whiny individuals aren't responsible for the extension of patents and copyrights - it's big business, and the Mouse. I think you're on the right track, just looking in the wrong direction.
Yes, terrorists commiting crimes in Iraq that is worse than what the US is doing. Arguing that makes US abuses OK is "moral relativism". I thought conservatives were against that, or am I "assuming" things again?
You don't think that Gitmo is related to Abu Ghraib? Obviously you aren't aware of the connections. Then again, why should you be? You've demonstrated your ignorance on just about every topic so far.
If you were in the military, sign up and go back. What is this "did my time" stuff? Unless you're missing a limb, you want this war, you go fight it. You aren't "protecting" me from jack and squat, you and your big manly "move to canada" whine. You also aren't making decisions; you're taking the crap that's being fed to you and liking it.
You said that the right wing judges didn't believe in a living constitution. I disproved it. I never said you had to agree with it, I was disproving your argument. It's pretty clear you're not up on logic more complex than grunting.
You're just flinging a whole bunch of whiny crap in the air and running away with your tail between your legs. I'm posting facts and cites, disproving your arguments, and all you can say is "the red cross is not the final arbiter" and yelping away? Talk about a spineless coward.
Okay, if we're at war, and I'm a spineless coward, I assume you're posting this from a military base (presumably in Iraq)? Because if you're not, you're a hypocrite.
I notice that you couldn't defend any of the mistakes you made. Boy, being wrong gets you mad, huh? Strange how getting mad doesn't mysteriously make you righter.
The Red Cross estimates that 80% of the people rounded up in Abu Ghraib were innocent. I'm a coward because I disagree with torturing innocent people? Truly, you are the more patriotic American.
the liberal elitist in you assumes I am a knuckle dragger who can barely read, watches Fox and regurgitates everything they tell me.
Yeah, because Hillary Clinton lost money on Whitewater. And she was cleared on "travelgate", which was a non-scandal to begin with. It is true she made some improbable cash on pork futures. Both major parties are corrupted by cash in this country, but Hillary's financial sins pale in comparison to, oh, Duke Cunningham. Or Tom Delay. Oh well, you can take the girl out of the Republican party, but...
you know what happens when you assume.
Yeah, I think you're an ass for citing that idiotic saw, particularly because you are a Fox news watcher, and you were pig-ignorant repeating Fox propaganda in your response to me. To return your saw, "If the shoe fits..."
If right wingers believe that the consitution should only be interpreted in the context it was written, then why did the righties on the Supreme Court get involved in Bush v. Gore? That was clearly a matter for the state and the House of Representatives to resolve.
Also, if the Constitution says that treaties are the law of the land, and the right wing feels that the constitution shouldn't be re-interpreted based on situations, why is the right wing upset they can't detain brown people forever and torture them? It violates the Geneva Conventions and the International Convention Against Torture, both of which are the law of the land, according to the Constitution...
What do you mean? All judgements set a precedent. It's a question of whether (especially in a very specific case like the one in Florida at that time) there's another similar case that would hinge on that precedent. Nothing like that has come up again since, so it's a non-issue, so far.
Okay, much is explained, you're just ignorant.
Look at the decision. You'll see that the court ruled (anonymously) that different counting standards violated the Equal Protection clause, which is a completely novel argument.
Think about the implications there, and remember Brown v. Board of Ed.. If the different standards of when-is-a-chad-not-a-chad violate equal protection, don't the different spoilage rates from different systems also violate equal protection? How does one use the equal protection amendment to throw out all undervotes because some undervotes might not be counted?
What about the list of black 'felon voters' who were struck from the rolls? Doesn't that violate Equal Protection? (Race was taken into account; Florida keeps track of voter race because of the Civil Rights act. Ironic.)
BTW, Florida spoilage rates are a lot higher for black voters than for white voters. Your 'weather' rains a little harder on people who vote Democrat.
From the decision: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." AKA, "This decision only applies to this case".
That aspect of the decision has been widely criticized, but you didn't know about it. Of course, you still felt qualified to heap scorn on those who had problems with the decision.
If she were a Democrat, she'd be touted as the next coming of Martin Luther King, Jr. That's all I'm saying.
Yes, since the Democratic party has no strong, intelligent black women. Idiot.
Jocelyn Elders was fired for suggesting that teenagers should be taught masturbation isn't evil. Condi Rice can tell Congress that no one could have expected planes to be flown into buildings - after the X-Files, Tom Clancy, and antimissile defenses at Genoa - and get promoted.
By the way, Jocelyn Elders worked as a maid to support herself while in college. I think her background is a wee bit more humble than Condi Rice's.
Most of the criticism I hear of her, like yours, is highly partisan.
So it's partisan to expect a political appointee to be competent at their job, or to demonstrate some understanding of what that is?
Or is it just partisan to assign responsibility to Republicans?
Or is Richard Clarke - a man who served under four presidents, three Republican - 'partisan'
Or does saying "partisan" allow you to turn your brain off and ignore criticism?
Most federal judges are republican appointees; if you're upset at the federal judiciary, you're upset at republicans.
"Judicial activism" is code for "decisions we don't like". Bush v. Gore was judicial activism. Unplugging Terry Schiavo's feeding tube wasn't.
I didn't say Kelo was Bush's fault (unlike you, who tried to blame things on Clinton). I merely pointed out that Bush has been a major benefactor of eminent domain abuse. If you are upset at Kelo, you should be upset at that, too. If you aren't you're a hypocrite.
BTW, turn off Fox News once in a while. Although Clinton was blamed for technology transfers, China already had that tech - thanks to GHWB. Also, do you remember a little spy plane incident involving China and US technology being stolen?
1: There was a standard: intent of the voter. If that standard isn't well-defined enough for you, blame the Florida legislature. Imposing a new standard would be "legislating from the bench". 2: The Supremes stopped the count because to continue it would do undue harm to Bush. How can counting votes do harm to one candidate in an election? 3: How can it be unfair for different counties to have different methods to determine voter intent, but fair for different counties to have different spoilage rates? 4: If the Supreme Court ruling in Bush v. Gore was so great, then why didn't it set precedent? Can you explain why it specifically didn't set precedent?
Yes, it's true that the recount Gore asked for wouldn't have voted him in. Boies was an idiot. But that in no way excuses the Supreme Court from interfering in a decision clearly designated as a matter for the House of Representatives in the Constitution. Bush v. Gore was complete and utter politics, down to the refusal of involved judges to recuse themselves.
It's not about who won - it's about how it happened. Rule of law, and all that.
This may make your brain explode, but it's not my fault if it does.
Republican Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan) placed a "hold" on a Bush nominee - denying her and up-or-down vote - because she's pro-choice. Even though she's a nominee for a position at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which is not exactly a hotbed of abortion decisions.
Do you want activist judges or do you want judges who follow the law?
You don't like the Kelo case - you shouldn't. But the remedy is not at the federal court level; there's no case law or precedent to support it.
Most states already prohibit these kind of takings - you know, the kind of taking of private land that made Bush millions of bucks when it was done in Texas. The rest of the states should follow suit, but it would be legislating from the bench if the Supremes would have done it..
I'd be willing to bet that in the majority of cases you think are "legislating from the bench", the judges were just following existing law you didn't like. Like they were in the Schaivo case, and Kelo, and with detainees.
Um, sorry to bother you with facts, but Condi is bad because she was really bad at her job as National Security Advisor.
Example 1: 9/11, and intelligence agencies not playing well together. That's her job. Example 2: Ignoring Richard Clarke. Example 3: No WMDs in Iraq. Example 4: Allowing DoD to ignore State's reconstruction plans, completely screwing up the postwar.
Also, middle class is not poverty. You seem both very race-focused and very ignorant of Condi's background. She's apparently a trained classical pianist as well as an ice skater. Both of these are impressive accomplishments, but they don't mean she'll be good as Secretary of State. Talent is not fungible.
There's a difference between pursuing knowledge and not running from it.
Anyway, valuing family relations over truth is... unchristian. "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?"
It's petty. There's a real difference between appointing a contributions bagman Ambassador of Micronesia, and punishing people at this petty level.
This is an administration that rewards loyalty over competence, and it's reaping what they've sown. Note that this thread isn't even about how John Bolton is getting nominated for jobs he's manifestly unqualified for because he helped shut down the Florida recount.
Slashdot Mirror
The obvious fact is this: yes, a fertilized egg _is_ life - an individual human life at that.
This life began before the mother was termed pregnant by the modern Western medical definition.
It's an obvious fact that many fertilized eggs fail to implant in the uterine lining - it's at least one in five by most studies, perhaps over fifty percent. It's a washout process for problems with the fertilized egg and the mother.
By your lights, you worship a god who kills at least 20% and maybe 50% of all human life before the first month of gestation. That may make sense to you, but not so much to me.
Why does life begin at conception? Why doesn't each egg, or each sperm have a soul? They are potential life, as a fertilized egg is potential life.
Isn't it logical to conclude that life begins at conception?
If you believe this, then you believe that someone dies every time a fertilized egg that doesn't implant on the uterine lining.
Medically, pregnancy is defined as beginning when the egg implants. If life begins before the mother is pregnant, what does that mean?
Also, I believe conception is prior to identical twins splitting. If life begins at conception, does this begin again or do twins share souls?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm l
Ahem.
Of course, now that you've been presented with evidence that speciation has occurred, are you going to change your mind? I doubt it.
The "religion right" has no influence in our schools (thanks to the Supreme Court).
Sorry, but you're both wrong and naive here. There are quite a few Wingnut-Americans on local and state school boards, and school boards have a strong influence on schools. The state of Texas has done a lot to water down science and health education by refusing to buy 'unacceptable' textbooks, and Texas is such a large market that most publishers don't bother making a second edition that leaves the science in. It's not just religion, business is also getting into the act.
Definitely agree that many parents are falling down in their responsibility to prepare their kids for schools and to raise their kids in an environment that values education.
(I boggle at the other post who feels that "teacher's unions" are interchangable with "parents".)
There's a concept called "metaphor" you should check out. As well as "Lagrange points"; I think that's a good illustration that some space is more equal than others.
From Space.com: The U.S. military tracks about 9,000 big pieces of debris orbiting the Earth. Small pieces, such as micrometeorites or paint specks chipped off old rocket segments or satellites, can't be seen. The shuttle and the debris are zipping around the Earth as fast as six miles per second, making collisions with even the tiniest fragments potentially lethal.
I'm sure once you explain that there's nothing to keep that debris in low earth orbit, it'll fall out of the sky and clear things up.
The point of this thread is "space weapons". These space weapons will tend to orbit the earth, since that's where we keep our stuff. When these weapons get blown up - as frequently happens in wartime - shrapnel will result in orbit. Thus polluting space.
Shrapnel in low-earth orbit could make any further travel dangerous. Look at what happens to shuttles when they get hit with foam or paint chips!
Space is big, yes. But there are bottlenecks, and momentum + debris is not your friend.
There's a different theory about the decline of Islamic civilization that I find more compelling:
For a while, the middle east was the crossroads of the world. Then, longer sea voyages became popular, and Europe started trading directly with Africa, India, and Asia. The middle east became an isolated backwater, and retreated into the "Good old days" as compensation.
No argument from me that income disparity is a major problem, particularly when you're talking about democracy.
It astonishes me how many people forget about the anthrax attacks. Especially in the context of proclaiming what a great job Bush has done vis-a-vis terrorism.
Companies sue each other far more frequently than people sue companies. Inter-corporate lawsuits are more likely to be dismissed as 'frivolous'.
In the infamous McDonald's case, the size of the jury award The victim was found partially liable, which reduced her judgement. Later, the judgemnet was reduced much further on appeal.
Corporations are trying to forsake responsibility and shift it to the public - privatizing profits, socializing risk. Do you know who pays for cleanup after a nuclear accident? Who paid to clean up the S&L mess? Not the people who can afford to hire lobbyists.
Whiny individuals aren't responsible for the extension of patents and copyrights - it's big business, and the Mouse. I think you're on the right track, just looking in the wrong direction.
Yes, terrorists commiting crimes in Iraq that is worse than what the US is doing. Arguing that makes US abuses OK is "moral relativism". I thought conservatives were against that, or am I "assuming" things again?
You don't think that Gitmo is related to Abu Ghraib? Obviously you aren't aware of the connections. Then again, why should you be? You've demonstrated your ignorance on just about every topic so far.
If you were in the military, sign up and go back. What is this "did my time" stuff? Unless you're missing a limb, you want this war, you go fight it. You aren't "protecting" me from jack and squat, you and your big manly "move to canada" whine. You also aren't making decisions; you're taking the crap that's being fed to you and liking it.
You said that the right wing judges didn't believe in a living constitution. I disproved it. I never said you had to agree with it, I was disproving your argument. It's pretty clear you're not up on logic more complex than grunting.
You're just flinging a whole bunch of whiny crap in the air and running away with your tail between your legs. I'm posting facts and cites, disproving your arguments, and all you can say is "the red cross is not the final arbiter" and yelping away? Talk about a spineless coward.
Okay, if we're at war, and I'm a spineless coward, I assume you're posting this from a military base (presumably in Iraq)? Because if you're not, you're a hypocrite.
I notice that you couldn't defend any of the mistakes you made. Boy, being wrong gets you mad, huh? Strange how getting mad doesn't mysteriously make you righter.
The Red Cross estimates that 80% of the people rounded up in Abu Ghraib were innocent. I'm a coward because I disagree with torturing innocent people? Truly, you are the more patriotic American.
the liberal elitist in you assumes I am a knuckle dragger who can barely read, watches Fox and regurgitates everything they tell me.
Yeah, because Hillary Clinton lost money on Whitewater. And she was cleared on "travelgate", which was a non-scandal to begin with. It is true she made some improbable cash on pork futures. Both major parties are corrupted by cash in this country, but Hillary's financial sins pale in comparison to, oh, Duke Cunningham. Or Tom Delay. Oh well, you can take the girl out of the Republican party, but...
you know what happens when you assume.
Yeah, I think you're an ass for citing that idiotic saw, particularly because you are a Fox news watcher, and you were pig-ignorant repeating Fox propaganda in your response to me. To return your saw, "If the shoe fits..."
If right wingers believe that the consitution should only be interpreted in the context it was written, then why did the righties on the Supreme Court get involved in Bush v. Gore? That was clearly a matter for the state and the House of Representatives to resolve.
Also, if the Constitution says that treaties are the law of the land, and the right wing feels that the constitution shouldn't be re-interpreted based on situations, why is the right wing upset they can't detain brown people forever and torture them? It violates the Geneva Conventions and the International Convention Against Torture, both of which are the law of the land, according to the Constitution...
I'm saying that a white male would feel a little bit more comfortable going against the status quo than she is.
Actually, there is a (to me, reasonable) argument that women are more likely to be whistleblowers than men.
What do you mean? All judgements set a precedent. It's a question of whether (especially in a very specific case like the one in Florida at that time) there's another similar case that would hinge on that precedent. Nothing like that has come up again since, so it's a non-issue, so far.
Okay, much is explained, you're just ignorant.
Look at the decision. You'll see that the court ruled (anonymously) that different counting standards violated the Equal Protection clause, which is a completely novel argument.
Think about the implications there, and remember Brown v. Board of Ed.. If the different standards of when-is-a-chad-not-a-chad violate equal protection, don't the different spoilage rates from different systems also violate equal protection? How does one use the equal protection amendment to throw out all undervotes because some undervotes might not be counted?
What about the list of black 'felon voters' who were struck from the rolls? Doesn't that violate Equal Protection? (Race was taken into account; Florida keeps track of voter race because of the Civil Rights act. Ironic.)
BTW, Florida spoilage rates are a lot higher for black voters than for white voters. Your 'weather' rains a little harder on people who vote Democrat.
From the decision: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." AKA, "This decision only applies to this case".
That aspect of the decision has been widely criticized, but you didn't know about it. Of course, you still felt qualified to heap scorn on those who had problems with the decision.
If she were a Democrat, she'd be touted as the next coming of Martin Luther King, Jr. That's all I'm saying.
Yes, since the Democratic party has no strong, intelligent black women. Idiot.
Jocelyn Elders was fired for suggesting that teenagers should be taught masturbation isn't evil. Condi Rice can tell Congress that no one could have expected planes to be flown into buildings - after the X-Files, Tom Clancy, and antimissile defenses at Genoa - and get promoted.
By the way, Jocelyn Elders worked as a maid to support herself while in college. I think her background is a wee bit more humble than Condi Rice's.
Most of the criticism I hear of her, like yours, is highly partisan.
So it's partisan to expect a political appointee to be competent at their job, or to demonstrate some understanding of what that is?
Or is it just partisan to assign responsibility to Republicans?
Or is Richard Clarke - a man who served under four presidents, three Republican - 'partisan'
Or does saying "partisan" allow you to turn your brain off and ignore criticism?
Most federal judges are republican appointees; if you're upset at the federal judiciary, you're upset at republicans.
"Judicial activism" is code for "decisions we don't like". Bush v. Gore was judicial activism. Unplugging Terry Schiavo's feeding tube wasn't.
I didn't say Kelo was Bush's fault (unlike you, who tried to blame things on Clinton). I merely pointed out that Bush has been a major benefactor of eminent domain abuse. If you are upset at Kelo, you should be upset at that, too. If you aren't you're a hypocrite.
BTW, turn off Fox News once in a while. Although Clinton was blamed for technology transfers, China already had that tech - thanks to GHWB. Also, do you remember a little spy plane incident involving China and US technology being stolen?
Heck, even those lefties at Judicial Watch are unhappy at Bush's behavior with China.
Ahem.
1: There was a standard: intent of the voter. If that standard isn't well-defined enough for you, blame the Florida legislature. Imposing a new standard would be "legislating from the bench".
2: The Supremes stopped the count because to continue it would do undue harm to Bush. How can counting votes do harm to one candidate in an election?
3: How can it be unfair for different counties to have different methods to determine voter intent, but fair for different counties to have different spoilage rates?
4: If the Supreme Court ruling in Bush v. Gore was so great, then why didn't it set precedent? Can you explain why it specifically didn't set precedent?
Yes, it's true that the recount Gore asked for wouldn't have voted him in. Boies was an idiot. But that in no way excuses the Supreme Court from interfering in a decision clearly designated as a matter for the House of Representatives in the Constitution. Bush v. Gore was complete and utter politics, down to the refusal of involved judges to recuse themselves.
It's not about who won - it's about how it happened. Rule of law, and all that.
This may make your brain explode, but it's not my fault if it does.
Republican Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan) placed a "hold" on a Bush nominee - denying her and up-or-down vote - because she's pro-choice. Even though she's a nominee for a position at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which is not exactly a hotbed of abortion decisions.
Damn that Ted Kennedy!
Make up your mind.
Do you want activist judges or do you want judges who follow the law?
You don't like the Kelo case - you shouldn't. But the remedy is not at the federal court level; there's no case law or precedent to support it.
Most states already prohibit these kind of takings - you know, the kind of taking of private land that made Bush millions of bucks when it was done in Texas. The rest of the states should follow suit, but it would be legislating from the bench if the Supremes would have done it..
I'd be willing to bet that in the majority of cases you think are "legislating from the bench", the judges were just following existing law you didn't like. Like they were in the Schaivo case, and Kelo, and with detainees.
Care to cite any counter-examples?
Um, sorry to bother you with facts, but Condi is bad because she was really bad at her job as National Security Advisor.
Example 1: 9/11, and intelligence agencies not playing well together. That's her job. Example 2: Ignoring Richard Clarke. Example 3: No WMDs in Iraq. Example 4: Allowing DoD to ignore State's reconstruction plans, completely screwing up the postwar.
Also, middle class is not poverty. You seem both very race-focused and very ignorant of Condi's background. She's apparently a trained classical pianist as well as an ice skater. Both of these are impressive accomplishments, but they don't mean she'll be good as Secretary of State. Talent is not fungible.
There's a difference between pursuing knowledge and not running from it. Anyway, valuing family relations over truth is... unchristian. "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?"
Would it surprise you to know that many Christians I meet and talk with at my University would say that they feel attacked or persecuted?
No, there are a lot of whiners in the world, and an unfortunate number of Christians with a persecution complex.
There are a fair number of white men who whine that the deck is stacked against them. Does this make it true?
It's petty. There's a real difference between appointing a contributions bagman Ambassador of Micronesia, and punishing people at this petty level.
This is an administration that rewards loyalty over competence, and it's reaping what they've sown. Note that this thread isn't even about how John Bolton is getting nominated for jobs he's manifestly unqualified for because he helped shut down the Florida recount.
For quite some time, the US has drawn a distinction between politics and getting work done (hackery versus wonkery). That distinction has vanished in this administration; it's all being run by the Now, you're getting expensive taxpayer-funded staged photo ops, where the ungood are unwelcome.
There are those of us who believe that scale matters. America executes criminals, but beat cops don't shoot litterers.
I think that you missed those pictures.
If you can't read the lettering, it says "George W. Bush. Commander in Chief".
Not really facist, though. More torsoish.