What is the meaning of life for the atheist
in [Math]
|
Prev: Intersection of Complex Submanifolds (Incl. Self-Int.) is positive
Next: EXAMPLES OF THE USE OF "HALF SQUARED " VALUES IN MATHEMATICS--HOPE RESEARCH
From: Excognito on 6 Aug 2010 14:52 On 6 Aug, 02:30, Mark Edwards <Mark-Edwa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > At what point is it murder, to abort a corporate entity? I bet Obama is asking himself that same question with regard to BP.
From: Excognito on 6 Aug 2010 18:56 On 6 Aug, 23:10, SkyEyes <skyey...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On Aug 6, 8:58 am, Excognito <stuartbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: Sorry, I don't have time to read the rest of your message at the moment, but .. >> And the concept of being forced to give birth doesn't imply direct >> control over the "physical movements" of a woman? In what universe? Not in the same sense that slavery does. Massa don't expect you to be livin' in the plantation slavin' in 'dem cotton fields. Don't be absurd. As I've said, you're twisting the definition of slavery to the point where it becomes meaningless. >> And the "economic value" argument is covered by the patriarchal >> tendency to regard women and children as men's chattel. Rubbish. I don't what you're drinking, but I'd like some too. Or are you stuck in some 17th century Parisian time warp? Trust me, children do not provide net economic gain to my family unit - I'd be far better off financially flushing them down the toilet. And they certainly don't regard themselves as being anything like my 'property' - on the contrary :-\
From: Alex W on 7 Aug 2010 05:33 On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 15:56:37 -0700 (PDT), Excognito wrote: > On 6 Aug, 23:10, SkyEyes <skyey...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> On Aug 6, 8:58 am, Excognito <stuartbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry, I don't have time to read the rest of your message at the > moment, but .. > >>> And the concept of being forced to give birth doesn't imply direct >>> control over the "physical movements" of a woman? In what universe? > > Not in the same sense that slavery does. Massa don't expect you to be > livin' in the plantation slavin' in 'dem cotton fields. > > Don't be absurd. As I've said, you're twisting the definition of > slavery to the point where it becomes meaningless. > >>> And the "economic value" argument is covered by the patriarchal >>> tendency to regard women and children as men's chattel. > > Rubbish. I don't what you're drinking, but I'd like some too. Or > are you stuck in some 17th century Parisian time warp? Trust me, > children do not provide net economic gain to my family unit - I'd be > far better off financially flushing them down the toilet. And they > certainly don't regard themselves as being anything like my 'property' > - on the contrary :-\ You are describing a very recent phenomenon of the Western world. It is far from common for humanity in general. In large parts of the world, women are married off by the father to whomsoever he chooses. Children belong to the husband, as does any property owned or inherited by the wife. Women often have lesser status in law: their testimony is worth less, their claims or accusations require more proof. In economic terms, a woman's financial value or burden to her family may be such that female childen are aborted in numbers so large there is now a male/female imbalance in parts of the world reaching 130 boys for every 100 girls -- a truly major catastrophe for those nations, and by extension all of us. As for children, that again is a very recent change. Go back only two or three generations, and even in the West a brood of six, seven or even ten children was the norm: this was family planning in the days when children died in large numbers. And it was also pension planning because more children meant better care for the parents when they became too old to work. This pattern still holds in wide parts of Africa and Asia, and it also means that relatively few resources were spent on any one child (with the possible exception of the firstborn son). We simply were not as sentimental about our kids in those days, nor as wasteful, because chances were pretty good any emotional or financial investment would be wasted. Consequently, since we humans are just so damn fecund, children have (until the early 20th century) always been regarded as an abundant and reneable natural resource, there to be used as cheap labour in fields, workshops, factories-- slaves in effect if not in name.
From: Jimbo on 7 Aug 2010 09:09 On Aug 5, 5:56 pm, Excognito <stuartbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 Aug, 21:30, Jimbo <ckdbig...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 5, 4:25 pm, Excognito <stuartbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 5 Aug, 21:08, Jimbo <ckdbig...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 5, 12:45 pm, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrr...(a)GroinToHell.com> wrote: > > > > The question > > > > is when does a fetus become a human being. > > > > ANSWER THAT or shut up. > > > > At the moment it is born, according to the law and the Constitution > > > says that all person's born in the US are citizens of the US. It > > > makes no mention of the pre-born, nor post living. he US. It > > > > > makes no mention of the pre-born, nor post living. > > > > Incorrect. Several states have laws on fetal homicide, > > > Abortion is not considered homicide. It is only defined as murder in > > relation to a physical attack on the mother, and for no other > > purpose. These laws are meant to grant more rights to the mother in > > terms of spousal abuse (which the vast majority of these cases stem > > from) and other attack, not the fetus. They all contain exemptions > > for legal abortion, they would have to otherwise they would be > > unenforceable per the courts. These laws do not confer any specific > > rights to the fetus. > > I'm not a lawyer and don't have time to read the corresponding state > laws in detail or conduct a case law review, however, I would not like > to defend your position in some states, eg Michigan - my initial > reading is that unless it a 'legal' abortion, it may be prosecutable > as homicide under some circumstances. Furthermore, several other > states' definitions of fetal homicide would seem to cover the case > where somebody deliberately harms the fetus with no intent to harm the > mother (eg, spiking a drink). The whole area seems to be a mess, with > apparently contradictory laws and punishments depending upon whether > the person carrying out the abortion is a medical practitioner or > not. > > Of note, however, is that several states define a fetus as a human > being that has a separate identity from its mother, eg in Oklahoma: > > Section 24-691 of Title 21 > A. Homicide is the killing of one human being by another. > B. As used in this section, "human being" includes an unborn child, as > defined in Section 1-730 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes. > > Section 1-730 of Title 63 > 4. "Unborn child" means the unborn offspring of human beings from the > moment of conception, through pregnancy, and until live birth > including the human conceptus, zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo and > fetus;- Hide quoted text - > Read the law in it's entirety, not just the sections that you believe prove your point.
From: Jimbo on 7 Aug 2010 17:05
On Aug 5, 6:16 pm, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrr...(a)GroinToHell.com> wrote: > "Jimbo" <ckdbig...(a)gmail.com> wrote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am anti-abortion. For me it's not about spirituality. > > > > > > > > > > > Abortion is not only murder (causing the death of an > > > > > > > > > > innocent) > > > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > human law, it is a crime against the species. > > > > > > > > > > And slavery *isn't*? Because, face it, that's what forcing a > > > > > > > > > woman to > > > > > > > > > have a child she does not want amounts to. > > > > > > > > > Nowadays we know what causes pregnancy. > > > > > > > > Not even remotely the point. > > > > > > > I think you'll find it's closely related > > > > > > Not even in the slightest. > > > > > Sigh. All this time and you didn't look in the Obvious Bag. > > > > > it is exactly the point. > > > > > If you aren't pregnant, you don't need to consider having an > > > > abortion, now do you? > > > > < > > > <But the fact remains that unwanted pregnancies do happen, they have > > > <always happened, and they will continue to happen, so how is that > > > <relevant to the discussion about the right to chose to abort? Such > > > <pregnancies can be reduced by proper education, birth control/condoms, > > > <etc......but they are never going away. > > > > The question is whether or not what you are killing (aka "aborting") > > > is a human being. 36 weeks don't cut it. Where's your line? > > > < > > <What would be your line for dominion over what goes on in your body, > > <and by what right does the government have to control whether or not a > > <woman has to give birth? I don't really see that power within the > > <Constitution. > > > Um, the Constitution recognized Common Law lock, stock, and > > barrel. Murder is illegal even if there are no statutes saying so. > > < > <Actually, the Constitution did away with Common Law at the federal > <level, purposefully, by the Founding Fathers, and severely curtails > <common law at the state level. The reason for this was that Brittish > <used common law as one would use a club to control the colonies. > <Basically, all action could be construed by the Brittish authority as > <criminal by the siting of one or more common law. There are no common > <law felonies nor mistemeanors and certainly no common law powers > <assigned to the fed outside of the Constitution. Even at the state > <level, most common laws have been replaced. Common law marriage, for > <example, has been largely done away with except in one or two states. > > States have codified much of what Common Law covers, but crimes > are still tried under Common Law I suggest you take a law course or two, then come back when you are more knowledgeable about the topic you are trying to discuss. |