FlaSoxxJim

That complete nervous system threshold is one of the defining boundaries between first and second trimester. Prior to that, the nervous system is nut sufficiently formed to feel pain in the sense we know it. But, yes, by 12 weeks a lot of organ systems are in place. By ascribing cognizance (sp?) to the early fetus, are you implying mere responses of a living system to its surroundings? If so, I would agree. Microscopic protistan life can chemically sense and respond to environmental cues without any nerve system or any tissues or organs for that matter. Bacteria and Archaea, the simplest/oldest extant life, sense their environment and direct reproduction, growth, etc., in response to it. But if the suggestion is one of cognitive self-awareness and awareness of the environment, I don't think there is any peer-reviewed scientific data to back that up. You are correct, there are different levels of tragedy as far as when development is terminated – 6 weeks versus 6 year, etc.

"Guerreros... I mean, Warriers... Come out 'N Play-ee-aaa." A movie I've not seen in a long time. And what I never got is why didn't all the other gangs just concentrating on beating up the gang that dressed up as freaking mimes? I mean, who doesn't want to beat up mimes?

There's not much more to add. Bob, I think the big difference for me between the cases you cited and abortion is that there were thinking, feeling, self-aware victims in all cases you mentioned. Embryos, fetuses, eggs, sperm - are ALL alive. But the issue then becomes more focused/split, what is a human? what is a viable human? what is a person? etc. Heck, cancer is alive, and for that mater it's human too if your definition of human is living cells containing a human genome (cancer cells are just out of control). The potential for human life resides within the haploid germ cells (egg and sperm), but they are not a person. An incipient human life begins when fertilization yields a diploid cell condition, but that's not a person. My earlier note about the high number of natural terminations is meant to diffuse the argument that the most likely outcome of the fertilization event is a baby, because statistically it is not (happens less than half of the time). An incipiebt life is terminated in abortions, but it is not the equivalent of any of the things you listed Unless you are considering the existence of souls of the unborn, sins against a divine agent, etc. That cannot enter into the equation if there is to be aby kind of effective SECULAR answers, because those beliefs are not universally shared. (Also, there then is the question of when the sould is formed, and if the answer is at conception, then is it God's Will that 50+% of those soul-bearing embryos be terminated naturally? The ways of the God are not to be understood by us, right?) But back to the secular realm, even the argument of viability (20 weks? 28 weeks? etc.), is problematin in that the definition of viability is not set in stone. A newborn is not viable in the sense that they are self-sustaining, because obviously they are not. I think very sound scientific arguments can be made defending the ethics of early abortions. Any abortions performed before the invagination of a neural tube from te ectodermal germ tissue can not be said to cause teh embryo/early fetus any pain, because there is no sensory mechanism to register it. The time of the formation of pain-sensing nerve endings being formed is well documented, so should abortions before that point be allowed? Not if the argument is about souls and God, I know, but what about on a secular level? What about 'medical' abortions versus 'surgical' abortions? The former are typical in first trimester abortions and they are chemically induced - no crushing, cutting or suctioning of live fetuses. There is a real slippery slope issue with the banning of the "partial birth" procedures, but that argument will continue. There is no real direction here other than to suggest that if there is no difference in a person's mind about aborting a pregnancy and killing/enslaving etc., a realized, self-aware human, then that mindset has to come from a religious background. I don't think a sound secular argument can be made that the chemical termination of a non-self-aware, non-pain-feeling mass of cells with the potential to be a person is the moral equivalent of killing/enslaving/torturing thinking, feeling, sentient people. If such an argument can be made, I do respectfully wish to hear it.

You're "half my baby" jab is technically 100% true. (Tecnhically, life began about 4.2 billion years ago, and still doesn't have much respect, most notably from many of the "life begins at..." arguers). All the "life begins at..." arguments need to recall that sperm are all alive, and their haploid nature does not make them lees alive. Still the fact remains that eben in sexual unions ending in pregnancy, there were 3/4 BILLION lives lost to make it happen. More than half of all successful fertilization events end in spontaneous natural termination, early on, often before implantation ior just after, and withouth the mother ever being aware of it. The body knew that something was not quite right with the environment in the uterus and took the appropriate corrective measures. Women who consider abortion are vilified because they are actually considering the environment the child will live in beyond the uterus. And after hopefully much conscience-searching, she may decide that she is incapable of providing the environment that a child needs to survive. For all the "adoption is an option" arguers, you are correct. I included my hope that there be a lot of thought and conscience-searching that goes into a decision as to whether to terminate the pregnancy. Hopefully the option to carry the child to term and then to put the child up for adoption has been seriously considered. The point in all of this is that you cannot legislate morality. You can legislate that which is in gross violation to universal societal mores (murder, for instance), but morality is personal-subjective and that's why this issue is tricky. While I'm strongly pro-choice, it doesn't mean I like abortion. That's why the position is called pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Had I ever found myself in a position with a woman of having to decide to keep a pregnancy or not, I know the decision to have the baby, and either get married or put it up for adoption would have been strongly considered. But that hypothetical position, and all very real and difficult positions like it, are unique, involving different people with different family and community support networks. I can't tell them what is right for them. Neither can a government or anyone else. I strongly believe that painting the majority of abortions as being matters of convenience is an unbelievable oversimplification. I think it;s one of the hardest decisions you can make in your life. Had I married and had the baby in my hypothetical example, it would have changed everything in my life. My academic and professional career path, the person I eventually did meet, marry, and have kids with, etc. Again, not an aesy decision, because it's one that affects not only the 9 months throuh which the pregnancy is carried, but then your entire life (and that of many others) afterward. The morally superior "well you schouldn't have screwed up then" argument is frustrating because even if the people involved did screw up in getting pregnant, is it right to legally force them to continue to screw up their lives, their kids lives, etc., by forcing them to keep the pregncy? It's already been said, if you are against abortions, great, don't have one. If you are against gay marriaages don't have one. But your morality is your own, as mine is my own.

Beauty sig! But technically speaking, the bivalve on the left is a scallop, not a clam. And the one on the right looks like it might be a mussel and not a clam... ok, ok, clamming up now!

That's why it drives me crazy whhen sportswriters fall all over themselves trying to use some turn of phase the think is clever, and end up not communicating their points effectively. This is the paragraph from Greenstein's Tribune piece from Saturday "Still, there are reasons Las Vegas sports books have the White Sox at 10-1 to win the AL pennant, the same odds as the AL Central defending champion Minnesota Twins and half the potential payoff for betting on the Kansas City Royals." Did he mean to say: 'betting on the White Sox has half the potential payoff that a bet on KC would"? Or did he mean to say 'you'll get half the potential payoff from betting on KC compared to the White Sox'"? Or did he just get it wrong? I had initially read it just like everyone else (Sox and Twins favored), but then I looked at the Vegas lines Sunday online and each of several sites had KC as the favorites. Today, the line has odds still favoring KC, Twins, then Sox: Just confused because I never actually saw a line picking the Sox to win Central. Shows what the oddsmakers know, White Sox will win the Division. Book it. Not with my money though.

Mooch is right about the Disney/Muppet thing. And I think the last 2 Muppet feature Films were Disney distributed.

Saturday's newspapers had the Sox at 10-1 to win the Division. I guess that's considered "the pennant" these days, but to me the "pennant race" isn't over until you've won the LCS. Also, at least the report I read had the Twins also at 10-1 to take the division, and then said something like 'if the Roayals win it pays out half of .' Meaning KC is really the Division favorite at 5-1, or did I miss something? I'm not being negative actually, but I don't think any of us are very happy with the way the off-season went. The season just needs to get started and we'll see if OzzFest is this year's big ticket.

Wow. This is a few days old, but too good not to tag on here. So what's his deal with abiding by Ex Cathedra proclamations? Is it ok for him to accept anything pre-V2 ande reject anything after? Isn't that kind of rewriting the rules when you only accept Papal infallability when it fits with your personal ideology? Any way, all non-Catholics are hereby put on notice: Mad Max says you're going to Hell. (And still he has convinced 10k's of multi-denominational Christians to pre-purchase Passion tickets.... "We might be going to hell in a bucjet, but at least we'll enjoy the film, er, ride.") AP: Mel on hell: Even the missus may miss out on salvation Actor-director Mel Gibson talks about his new film, "The Passion of the Christ," during a nationwide satellite interview seen Sunday, Feb. 8, 2004, at North Ridge United Methodist Church in Millbrook, Ala. February 12, 2004 Mel Gibson has come under fire for being hard on Jews in his film The Passion of the Christ, but apparently, he feels that Protestants are also doomed to damnation. In fact, it looks as if Gibson, a conservative Catholic, believes that his Episcopalian wife could be going to hell. Gibson, interviewed by the Herald Sun in Australia, was asked if Protestants are denied eternal salvation. "There is no salvation for those outside the (Catholic) church," Gibson replied. "I believe it." He elaborated: "Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She's a much better person than I am. Honestly. She's, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it's just not fair if she doesn't make it; she's better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it."

You're saying there should be a big delimiter around any and all words of pseudo-integrity and mock-character that erupt forth from the man's mouth?

You know, I thought about you this weekend when I tried the new Sam Adams White Ale. It's the 3rd incarnation of the Belgian wit style by Sam Adams and it is really quite good. I think the spicing, color, phenolic character, and wheat haze are all more true-to-style than Blue Moon (it's not Hogarden or Celis, but it's not bad). The possible downside for you is the labeling claims the beer is unfiltered. It does not say it's bottle conditioned so the yeast may have been removed by centrifugation. But, recalling that you and teastie beasties don't see eye-to-eye, I would not drink more than one of them at first to see how it sits. Taste-wise though, I guarantee you'll like it. Cheers from your man in Beervana!

Crap, I forgot my favorite film he ever did - The Year of Living Dangerously. Linda Hunt was great in that too.

I liked most of Mel's stuff well into the 90s. Braveheart was over the top but pretty powerful. He was decent enough in the Patriot even if the film left me flat. I thought he was a VERY CONVINCING paranoid schizophrenic in Conspiracy Theory, then on the Prime Time interview last night I realized he IS a paranoid schizophrenic... Liked a lot of the earliest stuff, too. Galipoli, the Bounty, etc. I was in high school when I saw the first Mad Max movie, so what's not to like there? The first (and ONLY teh first) Lethal Weapon made the whole stupid Cop-Buddy flick work on its own level.

Certainly Bush is allowed to change his mind. In fact, I'd strongly urge hom to change his mind on a great many things. But, changing your mind involves owning up to past mistakes, or at least clarifying you have changed your stance o an issue. There is no humility here or in the (alleged) Alabama no-show. There is no contrite, 'Y'know what, I was young, I may not have made the right decisions, but I need to gain your trust so I'm fessing up." It's not that he really changed his mind. He just has two standards - the one he has lived by, the and one his self-righteous (sp?) public Presidential persona wants to force the rest of us to live by through constitutional amendments if necessary.

This story came out in 2000 as well, but no big media outlet besides CNN that originally had Flynt on wanted to run with it. CNN later "cleansed" the record, but in the original statement, Flynt named the girlfriend (maiden and married names) and the doctor performing the procedure, and the clinic it was performed at. He also noted that he already had signed affidavits from four of the woman's friends who could verify the account, but he was not going to publish the information because the woman was scared to come forward (she had been threatened byy the doctor and by a Bush friend with long-standing intelligence connections - see link proviede below). Some more interesting aspects are that it apparently happened ca 1970-1971, meaning: 1) the procedure was illegal in Texas, as this would have predated Roe V Wade (1973); 2) it happened while he was working on a Bush Sr. campaign, and it was apparently the campaign manager that set up the procedure. 30+ years ago, so who cares, right? Thing is it's just a tad hypocritical for him now to have already been elected president on a Pro-Life platform, to have signed lots of anti-aboution legislation in Texas, to have signed off on the partial-birth procedure ban, to be considering constitutional measures of overturning Row V Wade, to be eying future Supreme Court apointees with anti-abortion leanings, etc. here's a link with a hodgepoge of information from the original 2000 story.

Yep, that's the way to do it.

Yeah, because an all-knowing diving agent would never see through that shallow ploy. the Catholics have it right on this one. Do what you wanna your whole life, but make sure to get that death-bed confession in just before you cash it in.

Now THIS is Cool! Thanks SS! Sincerely, Darwin's Bullfrog

I wouldn't be at all surprised. The man who strongly backed Viet Nam (*so long as he didn't have to go and fight*) is also the man who wants to send abortions back into the alleyway-coathanger days (*now that he has had his problem dispensed with*). Meanwhile John Ashcroft and the Department of Justice has subpoenaed the abortion medical records of hundreds of patients nationwide with no regard for patient privacy to try to justify the recently signed late term abortion ban. If you think Ashcroft doesn't belong in our medical records you can respond to the Act For Change action alert.

Maddux has voiced his preference for the NL, but lot sof money and the chance to win now can temper one's opinion. And for everyone thinking that the Sox had a legit chance of landing him if he tried, doesn't the Borass factor have to be considered here as it does with every one of his clients that ws don't land?

What, screwing over the environment the way it hasn't been screwed over in 30 years isn't important enough to crack the list? For Shame. This Administration senvironment record is a sick joke. That should be enough to get every American who takes stewardship of our natural resources seriously to vote the guy out of office. For Bush though, these failings are just the tip of a very, very large iceberg.

LOL!!! J. Peterman Rocks!

Hell, I don't even remember, Brando! I had never heard of the guy, and if I've come across him since then it didn't dawn on me. I do remember that the prof. thought my negative views on a hypothetical era in which human lefespans could be extended indefinately were too eloquent to have been the work of an undergrad. I burst his bubble and told him that the same s*** had been spelled out in "Fantastic Four" comic books in the 60s with immortal-big-and-purple world-eater Galactus, who used to drone on for pages about what a drag immortalitty could be. Y'know, it never dawned on me before, but I bet this bioethical big-brain (whoever he was) proble stole this stuff from the damn comic books Stan Lee and Jack Kirbby - that's all the philosophy I needed as a kid.

Not to mention all the SoxTalk Posters...