Play nice. Or else I’ll Tase you.
Follow Us!
Korea News via Yahoo- S. Korea Lawmakers Make First Gaeseong Trip Since Kim Death
- Korea-US trade pact re-emerges as political issue
- Korea-U.S. trade pact re-emerges as political issue
- South Korea Lawmakers Make First Trip to Gaeseong Complex Since Kim Death
- Korea bans Orioles' scouts after teen inks deal
- Saudi 'pledges secure energy supply' to S. Korea
- The Korea Times gets taken for an intergalactic ride
- South Korea Plans to Buy Chinese Equities to Diversify Reserves
- South Korea’s No. 2 Public Pension Fund to Boost Equities
- South Korea Set to Follow Australia’s Rate Pause as U.S. Revives
Buy My Seoul Guidebook!
Books and DVDs on Korea
{ 223 comments… read them below or add one }
I would welcome opinions on the following proposal: The US slowdown will cause American consumers to stop buying imported goods, which will cause a fall in the value of the won.
I would also welcome opinions on this proposal: The US slowdown will lead to interest rate drops by the Fed, which will further weaken the dollar, raising the value of the won.
I’m not interested in predictions for the next week. I’ll need dollars within the next 6-12 months, and I’m pondering when to buy them.
I think the weak-dollar trend is probably stronger. Economists are now predicting a “collapse” of the dollar and when compared to currencies like the British Pound, Euro, and Canadian Dollar, the US dollar is already collapsing. The won will catch up.
Although Korea exports a lot to the US, it also exports a lot to Euroland and China. Collapse of the dollar will simply prompt Korean exporters to concentrate on those other markets, while Korean manufacturers look at moving production to the United States in addition to buying real estate assets. And even with the weak dollar, they will overpay.
#2,
God forbid that you’d admit that the exchange rate has anything to do with Canadians doing something right.
I don’t think the US interest rate would affect the strength of the dollar much over the relatively long period of time, such as 6 to 12 months, as the dollar has been declining against just about all the Western currencies.during the last 5 years or so.
I get the feeling that the majority of the financial punters seem to accept that the dollar’s decline is now inevitable, given the level of foreign debt and ever-increasing current account deficit. I think dollar’s decline will continue for some time, probably in a gradual manner as has been the case during the last few years, rather than in a sudden drop, as most of the US’s foreign debts are in US dollars.
As the dollar has changed little against the Won since the beginning of last year, I think it’s likely that the dollar will fall against the Won for some time to come, particularly if the GNP wins the election in December, as it seems 90% likely at this stage, although the current government will try very hard to not pass 900 mark.
#3 -
Wow, you’ve exploded another myth of Korean uniqueness.
Apparently Canadians are han-addled too.
The Canadian dollar was on a 1-to-1 parity with the US dollar yesterday and the Euro around 1.40 US. My fellow countrymen need a wake up call for their foolish ways and this is probably just the phone ringing.
If only we hadn’t elected George Bush! Twice! Then everything would have been wonderful.
That’s right. I favor annexing their land and rounding up the indigenous Canadian population (along with the residents of New York City, San Francisco, and Seattle) into re-education camps. Albertans, Manitobans and Saskatoons can stay, but only if they swear allegiance to the United States of Jesusland.
“The Canadian dollar was on a 1-to-1 parity with the US dollar yesterday and the Euro around 1.40 US. My fellow countrymen need a wake up call for their foolish ways and this is probably just the phone ringing.”
As I was saying this has as much to do with the fact that the Canadian economy is pretty swell right thanks to the high price of oil thanks to the war in Iraq. With the war in Iraq, the US has basically put the wheels in motion to see its currency become devalued against that of its greatest supplier of oil (yup, it’s Canada, not Saudi Arabia). Everything you buy from Canada has gone up…and the Chinese are now competing for it. Yup, Bush has made Canada a lot richer than it already was.
Dammit…
As I was saying, this has as much to do with the fact that the Canadian economy is pretty swell right now thanks to the high price of oil.
Hey, you’re right — Canada is America’s largest supplier of energy. That’s very convenient. And if there is ever a need to seize energy supplies, it’s great we can we can drive there (hell, we can march to Canada if necessary).
Peak oil, if that comes to pass, won’t make Canada rich. It will make Canada American. Shame about the Canadians though — they’ll have to go into those camps I talked about.
Pshaw – those living within the Republic of Cascadia would never submit to that demand.
Alternative- or home-schooling – Yes. Re-education – No!
#11,
It would be very easy for us to thwart the invasion:
At the power plant…
“Hey, Doug. Gordon in Washington DeeCee–you know, Lucy’s brother, the one who can’t hold a beer– well, he told me that the States is about to invade.”
“Bob, I guess it’s time to pull the plug on those hosers, eh?”
…march into Canada? Don’t you know we have like 6 feet of snow in June?
“If only we hadn’t elected George Bush! Twice! Then everything would have been wonderful.”
That’s why they should have mandatory voting. I heard less than 40% of the eligible US electorate actually voted.
Yes, mandatory voting can be a pain in the backside to some people but it makes sure candidates like the current US President are not voted into office.
Surely that’s what we need, more Jesse Jackson votes.
Every night I pray to the gods to send me a nice, liberal Canadian man who’ll marry me and rescue me from AmeriKKKa, where innocent men merely exercising freedom of speech are cruelly tasered by fascist cops.
But they did send you a nice liberal Korean lesbian on a subway one fine day, who may have cured you of the need for a Canadian man on a white horse. Maybe you’re just being too picky.
Sonagi, you could just pick up a fascist American man and convert him to a liberal. I understand Hilary used to be a Republican before she met Bill who converted her to a Democrat.
While it does give a sugar-rush high of ‘National Pride’, no Canadian should welcome US$-CAN$ parity. Having our dollar below the American dollar has been a GDP gravy train for us for decades – why stop now? The Chinese and Japanese have been getting shit from the US forever for keeping their currencies artificially low, while Canada flies, as always, blissfully under the US radar, unnoticed and uncared about. Thank god for that. May America NEVER notice us.
Yeah, whoopee for oil exports, but what about the other 85% of total exports Canada sends to the States? This parity shit is going to put some real ‘suffer’ on a whole range of heavy to light manufacturing. God forbid the Canadian dollar start rising above the US one. We’d might as well shut half the factories in Ontario and Quebec down if that happens. Time for the Canadian govt to steal some game pages from Korea and Japan and start sinking the CanuckBuck, pronto! Lets rile up the Quebec separatists again, that’s always good for sinking the Cdollar.
Brendon said: “Hey, you’re right — Canada is America’s largest supplier of energy. That’s very convenient. And if there is ever a need to seize energy supplies, it’s great we can we can drive there (hell, we can march to Canada if necessary).”
Reminds me of a commentary I read on the BusinessWeek site about 6 months back. Chinese Govt/oil company types were visiting Alberta’s oil sands, talking about buying Canadian oil resources and building a pipeline to BC so they could load oil on ships and bring it to China. This witty Brendon-like chap commented “What the Chinese don’t know is that Canada’s oil belongs to America. Unfortunately the Canadians don’t know it either.”
No fear from this Canuck. While Brendon and other disgruntled Yankee-types here in Korea have learned to hate us, pestering their offices with calls for legal advice or stealing that chick from you at the club, the warm comfortable mass of Americans couldn’t care less about Canadians and have the fuzzy image that Canada belongs to them already anyways. God bless em for that.
Brendon’s wrong about one thing – Canada is going to milk the peak oil thing all the way down the slope, and Americans won’t even mention it – for them it is like Texas or Oklahoma is making money.
Repeat after me, Canucks: MAY THEY NEVER NOTICE US.
Not quite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Oil_Sands
I wonder where the High Two/Three Comma People are investing/hiding their assets.
Sometimes I consider becoming a Canadian.
Would it be so bad to give up on The Colors and negotiate a merger of all the central and north american countries? What kind of economic/military/political powerhouse would that create?
I know…too liberal.
You mean like Italy? Berlusconi was Bush on Angel Dust my friend…
The high price of oil was coming regardless of Iraq. Consider the fact that Iraqs production has surpased prewar levels and the current demand is coming from a China with an increasing higer standard of living there (more people with cars, more factories demanding more energy etc..)
In fact, that was part of the reason we invaded IMHO. The US saw the high oil price coming and realized Saddam’s net wealth was about to double, possibly triple sitting on all that oil. Had the US not removed his happy ass, China (silently backed by Europe) would have quickly rethought those sanctions and empowered him again.
And if you read Greenspan closely, I think you’ll find he agrees…
Before you demonize Bush as anti-children’s health care, I’d like you to be aware that in the US, it seems it you are aged 0-18 (25 in some states), and aged 65+, you ARE getting socialized heatlh care.
Interestingly, covering children’s health (SCHIP) is running on a deficit.
Interestingly, covering senior’s health is also running on a deficit.
Why?
People take advantage of govt programs, that’s why. People who make up to $80K can find a way to get the govt to pay for their children’s medical care, in some states. Have you been to the Emergency Room in the US? Costs lot of money to normal people. In the US, many parents run to the ER all the time, for things they could have taken care of at home or during the daytime at an outpatient office. SCHIP pays for it, that’s why. Child with asthma was prescribed an inhaler. Parent never uses it. When the child gets sick every 5 months or so, guess where that child is? In the ER, showing severe symptoms of asthma, staying there for 12 hours. All the parent had to do was use the inhaler regularly.
Even if they could afford to pay for their own healthcare, they would go out of their way to get the govt to pay for it.
Sad reality is, Americans pay taxes and don’t agree that they shouldn’t reap the benefits.
But, that is the Democrat’s mantra. I’m rich and I’ll pay a lot of taxes so poor people will benefit. We see this reality that middle income and rich people are not jiving with that at all. They want some, too.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11753
They say they will fund SCHIP by cigarette taxes.
What happens when nobody smokes anymore? Or realisitically, less people smoke?
And, what if anything are we doing for people who smoke? Shouldn’t they get something, at least SOMETHING for paying cigarette taxes?
Compulsory voting in Australia and the voters there keep returning to power the Liberal-National coaliton, headed by that notorious Bush supporter Howard.
It will remain an eternal cherished illusion of the American liberal left — “if we could only make the American people do what we know is best for them”. Well, maybe Hillary (with the dedicated assistance of the Big He) will finally accomplish this cherished feat.
You can be sure she’ll be getting me out to vote.
Yes, the American liberal left are huge supporters of the wildly successful federally funded abstinence-only sex education program and funding cuts in international family planning programs that don’t meet the moral standards of the religious right. It was Bill Clinton who started tossing a billion dollars a year at religious organizations through “faith-based and community initiatives.”
Interesting story about the Israeli air strike on a Syrian nuclear facility suspected of containing material of NK origin:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2512380.ece
Foreign Policy bloggers are skeptical of the Syrian-NK connection:
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/6251
“Interesting story about the Israeli air strike on a Syrian nuclear facility suspected of containing material of NK origin:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t…..512380.ece”
Sonagi, thanks for the link. A very interesting story, to say the least. Looks like some of the “material of NK origin” may have been of the human variety. Not-so-mysteriously, the air strike – in particular, its possible impact on six party talks – doesn’t seem to be getting much attention in the South Korean press.
Shouldn’t one always have the option of not exercising his/her right to vote?
Sonagi, when all is said and done, faithfulness to your partner and abstinence until you find the partner is best, in my opinion.
Condoms don’t cover all the rub-rub spots. You can still get stds, and if they break, you can still get pregnant.
Birth control pills prevent pregnancy, not stds.
I do agree with vaccinating all girls against HPV.
That’s just me.
Sonagi, I want you to tell me about the success of those programs where high school students get sex counseling first, and then obtain condoms.
Please, continue.
I’m very interested.
This coming Monday, KBS2 will broadcast the “Minam Suda”(The Guys’ Chatterbox) as a Chusok special at 8pm.
No word on whether or not Brendon Carr will be one of the guys appearing in the special.
WJK, if you got rid of all the liberals girls, then you get rid of all the girls in High School that put out. Either you bring back red light districts or you allow liberal girls to do what they do best.
sumo, I care about the liberal girls.
All girls should get HPV vaccines.
Lib or Con, I do not discriminate professionally.
I’m a good Con.
I watched D-Wars. It’s an abortion strolling around in a baby carriage. It deserves every harsh criticism it gets. Very unfortunate movie. That’s all I’m going to say about it.
Otoh, I watched Secret Sunshine today. The film reminds me of some of the comments that have come up over here lately about Christians and their utterly vacuous faith. I recommend it highly — for many many reasons, that is, but most of all because it owns as a film no matter what its stance is. SS is a fine film. My respect for Lee Chang Dong has shot up a few knotches.
min0306, Mr. Carr is going on that show?
I gotta watch that.
I don’t think you’ll mention it if there was a zero possibility.
I’m not going to be on that show. Just missed the cut again. Damn you, People Magazine and KBS2!
A bit of self-promotion. I have a blog Marmot mentioned a couple weeks ago; mostly about baseball in Asia. I wrote a piece about a Braves AA prospect Jung Sung-ki from Yeosu that’s up now. Also a piece about Daniel Rios of Doosan winning his 20th game.
Stop by if you have a moment…
http://www.eastwindupchronicle.com
#23,
No, the war in Iraq increased the prices of oil. It didn’t create the increase in demand that keeps the prices high right now, but it certainly hastened the increase in prices.
#27,
The fact that conservative politicians in the US are able to get away with clouding the issues with their pro-life/anti-gay marriage stand just baffles me. If they think there are too many abortions, why don’t they fight poverty since there a correlation between it and the incidence of abortions has been found? Oh, but that wouldn’t be acceptable in their mind because that would involve reducing the military budget… and there’s their ‘resolve’ to fight terrorists (ie. non-Christians) in countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 (and while they’re at it, they also prevent the president of a Persian country to go to ground zero. Sure, he isn’t Arab and had nothing to do with 9/11…but he’s brown).
Gay-marriages is a threat to your marriage? Right. Allowing gays to get married would permit them to have some kind of voodoo over you. Next thing you know, married straight men will be listening to Madonna and straight women will laugh at Ellen Degeneres’s jokes. Sounds to me like someone is trying to divert our attention away from, among other things, the fact that conservative politicians and Christian leaders have been caught screwing around.
Gay man explained to me that gay men cheat on each other more than men and women cheat on each other. He explained this to me in the theory of 4 testicles.
I’m serious here.
I’m not lying, either.
2 testicles, one man. Man is always more prone to cheat than the womatn in the relationship.
4 testicles, two men. 2 men, doubling the chances of infidelity.
Now, I haven’t looked up any references on this or anything, and this gay person is my colleague, whom I know from school.
Whether or not it’s true, I don’t know.
But he says it’s rare for gay men couples to last 40, 50 years.
Or even 10 years.
Now he said nothing about gay marriage.
He was just telling me about how his community works.
I conclude that granting rights appropriate to these couples is okay.
Legalizing gay marriage is not.
Why?
They’re not interested in marriage. That’s my observation.
They’re more interested in some of those married peoples’ rights and privileges AND sticking it up the Conservatives, as in a Touche, take that, etc.
Gay marriages is absolutely a threat to heterosexual marriages.
It cheapens marriage.
Sure, there is a 50% rate of break ups in marriages in western countries.
But, you know what? The first men to men marraige in the US went to divorce within a 1 year, I believe.
I’m pretty confident of that on recollection of the news.
Men-men marriages break up faster.
Why legalized it?
Now, I’m not saying anything about women-women marriages. I haven’t talked to a lesbian.
But, as a heterosexual, I say, marriage is for men and women, based on history, tradition, and religion. Don’t bother intruding on this, libs. What we’re more likely to agree on is gtetting you some of the privileges of being married. But, there’s a limit.
That guy from Iran is a holocaust denying Muslim who hates Jewish people and is quite frankly a terrorist head figure who buys nukes, sends killers and killing weapons to Iraq, kidnapped British soldiers, and American citizens. He should be arrested when he lands in New York City.
Gasoline prices shot up because, in my opinion, China has been using up a lot, and there is way, way, way increased demand, and no matching rise in production.
This Korean kid rocks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dox67fM5sME
i protest against automatic censoring and monitoring of my comments, especially in an OPEN thread.
Key points for the socialist Canadian.
Men to men marriages don’t even seem to operate comparably to Men to Women marriages. Leave marriage to people who actually revere it.
Oil demand from Chinese is the blame.
Tehran’s leader is a terrorist, a holocaust denier, a Hitler from the Middle East, a nuke buyer, and fit to be arrested upon landing in New York, but would set a bad precedent for the neutrality of the UN.
#39: You’re all over the map, but how about maybe “Persia” is still an enemy of the U.S. and it has nothing to do with Christianity or the brownness of anyone’s skin? No, there’s no formal declaration of war, but the regime that took our embassy for 444 days is still in power, with one of those “student” hostage takers as its president. So, no, the guy doesn’t get permission to visit Ground Zero. He’s lucky enough that he’s allowed to visit the UN.
“Men to men marriages don’t even seem to operate comparably to Men to Women marriages. Leave marriage to people who actually revere it.”
You’re making that one up. Leave it to people who revere it? Like the more than 50% of hetero married couples who get divorced?
Oil demand now, yes. The premature increase in oil prices following the beginning of the Iraq war, no.
“Tehran’s leader is a terrorist, a holocaust denier, a Hitler from the Middle East, a nuke buyer, and fit to be arrested upon landing in New York, but would set a bad precedent for the neutrality of the UN.”
He’s a terrorist? Any evidence?
A holocaust denier? What’s that got to do with preventing him from going to ground zero?
A nuke buyer? Seems a bit hypocritical of the US to accuse him of breaking the NPT when it has done little to disarm itself, let alone demand its allies to disarm themselves , in accordance with their obligations as stated in the NPT.
#42,
That’s ancient history. Whatever gives the neocons a bogeyman, right?
PS. I recommend you watch CNN’s God’s Warriors: Christians.
i’m not making it up.
I already posted in my censored comment.
A gay man explained this to me. He’s a fellow student.
Gay men cheat on each other, just like men cheat on women. He called it, in his own words, the theory of “4 testicles”.
The one with the balls has the biological tendency to seek as many mates as he can.
Put two of these together, they operate just like other men with two balls.
He claimed 40 years of men to men partners is very rare, and he rarely even sees 10 years.
I am pretty much forced to break up my valuable input, although I have a tendency to do that anyway.
Hear now, Mr. Canadian.
Yes, heteros have a 50% chance of breaking up in marriage, but it is a time honored, history honored, cultural, and religiously sanctioned tradition.
You name me one culture or religion that has dominated human history that sanctions men to men marriages.
You can’t.
Now, I said nothing about women-women relations, which I suspect to last longer, if I buy into my colleagues 4 testicles theory.
Now, don’t get me wrong. It just made sense to me listening to it, I haven’t looked into verifying it in any way.
Tehran has claimed that there was no holocaust, they point long range missiles into Tel Aviv, to be launced when the West attacks, and they have detained British soliders last year, who never came inside Iran, they send killers and armor piercing weapons into Iraq. What more do you want?
This guy should be arrested when he comes. He’s a terrorist, funds and directs Shiite activity in Iraq, attacks US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been making a nuke for the last 3 years, etc.
He should die.
#27 -
You mean standards like opposition to coerced and forced abortion and sterilization? Ah, yes, damn those oppressive moralizing bastards on the religious right!
#44,
Whatever. More than 50% of straight marriages end up in divorce within the first years, so it’s not as if there are many straight couples who have been together for 40 years, let alone 10. Besides, how would you explain women who cheat on their husband? The other probably has 4 testicles, right?
#45,
Using that logic, we should ban all religions because some are cults.
Abstinence doesn’t work, huh?
http://www.pop.org/main.cfm?id=203&r1=0&r2=0&r3=0&r4=0&level=0&eid=1110
#46 -
The UN Population Fund and International Planned Parenthood Federation have a proven track record of participating in coercive and forced abortions and sterilizations. Their practices are abominable, and they shouldn’t receive a dime from the US taxpayer. Yet when their federal funding is yanked, the apostles of abortion-on-demand scream bloody murder. Shows just how much they value a woman’s right to choose, doesn’t it?
As for your comment about banning religion… total red herring. You’re positively foaming at the mouth this morning.
someguy, it’s ironic that you don’t even have a gay acquaintance with whom to verify this with.
Yet, you advocate that they get their marriage.
The first married men to men US couple, divorced within 1 year.
You’re welcome to scour through psychology journals to verify that men cheat way more than women.
#48,
So, ban all abortions because some people may have been coerced? Fine, ban all religions for the the reason.
PS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_Research_Institute
“someguy, it’s ironic that you don’t even have a gay acquaintance with whom to verify this with.”
How would you know? I’m not disputing that some gays cheat on their spouse. I’m disputing the fact that arguing that gays shouldn’t be married because of it, that we should “leave marriage to people who actually revere it” is totally hypocritical when infidelity is also a big problem in straight couples, which contributes to the fact that 50% of straight marriages end in divorce.
You have valuable input?
:0
Correction: “I’m disputing the argument…”
#53 –
Like I said, red herring. Thanks for making it explicit this time, though. No one’s talking about banning abortion here. I responded to Sonagi re cutting funding for international “family planning” programs.
And yes, that’s PRI. They’re pro-life. What’s your point? They do solid research and they document their claims. Unless you can show the contrary, labeling them as “right wing” in order to dismiss their arguments a priori is just typical leftist intellectual dishonesty.
Correction 2:
“I believe that saying we should “leave marriage to people who actually revere it” is totally…”
“What’s your point?”
They do research? Ironically, they had to go far out of the US to find a few isolated cases that support their political agenda. Sorry to break it to you, but abuses in other countries should not affect American medical policies.
Nor should American anti-abortionists have the right to impose their own political/religious ideology abroad, for that matter.
Nor should American and European pro-aborts have the right to impose their own political/religious ideology abroad. But through the IPPF and UN Population Fund, that’s exactly what they’re doing. Give it up, pal.
Someguy, take a deep breath. Think. You’re not making sense.
Sorry to break it to you, but abuses in other countries should not affect American medical policies.
And no one’s arguing that they should. Take a deep breath, calm down, think, and read the thread again. What I AM arguing is that these abuses should affect American policy regarding funding the organizations responsible for the abuses.
See, now you pull out the scare tactics. Pro-abortion? Nobody is pro-abortion. They are talking about protecting the rights to a medical procedure, that’s all.
“And no one’s arguing that they should. ”
And yet you link to an article about something that took place in…where was it…Africa?
“What I AM arguing is that these abuses should affect American policy regarding funding the organizations responsible for the abuses.”
No, what you are arguing is that they should remove funding from groups who support women’s rights to an abortion. You’re simply using this isolated case as a pretext to make your point.
there is a tremendous cop-out in the political and scientific community when it comes to AIDS.
AIDS is acquired most commonly by intravenous drug use and irresponsible sex.
They try to make it look like as if these people were just sitting around, and got AIDS.
Abstinence policy worked somewhat, because it primarily educated people to be more wise and careful, because this is a REAL disease that comes AFTER you have sex with someone that is NOT your wife. Or even an friend. Or even an acquaintance. Most likely a one-timer.
What’s so wrong about telling people about how this disease is exactly acquired and what you should do to minimize your chances of getting it?
If I were in charge, Abstinence lecture, condom (if you gotta do what you gotta do), then drugs to treat whatever happenned (got the diesase).
stop making out AIDS as if it’s not a STD. Talk about it the same way with all other stds, PLEASE.
Thank you Marmot’s Hole for allowing my comments. I will try to not say much.
#65,
From a Judeo-Christian point of view, that makes sense…but reality isn’t as simple.
Research has found that kids who sign those ‘abstinence contracts’ in the US are just as likely to have sex before marriage than those who haven’t, if not more.
I pull out the scare tactics? You’re the one who twisted the issue and made it about banning abortion in the US rather than defunding international “family planning” groups that engage in coercive and forced abortion and sterilization. And by the way, calling those incidents “isolated” is ridiculous. They’re part and parcel of China’s one-child policy, for example, and the UN Population Fund has been shown to be complicit in that program.
What would you call such groups, anyway? “Pro-choice” doesn’t fit, since they don’t respect the choices of women who don’t want abortion or sterilization. I think “pro-abortion” is generous.
And just so we’re clear, they’re talking about protecting the “right” to a medical procedure that indisputably ends a distinct human life.
Where’s your support for a woman’s right to choose in Red China, Someguy?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/22/us/22airport.html?em&ex=1190606400&en=cb58d156ee5f2222&ei=5087
I don’t know what’s more pathetic, her for apparently trying to get this sort of attention, or the people who were stupid enough to think that a few LED, a 9V battery and a breadboard could be a bomb.
#67,
“You’re the one who twisted the issue and made it about banning abortion in the US rather than defunding international “family planning” groups that engage in coercive and forced abortion and sterilization.”
I think the rest of your post makes it clear that I’m not the one twisting the facts.
PS. The Chinese one-child policy? Please. If anything, it proves that women should have the right to chose if they want an abortion or not.
And here the hypocrisy of the “pro-choice” crowd shines forth. Women should have the right to choose… whether to use abortion, sterilization, or contraception. But choose to have another child? Pshaw! “Pro-choice” is hardly an accurate term. Pro-abortion and pro-contraception is more like it.
And I think your posts make it clear how much of a pro-abortion extremist you are, and how willing you are to twist facts in support of that ghastly position.
“And here the hypocrisy of the “pro-choice” crowd shines forth. Women should have the right to choose… whether to use abortion, sterilization, or contraception.”
That’s not what I said, is it? Thanks for putting words in my mouth. No, I was saying that the Chinese policy is wrong because it forces women to make a choice that they don’t necessarily want to make. They should have the right to chose without government interference.
“Pro-abortion and pro-contraception is more like it.”
Let me ask you. Are you married? You have sex, right? So, did you conceive every time you had sex? Why not?
“And I think your posts make it clear how much of a pro-abortion extremist you are, and how willing you are to twist facts in support of that ghastly position.”
One problem with that assertion: I’m a dad.
Oh, but I guess I must be twisting that fact, too.
Look, there’s no point in being offensive or overly aggressive. I’m simply looking at the issue in a more pragmatic manner, whereas you seem to be attached to a theological argument. There’s no way either of us will sway the other since we are arguing about two different things.
Any group condoning forced abortion should not only lose their funding but be taken out and have their asses kicked.
Any group that believes that abstinance is the only answer should be shipped to Mars. Even in areas where sex will kill 50% of the time and people know it, people still get together. It’s unrealistic to put it euphemistically.
Why not a hybrid. We promote abstinance but have a program in place for those, not a small number, who are in need of other assistance.
And for all you men out there who are vehemently pro-life, your arguments are extremely self-serving. If every time you had sex you concieved, you would still only understand fractionally the psychological dilemmas women have to go through. You would still have the option to abandon the situation which many men do. You still wouldn’t understand at all the physical commitment. Yes, I know, “It’s my baby too.” What exactly was your sacrifice beyond what you were more than willing to contribute? When you have a fetus implanted, take it to term and then give birth we can talk. Until then it should be, one dick, no vote. Just be as supportive as you can and, of course, let the woman do all the hard work.
Birth controll, all types, are fallible or have crazy scary side-effects. Believe me, I have three sisters, six nieces, and a wife. No brothers, no nephews. Once again, abstinance is good but does not nearly cover all. My situation now is that we want a child but have already lost one at three months into term. They basically had to abort it because it’s heart stopped. The scraping was perhaps a catalyst for the growth that later appeared. After months of laser and chemo she was better. Then they detected an ovarian cyst, I believe a direct result of the birth control we were using. Like I said, we want a child but I don’t think my wife is healthy enough and she couldn’t take another failure. Korean condoms are horrible. We are trying abstinance, just until she gets better. She is very irritable. Me too.
As far as gays having no cultures or religions that sanction them getting together, you cite that as a reason to keep them from getting married? You are saying that because society and religious institutions as a whole, outside of a short period in good old Greece, have treated gays like crap that we should continue to marginalize them? Tell that to gays. “Excuse me. Sorry, but we have always treated you like sub-humans. The only reason I can think of to continue is, you know, tradition.” A wonderful layering, don’t you think?
Whoaah, guys, it’s a five-day weekend, and we need this thread to last us a while. How about something fun?
I know, let’s mock stupid email addresses of salarymen. In front of me, I have two real life biz cards:
bluetit@companyx.co.kr
gaydog@companyz.co.kr
Can anyone beat that? (Sorry, that’s all I got. I’m really not all that fun).
Also, Postsecret has a good selection this week. Check them out.
http://postsecret.blogspot.com/
I don’t think they were married even in Greece. The movement now is all about gaining the privileges of marriage and sticking it up the butt of Republicans. That’s really all they are interested. I dare to offer Life Partner rights and ban marriage and see how that pans out.
US Hispanics on low income don’t seem to behave the same way as US whites on high income.
US whites on high income commonly abort for non-medical reasons. Me and my boyfriend are still in school, I just started my job, my boyfriend or husband isn’t ready for a kid yet, we need more money before our first child comes, the place we’re renting is too small for 3, etc, etc.
That’s the true evil I see in abortion. Adults who choose to do it because it’s convenient.
US Hispanics seem to go ahead with the birth under the same or similar circumstances. They have like 3 to 5 kids, from observation.
Anyway, then this leads to your scare about US Hispanics and European Muslims outnumbering you in respective continents.
Well, stop douching. Especially for non-medical reasons for either the Mom nor the Child, non life or death situations.
Any abortion that has a medical reason, I support and grant that right to whoever is carrying that baby.
God will judge that woman, not me.
On the topic of the China one-child policy, I apologize for misunderstanding you. But please understand how I came to that misunderstanding. I argued in support of the US government’s policy of defunding the UN Population Fund based on its complicity in coercive and forcible abortions and sterilizations in China. You attacked that position. What was I supposed to think?
As for the rest of your post, you can clearly be pro-abortion without practicing it. And calling pro-life arguments “theological” is just a convenient dodge. The fact that abortion ends a distinct human life is science, not theology. Embryology textbooks are unanimous on the fact that a new human life begins at conception. The debates on when human life begins are entirely predicated on philosophy and theology, not science. The science is clear. So, if “looking at the issue in a more pragmatic manner” means finding it expedient to kill innocent human life in certain circumstances, then I guess being “attached to a theological argument” isn’t so bad.
And since you asked: a woman isn’t fertile 100% of the time, is she? That’s a pretty simple explanation why sex doesn’t always lead to conception.
Maddlew, you’re pretty much on the mark except where you denounce pro-life men for being self-serving. In point of fact, it’s the exact opposite. By giving the father absolutely no say in abortion decisions, the law completely and totally absolves men of their responsibility for sex. They can fuck with utter impunity: “hey, if she doesn’t want a kid, she can get an abortion. It’s her choice.“
“And since you asked: a woman isn’t fertile 100% of the time, is she? That’s a pretty simple explanation why sex doesn’t always lead to conception.”
Yes, and ironically, the calendar method is a form of contraception.
“As for the rest of your post, you can clearly be pro-abortion without practicing it. And calling pro-life arguments “theological” is just a convenient dodge.”
See, there you do it again. Pro-abortion, pro-life. Supporting a women’s right to abortion doesn’t make one ‘pro-abortion’–it’s not the choice for me, for example, nor is being anti-abortion necessarily pro-life. How many supposed ‘pro-lifers’ support the death penalty?
“And calling pro-life arguments “theological” is just a convenient dodge. The fact that abortion ends a distinct human life is science, not theology. Embryology textbooks are unanimous on the fact that a new human life begins at conception. The debates on when human life begins are entirely predicated on philosophy and theology, not science. The science is clear.”
Dude, you really screwed up there. I just happen to have a degree in biological science. The argument that life begins when an embryo is created is a theological one. Because some scientists hold to that theological argument, there is no consensus among biologists that an embryo is any more alive than an unfertilized egg or a sperm since none of them are capable of self-sustained life, nor do they possess fully developed nervous systems. So, yeah, embryology textbook most certainly are not unanimously saying that live begins at conception. Nice try with trying to get that ‘pro-life’ canard passed me, though.
I just love all these experts on ancient Greece, ummmnnn . . . all the Greek city states discriminated against homosexuals in varying degrees. For example, although they did not refer to an older man who takes one young male lover to be gay, however, they did censor men who took several male lovers at the same time and also those who attempted to seduce young schoolboys. Any man who did not not fufill his civic duty of raising a son was very frowned upon. Men who did not impart their civic knowledge by rufusing a younger lover was considered strange or even unmanly.
“And calling pro-life arguments “theological” is just a convenient dodge. The fact that abortion ends a distinct human life is science, not theology. Embryology textbooks are unanimous on the fact that a new human life begins at conception. The debates on when human life begins are entirely predicated on philosophy and theology, not science. The science is clear.”
Actually, know it is not. It is still debated. Most medical practitioners will refer to an abortion clinic based on the fact that they believe it is not a life until it is self suporting. Say 23 weeks. Also is the idea that until a being has a conception of continuing life it can not lose it. The muslim idea of ensoulment (don’t quote me) is after second trimester. Chrisitian’s of the every sperm is sacred credo believe in ensoulment at conception.
#79,
I don’t know…Any evidence that boning the apprentice was more common than not?
Yes, it’s her choice. But any woman who is willing to go through it more than once, and I know there are those that do, are in the midst of a horror movie where they are gored repeatedly. It is not simple, it is not painless and it is not without numerous complications. It is it’s own pro-life advertisement.
There is no black and white here. Banning abortion will not eliminate abortion or make fathers more responsible or more compassionate. Allowing abortion doesn’t crystillize the ordeal for men either. But it is just plain wrong for men to continue to controll women’s reproductive health. The majority of men neither empathize or even sympothize and they are, for the most part, the ones who are the most vehement.
I didn’t say a woman was fertile 100% of the time. I was trying to give a hypothetical situation that begins to allow men to understand the turmoil women have to go through. But, once again, it doesn’t encompass it at all. Men would still be able to divorce themselves from the situation.
As far as scientific life, sperm is alive even before it reaches the egg. Your definitions of life do not sway me. I will still go by what the woman says is her belief and her need. If men have the time between waxing their genitalia to imagine the woman’s situation, hopefully things will change.
Correction…
“Some scientists hold to the theological argument while others argue that an embryo is any more alive than an unfertilized egg or a sperm since none of them are capable of self-sustained life, nor do they possess fully developed nervous systems. Consequently, there is no consensus among biologists as to when human life begins.”
Okay Sumo, strike that. No society or religion in the history of man has ever treated gays as anything but subhuman.
There, the tradition of treating them like shit becomes more compelling.
oh, and mjw i know a gay couple that flew overseas to be married and have been in a mature relationship for a decade and would like not only the benefits of marriage but also the social aknowledgement of it being a legitamate relationship, symbols are very important to some people.
What apprentices? Greek culture was a slave culture and yes it happened quite often and buggery was common enough to be included in every day bucolic poetry. The real question would be the social rules in raping or buggering someone else’s property. Basically, if a slave trespassed onto your property then you could do whatever without apparent retribution.
Hmm… From a purely scientific point of view, human life starts at conception – however, that conclusion does not carry any ethical impact. After all, in a “purely scientific” point of view, human beings are just a group of mammals.
When discussing ambiguous stuff like human dignity or value of human life… you’re right. It’s purely philosophical and religious issue.
Since I haven’t heard about this before… what is UN Population Fund and how did it coerce abortion? The only case similar to that I’ve heard about is Norplant, where some racist pundits advocated enforced implantation of Norplant for inner-city families (they, of course, used uh.. more offensive words to describe their targets).
“And since you asked: a woman isn’t fertile 100% of the time, is she? That’s a pretty simple explanation why sex doesn’t always lead to conception.”
That really doesn’t answer why birth rate isn’t ridiculously high. Normal sex life without contraception statistically leads to about 5~8 childbirth within a woman’s lifespan – it has been scientifically determined that such frequency of pregnancy is extremely detrimental to the person’s health. Abortion is detrimental to health too, but not as much as pregnancy… and contraception is absolutely needed (married or not) unless we as a society think that it is acceptable for women to die in age range 40~55.
Dodge, dodge, dodge.
Does a human embryo possess a complete human genome? Yes. Is that genome distinct from that of the mother? Yes. Can a human embryo ever develop into anything other than a human infant? No. Ergo, what comes into existence at conception is a new human life, QED.
Arguing about whether that life is self-sustaining is just rationalizing the killing of the embryo or fetus. For that matter, show me a newborn who is capable of self-sustained life. By that logic, infanticide is morally permissible too. The pure science, prior to the addition of ideological cant, shows that the human embryo can only be a new human being. Nothing else.
I’m an atheist, but I think the Golden Rule works fine for the old abortion issue.
I wouldn’t have minded getting aborted as a mindless fetus.
So spaketh UT Videam. Now all you women quit Dodging his thrusting argument and get busy bearing children. He has narrowed your definition of yourselves to the correct order. If you don’t want children, Don’t Have Sex. It’s that simple.
Wow! Centuries of debate and suddenly it all comes clear.
Oh and men, continue doing what you always have.
“After all, in a “purely scientific” point of view, human beings are just a group of mammals.”
Yes, certainly. However, due to some ironic twists and turns of evolution we developed the ability to create thought and as a result we came up with the concepts of ethics, religion, and morality.
What a way to spend a Sunday.
# 74
You want FUN? Here I come to save the day! How about them CUBBIES?
#84,
So that’s what they meant when they say that Thomas Jefferson was inspired by Greek principles of democracy when he wrote the American Constitution.
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist).
Those arguing that opposition to abortion stems from a “theological argument” are dodging the issue, as Ut videam rightly suggests. Opposition to abortion can just as easily stem from scientific and medical arguments, as these words from The Hippocratic Oath, which doctors upheld until the free-wheeling 1970s, indicate:
I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give a woman a pessary to produce abortion.
But heck, if we’re ready to throw out our Judeo-Christian heritage why not throw out our Greco-Roman heritage as well and start over at Year Zero.
#63 – You said:
“Nobody is pro-abortion. They are talking about protecting the rights to a medical procedure, that’s all.”
What disingenousness! If you’re in favor of the “medical procedure” known as abortion, then you’re pro-abortion.
Personally, I’m opposed to the death penalty and preemptive war. However, I’ve never seen anyone in the opposing camp argue that he is against capital punishment or preemptive war, but supports the State’s right to resort to them when necessary.
We interrupt this thoughtful debate on abortion to bring you sad news about a much-loved entertainment figure:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/09/23/marceau.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
@#50 Ut Videam:
I read that linked story. Nice puff piece about a kindly nun. Not a shred of evidence that the abstinence program, not sex education, is responsible for lowering the HIV infection rate.
FYI, I’m not opposed to teaching abstinence. I am opposed to teaching abstinence only, and so is a majority of Americans. I am also opposed to public schools teaching young people to wait until marriage, a value not kept by most Americans.
Fine, Sonagi, how about this?
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/or_abc03.pdf
Even the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, acknowledges the importance of abstinence education in the Ugandan success story.
It’s scary how you Libs think. Hypothetically a Lib thinks, My daughter will probably put out in highschool, and surely in college. I must give her a box of condoms and get her a HPV vaccine while she’s in junior high.
I’ll tell her living in with her boyfriend is okay. In college or after she graduated. When they’re ready, they’ll get married.
Then, they’ll probably get divorced, and I must prepare for the probability of her and her 3rd husband by the time she’s 50.
Sure, my grand children may have up to 4 different fathers, but it’s all cool.
You know, in most cultures, it is and was a virtue to marry off virgin daughters. And marriage used to be sacred. Or don’t say Till Death Do us Apart.
Say, At Least 10 years.
tsk, tsk.
I think something is out of control. It’s really sad.
When all is said and done, the Right is Right.
“A gay man explained this to me. He’s a fellow student.
Gay men cheat on each other, just like men cheat on women.”
oh really? Good Lord!
When all is said and done, wjk doesn’t know his butt from page 7.
“No society or religion in the history of man has ever treated gays as anything but subhuman.”
How long is your “history of man”?
So what’s the right thing to do? Lock her up in a chastity belt until she’s married? Go tribal and suture the vagina? Pretty sure that either would constitute child abuse in this ‘liberal’ day and age. So you raise your kid and hope they don’t do silly things like sleep around… but in the end, when your kid comes home with some incurable crotch-rot, aren’t you going to wish you had shelled out for the box of condoms and some frank advice?
And I can’t see how anyone could possibly have any objection to vaccinating against HPV (unless they’re a Christian Scientist or something…) It’s a vaccine that can prevent some forms of cervical cancer, for heaven’s sake.
I think abortion, in the USA, should not be allowed except in certain circumstances, mainly; if the father is not willing to come forth or be found, or if the woman is less than her high school graduation age, or if she was raped – or somehow became pregnant without her consent.
Otherwise, I hope it’s a good idea to have a child.
I’ve been researching an old multilple murder case from 1993 in West Memphis, Arkansas – The Robin Hood Hill Murders – and I’ve found that many of the young teenagers in that area are high school drop outs/pregnant/on a prescription drug. It’s normal – parents are divorced/re-married, someone has been in jail, bad records all round..and some girl is pregnant.
i have nothing against the HPV vaccine. However, you can’t get HPV, if you are a woman, provided that you never slept around, and your husband never slept around.
That’s why people object to getting it.
But, I think all women should get the vaccine, because husbands sleep around or have slept around as bachelors, and there’s that possibility of rape.
It’s basically a disease from sleeping around.
I have nothing against condoms, either. But, it’s not a perfect barrier, so don’t make it out as if it is.
I have something against skipping the chastity lecture.
Why is today’s day and age so accepting of loss virginity before high school graduation, acceptance of marriages not lasting death till do us apart, and accepting of children with multiple different fathers?
It’s not as if non biological fathers are very good to their non biological children. It’s not as if std’s are going around. It’s not as if marriages aren lasting as long as they used to. And, it’s not as if single moms aren’t on the rise.
The problem is YOU. YOU, Liberal, YOU.
YOU advocated this kind of society.
You’re the problem.
Meanwhile, I accept society as it is now.
Everyone should get a lecture, then the condom, and then the drugs if needed, whether they are contraceptive pills or antibiotics or antivirals for the stds.
Zonath, Catholic Christian girls schools have objected to the mandatory HPV vaccination, because Merck was assuming these Catholic school girls wouldn’t be keeping their chastities.
A good assumption in today’s world, thanks to YOU, the Liberal, but an offensive assumption, YES.
I think the Catholic school should have accepted the HPV vaccine for all. Not because I assume the girls will sleep around. But, because I’m more certain the boys will, and give it to the girls.
“I’m not interested in predictions for the next week. I’ll need dollars within the next 6-12 months, and I’m pondering when to buy them.”
Are you buying with Korean won?
You know, WJK… for a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth conservative shill, you sure are funny, what with throwing the word ‘liberal’ around like it was candy on Halloween night… I suppose while we’re talking about offensive assumptions, we may as well look at the assumption that somehow, ‘liberal’ ideals have somehow contributed to the problem of STDs and teenage pregnancy. So I’m sure that if we looked at the teenage pregnancy statistics, we’d be sure to find that Red States have much lower teenage pregnancy rates than Blue States, huh? I’ll let you look over the tables and interpret for yourself:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf
nice try, Lib.
The Blue States are sweeping across #1,2,3,4,5,6,7, in Abortion rates.
And with populations in the Blue states grossly outnumbering the Red states, you pat yourself on the back for comparable pregnancy rates?
Ha !
Your contention is that liberal ideology = children who sleep around… the teenage pregnancy rate is a direct refutation of that utterly idiotic premise. Of course, I don’t expect you to listen to reason… You’re a complete and utter retard.
I apologize… My previous post was made in the heat of the moment. I was wrong to lump WJK in with retards, and I owe an apology to retards everywhere for that.
Zonath, I’m accusing you with the inability to interpret graphs and tables.
You have dysgraphia.
Uh huh…. I freely admit that Blue States are most of the top ten in abortion rates…. So what? Again, your contention was that children raised in liberal households would be more likely to sleep around, which a high teenage pregnancy rate in Red States directly refutes. Stop trying to divert attention away from the fact that you’re completely wrong on this one.
did you check out Table 3.2?
Gross numbers show a tremendous lead for the Blue states in all categories.
Did you really check out Table 3.1?
Numbers are similar. Only means humans are humans. There’s no tremendous gap.
In particular in Table 3.1, did you care to compare Nevada vs Utah, or New York vs Utah?
Read it right, dude.
Uh huh…. so if ‘numbers are similar’, there goes your contention that liberal agenda = teens sleeping around. Thanks for playing… try harder next time.
table 3.1 is just a play with the numbers to purposely make things look similar.
to balance things out.
Don’t you get it?
Huh? You mean averaging out teen pregnancy rates on a per-capita basis is statistically unsound? So the Netherlands must be more virtuous than the United States, because they don’t have as many teens getting pregnant? Who can’t read charts and figures now?
you can double check up on me if you want, but it seems like there is definately a confounder in those corrected ratios.
At the risk of being called more bad things, I’ll point it out for you.
Those Red States with similar ratios as Blue States, what kind of states are those?
Hmm?
High % of low income minorities?
Those Red States with numbers falling off the map relative to the Blue states, what kind of states are those?
95% middle income white people states?
how do low income ethnic minorities vote?
Someday they’ll realize the scam, but they unquestioningly vote for the Democrats.
Uh huh…. ‘low-income minorities’ are all liberals now? I suppose that would explain why so many hispanic families are Catholic and deeply conservative. Try again.
Yep…. we liberals sure do like our teenage pregnancies. I guess that explains why Vermont and New Hampshire have so darn many.
Yes, Zonath. You are now finally en route to true enlightenment, walking past your stage of Liberalism.
Check out who represents who in the US House of Representatives, if you have any doubts at all.
It’s a paradox, but that’s how they vote, and that how they regard certain issues with enough importance to betray their bases on other issues.
Hey, it’s always a choice between the lesser of 2 evils.
I don’t own a gun, but I’ll go with the Republicans.
So basically, you’re saying that, when faced with a choice between the evil of the Democratic party, and the evil of the Republican party, ‘low-income minorities’ (i.e. otherwise deeply-conservative Hispanics and Southern Blacks) vote Democrat? Huh. What was that about the ‘lesser of two evils’?
Thank you for the link, Ut. The careful presentation and analysis of data shows that all three – abstinence, monogamy, and condom use – helped bring down HIV infection rates. Not abstinence-only, the failed federal program that states are rejecting, but a choice-and-consequence-oriented approach that deals pragmatically with the reality that some young people will have sex anyway. I noted in the Ugandan study that abstinence did NOT increase among those already sexually active, but monogamy and condom use did increase.
#96,
No they are not. I clearly refuted his/her contention that all scientists agree that life begins at conception.
“I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked,”
Well, chemotherapy is ‘deadly medicine’.
“nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give a woman a pessary to produce abortion.”
Do you even know what a pessary is?
#97,
Labeling your side of the argument pro-life and the other pro-abortion isn’t disingenuous? Come on. Be honest. You darn well know you prefer that label because it clouds the issue, which is the right of women to have control over their bodies. It’s a convenient way for a certain political party to suck people into voting for their candidates. Let me put it this way. If it isn’t political maneuvering and manipulation, why is it that it’s practically a non-issue in other countries?
There certainly isn’t a consensus among scientists and particularly doctors concerning when life begins.
If there were, why aren’t you more outraged when they pull the plug on those people in a vegetative state in hospitals? Are you accusing the technician when he is only following the families wishes in an attempt to come to terms with their grief? His or her genomes are distinct from their mothers. Why aren’t you screaming murder over that? I can tell you that before they are taken off life support I have already mourned their passing.
Most doctors and a huge percentage of scientists believe the beginning of life has more to do with awareness and perception than distinct genomes. I don’t know, perhaps at the moment of conception something magical happens and, without a brain or central nervous system, the fetus becomes self-aware.
In whatever code you are speaking does “Dodge, dodge, dodge” mean how dare you disagree with me when I have the Christian Science Monitor on my side. I’m sorry if I don’t fall in lock-step with your views, my eyes glazed and rolled back in my head like ban roll-on dispensers.
You talk about women who have multiple abortions. I can’t even imagine the savagery of her existence where she sees this as a viable option. You talk about women who have children simply for the welfare checks they will bring and I think of a woman in an impoverished and hopeless situation. Perhaps the legislation you suggest will constrict some of these symptoms but it will do nothing to halt the cause. I would suggest that we try, at least try to find a solution to the real problem. What if we attempted to change their world into one less savage, less deprived and more hope filled.
Men contribute so little yet demand so much. Sometimes I wonder why women have anything to do with us.
#127 -
You refuted nothing. All you did was acknowledge that some scientists with their own philosophical baggage impose arbitrary conditions (e.g. nervous system formation, self-sustaining life, etc.) on the determination of when life begins, despite the scientific fact that a new, indisputably human, indisputably distinct organism comes into being at conception. The lack of consensus is not scientific, but philosophical. (Not theological, though you insist upon repeatedly using that term.)
And labeling your side of the argument pro-choice and the other anti-abortion or anti-choice isn’t disingenuous? Come on. Be honest. You know darn well you prefer that label (pro-choice) because it clouds the issue, which is the imaginary right to kill innocent human life in utero.
You’re right about it being used as a political ploy, though—for both parties. Neither party wants to see the status quo change; it’s too good an issue for rallying the troops.
This argument based on the fact that not all scientists agree that life starts at conception is interesting. I wonder how many would take the position that since (supposedly) most scientist think global warming is caused by human actions take that as fact, but will grasp at what a minority of scientists say about conception to hold on to their political beliefs. Pure hypocrisy.
One person’s rights end where another’s begins. A fetus is alive, thus the mothers right to kill it crosses that boundary. One would have to suspend the prevailing opinion that live does in fact begin at conception to justify this.
The matter of rape and incest does of course raise additional moral and ethical issues. But the vast majority of abortions are for convenience, not for these reasons. An abortion for the sake of convenience is murder, plain and simple. Talks of the rights of the woman is such cases are utter bullshit.
Signing off for the evening. . .
Ok, one more; what is the test for life on another planet? A single cell. Scientists would all consider that life. And for a human? Try to justify less.
What puzzles me is why so many of the people who get sanctimonious about life in the womb can be so cavalier about blowing it up once it reaches a certain level of maturity and subscribes to a different political system.
i think the Libs are trying to say it isn’t a HUMAN life.
Did I help you out, Libs?
It’s really funny, though.
If you leave that thing to progress to its course, it becomes a human thingy !
It’s got arms, a head, … you know what, it can ONLY become a human !
Oh my God ! No Way !
Lib: Maybe, maybe, if you put it inside artificial conditions and pulled a Dr. Hwang, it will become a cow, or even better a monkey !
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_number_of_chromosomes_of_various_organisms
I think Lib is just washing himself/herself of guilt when he/she recites over and over that this thingy is a fishy, now it’s a reptiley, etc, BUT not a human YET !
McGenghis, good point.
I think you’re trying to say the Republicans are trying to save babies but kill Muslims.
I strongly disagree.
This war against terrorism is to protect innocent people from people trying to make a political statement by killing civilians. Just today, the damn Taliban kidnapped some Italians. This war is to prevent that. It’s not a killing spree to get oil. Although that’s exactly how you guys see it. It’s really sad and twisted, the way you guys see things.
bumfromkorea, women who never give birth and use estrogen based contraceptives croak over early in their lives from women’s cancers.
As only wjk could put it, wjk will put it down for you. There is a common point between being against medically unnecessary abortions and being a proponent for the war against terror.
Saving innocent lives.
tomojiro told us in the thread about kofun that the japanese had no problem accepting the hand korea played in the shaping of ancient japanese culture. i mean no disrespect but i find that hard to believe. people should go and check out the section at wiki on kofun,japan.
apparently, japan gave korea kofun. apparently, yamato ruled the three kingdoms of korea (that by order of the chinese emperor). in other words, it wasn’t korea influencing japan, it was japan influencing korea. AND any cultural gifts from korea were simply tribute to the japanese emperor from his vassal kings in shilla, baekche, and koguryeo. or so says their nihon shoki.
the article is a good example of how the japanese and their western friends distort the real history of japan.
tomojiro, are you sure your people don’t have a problem?
i’ll leave you with a small example:
According to the Book of Song, of the Liu Song Dynasty, the Chinese emperor appointed his king of Yamato to also be ruler of Silla, Baekje, and the Gaya confederacy.[13] According to the Book of Sui, Silla and Baekje needed the power of Yamato Japan.[14] According to the Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms), Baekje and Silla sent their princes as hostages to the Yamato court to ensure military support; King Asin of Baekje sent his son Jeonji in 397[15] and King Silseong of Silla sent his son Misaheun in 402.[16]
yeah, right!
Re: AIDS and abstinence vs. condoms
“By 1987, there were 112 cases of HIV/AIDS infection in Thailand and 135 cases in the Philippines.
….
“August 2003 there were 899,000 HIV/AIDS cases documented in Thailand and approximately 125,000 deaths attributed to the disease.
….
“These numbers contrast sharply with those of the Philippines where, as of September 30, 2003, there were 1,946 AIDS cases resulting in 260 deaths.”
[Source: http://www.hli.org/condom_facts_thailand_philippines_aids_rates.html
Guess which country focused on condoms and which focused on abstinence. [Hint: One of the countries is Catholic.]
Lest we attribute such success solely to Catholicism, let us remember that 90% Muslim Senegal is alone in sub-Saharan Africa with an AIDS rate below 1%.
@ wjk
“bumfromkorea, women who never give birth and use estrogen based contraceptives croak over early in their lives from women’s cancers.”
Uhh… can I get some figures from you? ‘Cause… I’m at ASU, where birth control pills are popped like Altoids.
That, and one of my favorite class I’m taking at the moment is molecular genetics (and we just had a test over cancer). Incidentally, if you get cancer, 70% of the time it is spontaneous (thank your transposable elements in your DNA sequence for that), 15% is viral, 5% is hereditary (your DNA repair system and tumor-suppressors are screwed up from the get go), and only 10% are induced by outside factor… but then again, 5% of that is due to radiation.
Got cancer? Chances are, it’s not chemical.
Currently, scientists “observe a link” between birth control pills and breast/cervical cancer. But since cervical cancer is almost always caused by a virus, you really can’t make the claim “if you use oral contraceptive, you’ll get cervical cancer.” Even in the breast cancer area, the best thing you can do is “there might be a link”, which in science means… nothing.
And on your point about embryos… First things first. Pre-fetal embryos are NOT human lives.
Where is the bright-line on the “potential” to develop into human beings = human life standard? Only thing an embryo needs to become human is carefully controlled and complex incubation system with continuous external nutrient source for 9 months as well as significant physiological readjustment of a human body, right? Why not say since ovum has a potential to become a human being, it is a human life then? All it needs is a conveniently timed arrival of sperms, right? (I refrained from using sperms as an example because… well, you know how that one’s gonna end up). My God, every time a woman menstruates, she is committing MURDER!
Who’s arguing over ACTUAL war on terror? To say that Iraq is under that already ambiguous umbrella of definition actually undermines the war on terror. Hasn’t it been made clear that no one (at least in U.S.) is arguing against the conflicts in Afghanistan, but rather that really messy one near River Euphrates?
bumfromkorea, go back to your prof and ask about estrogen exposure and breast and ovarian cancer. Surely he knows that estrogen is a mitogen. How can you say that estrogen has nothing do with cancer? How do you think Tamoxifen works?
why do chemotherapy, then?
We should get rid of all those medical oncologists, right?
bumfromkorea, what else is the union of human sperm and human egg supposed to become in nature? A Cat? A Dog? A fish?
You ever heard about a mole? Are we committing murder when we remove a mole?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydatidiform_mole
Nope. Not at all. Is that a human life?
Nope.
Well, it’s technically a union of sperm and egg gone wrong. It’s not life to me.
I really have no problem with what Libs call it at what point.
Libs are doing this to justify non-medical, elective, convenience abortions.
I seriously doubt anyone can justify barring medically necessary abortions.
To me, if there’s nothing wrong with it, it’s wrong to destroy it.
the war in Iraq is a war against terror.
Don’t you ever forget that many big shot terrorists were killed in Iraq.
You ever ask the question why those big name terrorists happenned to be in Iraq?
Some were there while Hussain was in power.
Others came just to fuck around with the Americans.
Before and after Hussain, it IS an ACTUAL war against terror.
Amendment:
I bow down to bumfromkorea,
Ovarian cancer. Pills protect. Nulliparity is a risk.
Breast cancer. Pills protect. Hormone Replacement Therapy is a risk. Nulliparity is a risk.
#129,
I refuted nothing? Let me refresh your memory…
“The fact that abortion ends a distinct human life is science, not theology. Embryology textbooks are unanimous on the fact that a new human life begins at conception. The debates on when human life begins are entirely predicated on philosophy and theology, not science. The science is clear.”
“All you did was acknowledge that some scientists with their own philosophical baggage impose arbitrary conditions (e.g. nervous system formation, self-sustaining life, etc.) on the determination of when life begins, despite the scientific fact that a new, indisputably human, indisputably distinct organism comes into being at conception.”
Right, “indisputably distinct”. At conception, the embryo is nothing more than a couple of cells. Your body sheds thousands of dead skin cells everyday. You kills hundreds more every time you scratch yourself. Is that murder? After all, each cell is ‘indisputably distinct’.
Oh, and I really find it funny that you throw “scientific fact” around while it’s clear that there isn’t a consensus on the subject. I guess scientists who dispute your opinion or wrong. What do they know? After all, they are just a bunch of nerds who look down on religious people, right?
#130,
Forget ethics and the debate about whether a fetus has a soul or not (you simply cannot prove that it does)…Even if a fetus was a person, it would have no legal claim to use a woman’s body; however, the woman has the right to demand control of her body.
Can an adult claim the right to be hooked up to someone’s body? No.
…Obviously, arguing whether a fetus is a person or not is a rather simplistic was of looking at abortion.
#136,
Please.
“Did the HIV/AIDS epidemic pass the Philippines by, as many in government would like to believe? Is this another astonishing miracle in this highly religious country? What does the Philippines know that other countries don’t, seeing that it has seemingly avoided the HIV/AIDS epidemic?…
Chapter by chapter Wilkinson systematically lays bare the bitter truth behind the incredibly low HIV/AIDS figures being dispense by the Philippine government. The 75-years-young author, who has been a crusader for social issues in the Philippines for many years, writes that, “in the investigations, the more questions that were posed, the thicker the blanket of silence came down”. But through meticulous research he manages to show that while the government proudly proclaims that the HIV/AIDS epidemic has passed the Philippines by, the scope of the problem is, in fact, much larger than anyone knows. In fact, Wilkinson points out, the Philippines couldn’t possibly have such a low HIV/AIDS rate as all the ingredients of an epidemic clearly exist in the country. Instead, he insists, the Philippines is sitting on a social time bomb fueled by utter complacency and denial on the part of the government. And if something isn’t done to tackle the problem soon, he says, an entire generation of Filipinos may be unnecessarily decimated.”
http://www.remedios.com.ph/fhtml/mk2q2003_psoh.htm
“why do chemotherapy, then?”
Lost me there. I think you’re confusing the illness with the treatment. To put it simply, chemotherapy are poisonous substances that kill the cells. I think he was talking about cancer itself. Cancer is a mutated cell. The DNA is faulty. Now, of course cancer it’s chemical since DNA is a chemical. Heck, life is a series of chemical reactions.
“Even if a fetus was a person, it would have no legal claim to use a woman’s body; however, the woman has the right to demand control of her body.
Can an adult claim the right to be hooked up to someone’s body? No.”
Well, I think the fact that (cases of criminal interference by 3rd parties apart) the woman herself contributed to the fetus’s necessity to “use” her body to secure its own development should be taken into consideration. There has been (or at least should have been) a conscious decision on her part to risk conception – the fetus, on the other hand, has never make a decision to hook up with its mother. It is thus a bit hard on it to state that it “uses” its mother’s body as it was the mother herself who was among those who brought about the fetus’s helpless situation and is therefore estopped from blaming it for the ensuing calamities…
BTW, I have no strong views about the subject, I merely want to throw some food for thought into the discussion…
I mean, after all, first to create an entity and then complain its existence is too much of a bother does not sound very logical to me. Okay, maybe I am the person to say that since
I. I am a man, not a woman.
II. I am not a very sexualised person and have never gone to bed with anyone, except after careful deliberation and extensive discussion. The (invariably Asian) girl-friends I used to have (and, in particular, my wife) share these character traits – if they hadn’t I would not have wanted them full stop). I could afford being choosy since I did not mind being single (and sexless) for a year or two in between relationships.
I know I will be bashed for the comparison but I find the case comparable to the absurd situation that in our neighbourhood here in Germany the people who refuse to neuter their own cats complain that there are too many wild cats around who bring certain avary species onto the verge of distinction. Who could blame the wild cats that they do what’s necessary to ensure their own survival, namely to hunt for food wherever they find it…
Soory:
I meant “verge of extinction”, of course.
And I meant “sorry”, instead of “soory”.
“Well, I think the fact that (cases of criminal interference by 3rd parties apart) the woman herself contributed to the fetus’s necessity to “use” her body to secure its own development should be taken into consideration. There has been (or at least should have been) a conscious decision on her part to risk conception – the fetus, on the other hand, has never make a decision to hook up with its mother.”
Not really. Conception is not guaranteed. Besides, the fact that she is assuming a risk is not in itself a legal obligation. It may be a moral obligation, but certainly not a legal one.
Correction: causally responsible. In any case, the law is clear, they are not legally responsible.
In other words:
Morally responsible, maybe…but morality is very subjective.
Causally responsible, maybe…but there are certainly ‘loopholes’, such as failed birth control and rape.
Legally responsible, no.
@#136 Western Confucian:
Please try your link again. It didn’t work.
Someguy,
I mentioned the rape conundrum before (in #146) – I called it a case of a criminal interference by a 3rd party. So please do not lecture me upon the utter blamelessness of the woman in these circumstances. Even in other circumstances there can be, in my view, no question of attributing fault to the woman.
You, however, seem to be claiming that the fetus is, without proper justification, hooking up with the woman’s body and thus putting it to its own use. This concept is, indeed, ridiculous, as the embryo has been brought into existence by the woman and her partner – it has not created itself out of its own desire and has not decided to take advantage of its mother for the first nine months of its existence.
Nevertheless, the embryo has RIGHTS, even against those who are not legally at fault. I do not take it upon myself to define the extent of these rights and do not say that abortion should be unlawful in all circumstances. But the notion that the embryo is somehow misusing the woman’s body, as you seem to be saying, is simply ridiculous…
Your words (#142):
“Even if a fetus was a person, it would have no legal claim to use a woman’s body; however, the woman has the right to demand control of her body.
Can an adult claim the right to be hooked up to someone’s body? No.”
Sonagi, here it is:
http://www.hli.org/condom_facts_thailand_philippines_aids_rates.html
Thanks for the link, Western Confucian. The article’s thought process seems to be as follows:
1. Thailand and the Philippines both started with a comparable number of HIV cases.
2. Thailand’s infection rate is much higher than the Philippines.
3. Thailand’s government promotes condom usage; the Philippines doesn’t.
4. The Catholic Church in the Philippines promotes abstinence.
Therefore…
Abstinence must be working!
The problem is that there is no statistical data in the story you linked comparing sexual behaviors in the two countries, unlike Ut’s story, which offered direct statistical comparisons of three methods – abstinence, monogamy, and protection.
This SF Gate story suggests that the difference may lie in monogamy versus promiscuity:
“The surveys have shown that Filipinos typically have fewer sexual partners than do people in Asian countries with higher AIDS rates. Government statistics show that only 15 percent of heterosexual Filipino men frequent brothels, compared with 80 to 90 percent of their Thai counterparts. “
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/05/21/MN159604.DTL&type=health
All mitogenic compounds mean is that the chemical will start cell cycle in a very high concentration level (hence the name, “mito”genic), which is very different from cancer (unrestrained cell cycle + telomeric invulnerability + defective tumor-suppressor gene). If mitogenic compounds were carcinogenic/mutagenic… lol, well, you said it. Estrogen is a mitogen – why are women alive after puberty?
Um… chemotherapy is intentionally poisoning your body with nasty chemicals (cytotoxic) to cause overall cell damage throughout your body. Since cancer cells are a lot more vulnerable to such onslaught (cancer cells don’t exactly have anything else in mind but to replicate, replicate, replicate), it dies (hopefully) quicker than your normal cells. I think you got a bit confused there… Chemotherapy isn’t some gigantic Ames reversion test, if that’s what you’re thinking… only if cancer was that easy to treat…
Considering how 31% of human pregnancy with all the wonders of medical technology we have today ends up with a dead fetus (and God knows how many unattached embryos), I would have to say, not necessarily a human being. Once again, you’re confusing “potential to become human” with “human”. The thing doesn’t even have a functioning heart/brain yet, for crying out loud… (and yes, I had no moral qualms about pulling the plugs on Terry Schiavo)
Yeah, all the big shot terrorists were killed in Iraq… MUCH AFTER the troops went in. Hopefully, you’ll remember that one of the most criticized aspects of the war in Iraq is its completely inept preparation that led to turning Iraq into one gigantic recruitment center for terrorist groups. And please, stop telling me that the Extremist Islamic terrorists cooperated with atheistic, anti-Islam, “I-hate-religion-and-I-gassed-Iranians (shiites)” Saddam Hussein. It’s getting really ridiculous.
My opinion coincides mostly (not 100%) with John McCain. We f*cked up. We’re there now. We pull out, we’re screwing the Iraqis over. Actually, my opinion resonates more with this Economist op-ed: http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9804115
\”life\” \”human life\” \”is going to be human\” \”has human potential\” — these are vacuous phrases that have little neccesary meaning or weight in ethics.
we can call an abortion anything you wish. and be as frank about it as possible. we can call abortionists fetus murderers or embryonic killas; the above ethical fact doesn\’t change. from my view, the abortion is still just an abortion, for me a rather curiously dry fact bereft of any neccesary ethical import.
i feel no need to impute significance or value to fetuses or embryos or zygotes and therefore suffer from no moral umbrage when they cease to exist or when a mother chooses to discontinue their existence. and i don\’t see why anyone should feel such a need, except if they want to, if they so choose to.
from an ethical point of view, the issue of abortion is a matter of personal affect because it deals with undefinable fringe entities like zygote, embryo, fetus, which occupy social, biological, i would even say ontological classes different from babies, children, adults, or animals. we can\’t say that human zygotes are human beings (and confer them the same rights) because in fact they\’re not the same or because in fact it hasn\’t been determined whether \”zygotes are humans too\” is not just a vacuous or even irrational sentiment. reality however gives us grounds to treat them (zygote vs rational human being) as different, because they are different. any meaning in addition to this that we might lay over is either personal or merely religious and therefore totally arbitrary and insufficient as grounds for legislation that would appeal to natural law for its justification. i do think however that appeal to conventional considerations like majority rule (\”we\’s don\’t want abortion in our town, ya hear!\”) or pragmatic consideration (\”we need more babies in this town — ban abortion!\”) make sense for the establishment of laws.
with that said, it\’s not a scientific fact that fetuses or embryos are life. last time i checked, embryos and fetuses (for the most part of gestation anyway) cannot survive outside of the womb. they are uniquely dependent on the mother — unlike, say, babies that could survive off a wolf\’s tit if it had to. nevermind how complex defining \”life\” _scientifically_ is. surely it\’s not as simple as \”it\’s got a cell! it\’s life\” as at least one of you above believe.
“life” “human life” “is going to be human” “has human potential” — these are vacuous phrases that have little neccesary meaning or weight in ethics.
we can call an abortion anything you wish. and be as frank about it as possible. we can call abortionists fetus murderers or embryonic killas; the above ethical fact doesn’t change. from my view, the abortion is still just an abortion, for me a rather curiously dry fact bereft of any neccesary ethical import.
i feel no need to impute significance or value to fetuses or embryos or zygotes and therefore suffer from no moral umbrage when they cease to exist or when a mother chooses to discontinue their existence. and i don’t see why anyone should feel such a need, except if they want to, if they choose to.
from an ethical point of view, the issue of abortion is a matter of personal affect because it deals with undefinable fringe entities like zygote, embryo, fetus, which occupy social, biological, i would even say ontological classes different from babies, children, adults, or animals. we can’t say that human zygotes are human beings (and confer them the same rights) because in fact they’re not the same or because in fact it hasn’t been determined whether “zygotes are humans too” is not just a vacuous or even irrational sentiment. reality however gives us grounds to treat them (zygote vs rational human being) as different, because they are different. any meaning in addition to this that we might lay over is either personal or merely religious and therefore totally arbitrary and insufficient as grounds for legislation that would appeal to natural law for its justification. i do think however that appeal to conventional considerations like majority rule (“we’s don’t want abortion in our town, ya hear!”) or pragmatic consideration (“we need more babies in this town — ban abortion!”) make sense for the establishment of laws.
with that said, it’s not a scientific fact that fetuses or embryos are classifiable as life. last time i checked, embryos and fetuses (for the most part of gestation anyway) cannot survive outside of the womb. they are uniquely dependent on the mother — unlike, say, babies that could survive off a wolf’s tit if it had to. nevermind how complex defining “life” itself scientifically is. surely it’s not as simple as “it’s got a cell! it’s life” as at least one of you above believe.
Finally, to round this thread off, I want to express my respect for WJK’s candour. He is man enough to stand by his views which, as he certainly knows, are prone to laying him open to vilification from all sides, both in the US and, indeed, nowadays also in the ROK.
As I have made clear on numerous occasions, I am in no way religous – in fact, I am an atheist, and so is my lovely wife. Nevertheless, in our hearts we are deeply conservative – and we appreciate those who are willing to stand by their ideals, even at the risk of being vilified by Westerners and Asians alike.
So, I take my hat off to WJK and salute his courage.
Keep up the good work, WJK !
richardson wrote in #130:
“I wonder how many would take the position that since (supposedly) most scientist think global warming is caused by human actions take that as fact, but will grasp at what a minority of scientists say about conception to hold on to their political beliefs. Pure hypocrisy.”
Surely you don’t question that human actions DID lead to global warming, do you, Richardson?
In a follow-up to #159, yes, Richardson, I also don’t like it when some people will grasp at what a minority of scientists say about a phenomenon (and now I am talking about human contributions to global warming) to hold on to their political beliefs. Pure hypocrisy indeed.
Correction to 160: I meant how many Republicans grasp at what a SMALL MINORITY of scienitsts say about how humans did NOT contribute to global warming to hold on their political beliefs.
McGhenis, WELL SAID in #132!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He wrote:
“What puzzles me is why so many of the people who get sanctimonious about life in the womb can be so cavalier about blowing it up once it reaches a certain level of maturity and subscribes to a different political system.”
RE: #158, “Finally, to round this thread off, I want to express my respect for WJK’s candour. He is man enough to stand by his views which, as he certainly knows, are prone to laying him open to vilification from all sides, both in the US and, indeed, nowadays also in the ROK…So, I take my hat off to WJK and salute his courage. Keep up the good work, WJK”
that is beautiful. it’s awe-inspiring, in fact…
so much so that I’m man enough to say, with nothing but complete candour, that 2+2=5.
i know that such math goes against all that we humans have ever learned in elementary mathematics, but listen to my proof: I’ve proven that 2+2=5 by dropping two sticks from the roof of a 647-foot building in hopes that each of the two sticks will break only into two pieces each, thereby giving me what most of mathematics would say are four sticks (2+2=4).
however, against my wishes, one of the sticks, being weak and feeble, broke more severely and unevenly than my math skills had theretofore taught me and, thus, i found five stick pieces instead of four, which lead me to conclude the only thing i could possibly conclude:
regardless of how much vilification i might have to endure, and regardless of all the match we’ve ever learned: two sticks + two sticks = five sticks (the aforementioned 2+2=5).
in my view, these sticks violated all known laws of mathematics, which means the sticks are liberal–not conservative, as previously had been thought. or, perhaps breaking all known laws of mathematics makes them (and me) conservative, not liberal. i’m not sure because, according to wjk, i’m only allowed to be one (conservative) or the other (liberal). there is no room for me to have free will enough to be “conservative” on economic issues, yet “liberal” on social issues. i must toe the party line and never stray away from it with my own educated opinion, regardless of how well(wrongly?)-educated that opinion is.
anyway, it doesn’t matter what the the truth is, it doesn’t matter that my new math proposals are ludicrous or imbecilic or, even, intelligent; all that matters is that i’ve said something, have uttered it with candour, and stuck by my hypothesis with the utmost manliness–tempting fate and vilification by all who live in america and not a few who live in korea.
please congratulate me, send me props, and salute me for my courage to speak the “truth” in the face of all other popular opinion and contradictory evidence.
oh, and please refrain from referring to me as human, british, korean, american, smart, open-minded, myopic, idiotic, ingenious, bashful, confident, tall, skinny, muscular, attentive, thoughtful, kind, mean, disingenuous, obese, or laid back; all that matters to me is that i’m classified one of two ways–liberal or conservative.
and if i’m not labelled as either liberal or conservative, then there is no reason for me to choose to live, think, ruminate, urinate, fornicate, abort, or be. there is no reason for me to exist if i’m not one or the other!!
wjk has cast all humans into two groups, with no room for free will, bless his intelligent little scrotum. so if i’m neither conservative or liberal, then there is no real meaning for my (or anyone else’s) existence.
after all, as has been said or implied in less intelligent, though more influential, circles than this one, there is no gray area: you’re either on “our” side or you’re on “their” side.
finally, i know that my following proposal will be vilified by all who read this, but i’m man enough to take it and courageous enough to write it: i nominate lord blackadder for leader of the world and lord flashheart for his second-in-command. if this makes me a liberal (or a conservative), then so be it. i can’t change what it is you label me to be. how you label people is your immediate problem, not mine…
dissidentdave: LOL!!!!!!!
RE: #163: “which lead me to conclude the only thing i could possibly conclude:”
lead should be leads
“and regardless of all the match we’ve ever learned: two sticks + two sticks = five sticks (the aforementioned 2+2=5).”
match should be math.
in writing such insignificant dross at 5am on a tuesday morning, i realise that i lay myself open for vilification, but i’m man enough and candid enough to admit my wrongs in spelling and/or typing and/or verb-tense usage. i deserve props for not being afraid to point out and correct my wrongs, don’t i?
@155 Western Confucian:
Thanks for the link. The conclusion that abstinence only is most effective at curbing HIV infection seems to be based on the following:
1. Both Thailand and the Philippines began with similar numbers of AIDs cases.
2. Thailand’s HIV infection rate has grown to the extent that it is now in the top five in Asia. The Philippines has one of the lowest infection rates in Asia.
3. Thailand’s public sex education promotes using condoms. The Philippines’ does not.
4. The Catholic Church promotes abstinence.
Hence, promoting abstinence is more effective than promoting monogamy or condom usage in preventing HIV infections.
Here’s what’s wrong with the conclusion:
1. Unlike Ut’s article on Uganda, the story you linked to provided no data comparing sexual behaviors of Filipinos and Thais. Yes, the Philippines has a much lower HIV rate, but just because the Catholic Church favors abstinence does not mean that the lower rate is a result of that. A SF Gate story on the Philippines’ low HIV rate provides a statistic that strongly suggests that the difference between Thailand and the Philippines is one of promiscuity versus monogamy:
And the Philippines also has a low number of intravenous drug users:
The story did acknowledge that Filipinos begin having sex later than people in other Asian countries and that condoms aren’t popular with Filipino men:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/05/21/MN159604.DTL&type=health
As you can see, Western Confucian, there are a number of factors that could explain the difference in HIV infection rates between Thailand and the Philippines. One point made very clear in the Uganda article was that abstinence worked with people who hadn’t had sex yet but was unsuccessful with people already sexually active. Show me where an abstinence only program can put the genie back in the bottle and get large numbers of sexually active people to become chaste voluntarily, and I’ll change my mind about abstinence only.
testing 1…2…3 testing
Please help, Robert. I just posted twice and both times the comment didn’t appear. Did they get stuck in the spam trap?
bum, why does tamoxifen treat breast cancer but induce endometrial cancer?
bum, I think whoever taught you was writing a narcissistic thesis to put everything as A or B, when reality doesn’t fit that model. I guess ASU thinks he’s cutting edge.
I think some people here are gonna get Tased by the Marmot. I kid, I kid.
“bum, why does tamoxifen treat breast cancer but induce endometrial cancer?”
You’re assuming that “cancer” is a single disease. It’s not. The only thing different cancers have in common is precisely that: cancer cells. It’s a very common public misconception… almost like how people think AIDS is a single disease. How the cancer cells react to different chemicals is completely different in where the cancer originates from. Remember that cancer cells are just normal cells gone bad; since cancer cells use same cell template as the regional cell, each type of cancer is a different breed.
Hence, a “magic-bullet” cure for one type of cancer can easily turn out to be the carcinogen for another type of cancer. However, I think you’re a bit overplaying the tamoxifen = endometrial cancer & Uterine sarcoma. The current statistics on that ranges between 0.2% ~ 0.02%.
“bum, I think whoever taught you was writing a narcissistic thesis to put everything as A or B, when reality doesn’t fit that model. I guess ASU thinks he’s cutting edge.”
Actually, he is a 52 year old Jewish guy who looks and talks like Alan Greenspan (he definitely wasn’t eating healthy when he was young). And what makes you say that I’m committing either/or fallacy here?
bum, I assume no such thing.
I think you are assuming that.
You’re the one who’s saying all cancer fits Model ASU.
Overplaying?
It’s in pathology texts and package inserts, and fda warnings.
…umm, Okay. Lots of confusions here.
1. The course I’m taking (and getting the info from) is General Genetics (BIO 340) and Molecular Genetics (BIO 543). What’s interesting about the way this professor teaches the course is that instead of textbooks, he uses peer-reviewed research papers (past and very present) as basis for class. What I’m telling you about cancer isn’t some crackpot hypothesis cooked up by some random professor in ASU – it’s what the scientific community knows about so far.
2. Pathology textbooks, package inserts, and FDA warnings are ALL BASED ON genetics research, which is the information I’m conveying here.
3. I see that you’re implying there’s disagreements among the scientists on the information I offered. Though there are disagreements in the current field of genetics, what I wrote up there has the general consensus (in the same way that “theory” of evolution has a general consensus) of the scientific community. Now if you’re talking about telomeric overhang structure (G-quartet or T-loop?) or mechanism for raf activation (God only knows), you can call bs on me by saying that’s just my professor’s opinion… but not the stuff up there.
maybe this is your words and not his, then.
you do know that smoking is blamed as a prime risk factor for a whole truck load of cancers, right?
then he’s just taking the genetics side of the dogma of molecular biology.
right?
let me tell you. Gene therapy pales in comparison to drug therapy right now. Maybe it will be different in the future.
I hope it does.
do me a favor, bumfromkorea,
Maybe he published a review article.
Give me a link.
I’d like to read what he has to say.
thanks for your paraphrase.
Thank you in advance for your link.
What I’ve told you is that chances of your cancer (assuming you have cancer) being chemically-induced is 5%. You see, with cancer, nothing is definite because 70% of the time, it’s your transposable elements simultaneously screwing up your DNA repair genes, your oncogenes, and your tumor-suppressor genes. Blame evolution for that.
Does cigarettes have @h!tload of carcinogens (cancer-inducing chemical)? Absolutely. And you’re not helping yourself by smoking (with all that tar and ash fragments). You’re adding yourself to that extra 5% of possibility. But that doesn’t justify a statement like ‘If you smoke, you’ll get cancer’ because that implies that smoking –> cancer near 100% of times, which is blatantly false.
So once again, the moral of the lesson is, if you got cancer, chances are (95%), it’s not chemical. And if we’re talking about something as specific as birth control pills, chances are, it’s really not chemical.
bum, can you change your genes?
Intellectual masturbation aside, what good is your genetics side of the story?
The real work and the difference is being done by people who use drugs to treat and stopping exposure to chemicals.
You can change your genes in the future, maybe.
Hey, gene therapy gone wrong can turn on those oncogenes and turn off those tumor suppresor genes, too.
you don’t offer a link.
Maybe he wrote nothing worthy to read.
you’re painting a blatantly false picture yourself.
So, what if some smoker reads your line, and says, my chances of getting lung cancer is 5%, because if my genes are bad, I’ll get it anyway. And if they’re good, I won’t get it.
No way.
THAT is a blatantly false picture !
The majority of lung cancers that are killing off people are tied with smoking.
You can look that up.
“87% of lung carcinomas occur in active smokers or those who stopped recently.”
“compared with nonsmokers, average smokers of cigarettes have a 10-fold greater risk of developing lung caner, and heavy smokers…have a 60-fold greater risk.”
“women have a higher susceptibility to tobacco carcinogens than men do.”
pg.758, Robbins and Cotran, Pathologic Basis of Disease, 7th edition.
That’s what people need to be aware of, not oh, I’ve got a 5% chance of getting cancer from smoking.
That’s harmful and bogus.
Why do you think women are more susceptible?
Can you say estrogen?
I will.
One of the black box warnings on the contraceptives is, don’t use if you smoke.
You’re asking for cancer when you do.
Unfortunately for you and me, he is a hardcore dros. geneticists. All his stuff is about embryogenesis of dros. … (I think? The stuff is hopelessly complicated) But here are some of the “classic research papers” we used so far:
Chemical Induction of Cancer JOHN L. WOOD
Science 17 April 1953 117: 435-436
Chemicals and Cancer Philip H. Abelson
Science 7 November 1969 166: 693
Some Chemical Aspects of the Cancer Problem CARL VOEGTLIN Science 15 July 1938 88: 41-48
Perhaps I could help you guys untangle yourselves by suggesting that, in principle, bumfromkorea’s professor is trying to show his class that cancer, in general, is very often just a random genetic event that cannot be clearly linked to lifestyle choices. And that this is the case much more often than most people think it is.
And wjk wants to remind the class, that, in principle, there are still a lot of lifestyle choices that people can make which will reduce their risk of getting many types of cancers. And that these factors are too important to ignore, despite the truth behind the professor’s contentions.
Will that do?
Can I change my genes? Why of course I can. I do it all the time, thanks to all the genes on my sequence that are literally “jumping” all the time.
Lol… and yes, I’m sure gene therapy can intentionally initiate dominant gain of function on oncogenes and recessive loss of function on tumor-suppressors. But considering how we know the mechanisms involving oncogenes & tumor-suppressors (Signal Transduction Pathway/p53 self-regulatory system), I don’t think gene therapy, employed only in areas where we absolutely know the sequences (since vectors we use are kinda imprecise to begin with anyway), can “accidentally” do all that… if it was that easy to initiate cancer, we’d all be dead.
Uhh… Molecular genetics is the basis that everyone is working off of in the fight against cancer variants. This is like saying that since astrophysics has more impact in society than general physics, one does not need to pay attention to general physics.
Here’s a really good example. Cancer researchers had a gigantic triumph recently by finding a “magic-bullet” for ALL types of cancer – by inhibiting the telomerase that gives cancer cell its “immortal” property. Of course, this discovery is based on the molecular genetics research that 1. found that cells “age” by damaging their telomere ends and 2. cancer cells become “immortal” by overproducing telomerase (which repairs telomeres). However, their triumph was short-lived as they observed that cancer cells were restoring their telomeres even though their telomerase was below optimal level (which would have normally induced relative quick cell death). So now, one of the main areas of research molecular geneticists are focusing on is to find the secondary mechanism of telomere repairs.
Unlike other aspects of society in general, scientific communities cooperate with each other like that.
*rolls eyes* Yeah, I’m really going around telling smokers “Hey, it’s okay to smoke. You’re only increasing your risk of cancer by 5%.”. What you are listing there are statistics – no mechanisms, no explanations. In other words, they are correlation, not causation.
Nice try linking smoking and birth control, though. Even though they are completely different diseases (as I’ve explained above) with different triggers for their respective carcinogenesis, somehow endometrial cancer, breast cancer, and lung cancer all have complimenting carcinogens. Yeah, that makes perfect scientific sense… in a false analogy kind of way…
Oh and ever thought that it’s because of cardiovascular disease risk? http://no-smoking.org/july01/07-25-01-4.html
…I guess not…
Sorry Linkd. I was posting/writing and didn’t see your post ^^;;
I can consent to what you’ve said. However, I still object to wjk linking smoking –> lung cancer to birth control –> endometrial cancer on the basis that they have different mechanisms and triggers for carcinogenesis.
bumfromkorea, i was gonna mention your girls will stroke out with their estrogen altoids sometime down the road.
Don’t have to look too far for that.
You make a grand talk about mechanisms, but you listed none. Which ones do you care to discuss?
Why does MAPK include the word Mitogen?
Don’t all genes act thru, gasp !, products of those genes ?
Don’t you think biochemistry has done more for health science than genetics, in terms of producing usable drugs in everyday life to treat diseases from A-Z?
Why does the govt and drug company put out disclaimers, don’t use the contraceptives if you smoke, if you had a relative with breast cancer, etc?
they obviously want to protect people and themselves from the possibility of cancer. What else?
sure, things are complicated. That’s life science. It doesn’t mean your artificial %’s prove that there is no need to worry about it, and discount it altogether.
that’s what I THINK you are saying.
You able to explain why the Pill protects from cancer when women are young, but Hormone Replacement Therapy causes cancer?
I have an idea.
Let’s hear yours.
Why does your prof choose articles written in the 1969 or older? He stopped reading?
No worries, go to town. It’s a long weekend.
Notice, though, the wjk has duelled with someguy, Zonath and you for the past 3 days, and it dukeing it out with other “Libs” over on the Syria/Nork thread, and he’s still spitting fire.
By which I mean, you’re not going to degrade his telomeres this weekend, no matter how hard you chew.
’nuff said.
@ Linkd
Yes! ^^ You made me feel better about myself by making a genetics joke. Now I don’t have to feel like a complete nerd…
@ wjk
Sigh.. fine, let us continue the dance (… of the chromosome? See, Linkd? I don’t feel nerdy at all!)
Since you want me to write down a mechanism (I’ll do signal transduction pathway, since it was literally 25% of the test I just took)…
Growth Hormone (varies on types of cells) binds to the receptor ends of the double Protein Tyrosene Kinase (PTK) structure and PTK goes through dimerization. This dimer internally phosphorolates itself, which attracts the Sark Homology 2 of the Grb2 segment of the SOS exchange system, and recruits the whole complex near the cell membrane next to the inactivated ras gene complex. SOS exchange system exchanges GDP for GTP in the ras complex, which activates ras. Ras then becomes the docking port for raf complex, which forms a dimer with its KSR homology when activated (mechanisms unknown). Raf then phosphorolates Mitogen Activated Protein Kinase Kinase, which phosphorolates Mitogen Activated Protein Kinase, which phosphorolates Transcription factor, which activates the CELL CYCLE.
Before I continue… catch all that? Good. And notice that Signal Transduction Pathway is a pathway to initiation of cell cycle. That’s why MAPK & MAPKK has the word mitogen in it. In a normal cell, they are mitogenic (starts mitosis).
Ras is the most commonly known oncogen. When it is mutated… it gains a function that is dominant as an allele – Ras can now circumvent the activation process (Growth Hormone –> PTK –> SH2/SH3 –> SOS –> Ras) and keep the cell in a constant cycle of cell division. AKA, uncontrolled growth aspect of a cancer cell.
Your analogy with biochemistry and genetics is quite… simplistic. Look at the example I wrote above on the recent dynamic relationship between cancer researchers (most of them are biochemists) and geneticists.
Once again, the label clearly states that Smoking + Birth Control = Heart disease. Not cancer, heart disease.
And please don’t put words into my mouth. Don’t be like those nice folks at occidentalism.
Rephrase this please, I did not understood the question. “You able to explain why the Pill protects from cancer when women are young, but Hormone Replacement Therapy causes cancer?”
Or maybe, the discovery of chemical cancer ratio happened that early. Yeah. If I wanted to learn about transformation, the first paper I would go to would be Griffith’s in 1928. Doesn’t mean I stopped reading in 1928.
Sometimes I get munchies late at night and I eat kimchi. But then the following morning I get the shits.. and it’s spicy.
Will this lifestyle choice give me butt cancer?
Forgot to address the strokes deal. Fine. I’ll yield the increased risk of strokes. How does that justify banning of birth control pills, when the alternative is women having kids on average 5~8 times in their life? I hope you understand the extent of the damage pregnancy/labor does to a woman’s body. Labor doesn’t hurt just for kicks and giggles. Or we could try abstinence. Yeah, abstinence between married couples. That’ll work out well…
@ abcdefg
I believe within the Korean American community, we call that affliction BTS.
What is BTS?
Burning 똥구멍 Sensation.
“BTS” is no joke after an evening of 불닭.
Speaking of acronyms, has anyone here ridden the SLUT?
Hmm. The link worked fine in the preview. Let’s try it again.
SLUT
“you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.”
It’s all downhill from there for what the Iranian President Mahoud Ahmadinejad, who naively thought that going to Columbia University would be quite the PR opportunity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tACSopIZVdk
Here’s the Iranian president ‘answering’ a question about his view on the holocaust. He’s trying so hard to get a few quotes in for Iranian TV that his answer doesn’t make much sense at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_ksdmT5Ip8
“Nevertheless, the embryo has RIGHTS, even against those who are not legally at fault. ”
Are you so sure? In what countries are fetuses considered citizens? I know of only one circumstance where you could argue that a fetus is a person:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasciturus_pro_iam_nato_habetur%2C_quotiens_de_commodis_eius_agitur
…correction, in circumstance where it would be given some of the rights of a person.
“bum, can you change your genes?”
Actually, yes.
Ever heard of gene therapy? It gives a person a missing gene.
What about enzyme replacement therapy? It also replaces missing genes (enzymes are proteins, which, in case you don’t know, are what genes produce).
Oh, but that’s not naturally occurring, you say…Fine. What about the fact that some cells have the natural ability to repair their DNA if it mutates?
SomeGuy,
I am very well that you are a very reasonable commenter, I happen to recall that we hold quite similar opinions when it comes to Korea-related issues, and I do by no means want to enter into a flame war with you.
But I cannot avoid saying that, while you may well be very well versed indeed in other areas, your knowledge of legal issues is clearly limited.
I am referring here e.g. to your statement that there is no official bilingualism in YOUR HOME COUNTRY OF CANADA outside of the province of Nouveau-Brunswick. This is clearly not the case and I want to provide you with only one example of official bilingualism in Ontario – there are, of course, more of these, as even populous cities such as the present National Capital of Ottawa and the historical National Capital of Kingston are considering a switch to official bilingualism (a move, which I, were I Canadian, would oppose, unless, in return, Montréal and Gatineau on the Québec side of the Rivière des Outaouais go bilingual, as well):
http://www.languagefairness.org/Ottawa_Sun_March_23_2006_Casselman_struggles_to_settle_bilingualism_issue.php
http://www.afmo.on.ca/
http://afo.franco.ca/index.cfm?Voir=sections_liste&Id=4212&M=1733&Sequence_No=4212&Niveau=2&Repertoire_No=2137987376
With regard to the abortion issue I would like to remind you that I did not say anywhere at all that a fetus (“nasciturus” in legal parlance) is a “citizen” but that it nevertheless has certain rights, most notably the right not to be harmed or killed WITHOUT A COMPELLING REASON.
SomeGuy,
I know you read German (or so you said in another thread) – therefore I feel entitled to provide you with a German reference for my statement above:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasciturus
Regards
Fantasy
Here another article (in English) on the language situation in Canada, which can only be described as “severely tilted in favour of the Francophones”, particularly in comparison to the situation in Belgium.
http://www.languagefairness.org/Ontario_Bilingual__Quebec_French.php
I want to make clear once more that I appreciate (and welcome) the fact that parts of Canada are francophone and equally welcome the designation of Nouveau-Brunswick as a bilingual province. I am, however, of the opinion that, outside of NB, Canadian bilingualism cannot be limited to anglophone areas only, as seems to be intended by the francophone side.
In my view, there could be
a) a francophone Québec + an anglophone Ontario
or
b) a bilingual Québec + a biligual Ontario
or
c) a francophone Québec + an anglophone Ontario
with a bilingual region on both sides of the Rivière des Outaouais, including the cities of Ottawa, Gatineau, Kingston, Montréal.
But all these options do, of course, not appeal to the francophone leaders – they want, with the support of the Federal Government, unilingualism in francophone Québec and bilingualism in the rest of the country. And this is simply and plainly unfair!
speeling error:
b) a bilingual Québec + a bilingual Ontario
Shit happens – encore une fois:
spelling error:
b) a bilingual Québec + a bilingual Ontario
If we’re talking legal rights here (which you seem to be doing), then you’re a bit off-base. After all, hasn’t the US Supreme Court repeatedly upheld just about every abortion in the past 30-odd years that has occurred before the fetus reached viability? Starting with Roe v. Wade, the legal right of the mother to do with her body what she pleases has trumped the right of the fetus not to be harmed almost every time — a ‘compelling reason’ pretty much seems to be, “I want this thing out of me.” Sure, the ‘right’ of the fetus not to be harmed in some cases extends to protect against actions of third persons (in other words, someone who punches a pregnant woman in the belly in order to cause an miscarriage might be guilty of a greater crime than simple assault), but that right pretty much ends (in a strictly legal sense) as soon as the woman gives informed consent to someone with a medical license. Of course, I’m strictly talking about US law here… I don’t know what legal rights other countries have extended to fetuses.
Abcdefg, gastric cancer.
Bumfromkorea, Never asked you to recite a textbook pathway. What were you trying to explain with that one? That you took a test on a general pathway? I thought you wanted to show the world how COMPELETELY different lung cancer and breast cancer are in pathways. Look it up, then. Were you going to mention that somehow one cancer doesn’t involve p53 changes at all? LOL.
Never said ban contraceptives. What I said or meant was that these are drugs, and like any other drugs, it comes with some undesirable effects. Some of those effects you wouldn’t have, if you didn’t use them. Hey, what the hell, some people will die because of it. Granted I mistakenly mixed up black box warning with contraindications. So, I learn and reinforce my knowledge. However, those wonderful pills do cause certain tumors. That is the truth.
Grand multiparity is bad? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3369480&dopt=AbstractPlus
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=10486482&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus
Your knowledge seems to be outdated, on that one. Sign of your prof having stopped updating his knowledge?
As long as the birth is spaced apart, no one has shown any much of an adverse effect. Are you influenced by someone who thinks people should have fewer progeny?
What was that about transposons? If you had cystic fibrosis, can you change your genes and become normal? Are you gonna tell a patient with sickle cell disease that you don’t need treatment, you just need to wait until you mutate into a normal genotype? LOL. Functionally, no, you CANNOT change your genes, in regards to disease treatment.
I’m not gonna name names. Gene therapy? Do you know anyone who has been treated recently of ANY disease lately with gene therapy? Unlikely, because you can count with your fingers the number of people in the WORLD who have been treated, and it’s too early to tell if they’ve been truly successfully treated. It’s an EXPERIMENTAL treatment.
That’s replacing enzymes. Not genes. In conclusion, right now, you’re not walking into a hospital and changing your genes to be cured of a disease.
I think you’re still fundamentally wrong on some things. For one,
1. You’re a liberal.
Liberals, you think as long as a baby is still inside the womb, it’s not human. From union of sperm and egg, human sperm and human egg, to exit through the female body, until that exit has occurred, you say it’s not human. What utter bull shit.
It’s human. I wouldn’t call a hydatidiform mole a human, although it is a union of a human sperm and egg gone wrong.
You say there is a mini-evolution occurring as the union of a HUMAN sperm and HUMAN egg develops. What utter bull shit. Can you ever document anyone stopping that development and inducing it to turn into a horse, a cow, rice, maize, a monkey, etc?
Have a nice one.
*Bangs head against wall repeatedly*
Oh for crying out loud, wjk. I’ve already told you that the only thing cancer variants have in common is CANCER CELLS.
Me: Only thing cancer variants have in common is cancer cells.
Wjk: Were you going to mention that somehow one cancer doesn’t involve p53 changes [AKA CANCER CELLS] at all? LOL
Me: … Now I know how my old high school biology teacher felt.
And I’ve already explained to you that since cancer cells have the same template as the cells they originate from, their reactions to different chemicals vary based on the region of the carcinogenesis. Are you seriously questioning whether an alveolar cell would react differently from an endometrial epithelial cell?
Duh. They are drugs. They obviously will have “some undesirable effects”, but my whole point throughout this gigantic back-and-forth is that those “some undesirable effects” are NOTHING compared to the damage done to women’s health after a typical sex life/pregnancy without contraceptives. Hence, benefits definitely outweigh the harms.
Wjk. Those two studies you cite are talking about perinatal morbidity/mortality (as in, “do newborns die after birth?”), not the mother’s health. In another words, the studies are looking at whether babies are dying from labor-related complications after birth, not the lifespan of the mother. Please read them more carefully next time – these research papers can be easily misinterpreted.
You asked me whether we could change our genes. Your transposable elements are constantly jumping around and changing your gene, wjk.
Now if you asked me if we could CONSCIOUSLY change our gene… well, yes in a very elementary way. Gene therapy, as mentioned above, uses vectors to literally insert sequences into your genetic sequences. But unfortunately, the technology is still at its infant stage.
And you ignore the contention of how molecular genetics plays a role in the scientific community’s fight against cancer (and diseases in general). I’ll use analogy to explain it better, then.
It’s like shooting a tiny target with your gun. Except the shooting range is completely dark and you have zero sense of direction. The gun is biochemistry, and the flashlight is molecular genetics. It doesn’t matter how good of a shot you are, if you can’t see the target, you can’t hit the target.
I believe abortion is wrong after embryonic stage of human developmental biology. So please stop putting words into my mouth (or in this case, comments). In other words, stay away from using either/or fallacy. Calling me a “liberal” (whatever the hell that means) isn’t going to help you win arguments, it’s not going to convince anyone, and it doesn’t further the discussion at all.
Now it’s time to go to bed for me. Ironically enough, I have molecular genetics class early tomorrow morning. ^^
bum, you’re no cancer expert.
bum, women’s mortality is NOT increased for grand multiparity.
go to bed.
Bang your head more against the wall for all I care.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/aog/2000/00000079/00000008/art00012
#204:
“If we’re talking legal rights here (which you seem to be doing), then you’re a bit off-base. After all, hasn’t the US Supreme Court repeatedly upheld just about every abortion in the past 30-odd years that has occurred before the fetus reached viability?”
“Sure, the ‘right’ of the fetus not to be harmed in some cases extends to protect against actions of third persons (in other words, someone who punches a pregnant woman in the belly in order to cause an miscarriage might be guilty of a greater crime than simple assault), but that right pretty much ends (in a strictly legal sense) as soon as the woman gives informed consent to someone with a medical license.”
“Of course, I’m strictly talking about US law here… I don’t know what legal rights other countries have extended to fetuses.”
Zonath,
as you state yourself you are talking about the US law here, and very reasonably so, as the majority of the contributors here are, indeed, US citizens.
However, SomeGuy, who is Canadian, asked me in #197 “Are you so sure? In what countries are fetuses considered citizens? I know of only one circumstance where you could argue that a fetus is a person…”
So, since I am German and SomeGuy reads German, I gave him an answer with regard to the position in German law.
“Starting with Roe v. Wade, the legal right of the mother to do with her body what she pleases has trumped the right of the fetus not to be harmed almost every time — a ‘compelling reason’ pretty much seems to be, “I want this thing out of me.””
Well, okay, I was not aware that the US law is that liberal, however German law, after acknowledging the fetus’s right to life, states that the mother’s inconvenience of pregnancy and childbirth must be weghed against this and prevails in the early stages of the pregnancy.
“Sure, the ‘right’ of the fetus not to be harmed in some cases extends to protect against actions of third persons (in other words, someone who punches a pregnant woman in the belly in order to cause an miscarriage might be guilty of a greater crime than simple assault),….”
Okay, so the fetus’s rights not to be harmed by 3rd parties (and its capacity to sue these 3rd parties in case this right is infringed, e.g. for injuries sustained in a traffic accident) exists even in US law. And I would be surprised if the US law did not give priority to a fetus’s right to life in the final stages of the pregnancy over and above the right of the mother to rid herself of the undoubted inconvenience in connection with the pregnancy.
In the end, whatever legal order you take, they all seem to come to the same conclusion, even if very different legal reasoning is appled in the different jurisdiction (i.e. countries, states or provinces):
Abortion is not really a good thing and should, if at all necessary, in any event be limited to cases of serious distress to the mother (physical or psychological) – and even then it should only be permitted to occur before the fetus reaches the age of viability – in whatever way this (somewhat controversial) point of time is defined.
I find it ironic that some people in this thread are using legality to justify abortion. “The Supreme Court says the fetus has no rights, so there!” Historically, the Supreme Court of the United States has denied legal rights to persons morally entitled to them on several occasions. Many of those errors were later corrected, thankfully. I invite you to consider Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson, for instance. It is my fervent hope that Roe v. Wade, and the injustice it legalizes, will likewise be overturned.
I also find it ironic that Someguyinkorea cited the legal principle “Nasciturus pro iam nato habetur, quotiens de commodis eius agitur.” According to the Wikipedia article he cited, this axiom is translated as “The unborn is deemed to have been born to the extent that its own benefits are concerned.” The preborn child’s “own benefits” … like, say, for instance, her life? This principle is in fact a great argument for legal protection of preborn children. It’s a shame the courts don’t apply it consistently.
Again, I apologise for the various spelling errors in my comment above which I should have noticed but did not notice before actually posting. The word “apologise” however does not contain a mistake – it represents the established Commonwealth spelling.
Ut Videam is, naturally, much more familiar than me with the legal situation in the US – so I thank him for shedding some light on the controversial status of the fetus over there…
Ahh.. pardon me then. I have only been keeping one eye on this thread since WJK folded on his ‘libz r. eevul’ argument, and so was confused by the flag next to your name.
#210 – Yes. Historically the Supreme Court has denied rights to several classes of people. I just don’t think this is one of those cases — fetuses not being, y’know, “people”.
@ wjk
“bum, you’re no cancer expert.”
…
Yeah, you’re right. That’s why I’m not citing my own peer-reviewed research papers as sources of information. But I do think I have the ability to learn from a molecular geneticist (and, technically, a cell biologist/biochemist (different professor)) and convey the information to others as arguments.
“bum, women’s mortality is NOT increased for grand multiparity.”
The research paper you cite is talking about post-labor labor complications:
“In this study, 59% of all maternal deaths occur within the first 42 days of delivery, two thirds of them having direct and indirect obstetric causes”
“Among these women, 1 237 were dead within one year after delivery.”
When they say ‘maternal mortality’, they mean from a complication. I’m talking about the adverse health effects that pregnancy have on women, and how deadly it can be when it accumulates due to multiparity.
Once again, research papers are easily misinterpreted due to the fact that most scientists are horrible writers (or, their grad students are ^^).
#213 -
A lot of atrocities against a lot of people have been justified in just this way over the years—by denying personhood to the victims.
I feel sorry for Christian moralists. They re kind of like astrologists or phrenologists. They re just not very up-to-date on things.
Anyway, this video was fikken hillarious. I recall someone here- perhaps bumfromkorea- talking about it.
Hillarious. At the same time kind of sad. I can sit back and enjoy the wacky innocence and laugh but – the health risks and the ignorance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TS6fqwIR18
ps: credits to misskoko at her blog for the link.
#216.
I may have been misinformed, but I’ve been told that, back when Korea was economically weaker, parents used to send their children out to chase those trucks as a way to stave off head lice.
Ah, wonderful memories of childhood…
I don’t know about the lice thing… It’s probably true, but that was before I was even born ^^. We chased it around because it was fun… for some unknown reason.
We’d always get yelled at by our parents and the guys spraying the stuff though… YEAH, that’s gonna stop us… ^^
A: What’d you do for Chuseok?
B: Spent a lot of time online at the Marmot’s Hole arguing abortion.
A: Wow, sounds like fun.
B: How about you?
A: Went to the Philippines. Swam and met some nice girls. Sounds like you got me beat though.
#215
Uh huh. Of course, ‘denying personhood’ sorta presupposes a basis upon which personhood should be granted in the first place. And of course, this gets into the sticky quagmire of morality and philosophy and all that — which I just won’t get into. A fetus might have a greater claim to personhood than a tree or a whale, but that doesn’t necessarily mean much.
I expected to see something here, or elsewhere in the expat online community, on Minam Suda, which aired on Monday night, I believe. “Chat with Whitey Tools”, is the title in English. Anyone see it? How was it?
Here’s my friend’s prediction of what the show will be like:
I bet every whitey will be bald, fat, or super nerdy. It will be like…”I told you whites suck.”
And, “So kimchee so hot right?”
“So you have the Korean girlfriend…ok. Next topic…Why foreign men so fat and inferior to the ajussi?”
I love a good train wreck.
You must log in to post a comment.