I really don't think abortion has brought "freedom" to the United States. I would think freedom gives life, rather than takes it away. How much happiness and joy has abortion really brought to anyone?
What does it say about us that we see unborn children as a potential medical resource instead of a precious humnan life? I don't mean to condemn anyone, but these are questions that need to be asked?
Perhaps I did jump the gun. But the article refers to embryonic stem cells, which are obtained, I would think from embryos. An embryo is a fertilized egg. I equate that with a human life. But perhaps, as you pointed out, they are from another source. If so, I stand corrected.
I do not oppose organ donors, because they are donors. They are freely giving of their cells and organs. Those killed by abortions are not donors.
Actually, I don't think there is anything morally ambiguous about creating embryos for the purpose of harvesting their cells. It is wrong.
Also I believe there is a distinction between a person voluntarily donating their organs/cells in the event of their death (whether by murder, accident, etc) and using the cells of those who have been consulted in the choice (victims of abortion).
Advertising can be helpful. But, I think if I were trying to sell something, I would spend the majority of my time making a product that was so interesting and useful people went looking for it. If people really want something, they will find it.
Seriously people,
We should stop making the chair jokes, and I ask forgiveness for doing wrong by capitalizing on the situation and making my former joke instead of correcting it. We weren't in the room when this meeting took place, and we don't know what happened.
Your comments bring another facet of the situation into my mind. There is a matter of priorities in the world. Perhaps if we really thought about it, we might realize that our country spends too much money and time as it is on entertainment and video games when there are more pressing issues in the world. Couldn't the time and money spent on violent games be better used to help people?
Of course I recognize the use of irony in your statements, and I agree to some extent. Government regulation can indeed encourage lack of responsibility, waste tax money, and impair market forces that could ordinarily take care of problems without any ham fisted intervention.
However, at a certain level, some regulation is useful. Would you want to drive on highways without speed limits or traffic laws? Would you want to eat in restaurants without health inspections?
I think if government regulation does have a value, it is in helping parents protect their children from harmful influences. Parents should do what they can to help their children by giving them the supervision they need. The government can help parents by providing regulations that forbid store owners from selling games to children which they shouldn't have access to.
I would like to see more regulation by parents. I think it's good to have a rating system like this, but it only works if parents are involved. Parents need to monitor what their children are watching, playing, and doing on the Internet. Of course, this assumes that parents have an idea of what is appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't think abortion has brought "freedom" to the United States. I would think freedom gives life, rather than takes it away. How much happiness and joy has abortion really brought to anyone? What does it say about us that we see unborn children as a potential medical resource instead of a precious humnan life? I don't mean to condemn anyone, but these are questions that need to be asked?
Where would you draw the line in scientific research?
To me there is a clear distinction between plants, animals and human beings.
Perhaps I did jump the gun. But the article refers to embryonic stem cells, which are obtained, I would think from embryos. An embryo is a fertilized egg. I equate that with a human life. But perhaps, as you pointed out, they are from another source. If so, I stand corrected. I do not oppose organ donors, because they are donors. They are freely giving of their cells and organs. Those killed by abortions are not donors.
Actually, I don't think there is anything morally ambiguous about creating embryos for the purpose of harvesting their cells. It is wrong. Also I believe there is a distinction between a person voluntarily donating their organs/cells in the event of their death (whether by murder, accident, etc) and using the cells of those who have been consulted in the choice (victims of abortion).
You are being sarcastic, aren't you?
I don't. I believe to create life and then to destroy it for the sake of harvesting it's cells is wrong.
Advertising can be helpful. But, I think if I were trying to sell something, I would spend the majority of my time making a product that was so interesting and useful people went looking for it. If people really want something, they will find it.
Maybe the idea is to put something out there so that people can show it to other people or give them a link to it...
Ok, sorry, I was wrong. The poster didn't say the article actually did mention a macro.
Actually, the article doesn't say what this gentlemen's patent was for. Article alteration in progress.
Is it possible that people are taking these games a little too seriously?
Seriously people, We should stop making the chair jokes, and I ask forgiveness for doing wrong by capitalizing on the situation and making my former joke instead of correcting it. We weren't in the room when this meeting took place, and we don't know what happened.
Yes, I think the chair jokes are on their last legs.
Your comments bring another facet of the situation into my mind. There is a matter of priorities in the world. Perhaps if we really thought about it, we might realize that our country spends too much money and time as it is on entertainment and video games when there are more pressing issues in the world. Couldn't the time and money spent on violent games be better used to help people?
Of course I recognize the use of irony in your statements, and I agree to some extent. Government regulation can indeed encourage lack of responsibility, waste tax money, and impair market forces that could ordinarily take care of problems without any ham fisted intervention. However, at a certain level, some regulation is useful. Would you want to drive on highways without speed limits or traffic laws? Would you want to eat in restaurants without health inspections? I think if government regulation does have a value, it is in helping parents protect their children from harmful influences. Parents should do what they can to help their children by giving them the supervision they need. The government can help parents by providing regulations that forbid store owners from selling games to children which they shouldn't have access to.
Maybe we should think of the children first.
I would like to see more regulation by parents. I think it's good to have a rating system like this, but it only works if parents are involved. Parents need to monitor what their children are watching, playing, and doing on the Internet. Of course, this assumes that parents have an idea of what is appropriate.