RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Dan Minette wrote: Behalf Of Deborah Harrell Dan some snippage grin And I was refusing to have my pro-choice stance deny _any_ protection to the unborn (teratogens etc.) OK, fine. Then the question on the table should be who is a protected person being and what is not. As your discussion WRT self-harm (tobacco etc) notes, it depends. We have different levels of protection for different entities; a minor is not legally able to purchase alcohol or tobacco b/c these are potentially very harmful, but an adult ought to be able to choose how s/he pollutes his/her own body. OTOH, since we know that second-hand smoke *is* harmful to children, adults and the unborn, laws limiting exposure are IMO reasonable (while completely banning tobacco or alcohol would be insupportable). My understanding is that you equate a zygote with a person; I do not. The law does not, although some legislation esp WRT teratogens is primarily beneficial to the unborn (as well as the ecosystem in general, of course). But we didn't *start* that war - Hussein invaded Kuwait. I was referring to the earlier bombing of the Iraqi reactor by Israel, probably with tacit US support. Without it, Hussein would have invaded Kuwait having already had a significant nuclear arsenal. He was within a year of getting enough plutonium for his first bomb when the Israelis bombed the reactor. Well, maybe he would have used the bomb against Tehran earlier, that's always possible...but the point is that that bombing raid probably saved a number of lives. Murky ground ethically; if you are *certain* that somebody is preparing to attack people, and you have the means to remove the threat without, say, bombing a hospital, then you are on the lighter side of Grey to pre-emptively strike (as I stated in a post several years ago). In my book, workers in a facility creating WoMD are ligitimate targets rather than innocent civilians. But if your intelligence is questionable - say from a single source of dubious veracity, ie GWII - you are on the darker side of Grey to strike first. yet killing an infant is murder, just as killing an adult is, and just as killing an ape isn't. Nor, under law, is aborting a 15-week fetus. Nor is aborting a 8.5 month fetus as long as a hospital and physician can be found for a go-ahead. My sister said she knows personally of highly questionable late term abortions where she's workedno indication of life threatening illness to the mother at all. From what she told me, before birth, the only person that matters is the motherthe fetus is not human until borneven thought it would be viable. Now, I have a hunch you wouldn't agree with that. I do not support late-term abortions unless the mother's life is in danger, or a terminal birth defect like anencephaly is detected. You said no hospital would do that. But, the fact that my sister worked at a hospital that did does seem to contradict that. No, I did not say that; I said that I did not know any OBs who would equate abortion with euthanasia of drug-addicted babies (or AIDS babies, either). No, I'm judging that 5 million deaths is worse that 500. ? Sorry, missing that? Please clarify. If a women died trying to abort in a back alley, that is certainly a human death. But, from the right-to-life movement's perspective, 500 deaths of women attempting abortion must be weighted against the deaths of millions of people when women can easily find abortions. An 8-week fetus does not have the same status as a born human; OTOH millions of children die yearly from malnutrition, various diseases, poor sanitation, neglect and abuse. My crack about alligators and swamps was meant to reflect the fact that the entire milieu (sp?) needs to be changed: the culture(s), poverty, disease, education, attitudes etc. Just this morning a client asked me for help with cantering her horse, but what she *needs* is help with communication and control of her horse, as well as control over her own body (balance, breathing etc); only when the latter are corrected will she be able to fearlessly canter her obedient and willing horse. Debbi Off For Dressage With Cezanne Maru :) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Behalf Of Deborah Harrell Dan Minette wrote: DanM wrote: much snippage ditto! ...The thesis is that the mother and society owe the child at least a chance at life. For a right-to-life person, every child has an inalienable right to life. The only possible exception is when their right to life conflicts with the right to life of the mother. The mother's health is important, of course, but not as critical as the child's life. One would wish, of course, to choose both, but when push comes to shove, the right to life predominates. Disagree. I would not forbide a mentally competent woman, who knows that being pregnant will most likely kill her, from continuing the pregnancybut to say that a woman whose pregnancy will probably kill her *must* continue is contributing to the murder of a realized, as opposed to potential, human life. I didn't say that. Anti-abortion laws supported by the right to life movement usually have exceptions for pregnancies that put the mother's life at serious risk. Hmm, I was probably overreacting re: the recent South Dakota law, which does not except it (if what I've read is correct). BTW, I was trying to lay out two positions: the pro-choice and the pro-life positions. My point was that folks tend to argue from their own axioms, ignoring the axioms of those they differ with. grin And I was refusing to have my pro-choice stance deny _any_ protection to the unborn (teratogens etc.) By such 'pushing and shoving' rights, one would be justified in dropping certain persons in power into a combat zone since they have been, and are, and will be, responsible for multiple civilian deaths of men, women, and children, as well as some unborn. I'm not sure that pacifism is required to support the right to life. Perhaps not. My attempt was to point out the inconsistancies in being anti-abortion yet shrugging off civilian deaths in war as unavoidable collateral damage. (Probably a bit snippy having recently heard that Iraqi civilian casualties are ~ 100/*day* now.) Once again, one could argue that anyone who starts a war and causes any collateral damage is a cold-blooded killer... So, are you arguing that, for example, that the bombing that delayed Hussein getting the bomb until after Gulf War I is equivalent to cold blooded killing, even though it may have saved millions of lives? But we didn't *start* that war - Hussein invaded Kuwait. (OK, we were partly responsible for SH being in power at that time; if you take that position, then I'd concede that the US bears some blame.) Finishing a war is one thing; starting quite another. The scenario I proposed was a half-a-loaf thought. If it is impossible to stop all murder, it is still worthwhile to stop some. And, with this scenario, the right-to-life people have at least a chance to save every child's life. A chance to save a human life is better than no chance to save a human life. Unless it's the woman whose pregnancy is life-threatening to her? In outlining the right to life movement's position, I did not equate health to life. Exceptions to anti-abortion laws for the mother's health means that any possible deterioration in the mother's health is grounds for abortion. It's basically abortion on demand...especially if, as it always is, mental health is included. All the woman would need to say is that thinking about carrying to term makes her depressed, and there is a valid DSM-IV diagnosis. Exceptions for the mother's life means that she has to have some significant risk of dying from pregnancy for the pregnancy to be terminated. I understand your position better. WRT a woman with poor mental health raising a child, and that child being neglected/abused: what do you think of the _Freakonomics_ position that crime is down since RvW b/c those aborted didn't enter a life of crime? (I think it's an interesting observation, but unproven.) If one accepts - From a medical standpoint, an 8- or 15-week fetus is not an infant or a child. Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are different from men, premature infants display less cognitive ability than some grown non-human primatesyet killing an infant is murder, just as killing an adult is, and just as killing an ape isn't. Nor, under law, is aborting a 15-week fetus. BTW, Alberto, interesting take; Charles Dart would approve. Now _you_ are judging which life is more valuable than another. No, I'm judging that 5 million deaths is worse that 500. ? Sorry, missing that? Please clarify. One of the ideas that came from the Enlightenment is that all men are created equal. That concept means that the differences in intelligence, race, religion, age, are superficial differences when discussing human
RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Deborah Harrell Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 5:34 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex grin And I was refusing to have my pro-choice stance deny _any_ protection to the unborn (teratogens etc.) OK, fine. Then the question on the table should be who is a protected person being and what is not. Perhaps not. My attempt was to point out the inconsistancies in being anti-abortion yet shrugging off civilian deaths in war as unavoidable collateral damage. (Probably a bit snippy having recently heard that Iraqi civilian casualties are ~ 100/*day* now.) But we didn't *start* that war - Hussein invaded Kuwait. (OK, we were partly responsible for SH being in power at that time; if you take that position, then I'd concede that the US bears some blame.) Finishing a war is one thing; starting quite another. I was referring to the earlier bombing of the Iraqi reactor by Israel, probably with tacit US support. Without it, Hussein would have invaded Kuwait having already had a significant nuclear arsenal. He was within a year of getting enough plutonium for his first bomb when the Israelis bombed the reactor. Well, maybe he would have used the bomb against Tehran earlier, that's always possible...but the point is that that bombing raid probably saved a number of lives. I understand your position better. WRT a woman with poor mental health raising a child, and that child being neglected/abused: what do you think of the _Freakonomics_ position that crime is down since RvW b/c those aborted didn't enter a life of crime? (I think it's an interesting observation, but unproven.) If one accepts - From a medical standpoint, an 8- or 15-week fetus is not an infant or a child. Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are different from men, premature infants display less cognitive ability than some grown non-human primatesyet killing an infant is murder, just as killing an adult is, and just as killing an ape isn't. Nor, under law, is aborting a 15-week fetus. Nor is aborting a 8.5 month fetus as long as a hospital and physician can be found for a go-ahead. My sister said she knows personally of highly questionable late term abortions where she's workedno indication of life threatening illness to the mother at all. From what she told me, before birth, the only person that matters is the motherthe fetus is not human until borneven thought it would be viable. Now, I have a hunch you wouldn't agree with that. But, then wouldn't it make sense to have no legal late term abortions (where late term is after viability) unless the mother's life is in danger. You said no hospital would do that. But, the fact that my sister worked at a hospital that did does seem to contradict that. Now _you_ are judging which life is more valuable than another. No, I'm judging that 5 million deaths is worse that 500. ? Sorry, missing that? Please clarify. If a women died trying to abort in a back alley, that is certainly a human death. But, from the right-to-life movement's perspective, 500 deaths of women attempting abortion must be weighted against the deaths of millions of people when women can easily find abortions. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 5 Aug 2006, at 11:59PM, Dan Minette wrote: If a women died trying to abort in a back alley, that is certainly a human death. But, from the right-to-life movement's perspective, 500 deaths of women attempting abortion must be weighted against the deaths of millions of people when women can easily find abortions. Isn't the real question about whether the state owns one's body or oneself? And how women's bodies are still seen as property in a patriarchal society? How does a state which permits and taxes the sale of carcinogenic tobacco products and does nothing about the obesity and diabetes causing products of the food industry have any legitimate interest in the intimate contents of a woman's own body? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ And yes, OSX is marvelous. Its merest bootlace, Windows is not worthy to kiss. - David Brin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
At 08:01 PM Saturday 8/5/2006, William T Goodall wrote: On 5 Aug 2006, at 11:59PM, Dan Minette wrote: If a women died trying to abort in a back alley, that is certainly a human death. But, from the right-to-life movement's perspective, 500 deaths of women attempting abortion must be weighted against the deaths of millions of people when women can easily find abortions. Isn't the real question about whether the state owns one's body or oneself? There's a question? -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 6 Aug 2006, at 2:06AM, Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William T Goodall Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 8:01 PM Isn't the real question about whether the state owns one's body or oneself? And how women's bodies are still seen as property in a patriarchal society? How does a state which permits and taxes the sale of carcinogenic tobacco products and does nothing about the obesity and diabetes causing products of the food industry have any legitimate interest in the intimate contents of a woman's own body? If it is a state that protects people not from themselves, but from other people who wish to do them harm, then this can be inherently consistent behavior. It depends on who we call people, and what we call things. It may be consistent but it is also absurd. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Dan Minette wrote: Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are different from men, premature infants display less cognitive ability than some grown non-human primatesyet killing an infant is murder, just as killing an adult is, and just as killing an ape isn't. It's acceptable black and white for most...excluding some strident animal rights activists. There are serious movements that would include killing an ape as murder - so, even this example is not black and white :-) [in fact, considering how many people are there, and how few apes, it seems that killing an ape should be _worse_ than killing a man...] Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Again, with the responding-to-a-post-withour-reading-the-entire-thread thing; but it could take days for me to get through it all, so here goes: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] DanM wrote: much snippage No-one owes pro-lifers them anything. The thesis is that the mother and society owe the child at least a chance at life. For a right-to-life person, every child has an inalienable right to life. The only possible exception is when their right to life conflicts with the right to life of the mother. The mother's health is important, of course, but not as critical as the child's life. One would wish, of course, to choose both, but when push comes to shove, the right to life predominates. Disagree. I would not forbide a mentally competent woman, who knows that being pregnant will most likely kill her, from continuing the pregnancy (although I would strongly advise against *becoming* pregnant in such a situation), but to say that a woman whose pregnancy will probably kill her *must* continue it is contributing to the murder of a realized, as opposed to potential, human life. By such 'pushing and shoving' rights, one would be justified in dropping certain persons in power into a combat zone since they have been, and are, and will be, responsible for multiple civilian deaths of men, women, and children, as well as some unborn. One could presume that the conflict might cease with the loss of such persons; of course, one would likely be wrong - in several senses. I'll use pro-life language here, to illustrate the point. In a society, the right to life is the paramount right. No one has the right to kill another person. In particular no-one has the right to kill innocent life in cold blood. That's what abortion is, the cold blooded killing of innocence... Once again, one could argue that anyone who starts a war and causes any collateral damage is a cold-blooded killer - most of those civilians have no choice about being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The scenario I proposed was a half-a-loaf thought. If it is impossible to stop all murder, it is still worthwhile to stop some. And, with this scenario, the right-to-life people have at least a chance to save every child's life. A chance to save a human life is better than no chance to save a human life. Unless it's the woman whose pregnancy is life-threatening to her? Life is not Black and White. To choose among the Grey options is our lot. In Ideal DebbiWorld (TM), there would be no unwanted pregnancies, no war, no terrorism, no murder, no rape, etc. etc.. Last time I checked, DebbiWorld does not exist, at least in this brane. I am not unaware of the merits of your stance, but I also see the inconsistancies in it. My own brand of pragmatic idealism sucks, but less than BlackandWhite absolutism. IMO, of course. So not only is infanticide illegal, we no longer depend on the promises of the parents either. Currently, we are paying parents of girls a small lump sum at birth, monthly stipends for their daughters' food, two meals in school and a daily sum for attending school, and setting aside a fund for their marriage expenses. The taxpayers are paying for it, and willingly. For these are the biggest problems when it comes to assuring a decent life for the girl child: that the parents don't kill her because they worry about her dowry, that her parents feed her, and that they send her to school. All good things to do. I'm glad your country does this. In contrast, abortion is legal in India. If one accepts the idea that both abortion and infanticide is the murder of children, then abortions are exactly as wrong as infanticide... If one accepts - From a medical standpoint, an 8- or 15-week fetus is not an infant or a child. Well, I can see no way on ensuring that all pregnant women report their pregnancies, and their unwillingness to be pregnant, to someone who might stop them from the abortion attempts. So, as far as I can see, the choice is between losing one life or two. But, when abortions were illegal and back alley in the US, every indication was that they were less frequent than after they were legalized. Thus, the occasional woman who dies in an abortion is more than outweighed by the massive numbers of children that are saved... Now _you_ are judging which life is more valuable than another. [Note that I have already made clear that indeed I do judge such things; medical triage is one of the ugliest situations imaginable -- and I must point out that collectively 'we' have decided that a huge number of already-born children suffering from malaria, AIDS, and plain old diarrhea are less valuable than augmenting various breasts, penises and butts, or reducing other tummies. It's at least as obscene, and in my book more so (because they're already full humans), as aborting a fetus because it's the
RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] For a right-to-life person, every child has an inalienable right to life. The only possible exception is when their right to life conflicts with the right to life of the mother. The mother's health is important, of course, but not as critical as the child's life. One would wish, of course, to choose both, but when push comes to shove, the right to life predominates. Realistically, in a good many situations, the child of a mother whose health is ruined has far less chance of survival than the child of a healthy mother. The Bujold list was having a discussion of pre-eclampsia, for which the only cure is to deliver the baby early, pray he survives, and tie the mother's tubes. Because the next pregnancy is likely to kill both the mother and the next child. There are some religious traditions which would forbid tying the mother's tubes. What is the alternative? IMO the goal is to have both mother and child thrive, live long, and prosper. Pat ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
-- PAT MATHEWS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey, Pat -- this is actually my quoting of Dan, not my own opinion: For a right-to-life person, every child has an inalienable right to life. The only possible exception is when their right to life conflicts with the right to life of the mother. The mother's health is important, of course, but not as critical as the child's life. One would wish, of course, to choose both, but when push comes to shove, the right to life predominates. Realistically, in a good many situations, the child of a mother whose health is ruined has far less chance of survival than the child of a healthy mother. The Bujold list was having a discussion of pre-eclampsia, for which the only cure is to deliver the baby early, pray he survives, and tie the mother's tubes. Because the next pregnancy is likely to kill both the mother and the next child. A distinct possibility; I already noted that I would discourage starting a pregnancy in such a case. (BTW, have enjoyed what Bujold I've read.) There are some religious traditions which would forbid tying the mother's tubes. What is the alternative? Death. IMO the goal is to have both mother and child thrive, live long, and prosper. Agreed. Debbi who had to restart, darn it, b/c the 'puter got logjammed or whatever it is when you can't go forward, backward or refresh :P __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Deborah Harrell Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:30 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex Again, with the responding-to-a-post-withour-reading-the-entire-thread thing; but it could take days for me to get through it all, so here goes: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] DanM wrote: much snippage No-one owes pro-lifers them anything. The thesis is that the mother and society owe the child at least a chance at life. For a right-to-life person, every child has an inalienable right to life. The only possible exception is when their right to life conflicts with the right to life of the mother. The mother's health is important, of course, but not as critical as the child's life. One would wish, of course, to choose both, but when push comes to shove, the right to life predominates. Disagree. I would not forbide a mentally competent woman, who knows that being pregnant will most likely kill her, from continuing the pregnancy (although I would strongly advise against *becoming* pregnant in such a situation), but to say that a woman whose pregnancy will probably kill her *must* continue it is contributing to the murder of a realized, as opposed to potential, human life. I didn't say that. Anti-abortion laws supported by the right to life movement usually have exceptions for pregnancies that put the mother's life at serious risk. I just allowed for the outside possibility that some minority of folks in the right to life movement might think of times when that's not appropriate. BTW, I was trying to lay out two positions: the pro-choice and the pro-life positions. My point was that folks tend to argue from their own axioms, ignoring the axioms of those they differ with. By such 'pushing and shoving' rights, one would be justified in dropping certain persons in power into a combat zone since they have been, and are, and will be, responsible for multiple civilian deaths of men, women, and children, as well as some unborn. I'm not sure that pacifism is required to support the right to life. Once again, one could argue that anyone who starts a war and causes any collateral damage is a cold-blooded killer - most of those civilians have no choice about being in the wrong place at the wrong time. So, are you arguing that, for example, that the bombing that delayed Hussein getting the bomb until after Gulf War I is equivalent to cold blooded killing, even though it may have saved millions of lives? The scenario I proposed was a half-a-loaf thought. If it is impossible to stop all murder, it is still worthwhile to stop some. And, with this scenario, the right-to-life people have at least a chance to save every child's life. A chance to save a human life is better than no chance to save a human life. Unless it's the woman whose pregnancy is life-threatening to her? In outlining the right to life movement's position, I did not equate health to life. Exceptions to anti-abortion laws for the mother's health means that any possible deterioration in the mother's health is grounds for abortion. It's basically abortion on demand...especially if, as it always is, mental health is included. All the woman would need to say is that thinking about carrying to term makes her depressed, and there is a valid DSM-IV diagnosis. Exceptions for the mother's life means that she has to have some significant risk of dying from pregnancy for the pregnancy to be terminated. If one accepts - From a medical standpoint, an 8- or 15-week fetus is not an infant or a child. Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are different from men, premature infants display less cognitive ability than some grown non-human primatesyet killing an infant is murder, just as killing an adult is, and just as killing an ape isn't. It's acceptable black and white for most...excluding some strident animal rights activists. Now _you_ are judging which life is more valuable than another. No, I'm judging that 5 million deaths is worse that 500. [Note that I have already made clear that indeed I do judge such things; medical triage is one of the ugliest situations imaginable -- and I must point out that collectively 'we' have decided that a huge number of already-born children suffering from malaria, AIDS, and plain old diarrhea are less valuable than augmenting various breasts, penises and butts, or reducing other tummies. It's at least as obscene, and in my book more so (because they're already full humans), as aborting a fetus because it's the 'wrong' gender (but until medicine is able to correct certain fatal/high-morbidity genetic defects, I am not opposed to selecting gender in the case of serious sex-linked disease; however pre
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 04/08/2006, at 8:59 AM, Dan Minette wrote: If one accepts - From a medical standpoint, an 8- or 15-week fetus is not an infant or a child. Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are different from men, premature infants display less cognitive ability than some grown non-human primatesyet killing an infant is murder, just as killing an adult is, and just as killing an ape isn't. It's acceptable black and white for most...excluding some strident animal rights activists. Not even strident ones. Many people believe that our fellow great apes deserve more consideration (limited human rights, if you will), than, say, cows. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 4 Aug 2006, at 12:10AM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 04/08/2006, at 8:59 AM, Dan Minette wrote: If one accepts - From a medical standpoint, an 8- or 15-week fetus is not an infant or a child. Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are different from men, premature infants display less cognitive ability than some grown non-human primatesyet killing an infant is murder, just as killing an adult is, and just as killing an ape isn't. It's acceptable black and white for most...excluding some strident animal rights activists. Not even strident ones. Many people believe that our fellow great apes deserve more consideration (limited human rights, if you will), than, say, cows. 900 million Hindus are very fond of cows. Moo Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ And yes, OSX is marvelous. Its merest bootlace, Windows is not worthy to kiss. - David Brin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 04/08/2006, at 9:20 AM, William T Goodall wrote: Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are different from men, premature infants display less cognitive ability than some grown non-human primatesyet killing an infant is murder, just as killing an adult is, and just as killing an ape isn't. It's acceptable black and white for most...excluding some strident animal rights activists. Not even strident ones. Many people believe that our fellow great apes deserve more consideration (limited human rights, if you will), than, say, cows. 900 million Hindus are very fond of cows. g Well spotted. Charlie I'll Set Them Up, You Knock Them In Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Not even strident ones. Many people believe that our fellow great apes deserve more consideration (limited human rights, if you will), than, say, cows. I have nothing against the great apes but why demote the cows to make the apes feel better? Ritu GCU From Sacred to Less Than 'Limited Human Rights' ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Julia Thompson wrote: 1) Not all people are suitable for parenthood. It's not easy. I have respect for people who decide that they're not going to be as good at parenting as their children would deserve. 2) If you decide you want a child, you'd better be prepared for the possibility of it having special needs, because a number of them do, and if you can't handle it, it's going to suck big-time for that child. If I were a child, I would rather have special needs that are not met than to be aborted. I suppose there are worse things than being aborted, but from the child's perspective I can't think of many. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
David Hobby wrote: Agnostic, but Atheist if pushed. I take most insects out of the house without killing them. Why? Because it's easy to do, and might reduce suffering. My cousin the entomologist would catch flies in his hand and toss them out the window still alive. The only flying insects he'd kill were mosquitoes. Unless he was trying to study something, and then he'd only kill as many individuals as he needed for study. (By the time he was really good at throwing flies out the window, he'd narrowed his study down to crickets, and was more interested in studying them live than dead.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Brother John wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: 1) Not all people are suitable for parenthood. It's not easy. I have respect for people who decide that they're not going to be as good at parenting as their children would deserve. 2) If you decide you want a child, you'd better be prepared for the possibility of it having special needs, because a number of them do, and if you can't handle it, it's going to suck big-time for that child. If I were a child, I would rather have special needs that are not met than to be aborted. I suppose there are worse things than being aborted, but from the child's perspective I can't think of many. --JWR The real travesty is the parents who decide they can't cope with the child's special needs any longer, and attempt (sometimes successfully) to murder them. I can name 3 children offhand that were the victims of murder or attempted murder since May 1 of this year, where there was some attempt at justification given because of the child's special needs. That is incredibly WRONG. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Julia Thompson wrote: David Hobby wrote: Agnostic, but Atheist if pushed. I take most insects out of the house without killing them. Why? Because it's easy to do, and might reduce suffering. My cousin the entomologist would catch flies in his hand and toss them out the window still alive. The only flying insects he'd kill were mosquitoes. Unless he was trying to study something, and then he'd only kill as many individuals as he needed for study. (By the time he was really good at throwing flies out the window, he'd narrowed his study down to crickets, and was more interested in studying them live than dead.) Julia I'm a vegetarian too, just so one has a baseline. I certainly kill mosquitoes whenever I can, as well as fleas, ticks and biting flies. All creatures may have a right to live, but that doesn't mean they get to attack me. And I kill carpenter ants, to protect the wood of the house. Is it ethically more acceptable to kill social insects, since each one is less individual? So what I'm doing is trimming back the pseudopod of the ant colony that it stuck into my house, rather than actually killing an organism? ---David Hive mind Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Julia Thompson wrote: Brother John wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: 1) Not all people are suitable for parenthood. It's not easy. I have respect for people who decide that they're not going to be as good at parenting as their children would deserve. 2) If you decide you want a child, you'd better be prepared for the possibility of it having special needs, because a number of them do, and if you can't handle it, it's going to suck big-time for that child. If I were a child, I would rather have special needs that are not met than to be aborted. I suppose there are worse things than being aborted, but from the child's perspective I can't think of many. --JWR The real travesty is the parents who decide they can't cope with the child's special needs any longer, and attempt (sometimes successfully) to murder them. I can name 3 children offhand that were the victims of murder or attempted murder since May 1 of this year, where there was some attempt at justification given because of the child's special needs. That is incredibly WRONG. I agree completely. Unfortunately human beings are natural born killers as we have been demonstrating so well for many thousands of years. Other animals don't do this, not to the extent that we do. We not only kill others of our own kind in great numbers and have always done so since long before we obtained current technology, we even kill ourselves in great numbers. What other animal commits suicide to the extent that we do? And I'm talking about suicide in the narrow sense, not in the sense that some people commit suicide by indulging addictions such as alcohol and drugs. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] Since we are all children of the same Heavenly Father, we really are all brothers and sisters. --Uncle Bob All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Brother John wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Gary Denton wrote: He reasoned that the Supreme Court could not make it fertilization as that would make most Americans guilty of murder as birth control pills work by preventing fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterine wall. It would not be the attachment to the uterine wall as that would leave the status of humans born from artificial wombs in doubt, although that technology was not yet perfected. Um, birth control pills are designed to prevent ovulation, not prevent implantation. IUDs are designed to prevent implantation. Some people BELIEVE birth control pills prevent implantation and are hence abortifacients. At a significantly higher dose than normal, that can be the case, but they are designed to prevent ovulation so the whole implantation thing never comes up in the first place. Why would any adult not want to have children? Are they not a source of almost infinite joy in the lives of those who have them? Are they not great treasures? To pass up a chance for a child is like walking by a 100 dollar bill on the sidewalk and not leaning down to pick it up. Only the barren and lonely do not have children. It is a sad situation for any person to be in. Of course this is just my personal feeling, but there was a time when it was shared by a great many others in our nation. That was back when we were reproducing rapidly enough to BE the illegal alien problem instead of HAVING an illegal alien problem. --JWR 1) Not all people are suitable for parenthood. It's not easy. I have respect for people who decide that they're not going to be as good at parenting as their children would deserve. 2) If you decide you want a child, you'd better be prepared for the possibility of it having special needs, because a number of them do, and if you can't handle it, it's going to suck big-time for that child. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Brother John wrote: Why would any adult not want to have children? There are probably a thousand or more valid reasons the most basic of which is that we are all individuals with varying needs, desires and capabilities Are they not a source of almost infinite joy in the lives of those who have them? In a perfect world perhaps. Not always in this one. Are they not great treasures? To me they are, to others they are an unwanted burden. Still others are indifferent. How many women in the past were having babies not because they wanted them but because it was their duty? To pass up a chance for a child is like walking by a 100 dollar bill on the sidewalk and not leaning down to pick it up. Only the barren and lonely do not have children. It is a sad situation for any person to be in. Of course this is just my personal feeling, but there was a time when it was shared by a great many others in our nation. Do you have any evidence that a smaller percentage of people feel that way today? That was back when we were reproducing rapidly enough to BE the illegal alien problem instead of HAVING an illegal alien problem. --JWR Rapid reproduction isn't necessarily a measure of the desire to have children. In the past, sex was no less desirable than it is today but birth control was problematic. If you were to ask everyone who ever had sex why they did so, how many do you think would answer Because we wanted to reproduce? My guess is that the percentage that answered that way would be in the low single digits while variations of the answer Because it gives us great pleasure would be the overwhelming favorite. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 31/07/2006, at 3:34 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote: To me they are, to others they are an unwanted burden. Still others are indifferent. How many women in the past were having babies not because they wanted them but because it was their duty? Or because their husband/master/owner wanted a shag, and babies were the side-effect of that. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Charlie wrote: Or because their husband/master/owner wanted a shag, and babies were the side-effect of that. Exactly. The Idea of some past golden age is a crock. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Brother John said: Why would any adult not want to have children? Are they not a source of almost infinite joy in the lives of those who have them? Are they not great treasures? To pass up a chance for a child is like walking by a 100 dollar bill on the sidewalk and not leaning down to pick it up. Only the barren and lonely do not have children. It is a sad situation for any person to be in. Well, it's just possible, I guess, that some of us don't think that children are a lifestyle accessory designed purely to make us happy. It seems to me that having children is a very serious investment of time and money and that I shouldn't have them until I have a fairly good probability of being able to give them a better life than I've had. It also seems to me that the opportunity cost of having children is not being able to invest that time and money in other projects that will make the future a better place not just for as yet unconceived children but for everybody. And when I do have children, it will be with the confidence that I can provide them with an excellent start in life rather than merely, y'know, because I kinda felt like it. If I never feel that I can be an adequate parent, then I simply won't have children at all. I must say it stuns and amazes and disappoints me that anyone could think otherwise. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the debate in the States has become *so* polarised that it's difficult to explore nuance. As Dan's caricature of the pro- choice position showed. I must have missed that, but I find it hard to believe that Dan was more polarized on this issue than I. I didn't say he was *more* polarized, just that he showed how the debate has become so polarized etc. Here's his quote: The pro-choice axiom is that, before birth, there are no human rights, and after birth a full set. Which is clearly bollocks. There's a huge range of views across the spectrum, and this pigeon-holing into pro-choice or pro- embryo or whatever tag one chooses is not actually useful. Actually talking through differing viewpoints and trying to understand why other people think as they do, even if you disagree with them, can only help. In fairness to Dan, his quote is a pretty accurate description of the current legal regime in the United States, and as such, is also a pretty accurate of the mainstream pro-choice position in the United States. In the US, it is considered heresy to the pro- choice position to propose human rights for children before birth. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is why we'll never agree. Being human is about expressing humanity, not about chromosome number, or genetic engineering, or symbiosis, or phenotypic modification. It's about language, society, culture, art, curiosity, expression, experience, learning. We could modify our bodies beyond all recognition and become a thousand new species, and as long as we retain all the aspects of mind that make us human, we'll be human. Likewise, if we're not capable of those things, we're not fully human, or not human at all. Not in any sense that means anything. Well, now you've left me confused. Neither a 1-month old infant, nor a 7-month unborn child are capable of either of those things, and you clearly consider them to be human. So, there clearly is something else at work in defining humanity for you. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 29/07/2006, at 10:45 PM, jdiebremse wrote: Well, now you've left me confused. Neither a 1-month old infant, nor a 7-month unborn child are capable of either of those things, and you clearly consider them to be human. So, there clearly is something else at work in defining humanity for you. I consider them to be developed enough on their path to full humanity that they've earned protection as humans. But they've an awful lot left to achieve before they're self-aware conscious beings. That's why infants don't get to vote. Or drive. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Richard Baker wrote: Brother John said: Why would any adult not want to have children? Are they not a source of almost infinite joy in the lives of those who have them? Are they not great treasures? To pass up a chance for a child is like walking by a 100 dollar bill on the sidewalk and not leaning down to pick it up. Only the barren and lonely do not have children. It is a sad situation for any person to be in. Well, it's just possible, I guess, that some of us don't think that children are a lifestyle accessory designed purely to make us happy. It seems to me that having children is a very serious investment of time and money and that I shouldn't have them until I have a fairly good probability of being able to give them a better life than I've had. It also seems to me that the opportunity cost of having children is not being able to invest that time and money in other projects that will make the future a better place not just for as yet unconceived children but for everybody. And when I do have children, it will be with the confidence that I can provide them with an excellent start in life rather than merely, y'know, because I kinda felt like it. If I never feel that I can be an adequate parent, then I simply won't have children at all. I must say it stuns and amazes and disappoints me that anyone could think otherwise. Your attitude towards children seem very pessimistic to me and seems to imply that you are lacking in self-confidence. Those who have children while realizing what a very serious investment of time and money they are, do so with supreme confidence that they will not only be able to provide them with better opportunities than they have had, but that their children can be reared to be a great blessing to the world who will make it a much better place for everybody. And while I admire your resolve not to have any children at all unless you feel that you can be an adequate parent who can do far more than provide them with an excellent start in life, if you had more confidence in yourself, you would simply resolve to be such a parent and then carry out your resolve. Our culture is full of people who have lost faith in their ability to make a good home for children. How very sad. My wife and I raised three children to adulthood, and we did a much better job than our parents did. In my case, a much, much better job. And so now, in our sixties, we are wrapped in the love of wonderful children, and our lives are filled with happy and healthy grandchildren. A cultural pessimism about rearing children, does not bode well for the future of that culture. I must admit, however, that there are a lot of factors in our cultural environment that make it very difficult to raise children well. I consider it a miracle that I turned out as well as I did myself, and some would suggest that isn't saying much. Still, I feel bad for those who have so little confidence in themselves or the future that they choose not to have children or to even attempt to rear a family. Children are the greatest joy a person can have, and if they are reared well, that joy lasts at least until the end of life. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 7/26/06, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26 Jul 2006, at 11:15PM, Matt Grimaldi wrote: Wasn't there a Sci-fi book about that? Yes, there was. The main character had to go find out what happened to his planet's shipment of artificial wombs that hadn't arrived, so his adventure took him into the great wide galaxy... _Ethan of Athos_ by Lois McMaster Bujold. Bujold is an excellent writer. That is one of her lighter tales. Artificial wombs are a background thread through out the Miles Vorkosigan series. -- Gary Denton OddsEnds - http://elemming.blogspot.com Easter Lemming Liberal News -http://elemming2.blogspot.com http://www.apollocon.org June 22-24, 2007 I ncompetence M oney Laundering P ropaganda E lectronic surveillance A bu Ghraib C ronyism H ad enough? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
David Hobby wrote: Welcome back. I think you're missing Charlie's point. To me, his argument is that it is VERY hard to draw a clear line between things that can turn into adult humans and things that can't. I advise conceding the point, unless you just like to argue for the fun of it. : ) May I propose that you reply: Anything produced by combining a human egg and sperm certainly counts as HUMAN. Other things might also; we'll decide about clones later. ---David (Must--not--argue--with--John... No, it's no use, I can't help but gang up on you: Personally, I think you ARE a long ways down a slippery slope to every sperm is sacred. Sorry.) Perhaps it is an overstatement to say that every sperm is sacred, but human life most definitely is. And if our popular culture no longer values the sacred, or even understands the meaning of the term sacred, we have lost a big part of what makes our own lives valuable. I mean, we think nothing of stepping on ants. But if human life has no especial meaning, why should it be any greater wrong to step on humans in the same fashion? Are not ants just as alive as we are? But if there is some special value to a human life, why draw a line anywhere and say it is unimportant and without value? Certainly there have been men and tyrants throughout human history that would as soon kill as preserve human life. With them killing men was no more than stepping on ants. Maybe they have the right attitude, do you think? If not, maybe we should treasure every human life at every stage of development. And if some sperm, ova and zygotes get the ax, then let it be for some very important reason, not just as a convenience or because we think no more of it than of sterilizing a bacteria colony or, squashing bugs under our feet. We don't need to think of a sperm or zygote as sacred. But we should consider what we do when we cultivate a sentiment among us that babies don't matter and are no more worthy to live than germs, and less worthy to live convicted murderers. Abortion may not be murder, but it is certainly a form of child abuse, a rather terminal one. I'd be willing to bet anything that the hard-hearted men and women who abort unborn children don't love those that are born very much either. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Julia Thompson wrote: Gary Denton wrote: He reasoned that the Supreme Court could not make it fertilization as that would make most Americans guilty of murder as birth control pills work by preventing fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterine wall. It would not be the attachment to the uterine wall as that would leave the status of humans born from artificial wombs in doubt, although that technology was not yet perfected. Um, birth control pills are designed to prevent ovulation, not prevent implantation. IUDs are designed to prevent implantation. Some people BELIEVE birth control pills prevent implantation and are hence abortifacients. At a significantly higher dose than normal, that can be the case, but they are designed to prevent ovulation so the whole implantation thing never comes up in the first place. Why would any adult not want to have children? Are they not a source of almost infinite joy in the lives of those who have them? Are they not great treasures? To pass up a chance for a child is like walking by a 100 dollar bill on the sidewalk and not leaning down to pick it up. Only the barren and lonely do not have children. It is a sad situation for any person to be in. Of course this is just my personal feeling, but there was a time when it was shared by a great many others in our nation. That was back when we were reproducing rapidly enough to BE the illegal alien problem instead of HAVING an illegal alien problem. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ]] ]]If Biological Law is the survival of the more fit, then we ]]don't obey this Law. Sometimes, what happens is the survival of ]]the _less_ fit. ] ]Biologic laws are not like the laws of physics (at least not superficially). I've heard of one that *is* like the laws of physics: it states that the pile of solid waste that an animal might leave behind cannot taller than, well, um, its behind. :-) -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
At 02:34 AM Thursday 7/27/2006, Matt Grimaldi wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Biologic laws are not like the laws of physics (at least not superficially). I've heard of one that *is* like the laws of physics: it states that the pile of solid waste that an animal might leave behind cannot taller than, well, um, its behind. :-) A visit to Washington D.C. might convince you otherwise . . . -- Ronn! :) Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain, a Biography ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 27/07/2006, at 7:00 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 02:34 AM Thursday 7/27/2006, Matt Grimaldi wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Biologic laws are not like the laws of physics (at least not superficially). I've heard of one that *is* like the laws of physics: it states that the pile of solid waste that an animal might leave behind cannot taller than, well, um, its behind. :-) A visit to Washington D.C. might convince you otherwise . . . that's 'cause the digestive flow tends to be reversed in DC. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The definition I gave (interbreding populations) Doesn't this definition fail to account for species that reproduce asexually? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 27/07/2006, at 9:23 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The definition I gave (interbreding populations) Doesn't this definition fail to account for species that reproduce asexually? Somebody needs to read ahead before replying... ;-) Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
In a message dated 7/26/2006 10:27:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anyway, the Biological Species Concept, as with every single other way of defining species, has weaknesses. With this one, it's that it assumes sexual reproduction, so asexual organisms are hard to classify using it. Ultimately, in defining species, biologists use a combination of the various methods, tailored to the situation. Another problem is that members of a species may never have an opportunity to interbreed. A ring species where there are variations in a geographically continuous members who can interbreed with their next door neighbor but not with individuals at the other end of the ring (be it around the world or around a geographic barrier.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
In a message dated 7/27/2006 7:33:32 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Doesn't this definition fail to account for species that reproduce asexually? Very few plant and animal species reproduce asexually of course. Some reproduce asexually some of the time but very few higher creators completely abstain from sex ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 28/07/2006, at 10:26 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another problem is that members of a species may never have an opportunity to interbreed. That's not so much of a problem - if there are two distinct breeding groups that are separated, they can be considered separate species even if they could successfully reproduce if mingled. But yes, it does show another grey area that must be considered when deciding on species status. A ring species where there are variations in a geographically continuous members who can interbreed with their next door neighbor but not with individuals at the other end of the ring (be it around the world or around a geographic barrier.) For everyone else, in case you're not aware, the classic example is usually given as various gulls around the Arctic Circle. The Lesser Black-Backed Gull and the Herring Gull are two common gulls seen in the UK, two very distinct species. But the Herring Gull could interbreed with the American Herring Gull, and the Black-Backed with its Russian cousins. And those relatives interbreed with others further round, and *those* breed with each other. So it shows that small variations that characterise only sub-species or close species relationships can lead to a wide gulf across a long geographic range. Of course, science being science, it's recently been shown that while the concept is sound, the classic example might not actually be a true ring species as the Herring Gull and American Herring Gull's ranges are distinct, and they both evolved from a common ancestor. D'oh. :) But it also seems like the range of the Lesser Black-Backed is expanding across the Atlantic, so the ring may yet be closed... Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Charlie Bell wrote: Very easily. _Homo technologia_ could be the next step, if they form a separate breeding group from baseline humans. Yes, and this separate breed will have no males :-P Species change and branch and fade. That's how it is. Ok. We're not any different, No, we _are_ different. nor are we subjected to different biological or physical laws to any other animal. Physical, yes. Biological, no. The evolutionary pressure on humans - despite some heroes that get the Darwin Award - is quite low. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 26/07/2006, at 8:42 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: Very easily. _Homo technologia_ could be the next step, if they form a separate breeding group from baseline humans. Yes, and this separate breed will have no males :-P Species change and branch and fade. That's how it is. Ok. We're not any different, No, we _are_ different. Species change and branch and fade, including us. nor are we subjected to different biological or physical laws to any other animal. Physical, yes. Biological, no. Huh? Do you mean what you said, or do you mean Physical, I agree, Biological I don't. The evolutionary pressure on humans - despite some heroes that get the Darwin Award - is quite low. It may be low (although I'd like to see some science backing up that assertion), but it's precisely the same process and principle. We obfuscate it, and we use technology to help people survive who would not have, but that doesn't say anything about selection pressure. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Charlie Bell wrote: We're not any different, No, we _are_ different. Species change and branch and fade, including us. nor are we subjected to different biological or physical laws to any other animal. Physical, yes. Biological, no. Huh? Do you mean what you said, or do you mean Physical, I agree, Biological I don't. Yes - but I think I said that. Didn't I? What did I say? The evolutionary pressure on humans - despite some heroes that get the Darwin Award - is quite low. It may be low (although I'd like to see some science backing up that assertion), but it's precisely the same process and principle. We obfuscate it, and we use technology to help people survive who would not have, but that doesn't say anything about selection pressure. If Biological Law is the survival of the more fit, then we don't obey this Law. Sometimes, what happens is the survival of the _less_ fit. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Alberto said: If Biological Law is the survival of the more fit, then we don't obey this Law. Sometimes, what happens is the survival of the _less_ fit. In particular situations that's always been the case: sometimes the fitter get unlucky and sometimes the less fit get lucky. It's all a matter of probabilities. But more importantly, it's really better to talk about more adapted and less adapted. What's happening is that human society is part of the environment against which genes are selected, and recently that particular part of the environment has changed in ways which change what it means to be well or poorly adapted. There's no absolute, environment-independent set of characteristics that define fitness, and this is more obvious when using the language of adaptation. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Richard Baker wrote: If Biological Law is the survival of the more fit, then we don't obey this Law. Sometimes, what happens is the survival of the _less_ fit. In particular situations that's always been the case: sometimes the fitter get unlucky and sometimes the less fit get lucky. It's all a matter of probabilities. Yes, but in the long run, etc. But more importantly, it's really better to talk about more adapted and less adapted. What's happening is that human society is part of the environment against which genes are selected, and recently that particular part of the environment has changed in ways which change what it means to be well or poorly adapted. There's no absolute, environment-independent set of characteristics that define fitness, and this is more obvious when using the language of adaptation. So you seem to imply that the positive selective pressure that tends, nowadays, to favour sociopathic and ecocidical behaviours is just the selection of the more adapted? Which means that we are converging to a future with a totally different culture, one where everybody will use all means - including murder or destruction of the environment - to get a chance to reproduce? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 26/07/2006, at 9:06 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Physical, yes. Biological, no. Huh? Do you mean what you said, or do you mean Physical, I agree, Biological I don't. Yes - but I think I said that. Didn't I? What did I say? I wasn't sure, that's why I asked. The evolutionary pressure on humans - despite some heroes that get the Darwin Award - is quite low. It may be low (although I'd like to see some science backing up that assertion), but it's precisely the same process and principle. We obfuscate it, and we use technology to help people survive who would not have, but that doesn't say anything about selection pressure. If Biological Law is the survival of the more fit, then we don't obey this Law. Sometimes, what happens is the survival of the _less_ fit. That's not what I mean by biological laws. I mean the total sum of biological principles that make up biology. Including evolution. We're just as subject to selection, it's just the fitness criteria that change. Survival of the fittest is a glib soundbite that utterly fails to capture what evolution really is. It's like saying metal woman when you're talking about the Statue Of Liberty (either of them). Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] So souls can be combined as well as created? Or do identical twins share a soul? The ones I have met have each had their own soul, and from all accounts, that's even true of conjoined twins. The rule may be, one soul per functioning head. Pat ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Pat said: The ones I have met have each had their own soul, and from all accounts, that's even true of conjoined twins. The rule may be, one soul per functioning head. How can you tell the difference between something that looks like a person and has a soul and something that looks like a person and doesn't? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pat said: The ones I have met have each had their own soul, and from all accounts, that's even true of conjoined twins. The rule may be, one soul per functioning head. How can you tell the difference between something that looks like a person and has a soul and something that looks like a person and doesn't? Rich That gets us into defining the difference, if any, betweem :soul, personality, and mind. Does a lifebonded soulmate type married couple have one soul between them? All I can say is that thet were all very clearly different individuals to me. As for the something that looks like a person and doesn't have a soul, I think the answer would have to be if they are capable of making a free moral choice, even on the level of a small child. This is, of course, absent coercion, which introduces other factors. You read about the sort of sociopath who appears to have no understanding whatsoever of morality. And please let's not digress into the various forms of morality or contrasting morality = 'following the rules' vs 'what's moral when the rules are wrong' unless you want to terach a graduate level course in ethics here! Let's say, no understanding of either rules *or* toddler-level human kindness. At any rate, these sociopaths are often said to be soulless. People with mental or neurological disabilities and differences that keep them from understanding ordinary morality almost certainly have souls, because when they can be brought to understand, and/or to the extent that they can understand, they show the sort of feelings ordinary people have, which gets us into the insanity defense and what happens when the person (for example) goes back on their meds. Or why, when the child understand that kitty is hurting just like you do when someone pinches you, they rush to hug and kiss and apologize to kitty. In fact, some people in that position have more tender souls than the rest of us! I'm going to go with a definition that starts with free will (understanding always that it is never 100% and always modified by external factors) and a sense of how one does or does not treat one's fellow human beings. I was going to say 'fellow sentient beings but that involves a level of understanding usually informed by culture. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Charlie Bell wrote: On 26/07/2006, at 3:05 PM, PAT MATHEWS wrote: From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:15:19 +1000 On 26/07/2006, at 11:43 AM, jdiebremse wrote: And a chimera? One soul, or two? Unless the person with the chimera genes has dissociative identity disorder a.k.a. multiple personality, one soul. So souls can be combined as well as created? Or do identical twins share a soul? Charlie Theology 101 Maru Identical twins do not share a soul. Leastways, that's the conclusion I draw from having met a number of pairs of them. There's no special thing that they each only have half of that others of us have all of. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Yes - I'd want abortion to be replaced with transfer of the foetus to the artificial womb. In fact, if technology progressed so far, I suspect many people would avoid the risk of pregnancy and childbirth altogether. This seems to be an entirely male perspective. I wonder how a woman would respond...I'm at work and there are no women that - could ask that wouldn't be creeped out (and some think I'm wierd enough for posting on DGs with my crackberry...) Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Damon wrote: This seems to be an entirely male perspective. I wonder how a woman would respond... For me, it would depend on the number of offsprings I plan on having. The first time around, I'd definitely want to do it myself. Just to see what the experience is like. Having experienced it, I'd almost certainly go for the out-of-my-body pregnancy, *if* the risk to the baby is zero. I think Y'see, my youngest is almost 18 months old now and the memories of the discomforts, aches, pains, terrors etc have receeded to the point where I find myself getting all misty-eyed over the notion of another pregnancy and childbirth. But he is still young enough for me to recall that I was terrified and terribly uncomfortable through most of my second pregnancy. Hmm, hard to say really, for it might be different for those who grew up with the idea that one can safely transfer the foetus to an artificial womb...I also find myself wondering if women who want to bear their own children would be considered the ideal women, or if people would start finding them weird/crazy. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:15 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex The pro-choice axiom is that, before birth, there are no human rights, and after birth a full set. Which is clearly bollocks. There's a huge range of views across the spectrum, and this pigeon-holing into pro-choice or pro-embryo or whatever tag one chooses is not actually useful. Actually talking through differing viewpoints and trying to understand why other people think as they do, even if you disagree with them, can only help. There's a positive comment about you by JDG that reflects on thisparaphrasing him, you're arguments are fairly unique and more thoughtful than any that he's seen in discussing this issue with folks he differs with. Indeed, if you go back and see the statement I made above in the context in which it was written, I was decrying the state of the debate I've heard over the last 30 years, and hoping for a discussion of the basis people have for understanding. While I see some difficulties with parts of your argument, what you've written on this topic is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind when I wrote this post. In short, you put forth some of the issues that I'd like to see discussed, instead of the same old back and forth I've seen for years. I also think that the idea that many people have views somewhere between the pro-choice set of axioms and the pro-life set of axioms is fairly valid. The debate I've seen doesn't reflect this. Most of it is between people who know their axioms are correct, and thus see how unreasonable the others are. Indeed, I find the type of discussions we've seen in this thread raremost people I've come in contact with don't want to examine their views. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 27/07/2006, at 3:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes - I'd want abortion to be replaced with transfer of the foetus to the artificial womb. In fact, if technology progressed so far, I suspect many people would avoid the risk of pregnancy and childbirth altogether. This seems to be an entirely male perspective. I wonder how a woman would respond...I'm at work and there are no women that - could ask that wouldn't be creeped out (and some think I'm wierd enough for posting on DGs with my crackberry...) Just had a chat about this with my (female) other half... Some people have c-sections because they can schedule them round their yoga, or because they need to fit childbirth into a certain period of the financial year for tax or government incentive reasons, or to replace the uncertain risks of childbirth with the calculated risks of an operation. Given reliable artificial womb technology financially on a par with or not substantially more than the cost of childbirth, the risks and convenience mean that it would be taken up. How many, not sure, but it would be widespread. Wonder if there are any surveys on this. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 27/07/2006, at 7:05 AM, Dan Minette wrote: I also think that the idea that many people have views somewhere between the pro-choice set of axioms and the pro-life set of axioms is fairly valid. The debate I've seen doesn't reflect this. Most of it is between people who know their axioms are correct, and thus see how unreasonable the others are. Indeed, I find the type of discussions we've seen in this thread raremost people I've come in contact with don't want to examine their views. Many people refuse to examine their views, but they're worried that any ground they give will be swarmed over by the other side. That's what I was saying about the debate being *so* polarised. It would be easy for me to parody the pro-life position, by saying that they act as if the right to life begins at conception and ends at birth... But I won't. ;-) Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Charlie Bell wrote: Some people have c-sections because they can schedule them round their yoga, or because they need to fit childbirth into a certain period of the financial year for tax or government incentive reasons, The above reasons do not exist - at least here. or to replace the uncertain risks of childbirth with the calculated risks of an operation. Yes, this is the major (logically justifiable) reason for so many C-sections here in Brazil. The other half is that C-sections optimize the doctor's times, both the obstetrician and the pediatrician - and this is a scarce resource, worth optimizing! Given reliable artificial womb technology financially on a par with or not substantially more than the cost of childbirth, the risks and convenience mean that it would be taken up. How many, not sure, but it would be widespread. Specially if gay men decide to have children. So, maybe we will have the hellish opposite scenario of the lesbian utopia: a world where most people are gay men :-/ Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 27/07/2006, at 8:02 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: Some people have c-sections because they can schedule them round their yoga, or because they need to fit childbirth into a certain period of the financial year for tax or government incentive reasons, The above reasons do not exist - at least here. Not yet. But apparently UK, USA and Australia they do. Odd, isn't it. or to replace the uncertain risks of childbirth with the calculated risks of an operation. Yes, this is the major (logically justifiable) reason for so many C-sections here in Brazil. The other half is that C-sections optimize the doctor's times, both the obstetrician and the pediatrician - and this is a scarce resource, worth optimizing! Yes, important to make sure they can fit a whole round of golf in. ;) Given reliable artificial womb technology financially on a par with or not substantially more than the cost of childbirth, the risks and convenience mean that it would be taken up. How many, not sure, but it would be widespread. Specially if gay men decide to have children. So, maybe we will have the hellish opposite scenario of the lesbian utopia: a world where most people are gay men :-/ LOL Or we'll just have a 50:50 world, where 10% of people are homosexual. As we do now. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Charlie Bell wrote: Specially if gay men decide to have children. So, maybe we will have the hellish opposite scenario of the lesbian utopia: a world where most people are gay men :-/ LOL Or we'll just have a 50:50 world, where 10% of people are homosexual. As we do now. 10%? I think this number is inflated. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 27/07/2006, at 8:20 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: Specially if gay men decide to have children. So, maybe we will have the hellish opposite scenario of the lesbian utopia: a world where most people are gay men :-/ LOL Or we'll just have a 50:50 world, where 10% of people are homosexual. As we do now. 10%? I think this number is inflated. Rounded for pithiness. As I rounded the 50:50... it should be 51.5:48.5, and 9.13% combined total of people that have had an extensive homosexual encounter at some time... Lifelong exclusive homosexuals are a lower percentage, but lifelong exclusive heterosexuals are less common than you'd think, as a many people (most adolescent boys, indeed) have a phase of having a crush on an older person of the same gender, even though only a few actually follow up on this. It seems to be a normal part of growing up. That's apes for you. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 26/07/2006, at 10:43 PM, PAT MATHEWS wrote: From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] So souls can be combined as well as created? Or do identical twins share a soul? The ones I have met have each had their own soul, and from all accounts, that's even true of conjoined twins. The rule may be, one soul per functioning head. So, souls are linked to minds? And the head ceasing to function (say, severe brain trauma, leading to brain death and persistent vegetative state) equates to loss of the soul? I'm just trying to follow this line of thinking. Because if, like Rich and myself, one doesn't believe in souls, only in minds, then the end result is the same. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 26 Jul 2006, at 11:20PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: Specially if gay men decide to have children. So, maybe we will have the hellish opposite scenario of the lesbian utopia: a world where most people are gay men :-/ LOL Or we'll just have a 50:50 world, where 10% of people are homosexual. As we do now. 10%? I think this number is inflated. I think it's vastly underestimated. Look at football - that's gayer than a pink tutu and yet most men seem to find nothing more exciting than watching a bunch of men in shorts playing with a big ball. And the hugging and kissing! And the bursting into tears! I prefer to watch WTA tennis myself. _That's_ a man's sport. Knickers Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 26 Jul 2006, at 11:15PM, Matt Grimaldi wrote: Wasn't there a Sci-fi book about that? Yes, there was. The main character had to go find out what happened to his planet's shipment of artificial wombs that hadn't arrived, so his adventure took him into the great wide galaxy... _Ethan of Athos_ by Lois McMaster Bujold. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons. - Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:22:29 +1000 On 26/07/2006, at 10:43 PM, PAT MATHEWS wrote: From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] So souls can be combined as well as created? Or do identical twins share a soul? The ones I have met have each had their own soul, and from all accounts, that's even true of conjoined twins. The rule may be, one soul per functioning head. So, souls are linked to minds? And the head ceasing to function (say, severe brain trauma, leading to brain death and persistent vegetative state) equates to loss of the soul? I'm just trying to follow this line of thinking. Because if, like Rich and myself, one doesn't believe in souls, only in minds, then the end result is the same. Charlie I wish you hadn't asked me that. I had a long-time friend who has been in the hospital with a massive stroke for some time now. The person in her body is like a sweet, passive small child with amnesia. I have finally got a gut feeling for the term mind-wipe. I honestly feel as if it were a different soul there. Pat ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 27/07/2006, at 10:04 AM, PAT MATHEWS wrote: I wish you hadn't asked me that. I had a long-time friend who has been in the hospital with a massive stroke for some time now. The person in her body is like a sweet, passive small child with amnesia. I have finally got a gut feeling for the term mind-wipe. I honestly feel as if it were a different soul there. Sorry to impinge on your grief. It's something I've had to wrestle with myself with my grandpa with a series of strokes - each a little worse, and each of which took a little more of him away -and my great- aunt with Alzheimer's. You've summed it up so well. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes - I'd want abortion to be replaced with transfer of the foetus to the artificial womb. In fact, if technology progressed so far, I suspect many people would avoid the risk of pregnancy and childbirth altogether. This seems to be an entirely male perspective. I wonder how a woman would respond...I'm at work and there are no women that - could ask that wouldn't be creeped out (and some think I'm wierd enough for posting on DGs with my crackberry...) There's things about pregnancy that are good for the mother. Plus, pregnancy is how the body knows how to lactate. I'm all for lactation. Lactation is wonderful for everyone involved. I'm incredibly in favor of lactation. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
How many pregnancies are planned, and how many are accidental? I guess it would all depend on the technology. But whether people plan their pregnancies around the tax season or their new-age hippie health classes is irrelevant to the question: creating a system of artificial iron wombs eliminates the emotional effects for a woman of having a baby growing inside of them. Some may be totally skeeved by this idea; my fiancee (we have a baby, BTW -- she's 6mo old, 7 in early August) however commented that she misses things like the kicks, the movement, etc. Of course I cannot relate to that on any level; being a male I have nothing in my life experiences to compare it to. And to get proper feedback, that question should be postulated to both pre-pregnancy, and post-birth women. I also think the idea of iron wombs cheapens the enture reproductive process. That is my purely emotional hippie liberal opinion... Damon. Some people have c-sections because they can schedule them round their yoga, or because they need to fit childbirth into a certain period of the financial year for tax or government incentive reasons, or to replace the uncertain risks of childbirth with the calculated risks of an operation. Given reliable artificial womb technology financially on a par with or not substantially more than the cost of childbirth, the risks and convenience mean that it would be taken up. How many, not sure, but it would be widespread. Wonder if there are any surveys on this. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] I also think the idea of iron wombs cheapens the enture reproductive process. That is my purely emotional hippie liberal opinion... Damon. My parents' generation was all for bottle feeding and canned goods because they were clean, modern, sanitary, and efficient. The postwar generation grew up to loathe the entire idea - they wanted heartfelt, natural, and organic. A much-needed corrective if I do say so myself. But when the values of clean, modern, sanitary, and efficient or their equivalent roll around again (as a much needed corrective to heartfelt, natural, and organic? And the balance of the wheel goes round and round ... say I, daughter, mother, and now grandmother) we'll get uterine replicators. For the attitude described above, check any of the Vorkosigan Saga by Lois McMaster Bujold. And then we'll go back to batural childbirth and breast feeding. For that, see Robert Heinlein's Beyond This Horizon, though her never had a child in his life. Much to his sorrow, I think. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
In a message dated 7/25/2006 11:08:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My point, though, was simply that at that point they would clearly no longer be human they would be something else, by definition. One of the problems with your mode is thinking is the by definition part. This is way we used to think about species before Darwin. They were thought of as having some essential essence unique to them. However we now we define species in a variety of functional ways. The definition I gave (interbreding populations) was developed by Dobninsky and Mahr. (ok I probably spelled these names wrong). Whatever definition one uses species are real but they are natural things with blurry margins not philosophical things (with distinct essences). So the something else that HeLA cells would be would still be human in some ways and maybe not human in others. In some circumstances they would be separate species and in other circumstances they would not be. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
In a message dated 7/26/2006 7:06:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If Biological Law is the survival of the more fit, then we don't obey this Law. Sometimes, what happens is the survival of the _less_ fit. Biologic laws are not like the laws of physics (at least not superficially). And by the way it is not really survival of the fittest in any narrow sense. It is the survival of those individuals whose traits allow them to produce the most offspring who themselves have offspring. Simply producing a lot offspring doesn't help unless one's offspring also reproduce. So the key is how many grandchildren one produces ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 27/07/2006, at 10:49 AM, Damon Agretto wrote: How many pregnancies are planned, and how many are accidental? I guess it would all depend on the technology. But whether people plan their pregnancies around the tax season or their new-age hippie health classes is irrelevant to the question: creating a system of artificial iron wombs eliminates the emotional effects for a woman of having a baby growing inside of them. Some may be totally skeeved by this idea; my fiancee (we have a baby, BTW -- she's 6mo old, 7 in early August) however commented that she misses things like the kicks, the movement, etc. Of course I cannot relate to that on any level; being a male I have nothing in my life experiences to compare it to. And to get proper feedback, that question should be postulated to both pre-pregnancy, and post-birth women. I also think the idea of iron wombs cheapens the enture reproductive process. That is my purely emotional hippie liberal opinion... I didn't say I thought it was a good idea. Just that other people probably will. Takes all sorts. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
In a message dated 7/26/2006 8:46:20 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How can you tell the difference between something that looks like a person and has a soul and something that looks like a person and doesn't? Oh my god the philospher's zombie just showed up. There are millions of words wasted on this concept. A creature that looks and acts like a human being but has no soul or mind. Now since this creature must act like a person it must think it has a soul but really it does not. It has no internal life even though it acts like it does. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
In a message dated 7/26/2006 10:15:35 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So souls can be combined as well as created? Or do identical twins share a soul? In addition the twining process does not take place at inception so if one has identical twins when was the second soul created? Getting a headache? Here is the simple but painful cure. There is no such thing as the soul or mind as some sort of non-corporeal thing. The soul or mind is the action of the human brain. So to the extent that there are two individual brains there will be two souls. One brain one soul. Since a natural explanation will always allow for odd cases and exceptions in certain circumstances (unlike an essentialist explanation) even multiple personalities may not be a problem. To the extent that a brain can be in a state where it is unaware of other aspects of its consciousness it can have more than one mind or soul. Of course the pain that this view causes is that we cease to have immortal souls or immortal anything. I can live (and die) with that ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 27/07/2006, at 11:43 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the problems with your mode is thinking is the by definition part. This is way we used to think about species before Darwin. ...and a long way after. The Biological Species Concept was developed through the mid-1900s, with much of the argument in the 50s. Of course, gene sequencing in the 80s and on has thrown more mud in the waters, as if it needed it... The concept of kinds was pretty prevalent right into the 1900s, but it no longer survives in science as a useful concept. They were thought of as having some essential essence unique to them. However we now we define species in a variety of functional ways. The definition I gave (interbreding populations) was developed by Dobninsky and Mahr. (ok I probably spelled these names wrong). Dobzhansky and Mayr, but I got who you meant. Good call. :-) Mayr only died last year, by the way, just short of his 101st birthday. He saw quite a few changes in the field of biology during his loong career. Anyway, the Biological Species Concept, as with every single other way of defining species, has weaknesses. With this one, it's that it assumes sexual reproduction, so asexual organisms are hard to classify using it. Ultimately, in defining species, biologists use a combination of the various methods, tailored to the situation. Whatever definition one uses species are real but they are natural things with blurry margins not philosophical things (with distinct essences). So the something else that HeLA cells would be would still be human in some ways and maybe not human in others. In some circumstances they would be separate species and in other circumstances they would not be. Indeed - what way you look at them defines what they are, not what you call them. Names are just labels, they're not what things are. Living things are named and renamed, classified, shuffled. That's science - as we get new information, we refine the knowledge base. Names impose borders where there really aren't any. There may be gaps, but there are no sharp lines. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
But whether people plan their pregnancies around the tax season or their new-age hippie health classes is irrelevant to the question: Yoga is a new-age hippie health class? Since when? One of the biggest reason for C-sections over here is to ensure the time of birth. So that the kid's horoscope is auspicious Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 27/07/2006, at 1:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But whether people plan their pregnancies around the tax season or their new-age hippie health classes is irrelevant to the question: Yoga is a new-age hippie health class? Since when? One of the biggest reason for C-sections over here is to ensure the time of birth. So that the kid's horoscope is auspicious And there you have it. :-) Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Charlie said: One of the biggest reason for C-sections over here is to ensure the time of birth. So that the kid's horoscope is auspicious And there you have it. :-) The prize for silliest possible reason? ;) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 27/07/2006, at 2:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charlie said: One of the biggest reason for C-sections over here is to ensure the time of birth. So that the kid's horoscope is auspicious And there you have it. :-) The prize for silliest possible reason? ;) LOL I'm sure I can think of sillier. No, the prize for more evidence that people will do all sorts of weird artificial things for weird reasons. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But whether people plan their pregnancies around the tax season or their new-age hippie health classes is irrelevant to the question: Yoga is a new-age hippie health class? Since when? The only 2 yoga instructors I know personally are new-age hippy types. Well, new-age, anyway. Dunno if doing crazy things with fire lets you qualify as a hippy. :) (Many of my more interesting RL friends do interesting things with fire. I'm mildly pyrophobic, and I hang with pyromaniacs. Go figure.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes - I'd want abortion to be replaced with transfer of the foetus to the artificial womb. In fact, if technology progressed so far, I suspect many people would avoid the risk of pregnancy and childbirth altogether. This seems to be an entirely male perspective. I wonder how a woman would respond...I'm at work and there are no women that - could ask that wouldn't be creeped out (and some think I'm wierd enough for posting on DGs with my crackberry...) Julia wrote There's things about pregnancy that are good for the mother. Plus, pregnancy is how the body knows how to lactate. I'm all for lactation. Lactation is wonderful for everyone involved. I'm incredibly in favor of lactation. Speaking as a woman who hasn't felt the quickening and is currently experiencing misbehaving parts, I would conceptuallly opt for storks, cabbage patches or artificial wombs. but that being said, I would want to be able to watch things progress. Dee ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
At 11:24 PM Wednesday 7/26/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But whether people plan their pregnancies around the tax season or their new-age hippie health classes is irrelevant to the question: Yoga is a new-age hippie health class? Since when? The only 2 yoga instructors I know personally are new-age hippy types. Well, new-age, anyway. Dunno if doing crazy things with fire lets you qualify as a hippy. :) (Many of my more interesting RL friends do interesting things with fire. I'm mildly pyrophobic, and I hang with pyromaniacs. Go figure.) Which reminds me of something I thought of the other day: when are we going to get to see some pictures of you playing with fire? --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:24 PM Wednesday 7/26/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But whether people plan their pregnancies around the tax season or their new-age hippie health classes is irrelevant to the question: Yoga is a new-age hippie health class? Since when? The only 2 yoga instructors I know personally are new-age hippy types. Well, new-age, anyway. Dunno if doing crazy things with fire lets you qualify as a hippy. :) (Many of my more interesting RL friends do interesting things with fire. I'm mildly pyrophobic, and I hang with pyromaniacs. Go figure.) Which reminds me of something I thought of the other day: when are we going to get to see some pictures of you playing with fire? I don't play with fire. :) I just hang with crazy people who do. I haven't even played soccer with the burning toilet paper roll. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 7/23/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 24/07/2006, at 12:01 PM, David Hobby wrote: Welcome back. I think you're missing Charlie's point. To me, his argument is that it is VERY hard to draw a clear line between things that can turn into adult humans and things that can't. I advise conceding the point, unless you just like to argue for the fun of it. : ) Precisely. May I propose that you reply: Anything produced by combining a human egg and sperm certainly counts as HUMAN. Other things might also; we'll decide about clones later. What I'm saying is human and human being is not always the same thing, and human being is not always easy to define either. Biology is mess. So is philosophy. In Robert Sawyer's *Mindscan* he postulates that when Roe v. Wade is overturned the definition of human life the Supreme Court adopts is individualization., two weeks after fertilization. Before that time the cells can be divided and two humans formed. He reasoned that the Supreme Court could not make it fertilization as that would make most Americans guilty of murder as birth control pills work by preventing fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterine wall. It would not be the attachment to the uterine wall as that would leave the status of humans born from artificial wombs in doubt, although that technology was not yet perfected. He may be assuming the Supreme Court is smarter than it is and that the religious fanatics are not as fanatical as they are. I am already hearing the arguments that birth control needs to be banned as well. -- Gary Denton OddsEnds - http://elemming.blogspot.com Easter Lemming Liberal News -http://elemming2.blogspot.com http://www.apollocon.org June 22-24, 2007 I ncompetence M oney Laundering P ropaganda E lectronic surveillance A bu Ghraib C ronyism H ad enough? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] So if individual angels are so small that nonstandard analysis is needed to deal with them, why do they make so bloody much noise bowling? Midnight hates it and ducks under the table (where he can feel sort of protected from above while still being near me) whenever thunder starts . . . --Ronn! :) Spot was hiding under the futon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
David Hobby wrote: Yes, that's the kind of thing I was thinking of. Alberto was talking about probability. Since all probabilities sum to one, that might well imply that each god got probability zero. No, there may be infinite a priori gods, but they can form a converging sequence, like 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, ... BTW, in Bayesian analysis, you can even consider an improper prior, and assign to an enumerable quantity of gods the _same_ probability, and end up, after observations, with a proper probability distribution. Like this: imagine a sequence of gods labeled 1,2,... and assign to each of them the same a priori probability [this is an improper prior - there is no such distribution]. Then, let's do an experiment that will succeed for the n-th god with probability 1/2^n. If this experiment succeeds, the a posteriori probability will be the bona fide p(n) = 1/2^n. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:03 PM Sunday 7/23/2006, maru dubshinki wrote: ~maru we can clearly through a simple diagonal argument along the lines of cantor that the number of angels is uncountable, and thus the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is the same number as the number of real numbers... So if individual angels are so small that nonstandard analysis is needed to deal with them, why do they make so bloody much noise bowling? Midnight hates it and ducks under the table (where he can feel sort of protected from above while still being near me) whenever thunder starts . . . The bowling pins are 3 miles high each, silly! :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
JDG said: How terribly disappointing. How anyone could consider a half-cell to be human is beyond me. Sperm and ova aren't half cells. They are whole cells. Now, here's a question. Suppose we have a fertilised human ovum in a test tube and some other human cell in another test tube, and we possess a technological method that can be used to grow the latter into a clone of the person from whom it was extracted. Should both of these cells have equal protection in the eyes of the law? After all, neither will become an adult human without some quite drastic technological intervention, but both potentially could given such intervention. If not, why not? (And we are clearly not very far at all from being able to realise this situation in a concrete way.) Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Charlie said: It's been done with other mammals, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if there aren't a handful of chimeric humans out there. Apparently 8% of fraternal twins are blood chimerae because of cell exchange through a shared placenta. There are various other kinds of recorded chimerism. There are thirty or so known cases of tetragametic chimerism (i.e. one individual formed from two ova and two sperm). There are probably vastly more that have never been detected as they are externally normal (although some - such as true hermaphrodites - are more obvious). If I recall correctly, there are also cases of adults being formed of two ova and one sperm, including a boy whose bone marrow had only a mother and not a father. Here's an article on the subject originally from New Scientist: http://www.katewerk.com/chimera.html Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 26/07/2006, at 3:35 AM, Richard Baker wrote: Charlie said: It's been done with other mammals, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if there aren't a handful of chimeric humans out there. Apparently 8% of fraternal twins are blood chimerae because of cell exchange through a shared placenta. There are various other kinds of recorded chimerism. There are thirty or so known cases of tetragametic chimerism (i.e. one individual formed from two ova and two sperm). There are probably vastly more that have never been detected as they are externally normal (although some - such as true hermaphrodites - are more obvious). If I recall correctly, there are also cases of adults being formed of two ova and one sperm, including a boy whose bone marrow had only a mother and not a father. Here's an article on the subject originally from New Scientist: http://www.katewerk.com/chimera.html I meant artificial chimeras, but that illustrates the point very nicely and I just learnt something new too. Cheers for that Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
At 08:31 AM Tuesday 7/25/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:03 PM Sunday 7/23/2006, maru dubshinki wrote: ~maru we can clearly through a simple diagonal argument along the lines of cantor that the number of angels is uncountable, and thus the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is the same number as the number of real numbers... So if individual angels are so small that nonstandard analysis is needed to deal with them, why do they make so bloody much noise bowling? Midnight hates it and ducks under the table (where he can feel sort of protected from above while still being near me) whenever thunder starts . . . The bowling pins are 3 miles high each, silly! :) So if they are that high and presumably massive enough to make the noise of thunder when they fall, how does any ball that infinitesimally small angels can lift and roll have enough energy and momentum to knock them over? It would seem that at most that the pins should tilt by infinitesimally small angles . . . --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very interesting ones, but indisputably human. You use that word indisputably, but doesn't the fact that a new species name has been proposed *by definition* imply that at least one person believes the HeLa to be non-human? After all, how can you propose a new species name for humanity? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
In a message dated 7/24/2006 11:05:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is an argument that as they are independent and an immortal cell line, that they could be considered an example of a speciation event, but all that means is that we've chosen to call them something for convenience and to distinguish them from other clumps of human cells. They are indeed human cells. Very interesting ones, but indisputably human I would think that by the standard definition of a species a cell line cannot qualify. A species is a group of individuals who can or do interbreed. I don't know how a cell culture can qualify a species. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In Robert Sawyer's *Mindscan* he postulates that when Roe v. Wade is overturned the definition of human life the Supreme Court adopts is individualization., two weeks after fertilization. [lengthy reasoning deleted] Of course, one wonders exactly where in the Constitution the Supreme Court received plenary power to decided when humanity begins. JDG - Too much to ask, maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
In a message dated 7/25/2006 12:22:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, it's murder to kill a twin... if they've been born. But look at the developmental mess that twinning can result in, and the ethical conundra that result. Conjoined twins, parasitic twins. See you avoided the rest. They're uncomfortable thoughts, aren't they, but it's not science fiction. It's been done with other mammals, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if there aren't a handful of chimeric humans out there. Human chimeras do exist. (one of set of fraternal twins where one of the twin is partially resorbed and incorporated into the other. Sometimes this is results in a syndrome called hypermelanosis of eto. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's something else to being human, and it's to do with our minds not our bodies. Conjoined twins, parasitic twins. See you avoided the rest. They're uncomfortable thoughts, aren't they, but it's not science fiction. Conjoined twins are simply a special case of identical twins. I think the debate in the States has become *so* polarised that it's difficult to explore nuance. As Dan's caricature of the pro- choice position showed. I must have missed that, but I find it hard to believe that Dan was more polarized on this issue than I. First, I don't know that 12-16 weeks is well before the time it can feel pain. It seems like there is at least some evidence that pain can be felt as early as 8 weeks... http://tinyurl.com/jd5zu Yes, and there's other evidence that suggests it's much later. I'll dig it out later if I remember (kind of busy with a wedding in just over 5 weeks). The point remains, I don't think you can say with confidence that 12- 16 weeks is before it can feel pain. You also mention that you like the 12-16 week time limit because it is long enough that the mother has time to act. Out of curiosity, why is this a consideration? Because not everyone believes the same things I do. And because the law allows for abortions, so we must both allow them without prohibitive restriction, but regulate them carefully. There's no good answer, only a compromise that does least harm to the adult we already have. The law once allowed slavery too, and once not everyone believed the same things that you do. This logic does not appear to be consistent to me. a newborn baby is a human being, and the last trimester or so is close enough that it makes no odds. At the other end, a zygote isn't. Nor is a blastocyst. 4 weeks, still no. But it's then on we go fuzzy. There's no line. Just a grey area. Kind of makes it weird for someone to be in a limbo area where one might or might not have a right to life... kind of like being Schroedinger's cat. Seems like an awkward way to be basing human rights if you ask me. Personally, I would want to err on the side of safety - if the entity *might* be human, then give it rights, rather than make the mistake of denying it rights, only to realize it later. Could leave us or our descendants with a lot of mental anguish in the future JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 26/07/2006, at 11:30 AM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very interesting ones, but indisputably human. You use that word indisputably, but doesn't the fact that a new species name has been proposed *by definition* imply that at least one person believes the HeLa to be non-human? No. It means that one person believes that the modifications in the HeLa cell line mean that it is a self-contained breeding group, and could therefore be considered a species. In fact, a new genus. A new class of unicellular life that has evolved from humans. It's an interesting viewpoint, and the reasoning is correct from a certain perspective, but it really isn't that important - the entire concept of species itself is highly mutable and applied differently under different circumstances. Different criteria are used depending on circumstance, and bacteria, plants, fungi, protists and animals all have slightly different applications. It's back to the whole blurry red-purple-blue thing. It's easy to tell a cat from a day. But a chihuahua from a great dane? If all other dogs ceased to exist, they'd be considered two species, as they're separate breeding groups... After all, how can you propose a new species name for humanity? Very easily. _Homo technologia_ could be the next step, if they form a separate breeding group from baseline humans. Species change and branch and fade. That's how it is. We're not any different, nor are we subjected to different biological or physical laws to any other animal. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 26/07/2006, at 11:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would think that by the standard definition of a species a cell line cannot qualify. A species is a group of individuals who can or do interbreed. I don't know how a cell culture can qualify a species. They're free living (on culture plates...) partially motile cells which reproduce by binary fission. They form a distinct group, and they breed true, without the telomere shortening that ends most cell lines. They're aggressive and robust. That's why it was proposed that they could constitute a species. I don't agree with it, but I understand the reasoning. I'll make it clear that there is only really one scientist who seriously proposes the species concept of HeLa. And he's not me. :) Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
At 08:30 PM Tuesday 7/25/2006, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very interesting ones, but indisputably human. You use that word indisputably, but doesn't the fact that a new species name has been proposed *by definition* imply that at least one person believes the HeLa to be non-human? After all, how can you propose a new species name for humanity? 'Cuz they finally realized that the sapiens part was not really applicable? -- Ronn! :P Professional Smart-Aleck. Do Not Attempt. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After all, how can you propose a new species name for humanity? Very easily. _Homo technologia_ could be the next step, if they form a separate breeding group from baseline humans. Or Homo symbioticus (or whatever the name proposed at the end of _Heart of the Comet_) My point, though, was simply that at that point they would clearly no longer be human they would be something else, by definition. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sure we'll eventually be able to clone humans from single cells. Are you saying that this would be by some other method than injecting cell or cell information from an adult into a donor egg cell? JDG JDG-- Putting the information into an egg cell would be easiest. I'm not sure how this helps your argument, though. Wouldn't such an egg cell be dead, since its nucleus would have been removed prior to inserting the new DNA ? If you think/feel that it makes a difference, we would probably eventually be able to produce artificial egg cells and/or to modify existing cells so they could perform as egg cells do. Kind of makes it weird for someone to be in a limbo area where one might or might not have a right to life... kind of like being Schroedinger's cat. Seems like an awkward way to be basing human rights if you ask me. Personally, I would want to err on the side of safety - if the entity *might* be human, then give it rights, rather than make the mistake of denying it rights, only to realize it later. Could leave us or our descendants with a lot of mental anguish in the future I don't see why rights can't be on a sliding scale, and so have no problem with this. I do pretty much agree with you, but want to award rights based on what beings know and do. Seriously, apes should definitely be given at least partial rights. ---David Oook, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 26/07/2006, at 11:43 AM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's something else to being human, and it's to do with our minds not our bodies. Conjoined twins, parasitic twins. See you avoided the rest. They're uncomfortable thoughts, aren't they, but it's not science fiction. Conjoined twins are simply a special case of identical twins. And a chimera? One soul, or two? I think the debate in the States has become *so* polarised that it's difficult to explore nuance. As Dan's caricature of the pro- choice position showed. I must have missed that, but I find it hard to believe that Dan was more polarized on this issue than I. I didn't say he was *more* polarized, just that he showed how the debate has become so polarized etc. Here's his quote: The pro-choice axiom is that, before birth, there are no human rights, and after birth a full set. Which is clearly bollocks. There's a huge range of views across the spectrum, and this pigeon-holing into pro-choice or pro-embryo or whatever tag one chooses is not actually useful. Actually talking through differing viewpoints and trying to understand why other people think as they do, even if you disagree with them, can only help. First, I don't know that 12-16 weeks is well before the time it can feel pain. It seems like there is at least some evidence that pain can be felt as early as 8 weeks... http://tinyurl.com/jd5zu Yes, and there's other evidence that suggests it's much later. I'll dig it out later if I remember (kind of busy with a wedding in just over 5 weeks). The point remains, I don't think you can say with confidence that 12- 16 weeks is before it can feel pain. From a BMJ review paper, Vol 332, 15 April 2006, pp 909 - 912: The period 23-25 weeks’ gestation is also the time at which the peripheral free nerve endings and their projection sites within the spinal cord reach full maturity. By 26 weeks’ gestation the characteristic layers of the thalamus and cortex are visible, with obvious similarities to the adult brain and it has recently been shown that noxious stimulation can evoke haemodynamic changes in the somatosensory cortex of premature babies from a gestational age of 25 weeks. Although the system is clearly immature and much development is still to occur, good evidence exists that the biological system necessary for pain is intact and functional from around 26 weeks’ gestation. You also mention that you like the 12-16 week time limit because it is long enough that the mother has time to act. Out of curiosity, why is this a consideration? Because not everyone believes the same things I do. And because the law allows for abortions, so we must both allow them without prohibitive restriction, but regulate them carefully. There's no good answer, only a compromise that does least harm to the adult we already have. The law once allowed slavery too, and once not everyone believed the same things that you do. This logic does not appear to be consistent to me. And everything you do is consistent? It may not be consistent, but very little is. It works for me. a newborn baby is a human being, and the last trimester or so is close enough that it makes no odds. At the other end, a zygote isn't. Nor is a blastocyst. 4 weeks, still no. But it's then on we go fuzzy. There's no line. Just a grey area. Kind of makes it weird for someone to be in a limbo area where one might or might not have a right to life... kind of like being Schroedinger's cat. So why is that so hard to deal with? It's like the age of consent - it varies from country to country, but it's always a compromise between protecting the mentally or physically immature while not unduly restricting the mature and ready. Artificial lines to make the best of messy analogue situations. Seems like an awkward way to be basing human rights if you ask me. It's all awkward. Personally, I would want to err on the side of safety - if the entity *might* be human, then give it rights, rather than make the mistake of denying it rights, only to realize it later. See, you're just talking a different language. It's not even a rights question, really. It's a question of when does a developing life stop being the sole responsibility of the mother to choose, and when it becomes a ward of the state. Could leave us or our descendants with a lot of mental anguish in the future We'll get over it. We got over slavery (some of us), we got over female emancipation (some of us), we got over religious autocracy (some of us)... Can I ask another question - what about IVF? Would you ban IVF too? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
