Birth is the beginning of personhood. Only on paper.
So if we certify you as being dead, on paper, would there be nothing legally wrong with killing you?
Are children who are "birthed" through C-section persons? Because they weren't really birthed, just ripped from their mother's womb. So obviously they haven't begun person-hood. Or are they indeed persons and the medical procedure for abortion somehow different enough so that that child doesn't become a person?
A child is a person from before birth. It's not like the sudden separation from it's mother lights a fire in it's soul.
What a ridiculous statement! Do people actually think about these things before they say them?
I am a little uncomfortable by the way the anti-choice activists seem to devalue both motherhood and the miracle of birth, and made even more uncomfortable when they start throwing words like "murder" around. There's nothing miraculous about a child traveling through the birth canal. The miracle is the hidden thing that has happened up until that point. They call it legal to kill the child on the way out, but the second the baby is out it would be murder. I would call them both murder. I wouldn't hesitate to call any abortion in the third trimester murder.
It doesn't have to be abortion to perform an emergency procedure to take the infant out of it's mother's womb. The difference is between taking the infant to an intensive-care ward or intentionally killing it. If you want to argue that it's perfectly fine to kill it, I will not hesitate to say you support infanticide. It's brutal and unnecessary.
The only important question is whether the woman carrying the fetus is pro-life or pro-choice. Do you really want to live in a country where a young woman in Arkansas has to cross the border to Missouri to get an abortion? Which would you prefer? Proliferating the moral war, or compromising on the issue? Cause I have plenty of moral arguments.
The only important question is what the law says. The 10th Amendment declares: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So if the power was not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution... are RESERVED to the states... or to the people. Now, the Constitution does not express any right that would lead a rational person to the conclusion that abortions should be a guaranteed right, so it shouldn't be a federal issue. And so it should be legal, unless the state government makes it illegal.
Why should I care if a woman has to cross the state border to get an abortion? In some counties in Arkansas, you have to cross the county to buy alcohol. So what?
There are many more cases where a woman's life or health are threatened by a pregnancy. If it were my wife or daughter that was going to die or be seriously physically damaged by having to carry a pregnancy to term just because some religious yahoos decided that they have the right to force a woman to give birth, I would definitely break the law to protect my wife or daughter. You think doctors wouldn't be able to perform an early C-section? It's not an abortion unless they're actually trying to destroy the child (or fetus, if you prefer). Nobody's being forced to go through labor or even being forced to raise the child. There are people who look to adopt, especially infants. The big difference is that the child should be treated like a human being after being taken from the womb, prematurely.
And I definitely don't want to pay for ANY abortions, which is the norm right now. The least you could do is to stop using taxpayer dollars to fund this elective procedure. I had my appendix taken out and it cost me nearly $10,000. I don't imagine abortion is any less expensive than that. At least make the people pay for it themselves! That's what I had to do when I had emergency surgery. Why should this elective surgery be free at my expense?
I respect that SO very much in a public figure, and am completely puzzled as to how exactly he has gotten as far as he has by blatantly displaying such traits. Probably because there are people who, despite half the news commentators calling Ron Paul a kook or a nutjob, actually respect the man and admire him.
I heard he was crazy. But then I listened to him and now I'm crazy.
If you actually read into the matter more thoroughly, you'll find out that they were turned in by a disgruntled former employee. That former employee was responsible for maintaining their license compliance and info. What a great scheme! After you're fired for failing to provide the company with adequate records of it's software licenses, tattle on them and collect the reward!
This sentiment that half the economy should be freeloading (or, at best, be effectively live-in cook/maid/prostitute hybrids) is quite offensive. Are you really offended that my wife stays at home with my infant daughter? Geez. Talk about hyper-sensitive.
Do you think you could manage to keep your nose in your own shit?
Let's not perpetuate this kind of backward thinking--it has no place in a free society with a modern economy. You are quite right. We should put behind us the ways of living that have been practiced for thousands of years and proved to be a workable social model and, instead, thrust our children into the care of others and both work hard to make money because that's what matters the most.
I laugh at the thought of you sitting home all day watching The View while your wife works. Oh, I see. You think that just because of the "social inequity" of women in the past that men should switch roles with women. That's basically affirmative action, which is a greater bigotry than doing things traditionally.
My wife is happy being at home. Please, enlighten us, why should we change our ways and join your "free society" where the choices we would like to make are the wrong ones?
The last time the United States was involved in an actual, declared war was 1945. And what does that mean, except that Congress has become lazy in it's duties and deferred the decision to wage war to the President?
As my favored candidate Ron Paul likes to say, we also haven't WON a war since then.
As you can read here, a Declaration of War and an authorization for military action are NOT the same thing.
We are not in a declared war with any state. It's kind of hard to declare a war against an ambiguous enemy. Enemy combatants are identified by behavior, not by uniform or flag. Since they are a militia of no government (and if they were, of no government we are at war with, since we have not declared war with any government that remains) these enemy combatants caught in acts of aggression are mere criminals and are not in fact prisoners of war.
Hence, if they are criminals, they should be detained and tried where they committed said acts of aggression.
That's because congress did not declare war, unfortunately.
Since we have not declared war, and the violence happened on land which is not in the jurisdiction of the US, they should be tried in the courts and by the laws of the country they were seized in.
And he wants to get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, Department of Education, Department of Energy, and a whole bunch of other departments.
But if you stop your knee-jerk reaction for a moment and look through the haze, you'll see that he's not against national security, intelligence gathering, federal law enforcement, education or energy. He's against the BUREAUCRACY of these departments that have made them wasteful, inefficient and sometimes just plain unconstitutional.
You are daydreaming about pressing fucking buttons. If you get those two confused, you belong in a VERY padded cell. Exactly. And furthermore, that's exactly why I oppose more realism in my game controls. Muscle memory and reflexes can be dangerous if you've been "training" yourself for it under realistic circumstances. I appreciate a few degrees of separation between gameplay and real life.
Actually, we could throw out FM, AM & cell phones if we had a nice handy dandy wireless internet ready to go. You may have something there. If we could just convince the RIAA that radio would be moving from FM to the internet as we dispose of the use of the FM band for radio, we could have them on board to lobby for the use of the FM band for wireless internet. Imagine how much more money they could grab if all radio stations were moved to the internet and had to pay the new SoundExchange rates for 'net radio.
In fact, human space modules (such as the ISS, but the ISS has to cope with atmospheric drag too, IIRC), have trouble dealing with excess heat, and have to use large surfaces to maximize radiation output And space suits come equipped with air conditioners, not heaters.
Real doctors don't tell you that you're inventing symptoms when you come in and tell them you have acute appendicitis and the tests results are false. They look for another cause.
Self-diagnosis is not usually accurate. But that doesn't mean they aren't really sick.
Actually, I would argue that if they're already sick, their symptoms wouldn't necessarily vanish when radio emissions cease. They may if the radio emissions simply make you feel sick, but if you have a disease that is developed by radio emissions then the disease will likely remain when radio emissions cease.
I don't think they proved anything except the people conducting the tests are incompetent. Not to say that the people reporting the illness were not quacks, but this isn't a definitive study.
If I remember correctly, the farmer in this case had NEVER contracted or bought Monsanto seed. But his neighbor had for several years and (so the argument goes) the cross pollination over a number of years resulted in the majority of his crop carrying Monsanto patented genes.
why did GTA get spanked with a post-production AO for the Hot Coffee mod? Because the content was not user-generated. The content, while not directly accessible, was a part of the product.
Slashdot Mirror
So if we certify you as being dead, on paper, would there be nothing legally wrong with killing you?
Are children who are "birthed" through C-section persons? Because they weren't really birthed, just ripped from their mother's womb. So obviously they haven't begun person-hood. Or are they indeed persons and the medical procedure for abortion somehow different enough so that that child doesn't become a person?
A child is a person from before birth. It's not like the sudden separation from it's mother lights a fire in it's soul.
What a ridiculous statement! Do people actually think about these things before they say them? I am a little uncomfortable by the way the anti-choice activists seem to devalue both motherhood and the miracle of birth, and made even more uncomfortable when they start throwing words like "murder" around. There's nothing miraculous about a child traveling through the birth canal. The miracle is the hidden thing that has happened up until that point. They call it legal to kill the child on the way out, but the second the baby is out it would be murder. I would call them both murder. I wouldn't hesitate to call any abortion in the third trimester murder.
It doesn't have to be abortion to perform an emergency procedure to take the infant out of it's mother's womb. The difference is between taking the infant to an intensive-care ward or intentionally killing it. If you want to argue that it's perfectly fine to kill it, I will not hesitate to say you support infanticide. It's brutal and unnecessary.
The only important question is what the law says. The 10th Amendment declares: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So if the power was not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution... are RESERVED to the states... or to the people. Now, the Constitution does not express any right that would lead a rational person to the conclusion that abortions should be a guaranteed right, so it shouldn't be a federal issue. And so it should be legal, unless the state government makes it illegal.
Why should I care if a woman has to cross the state border to get an abortion? In some counties in Arkansas, you have to cross the county to buy alcohol. So what? There are many more cases where a woman's life or health are threatened by a pregnancy. If it were my wife or daughter that was going to die or be seriously physically damaged by having to carry a pregnancy to term just because some religious yahoos decided that they have the right to force a woman to give birth, I would definitely break the law to protect my wife or daughter. You think doctors wouldn't be able to perform an early C-section? It's not an abortion unless they're actually trying to destroy the child (or fetus, if you prefer). Nobody's being forced to go through labor or even being forced to raise the child. There are people who look to adopt, especially infants. The big difference is that the child should be treated like a human being after being taken from the womb, prematurely.
And I definitely don't want to pay for ANY abortions, which is the norm right now. The least you could do is to stop using taxpayer dollars to fund this elective procedure. I had my appendix taken out and it cost me nearly $10,000. I don't imagine abortion is any less expensive than that. At least make the people pay for it themselves! That's what I had to do when I had emergency surgery. Why should this elective surgery be free at my expense?
I heard he was crazy. But then I listened to him and now I'm crazy.
People are bitching about global warming then because they want to see another ice age?
I rather enjoy short, mild winters and warm summers. You've pretty much convinced me NOT to worry about global warming, cause it's good for us!
If "normal" is having long-term periods of global freezing, then to hell with what is "normal"! It's a lovely day out! Let's keep it that way.
Of course, all of this is predicated on the unlikely event that you're assertion is correct.
Do you think you could manage to keep your nose in your own shit? Let's not perpetuate this kind of backward thinking--it has no place in a free society with a modern economy. You are quite right. We should put behind us the ways of living that have been practiced for thousands of years and proved to be a workable social model and, instead, thrust our children into the care of others and both work hard to make money because that's what matters the most. I laugh at the thought of you sitting home all day watching The View while your wife works. Oh, I see. You think that just because of the "social inequity" of women in the past that men should switch roles with women. That's basically affirmative action, which is a greater bigotry than doing things traditionally.
My wife is happy being at home. Please, enlighten us, why should we change our ways and join your "free society" where the choices we would like to make are the wrong ones?
As my favored candidate Ron Paul likes to say, we also haven't WON a war since then.
As you can read here, a Declaration of War and an authorization for military action are NOT the same thing.
We are not in a declared war with any state. It's kind of hard to declare a war against an ambiguous enemy. Enemy combatants are identified by behavior, not by uniform or flag. Since they are a militia of no government (and if they were, of no government we are at war with, since we have not declared war with any government that remains) these enemy combatants caught in acts of aggression are mere criminals and are not in fact prisoners of war.
Hence, if they are criminals, they should be detained and tried where they committed said acts of aggression.
That's because congress did not declare war, unfortunately.
Since we have not declared war, and the violence happened on land which is not in the jurisdiction of the US, they should be tried in the courts and by the laws of the country they were seized in.
And he wants to get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, Department of Education, Department of Energy, and a whole bunch of other departments.
But if you stop your knee-jerk reaction for a moment and look through the haze, you'll see that he's not against national security, intelligence gathering, federal law enforcement, education or energy. He's against the BUREAUCRACY of these departments that have made them wasteful, inefficient and sometimes just plain unconstitutional.
The vapor (boiling) point of water is a variable determined by pressure, which the experiment that the GGGP explained dealt with (a vacuum).
I thought it was higher ceilings. Higher ceilings produce expert programmers.
Real doctors don't tell you that you're inventing symptoms when you come in and tell them you have acute appendicitis and the tests results are false. They look for another cause.
Self-diagnosis is not usually accurate. But that doesn't mean they aren't really sick.
Actually, I would argue that if they're already sick, their symptoms wouldn't necessarily vanish when radio emissions cease. They may if the radio emissions simply make you feel sick, but if you have a disease that is developed by radio emissions then the disease will likely remain when radio emissions cease.
I don't think they proved anything except the people conducting the tests are incompetent. Not to say that the people reporting the illness were not quacks, but this isn't a definitive study.
"Diarrhea is like a storm raging inside you." (7:20) - Tom Servo, "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians"
If I remember correctly, the farmer in this case had NEVER contracted or bought Monsanto seed. But his neighbor had for several years and (so the argument goes) the cross pollination over a number of years resulted in the majority of his crop carrying Monsanto patented genes.
Why is this a story? I've seen that message on dozens of games on the computer. So it's a big deal because it's on a console now?