At 22-10-04 13:30, JDG wrote:
There is big-time biological change that occurs at the moment of
conception. A zygote is clearly human. A sperm or ovum is clearly not.
At the moment of conception, one cell (the sperm) merges with an other cell
(the ovum). That's all the change that occurs at
At 07:58 AM 10/18/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
At 04:06 PM 10/16/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
But let's be fair. If infanticide were legal, a
ten %
drop in the rate would not stop you from being
boiling
mad. The real problem isn't pragmatic but
philosophical. As romantics, each neocon
At 09:54 PM 10/18/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
Stopping baby killers (without ever doing anything to help the babies you
then stick
poor moms with)
This is just plain false. Pro-Life activists donate extensively to Crisis
Pregnancy Centers, and charities that supply single mothers with
I am sure that even you would agree, Dr. Brin, that there are some
situations that do not call for pragmatic compromise.
I agree with that leading statements, though it all depends on the pragmatic
tradeoffs. Read LeGuin's Those who walk away from Omelas.
Indeed, there are many times to
JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 09:54 PM 10/18/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
Stopping baby killers (without ever doing anything to help the babies you
then stick
poor moms with)
This is just plain false. Pro-Life activists donate extensively to Crisis
Pregnancy Centers, and charities that
At 07:13 AM 10/21/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
Indeed, there are many times to take a pure and passionate stand. I am
deeply suspicious of the underlying emotional reasons behind the choice of
abortion as a stand, which must be ratcheted earlier with each new medical
advance, till we must sing
At 07:14 AM 10/21/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 09:54 PM 10/18/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
Stopping baby killers (without ever doing anything to help the babies you
then stick
poor moms with)
This is just plain false. Pro-Life activists donate extensively to
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: Brin: Second Salvo
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 12:24:08PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
But, the legal system doesn't have murky lines
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 11:55:30AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
But, in the case of having divisions between when it is legal to do
something, the law (I think out of necessity) is arbitrarily precise.
So when, in an arbitrarily precise way, does the law state that aborting
a fetus becomes
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: Brin: Second Salvo
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 11:55:30AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
But, in the case of having divisions between
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 03:51:10PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
I've already given the arbitrary precise line between acceptable
abortion and murder...in the post you are responding to.
Whatever. I asked, when does the law state? Which is, of course, a
rhetorical quesiton, since the law does not
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: Brin: Second Salvo
Whatever. I asked, when does the law state? Which is, of course, a
rhetorical quesiton, since the law does
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 05:55:11PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
But, aren't Supreme Court rulings part of the law?
I believe they call them decisions. Interpretations of the law. Which is
obviously not sufficiently precise for all situations.
Besides, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on everything,
At 04:06 PM 10/16/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
But let's be fair. If infanticide were legal, a ten %
drop in the rate would not stop you from being boiling
mad. The real problem isn't pragmatic but
philosophical. As romantics, each neocon subgroup
must go for a whole loaf, never part of one.
--- JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 04:06 PM 10/16/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
But let's be fair. If infanticide were legal, a
ten %
drop in the rate would not stop you from being
boiling
mad. The real problem isn't pragmatic but
philosophical. As romantics, each neocon subgroup
must
- Original Message -
From: David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: Brin: Second Salvo
--- JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 04:06 PM 10/16/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
But let's be fair
- Original Message -
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: Brin: Second Salvo
Sorry, I didn't finish a thought.
But, the legal system doesn't have murky linesIt can't. The
present
And what would you advocate? Converting to humanism by the sword?
Better to reach an accomadation and convert by example, or work
to improve the world so that those -isms are no longer valid or
convincing.
~Maru
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So, would you argue that compromise is the
IMOO, I think the Left is slowly moving, as fast as is
acceptable, to a sentience definition of humanity, which is to
say, the more counsciousness one possesses, the more 'human'.
Now this is defintely slowed by reactions left over from the
early IQ tests and Nazis, but I think it is definitely
Finally, the belief in absolutes is not a Romantic notion. Faith in
thetrancendental is definatly a part of the enlightenment. Kant, the
quintessential Enlightenment philosopher, speaks very clearly towards
that.Jefferson penned such a faith statement in the Declaration of
Independance.
Maru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMOO, I think the Left is slowly moving, as fast as is
acceptable, to a sentience definition of humanity, which is to
say, the more counsciousness one possesses, the more 'human'.
yes and this angers those who want prim dividing lines.
But That's not what
Here's a link to that book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/039332/qid=1098040811/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-6659867-3819261?v=glances=booksn=507846
(Sorry about the length.)
~Maru
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Brin: Second Salvo
:
From: David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Brin: Second Salvo
True enough. A better example of their obsession
with
form over substance would be abortion. Abortion
RATES
went down under Clinton and climbed under both
Bushes.
Pragmatically speaking, lessening the number
Dr. Brin, good article. But you say that the Fundamentalists are
promised the Supreme Court, and then say that all three groups
have gotten their reward, but demand more (their in-'satiability'
as you put it.). Now, I don't recall any Supreme Court
nominations in the past four years, so isn't it a
--- Maru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dr. Brin, good article. But you say that the
Fundamentalists are promised the Supreme Court, and
then say that all three groups have gotten their
reward, but demand more (their in-'satiability' as
you put it.). Now, I don't recall any Supreme
Court
25 matches
Mail list logo
