I believe you are confusing "embryo" with "fetus". A human embryo is a collection of human cells progressing on to forming a unique human baby (unlike the cancer mass in your later example). A human fetus is an unborn human baby.
The problem is that there still is a very large, and probably completely unsolvable, debate over whether or whether not a fetus, or embryo is human. There isn't an objective answer to that question, and thus you really can't force your opinion on others. If there was some definitive test to prove, for once and for all, that a mass of rapidly dividing cells embedded in a woman's body is actually a human being, then I would have no problem with call (and legislating) abortion murder.
No. The debate is whether a human fetus or embryo should be regarded as having the rights of a person. It is human. The SCOTUS decided by fiat to declare that fetuses aren't persons, and therefore are to be accorded no rights. Now that the SCOTUS has affirmed personhood and attendant rights upon corporations, it seems more ridiculous that actual humans aren't persons.
And yes, I am aware that the plural of person is people, but since "person" is being used as a legal term, I thought it best to use a simple pluralization.
You jest, but I was reading the title, and had this reaction:
Diabetic Men Hmm, I'm not diabetic, but I am a man, this could be interesting
May Be Able To Grow ?
Their Own ????
Insulin- meh
Owner status trumps technical experience every time.
Hell, Mr. Nucular Silo launchy guy? I'm a US citizen, so I own this missile. I want to launch it. Give me your key and tell your partner we're going to launch on 0. 3... 2... 1...
DISCLAIMER: I don't believe any of this, but this is what a Biblical literalist would answer you with.
[...]
- Who (other than Noah and his wife) was a witness to these events?
Nobody, obviously, since the rest of them died.
Actually, Noah, his wife, their sons and their sons' wives. There is no mention of how many wives each son had.
[...]
- Why do we have known things like genetic inbreeding of recessive traits, and if there were only two of each animal (including humans) why didn't they die out of horrible inbred mutations within a handful of generations?
I don't think this is a stock answer, but I expect it would be acceptable to a Biblical literalist: everything was perfect in the beginning, and things do mutate, but mutations cause "devolution", not evolution; things get worse over time. The survivors of the flood were still pure enough to repopulate the world on their own, but since then we've accumulated all these recessive defects that make inbreeding a problem. Probably because of Sin. (Cause, you know, Sin is radioactive and causes genetic degradation).
And there were more than two people, see above (although apparently only one Y chromosome; Noah and his sons). And this is the same answer given when talking about Adam and Eve. There are two creation-of-human events in Genesis, one in Eden on the third day (Adam and Eve), and one all over the world on the sixth day (all of mankind). Cain and Seth married women from these other people.
- Why do people still believe any of this as any kind of science when it consistently and constantly refutes observable events? "The Lord Works In Mysterious Ways" is OK for a civilization that doesn't understand the world around them, but it's not like we're short on credible, observation-based theories that can explain things in much more likely terms than "Then A Miracle Happened".
String-Theory. Dark Matter. A Miracle Happened. It's not like the people of those times didn't have observation-based theories that could explain things. They knew that sex made babies (and that semen was vital), but that only reinforced the miraculous nature of a virgin birth. If they didn't have observation-based theories back then, a virgin birth would have been nothing special. Nor would have a great world-altering flood, a column of fire or cloud, or the parting of the red sea. They knew those things were impossible by the normal rules of nature, and yet they believed they happened. Maybe they observed some truly inexplicable events?
I get the feeling telomerewhythere isn't a Bible-thumper - more of finding the middle ground
Stop right there. We don't take kindly to compromise here; anyone defending a bible thumper is a bible thumper by proxy. And you're defending a bible-thumper-defender. You're a bible-thumper-by-proxy-defender! Get 'im boys!
You really think France or Germany would attack the USA? Not in 1000 years.
And a little discrete spying keeps everyone mostly honest. In the 1890's I bet USA thought it would be a thousand years or more before Japan ever attacked US soil. 1000 years is a long time when measured in human generations/lifespans.
Obama has added a few more things to the list, like the right to kill people without a trial
Doesn't really matter, you can copy the files to the local drive and then take the local drive or boot the system up from alternative media to access the data and copy it to external storage...
Sure you could encrypt the drive, but then again this is an attack being carried out by a legitimate user who therefore must have access to the encryption key in order to boot the host.
Never let a good crisis go to waste: Any Federal Government sysadmin entering a server room should be accompanied by another Federal Government sysadmin shadow who can verify that sysadmin #1 won't remove HDDs or do anything hinky. See, I just created a ton of IT jobs.
This isn't what I want in a 3D camera. I want to be able to spin the scene after moving from original point. I want to see what's behind something. The cameras need to be encapsulating the scene.
I don't believe for a second that the three of them were in the same room for that whole conversation.
I concur. It was an awfully disjointed conversation. I bet they didn't revisit either; just filmed "busted, confirmed, and plausible". I don't remember them telling the POTUS anything specific about the experiment afterward (you'd think the netting would deserve a mention).
I thought it was in poor taste when they started using CGI to have Astair dance with a vacuum cleaner, to be honest.
I was thinking of that too. I'm sure he signed a contract that gave the studio the right to use his image in other contexts, but it's ridiculous to say that gave them the right to do something that he didn't know would ever be possible at the time he signed it.
"I love you, Lucy Lubot"
"I love you,...FRED ASTAIRBOT"
Slashdot Mirror
Foetus. Not "baby". Collection of cells.
I believe you are confusing "embryo" with "fetus". A human embryo is a collection of human cells progressing on to forming a unique human baby (unlike the cancer mass in your later example). A human fetus is an unborn human baby.
The problem is that there still is a very large, and probably completely unsolvable, debate over whether or whether not a fetus, or embryo is human. There isn't an objective answer to that question, and thus you really can't force your opinion on others. If there was some definitive test to prove, for once and for all, that a mass of rapidly dividing cells embedded in a woman's body is actually a human being, then I would have no problem with call (and legislating) abortion murder.
No. The debate is whether a human fetus or embryo should be regarded as having the rights of a person. It is human. The SCOTUS decided by fiat to declare that fetuses aren't persons, and therefore are to be accorded no rights. Now that the SCOTUS has affirmed personhood and attendant rights upon corporations, it seems more ridiculous that actual humans aren't persons.
And yes, I am aware that the plural of person is people, but since "person" is being used as a legal term, I thought it best to use a simple pluralization.
Ruh-roh. Someone compared US and metric systems.
That's ridiculous! A country is not a system of measurement.
Then why are they even called the same name? You'd think someone would have thought to rename one as anti-diabetes.
You jest, but I was reading the title, and had this reaction:
Diabetic Men
Hmm, I'm not diabetic, but I am a man, this could be interesting
May Be Able To Grow
?
Their Own
????
Insulin-
meh
And who knows, 100-200 years from now UK might be the 57th state. I could see Neo-France attacking the US then.
Owner status trumps technical experience every time.
Hell, Mr. Nucular Silo launchy guy? I'm a US citizen, so I own this missile. I want to launch it. Give me your key and tell your partner we're going to launch on 0. 3... 2... 1...
Oh, and there were seven pairs of each kind of "clean animal", seven pairs of every kind of bird, and a pair of every other kind of animal.
DISCLAIMER: I don't believe any of this, but this is what a Biblical literalist would answer you with.
[...]
- Who (other than Noah and his wife) was a witness to these events?
Nobody, obviously, since the rest of them died.
Actually, Noah, his wife, their sons and their sons' wives. There is no mention of how many wives each son had.
[...]
- Why do we have known things like genetic inbreeding of recessive traits, and if there were only two of each animal (including humans) why didn't they die out of horrible inbred mutations within a handful of generations?
I don't think this is a stock answer, but I expect it would be acceptable to a Biblical literalist: everything was perfect in the beginning, and things do mutate, but mutations cause "devolution", not evolution; things get worse over time. The survivors of the flood were still pure enough to repopulate the world on their own, but since then we've accumulated all these recessive defects that make inbreeding a problem. Probably because of Sin. (Cause, you know, Sin is radioactive and causes genetic degradation).
And there were more than two people, see above (although apparently only one Y chromosome; Noah and his sons). And this is the same answer given when talking about Adam and Eve. There are two creation-of-human events in Genesis, one in Eden on the third day (Adam and Eve), and one all over the world on the sixth day (all of mankind). Cain and Seth married women from these other people.
- Why do people still believe any of this as any kind of science when it consistently and constantly refutes observable events? "The Lord Works In Mysterious Ways" is OK for a civilization that doesn't understand the world around them, but it's not like we're short on credible, observation-based theories that can explain things in much more likely terms than "Then A Miracle Happened".
String-Theory. Dark Matter. A Miracle Happened. It's not like the people of those times didn't have observation-based theories that could explain things. They knew that sex made babies (and that semen was vital), but that only reinforced the miraculous nature of a virgin birth. If they didn't have observation-based theories back then, a virgin birth would have been nothing special. Nor would have a great world-altering flood, a column of fire or cloud, or the parting of the red sea. They knew those things were impossible by the normal rules of nature, and yet they believed they happened. Maybe they observed some truly inexplicable events?
I get the feeling telomerewhythere isn't a Bible-thumper - more of finding the middle ground
Stop right there. We don't take kindly to compromise here; anyone defending a bible thumper is a bible thumper by proxy. And you're defending a bible-thumper-defender. You're a bible-thumper-by-proxy-defender! Get 'im boys!
You really think France or Germany would attack the USA? Not in 1000 years.
And a little discrete spying keeps everyone mostly honest. In the 1890's I bet USA thought it would be a thousand years or more before Japan ever attacked US soil. 1000 years is a long time when measured in human generations/lifespans.
Obama has added a few more things to the list, like the right to kill people without a trial
Citation?
Doesn't really matter, you can copy the files to the local drive and then take the local drive or boot the system up from alternative media to access the data and copy it to external storage... Sure you could encrypt the drive, but then again this is an attack being carried out by a legitimate user who therefore must have access to the encryption key in order to boot the host.
Never let a good crisis go to waste: Any Federal Government sysadmin entering a server room should be accompanied by another Federal Government sysadmin shadow who can verify that sysadmin #1 won't remove HDDs or do anything hinky. See, I just created a ton of IT jobs.
This isn't what I want in a 3D camera. I want to be able to spin the scene after moving from original point. I want to see what's behind something. The cameras need to be encapsulating the scene.
I don't believe for a second that the three of them were in the same room for that whole conversation.
I concur. It was an awfully disjointed conversation. I bet they didn't revisit either; just filmed "busted, confirmed, and plausible". I don't remember them telling the POTUS anything specific about the experiment afterward (you'd think the netting would deserve a mention).
Maybe he is a Muslim/atheist/communist/fascist/Maoist/devil worshiper
You realize at least three of those are contradictory, right? There's no "maybe" about it -- he cannot possibly be all of those things.
Commas are "and" or "or". Slashes are exclusively "exclusive or"
They also have some new material to work with, what with that Hotel cum Death Ray story from a few months back.
Thank you. That's exactly the example I was trying to remember.
I'm glad you clicked on that link for us. I didn't want to.
The only possible reason to use this particular myth is so you can get 500 kids involved, each holding a mirror,
So that Obama can see his own smiling face beaming back at him from atop 500 kids' necks? Now that's Narcissism.
even though the show and Obama's appearance are completely apolitical!
Completely! Obama has no political motive! Sasha and Malia just wanted to see their daddy on Mythbusters.
One stigma is about people growing clones for spare parts, a la Dr. Venture.
Until growth acceleration and brain transplants are available.
Dude, now I want to search YouTube to seeif someone applied lightsaber effects to a scene where Chaplin was spinning his cane.
I thought it was in poor taste when they started using CGI to have Astair dance with a vacuum cleaner, to be honest.
I was thinking of that too. I'm sure he signed a contract that gave the studio the right to use his image in other contexts, but it's ridiculous to say that gave them the right to do something that he didn't know would ever be possible at the time he signed it.
"I love you, Lucy Lubot" ...FRED ASTAIRBOT"
"I love you,
that's how Obama was perceived - a man of average circumstances
Average circumstances being rich and popular for being popular like the Kardashians?
I don't recall any message from the President that he wants to revoke the Second Amendment.
Not while he's been president, no. I have a feeling those people were "clinging to their guns" as a means of political speech.
You should have learned by now that it's actions, not the rhetoric, that matters.
Not when it comes to the Nobel Peace Prize.
Do you know how Confusion society treated women?
I don't quite.. umm. Hrm. What do you... Huh. I think you're confused.