StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 01:37 PM) Because it's not being done by choice but other natural causes. The same reason we distinguish dying of old age versus dying from being murdered. You've missed the point and the comparison doesn't work. A woman's emotional reaction to a miscarriage at 3 weeks is likely "ugh, cramps" because they won't even be aware. We don't treat or view this as "human life" in any other circumstances. A woman's emotional reaction to a miscarriage at 4 months is going to be a lot more sorrowful than either 3 weeks or even 2 months. A stillborn in the 3rd trimester will be worse yet. Culturally or innately/biologically, we separate these into different categories. We don't view a smear of blood as a lost child and grieve over it as we would a dead infant. Conversely, if my father dies of a heartattack at 95 or is shot at 95, he was still a sentient human being and is now dead. The manner of his death doesn't change who or what he was, just as an abortion doesn't magically transform an embryo into a dead person while a natural miscarriage does not. We distinguish between murder and natural death in order to enact some form of justice, not to reclassify life itself.

To clarify a bit, that's 50% of fertilized human eggs. If life "begins at conception," that means over 50% of humans die within the first three weeks. We should be holding mass funerals pretty much all the time.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 01:33 PM) So is a baby in a nicu being kept alive artificially less deserving of protection than a baby in a womb? Not sure why artificial would play any role in that discussion. As for the term born, was being lazy and using it interchangeably with alive. Is using the pill abhorrent, or contraception, or masturbating? Each of them destroys potential life at different stages. Something like 50% of fertilized eggs simply don't implant. 15% of those that do still miscarry within the first few weeks. Some mammals simply reabsorb an embryo if food resources are too scarce. Biology doesn't seem to give a preference to an egg/sperm/embryo/fetus over a mother.

Why would "heartbeat" make you alive? Wouldn't sentience be a better measure? And, more importantly, this is still ignoring a woman's right over her own body and the biological processes occurring within.

If someone miscarries at 3 weeks (basically when it's a clumb of undifferentiated cells), has a person died? How about at 8 weeks, when there's some neural activity but no brain or other vital organs? How about a 25 week still born? What about an infant who dies shortly after birth? Culturally and emotionally we already distinguish between these cases, but we choose to ignore it when it comes to abortion and "life begins as conception"

I dunno that an 8 week old embryo (not a fetus and not a baby) can ever be kept alive. You'd essentially have to keep growing the embryo in a vat. It's not anything close to a living thing at that point. But "if you never abort, it'll eventually be viable!" isn't a hole in the argument, it's circular reasoning to deny a woman a right to control her own body.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 12:39 PM) So essentially life is an argument of technological capabilities? I don't know that I have ever heard it expressed that way. Biological, not technological. What exists at 6 or 8 weeks is not recognizably human, nor does it really perform many functions necessary to sustain life.

The iPhone is popular because of iOS. If it were the same hardware running W7 mobile it would be an entirely different phone. You can't divorce iOS from the iPhone, and that's intentional on the part of Apple. They certainly kicked off the current smartphone interface concepts, but they're not the dominant platform and they're losing ground. I'm not saying Apple hasn't been really innovative, maybe the most innovative in the past decade or so. I'm just laughing a little at the hysteria that we'll never have a new piece of technology again now that Jobs isn't CEO.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 12:21 PM) I don't disagree that it's difficult, but that's why "if it can't survive it's not alive" is too broad of a definition for me to grasp. A person in a vegetative state can't survive, but we don't consider them dead. And I don't understand why the definition has to change when you're talking about being born or dying. Isn't being alive, well, being alive? A person in a vegetative state can be kept alive (against their own wishes and with the help of a Republican congress passing laws!) A month-old embryo or an 8 week fetus cannot survive outside the womb, period.

Don't tax the rich, Smash their privilege

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 11:34 AM) The fact that none of the imitators have managed to even come remotely close to gaining a foothold says something. There's no non-iPad tablet that people are flocking to, or raving about. Hell, a lot fo them aren't even making money. HP introduced theirs and 2 months later left the consumer products business. They've all been rushed-out garbage beta products pretty much, though. note that this is still giving credit to Apple for coming up with a slick device and convincing enough people they need it in order to generate a new tech market.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 11:14 AM) Right now the iPad controls over 90% of the total tablet market. It is no exaggeration to say that if the iPad didn't exist, there wouldn't be a tablet market. Right, I wonder if the market was generated because OMG Apple released a tablet! so everyone rushed out to drop $600 on one.

The iphone is the dominant single phone, Android is the dominant smartphone OS.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 09:30 AM) Well, the largest 3 technological innovations in the last decade that have been gobbled up by the mainstream user were probably MP3 players, smart phones and tablet Pc's. I believe Apple not only leads the market in those categories, but they clearly influenced the design and user experience of all 3 as well. Apple/Jobs have definitely been influential. As you say, they set the interface standard for MP3 players and now tablets and arguably for smartphones (though Android controls the market now). But the way some people are reacting, like this guy on ABC earlier today, is that basically no other company is capable of innovation, Jobs s***s golden ideas and we’re all doomed to a technological stand-still. It’s like they’re not aware that Google exists or something. With the iPad, I still wonder how much of that is driven by the “OMG!! Apple product!!!” hysteria.

One issue that's not even being addressed is a woman's right to control her own body.

An embryo cannot survive outside of the womb period. But yeah, that's a typical semantic bait-and-switch. "Survive on its own" as soxbadger is using it clearly means physically capable of surviving outside of the womb, not providing for itself.

Gives a new meaning to stimulus! /killmenow

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 24, 2011 -> 10:24 PM) People seem to think otherwise. lol ABC7 just had someone on claiming that all technological innovation will slow over the next several years since Apple is the only company that develops anything and everyone else just rips them off.

Jobs was not designing these products himself.

Welfare drug-testing yields 2 percent positive results

Not sure how voting against a vague but substantial expansion of the ROE makes you unpatriotic or anti-military.

favorite poster.

Yglesias responds to The National Review and the "Depravity of the Poor" For instance, Chase can have you wrongly arrested for fraud for trying to deposit a legitimate check from Chase. If you're living on the margins, you've got no room for error. This can lead to you losing your job and your car.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 24, 2011 -> 03:02 PM) People were less caring about large blocks of text being excerpted 5+ years ago...and even with that, most pages these days are happy as long as you add in a link so that they get some traffic and they get the Google boost. Lots of news articles automatically add it in when you copy the text now.