Jenksismyhero

It's a good thing only Republicans are in bed with Wall Street. Otherwise this country and its government would REALLY be f***ed. http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com...ng-bank-bailout

Kind of random movie suggestion, but I stumbled upon this movie "Charlotte" on Hulu last night. http://www.hulu.com/watch/265023/charlotte Basically it's a movie about a guy that is building his own sailboat for his friends and family. He also happens to run a shipyard on Martha's Vineyard that repairs/restores/builds wooden sailboats. If you're at all into woodworking, I think you'll really enjoy it and appreciate what he and his employees can build.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 29, 2011 -> 02:23 PM) The Bears have asked Chester Taylor to return to their facility Monday after deciding to release him earlier in the day. According to ESPN Chicago, the Bears' coaching staff wants to keep Taylor, while the front office is pulling for his release this.f***ing.team. The Bears are a professional football team, yes? How does this s*** happen? First the Ravens trade screw up, then the family night fiasco and now this. WTF. No wonder we can't win the Superbowl.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 29, 2011 -> 08:04 AM) Things like this are the primary reason I never opt out of paper notifications for anything. The back up is really nice to have. You just hate trees and Mother Earth.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:26 PM) Nobody except the 60% of the market? There's a lot of mediocre Android phones out there, and that's the difference between them and Apple: Apple wants to control the entire product from start-to-finish to ensure that they only put out what they view as high-quality items in which they can control the consumer's experience, for better or worse. I'm not sure what that has to do with my "argument" that Android market share is exploding and that tech. innovation won't grind to a halt because Jobs stepped down. I thought I read somewhere that this is one of the main reasons Google bought Motorola. Too many iterations of Android out there causing it to be less recognizable/familiar to consumers.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 04:09 PM) Logically speaking, what's the difference between some non-sentient cells in a woman's body and the building blocks of life (amino acids, water, oxygen, etc) on a planet? It just takes a shorter amount of time for those non-sentient cells to turn into something sentient when comparing it to the long term processes involved in creating life on a planet. EDIT: And there's no guarantee that in either case a living being will ultimately be created. Um, the human element? And no, there's not. But I'd say the chance of creating life after becoming pregnant is pretty damn high. Edit: and the rolling eyes comment was more for making this a partisan issue when for 10 pages it hasn't been really.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 04:00 PM) Why do crazy right wingers want to abort life on a grand scale? They don't mind polluting air, water, etc. These are the foundation of life on our planet. By destroying these things they are destroying potential life. Where's the eye roll emoticon when you need it?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 02:41 PM) Which is fine, but you made your comparison of murder v natural death in response to my illustration of long-standing cultural views of life vs. non-life and when a fetus becomes a human and our reactions to their loss. It still doesn't work. eta most miscarriages aren't even known because they happen so early. Again, just illustrating that we've always held differing views of "personhood" based on the stage of development. I also hope you can see the philosophical differences between being pro-choice and anti-capital punishment now, as well. At the end of the day I think you're ignoring the huge distinction between abortion and miscarriages though. There's no need to debate the violation of a right of a 15 week old fetus because of a miscarriage. That's a natural, and almost common result during pregnancy for a lot of women. To say that the mother viewed that loss less when compared to a baby that dies shortly after birth is probably accurate. But that doesn't mean their feeling as to the fetus' "personhood" is any different. As I said earlier, how can someone be upset with loss when they have no role in causing it? That's completely different from abortion, where there is that role being played, and the violation of the fetus' right should rightly be called into question.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 02:16 PM) But your comparison still fails because we don't decide a fetus was "alive" and a human with rights because it was aborted and not "alive" and not a human with rights if it is miscarried, just as we don't change a person's status based on how they die. But in my view I consistently consider a 9-11 week old fetus "alive" with rights, regardless of whether it dies from a miscarriage (natural and not by choice) or from an abortion (not natural and a choice). I can't very well not like something (which btw, many women DO have severe emotional reactions to miscarriages, at any time, especially with a planned pregnancy) that humans have no active role in causing.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 02:02 PM) Jenks, Thats not entirely true. Some one who is brain dead is technically considered dead, even if their heart is fine. http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/news/720341...0-accident.html So under your definition, the firefighter isnt dead, yet his family is harvesting his organs. Would you consider them murderers? Would he have a heartbeat if they unplugged him? No.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 01:53 PM) We can be sure that where you've seemingly set the line, very preliminary neural activity, there is no sentience because there's no nervous system or brain. This enforces a penalty on women that men never have to face and removes agency over their own bodies. You've assumed your conclusion by calling it a baby and assigning it rights. You've given women less control over themselves than men and children. I think they had full control in getting pregnant in the first place.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 01:48 PM) 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. Sure, but that's why i'm creating the hard line that once the being is "alive" it has rights.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 01:33 PM) 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. Because nothing dead has a heartbeat. That's how we measure death. And I dunno that sentience is very measurably that early, unless you're aware of a way it can be done. And while I see your point about a woman's right, she chose to be in the position to get pregnant (absent the exceptions i've noted). Not sure why her rights trump those of her baby (except for health reasons).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 01:14 PM) 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" 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.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 01:02 PM) Jenks, Well I do see why being born does matter. Once you are born, you have rights. Before you are born, you dont have rights. Not to mention if something is brain dead a guardian can pull the plug (ie the equivalent of abortion). So as a society we already partially recognize that something can be alive but at the same time dead. So what is your belief? Havent really seen you put that out there. Well, I disagree that before you're born you have no rights. I don't think some fluid and skin blocking you from the air makes you any less deserving of protection. And of course the main difference between an unborn fetus and someone who is alive but brain dead is that one is being kept alive artificially while the other is not. My belief of what? Abortion? I've said it already. I think abortion in general is abhorrent, regardless of when/why/how it's done. But I think it's acceptable certainly where the health of the mother is an issue, and also in cases of rape/incest (since that's the only legitimate "i wanted no part of this" scenario). After that...obviously I wouldn't promote abortion as a solution, but it's certainly more acceptable prior to when the fetus is alive. And I consider "alive" to mean there's a heartbeat. So, 9-11 weeks? Certainly well before what Roe v Wade set.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 12:42 PM) Jenks, You just are not reading my posts that carefully. Ive clearly stated that before something is born and after are 2 different situations. In the case of the person in a vegetative they were once alive. Thus they are entitled to more rights than something that never existed. If you want heartbeat and brain activity is when something is alive, thats just looking at the facts differently. But then I assume you have no problem with abortion before heartbeat and brain activity? I just don't see why being alive before or after means anything. You're either alive or you're not. If you're not, there's not many rights that are worth a damn. If you are, it's a whole new bag. And I wouldn't say that I "have no problem" with abortion before a heartbeat or brain activity occurs, but it's much more acceptable than after that point in time. And that time occurs well before the acceptable 28 (or 24) weeks where abortions are allowed.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 12:11 PM) Right your asking me to define a word that (imo) is incapable of being absolutely defined. Its a question of fact, dependent on the circumstances. I dont think anyone could absolutely define alive, without using comparative examples. 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?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 12:05 PM) Its simply come to the point where Jenks will accept nothing less than at conception something is alive. I believe that I clearly have stated my position on the matter. But just so its so simple Ill break it down, 1 more time. Fetus inside mother= may or may not be alive, question of fact. Can it survive with help of NICU? If answer is no, not alive, if answer is yes, may be alive. Baby is born, breathes air= alive How is this so hard to grasp? If something can not survive, even with the use of extraordinary medical procedures, its not alive. At least to me. And if you really think you are going to somehow change my opinion, bring some facts to the table. Show me why you believe a 1 second fetus is alive, why it deserves protection. If the answer is, because someday it may be alive, well then I ask you, why do you not protect sperm? Are you against the pill? The idea that I would somehow have the absolute answer to this question is preposterous. But at the end of the day, I think I have the best answer, and that does not necessarily mean its the right answer or that 1000 years from now people will think Im a barbarian. It just means that right now, in my opinion, based on science/legal I believe my answer is the best answer. I don't think life begins at conception, and i've stated that clearly. Nor am I trying to change your mind. You can have your opinions all you want, i'm just trying to figure out what the hell it is. Your answer is all about survivability. Ok, my bad. You have stated that before. I've viewing this from a different perspective. I guess I don't see how you're not alive if you have a heartbeat and some brain activity, even if you can't survive on your own. Those two things are absent in the dead.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 12:04 PM) Either you are playing dumb or you're a complete idiot. He just re-posted his opinion 3 minutes ago. I've asked him to define "alive" for me...to give me some indication of what that means. He's given me two examples and deferred to scientists and doctors. Great, we've clarified the answer in two situations. I'm asking for some criteria here. Is a heart beat enough? Is brain activity enough? Body movement? Some level of conscious understanding? What?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 11:58 AM) Wow. How much more clear can he be? He's given the two extremes, how is that an answer?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 11:55 AM) We need more government intervention with regards to controlling our bodies. Slightly different situation though when you're talking about two living beings. Unless you don't think a baby has any rights to be protected.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 11:54 AM) Thats because your not trying. I clearly have explained it, Tex asked about a 1 month baby, I already went over it. Its a waste of time to repos it because its in this same thread, but once again Ill do it. If you really cant understand that, its not worth arguing. No, that's not an answer. I'm asking what is your criteria for being "alive."

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 10:17 AM) Vandy, I absolutely agree that I could be wrong. But as of now with the information I have, Im not wrong (at least in my opinion). And as I previously have stated, if science was to change or allow for a fetus at 1 second to be taken from a womb and survive on its own, I would absolutely support that. But as of today we dont have that option. I see nothing compelling about a 1 second fetus being more than a sperm or a egg. Tex, I clearly explained that. I said that if something can live and breathe on its own (a 1 month baby) it is alive. Can a fetus breathe without assistance prior to 3 months, I dont believe so. o Wait, so are you saying that until a baby is born it's not alive? I have yet to get a grasp on where that line begins for you.

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. Throw in a little company called Pixar and I'd say Jobs has created quite a lot, even if it's in the form of money or giving the ok to manufacture a product.

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 08:33 AM) It is interesting to note, and maybe I have this wrong, but the thought of being uncomfortable with people making mistakes on convicting people for when to end their lives, but that same correlation is not brought up with a fetus. How do we know we are not making a mistake with when we "decide" that life begins? What if we are wrong on that? Is that something we trust ourselves with considering the thought of not ending the life of some rotten criminal because there could be a mistake? IMHO, there is a correlation on what you trust in regards to both abortion and capital punishment. If you don't trust the process on one end, how can you trust it on the other? In both cases fallible people are making "decisions" on when there should be life. +1 Pretty much what I was getting at earlier.