JUGGERNAUT

You are correct there were 3 others that made derogatory comments towards the csmonitor.com. I apologize for the confusion there. As I stated earlier, the csmonitor & NY Daily News articles were based on the AAML survey. AAML survey: 62% of respondents - internet has played a big role 68% of respondents - new internet love interest 56% of respondents - new obsessive interest in online porn http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml http://www.aaml.org/ Now if someone disagrees with the results of the survey that's fine, but if all they have to support their opinion is their personal bias or experience than that's essentially a hollow opinion. Noteable but not worth debating.

FlaSoxxJim: What is tiresome are your responses. If you really believe there is neither parity of difference between certain social groups in America then I think you should create your own thread & discuss that argument there. In my educated opinion, that belief is irrational. As I pointed out there is a wealth of information that supports the basis of the underlying arguments in this thread. Now if you're only value to the thread is to deny the information then please go find a thread that is more suited for your level of comprehension & intelligence. There has been one person to respectfully & intelligently debate in this thread: TGOWT. He doesn't just argue with his own personal opinion but he tries to support it with other sources. I have not discredited his sources (like you are so quick to do) but rather I investigate them to debate them. That is called respectful debate. The strength of an argument is dependant on how well one correlates the basis of that argument to support a conclusion. It does however; assume a certain level of intelligence from the those engaging in the debate & the validity of a basis. Common sense, universal laws, statistics are all considered valid basis for an argument. Personal opinion does not qualify. That's simply a hollow conclusion.

If you bothered to visit the divorcemag site & looked at the poll question dealiing with the experience I think you would be less likely to call it enjoyable or honest. The numbers clearly do not suggest that's the case. Plus it's important to note that these are not random surveys or statisitics as you are suggesting. The sample group is confined to only those who have recently been through a divorce. I know many who are divorced & their testimony wouldn't over shadow a poll either. I consider them no more honest or credible in their testimony than strangers if you will. Familiarity is not a good reason to suggest honor or trust. You're higher road reference was obvious. I just choose to take it in another direction since this is more so a moral issue than a religious one.

What higher road? Any reasonable argument must have a basis & that is rooted in cause & effect. Statisitics, polls, etc. Everything is related to cause & effect at a micro level. I mean no offense here but I trust more in polls involving 100's & 1000's than the personal testimony of one or a few. I can quote many sources as to why but since you don't share the same view & certainly will find no greater credence in them there's really no point to doing so.

To Steff: My question clearly indicates the source & justification for my challenging the hostility of others. My initial post on this subject is anything but hostile but the responses were clearly the opposite. Cause & effect my dear. As to your presumption that people would by & large lie in such belittles the impact of a divorce & the seriousness of the lives it impacts. To TGOWT: I really am beginning to wonder what they are teaching in college these days because you're thought process seems void of ER. No not the television show. Entity Relationships. The reason why I included the 2 links is to show the correlation of the two polls. Is there a poll at the divorcemag site specific to porn? No. Is there a poll dealing with infidelity? Yes. If you add up the male & female %'s on that issue it comes very close to 68% that the aaml survey shows. Now is it beyond your comprehension that cyber-sex & cyber-porn might be included in irreconcible differences given that there are not specific questions on these subjects at that site? There is one very telling statistic at the divorcemag site that strongly supports the aaml site: 71% of women polled view cyber-sex as infidelity 46% of men polled view cyber-sex as infidelity. Now when you combine that with the divorcemag stat that infidelity is by & large the single reason for divorce it certainly leads a lot of credence to the aaml survey. Now to point out your falicies: America On-Line existed prior to 1992. So to link cyber-space to the emergence of the public internet or WWW is flat out wrong. Cyber-space in a private form emerged in the mid-80's. And if you wish to trace back to the emergence of personals it can be traced back to the 60's. Your last statement is so oblivious in nature it's pointless to even comment on. Apparently you do not believe in cause & effect. Believing in coincidence or rather if you prefer chaos theory (that all things all events will at some time converge with one another thereby making random events seem fated) on a macro level is not necc a bad thing. It has it pros & cons like everything else. But to believe in it on a micro level is simply nonsense. Things happen for a reason. Not fate & not coincidence. Cause & effect. Purpose vs pleasure. There are a ton of philosophy books on the subject & they can teach you better than I can. What the numbers clearly show is that in the face of greater temptation the less morally rigid members of our society will choose pleasure over purpose. You have provided no basis to believe otherwise.

A general question for atheists, hedonists, & the like: Why is it so common & predictable for people like you to discredit the messenger or the source as opposed to the message itself? Does the message scare you or is it simply that you lack the ability to debate it? I'm wondering of course because it flies in the face of being open-minded if your vision is narrowed to only a few sources. Sort of like Moronitti.

Since you discredit (unjustifiably so) the csmonitor, here is the source information I have from the NY Daily News article. I do not have a link as this was sent to me by a female friend. Last Thursday's New York Daily News: "Hitting the'escape' key" and written by Melena Z. Ryzik. Summary: divorce lawyers are confirming that nfidelity and pornography on the Internet are destroying marriages. AAML survey: 62% of respondents - internet has played a big role 68% of respondents - new internet love interest 56% of respondents - new obsessive interest in online porn Now go argue with the AAML or produce evidence to the contrary.

http://www.aaml.org/ - That's the site for the organization. This was your quote: Can you provide a source? A google search for "American Marriage Lawyers" finds 0 results nor is there any information about them on csmonitor.com. No where did you ask for the article in the csmonitor.com. Further, you already discredited the csmonitor so it would be a waste of time for me to provide you with. An article also appeared in the NY Daily News. Perhaps you prefer that source instead. It's not my job to do this. If you are disputing the numbers than go find a source with different numbers, quote from it & be on your way.

2000 election stats: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...edoffbypolitics 2000 election voter turnout 186.3 million eligible* voters 60% voted (110.8 million) 53.5% women (59.3 million) 46.5% men (51.5 million) --- A closer look at eligible voters, broken down by marital status: 44.8 million single women: 52% voted (23.4 million) 48% did not vote (21.4 million) Voted for: Al Gore (news - web sites) (D) 66%** George W. Bush ® 30% Ralph Nader (news - web sites) (G) 4% -- 34.9 million single men: 44% voted (15.5 million) 56% did not vote (19.4 million) Voted for: Gore 48% Bush 45% Nader 7% -- 52.8 million married women: 68% voted (35.9 million) 32% did not vote (16.9 million) Voted for: Gore 49% Bush 49% Nader 2% -- 53.8 million married men: 67% voted (36 million) 33% did not vote (17.8 million) Voted for: Bush 58% Gore 40% Nader 2% *Eligible voters are U.S. citizens age 18 and older. **Voter returns based on exit poll data. Numbers are rounded to nearest decimal place. Sources: U.S. census, Los Angeles Times exit poll

You people are just sad. First of what in your mind suggests the two groups have to be mutually exclusive? They are clearly not. It's like any other polling question .. independant of the others. Secondly, there isn't a media source on this planet that doesn't have a biased context. Capitalism insures that. Everyone has an agenda whether it's under guise of non-profit or openly profit. So what's the point in making such a statement as to imply that there is? Other than smack there isn't one. I guess I'm just better at googling than you are because I've got you 2 more links: http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml http://www.aaml.org/

========================================== Sun, May 9 @ TOR L5-2 POG: Estaban Loaiza AOG: Estaban Loaiza (8ip, 2 bad) BOG: Frank Thomas (RON 2,3 HIT - only runs) GoG: Paul Konerko Comments: Lowest Bog winner yet (42 pts!). E-LO was the only arm of the game. The bats are all but silent. Sure hope they wake up at the Cell. Franks getting it done on the road, but Maggs is all but invisible. ========================================== WH(36)=10+16+10 JV(36)=10+26 MO=11 FT=42 CL(37)=7+10+20 JC=5 EL(247/8=31)=20+10+90+77+0+45+0+5 ========================================== CHICAGO SOX 1ST -W Harris singled to left. 10 -J Valentin sacrificed to third, W Harris to second. 10 TORONTO 1ST -F Catalanotto doubled to deep right. 20 CHICAGO SOX 2ND -C Lee walked. 5 -C Lee caught stealing second, catcher to second. -5 TORONTO 2ND -E Hinske walked. 5 -G Zaun safe at first on error by second baseman W Harris, E Hinske to second. 5 CHICAGO SOX 3RD -W Harris singled to right center. 10 -J Valentin singled to center, W Harris to third. 20,4 -M Ordonez walked, J Valentin to second. 7,2 -F Thomas singled to deep left, W Harris and J Valentin scored, M Ordonez to third. 40,2,4,4 -C Lee hit by pitch, F Thomas to second. 7,2 TORONTO 3RD -H Clark singled to left. 10 -F Catalanotto homered to right, H Clark scored. 70,6 -V Wells singled to left.10 CHICAGO SOX 4TH -J Crede singled to right. 10 -J Crede caught stealing second, catcher to second. -5 TORONTO 4TH -J Phelps reached on infield single to third. 10 -J Phelps to second on passed ball by M Olivo. 5 -E Hinske grounded out to first, J Phelps to third. 2 -G Zaun singled to right, J Phelps scored. 20 -O Hudson singled to right, G Zaun to third. 20 -C Gomez hit sacrifice fly to center, G Zaun scored. 20 CHICAGO SOX 5TH -W Harris singled to center. 10 TORONTO 5TH CHICAGO SOX 6TH -C Lee singled to center. 10 TORONTO 6TH -Bottom of the 6th inning -E Hinske singled to right. 10 -E Hinske stole second, E Hinske safe at third on throwing error by catcher M Olivo. 15 -O Hudson singled to right, E Hinske scored. 20 CHICAGO SOX 7TH TORONTO 7TH CHICAGO SOX 8TH TORONTO 8TH -C Delgado walked. 5 CHICAGO SOX 9TH -C Lee hit a ground rule double to deep right center. 20

========================================== Sat, May 8 @ TOR L4-2 POG: Scott Schoenweis (7ip, only 1 bad) AOG: Scott Schoenweis BOG: Joe Crede (2 run HR) GoG: Timo Perez Comments: These are the dog days of the BoGs. ========================================== SS(152/7=22):40+0+85+0+10+0+17 NC=90 WH(25)=15+10 JU(15)=10+5 FT=24 JC=65 SA=22 MO=2 PK(25)=5+20 CL=12 ========================================== CHICAGO SOX 1ST -W Harris singled to center. 10 -J Uribe struck out swinging. W Harris caught stealing second, catcher to second. 5 TORONTO 1ST -R Johnson reached on infield single to shortstop. 10 -V Wells doubled to deep right, R Johnson to third. 30 CHICAGO SOX 2ND TORONTO 2ND CHICAGO SOX 3RD TORONTO 3RD -D Berg singled to left. 10 -V Wells doubled to deep center, D Berg scored. 40 -C Delgado hit by pitch. 5 -J Phelps singled to center, V Wells scored, C Delgado to second. 30 CHICAGO SOX 4TH -W Harris singled to left. 10 TORONTO 4TH CHICAGO SOX 5TH -F Thomas doubled to center. 20 -J Crede homered to left, F Thomas scored. 65,4 TORONTO 5TH -D Berg singled to right. 10 CHICAGO SOX 6TH -S Alomar Jr doubled to left. 20 -M Ordonez reached on infield single to shortstop, S Alomar Jr to third. 2,2 TORONTO 6TH CHICAGO SOX 7TH -P Konerko safe at first on error by shortstop C Gomez. 5 TORONTO 7TH -O Hudson walked. 5 -O Hudson stole second. 10 -C Gomez flied out to right, O Hudson to third. 2 CHICAGO SOX 8TH -J Uribe walked. 5 TORONTO 8TH -N Cotts relieved S Schoeneweis. -V Wells walked. 5 -V Wells stole second. 10 -J Phelps homered to left, V Wells scored. 75 CHICAGO SOX 9TH -C Lee reached on infield single to shortstop. 10 -P Konerko singled to right, C Lee to second. 20,2

========================================== Fri, May 7 @ TOR L5-4 POG: Miguel Olivo (3 run HR) AOG: Damaso Marte (1W, 2ip) BOG: Miguel Olivo GoG: Aaron Rowand Comments: Juan Uribe deserves an hon mention. ========================================== JG(39)=30+0+10+5+22+165 DM(3)=0+5 CP=32 JU(66)=12+32+22 FT(14)=7+7 AR(22)=20+2 JV(35)=5+30 CL=11 JC=21 MOL=75 MO(27)=12+15 ========================================== CHICAGO SOX 1ST -J Uribe reached on infield single to third. 10 -F Thomas walked, J Uribe to second. 7,2 TORONTO 1ST -V Wells walked. 10 -C Delgado singled to right center, V Wells to third. 20,4 CHICAGO SOX 2ND -A Rowand singled to center. 10 -A Rowand stole second. 10 TORONTO 2ND CHICAGO SOX 3RD -J Valentin walked.5 TORONTO 3RD -F Catalanotto singled to center. 10 CHICAGO SOX 4TH -C Lee walked. 5 -J Crede singled to left, C Lee to second. 15,2 -A Rowand grounded out to third, C Lee to third, J Crede to second. 2,2,2 -M Olivo homered to left, C Lee and J Crede scored. 75,2,4 CHICAGO SOX 5TH -M Ordonez singled to left. 10 -F Thomas walked, M Ordonez to second. 7,2 TORONTO 5TH -G Zaun walked. 5 -C Gomez singled to left, G Zaun to second. 15 -H Clark grounded out to pitcher, G Zaun to third, C Gomez to second. 2,2,2 CHICAGO SOX 6TH TORONTO 6TH -C Delgado singled to right. 10 -E Hinske homered to right, C Delgado scored. 70 -G Zaun doubled to right. 20 -O Hudson homered to right, G Zaun scored. 65 CHICAGO SOX 7TH -J Uribe tripled to deep right center. 30 -J Valentin singled to right center, J Uribe scored. 20,2 -J Valentin stole second. 10 TORONTO 7TH -D Marte relieved J Garland. CHICAGO SOX 8TH TORONTO 8TH -E Hinske walked. 5 CHICAGO SOX 9TH -J Uribe singled to center. 10 -J Uribe stole second. 10 -M Ordonez reached on infield single to shortstop, J Uribe to third. 15,2 TORONTO 9TH -O Hudson walked. 5 -C Gomez grounded out to third, O Hudson to second. 2 -R Johnson singled to right, O Hudson scored. 25

I agree. No matter how this is spun & no matter how hedonistic & sadistic the GI's were the fact that this war was much more about propaganda than bullets means that Rumsfeld dropped the ball. You can not go into a propaganda war & expect the rules & regulations alone to maintain law & order. People have to BELIEVE in those rules in order to respect them. Belief comes from both knowledge & fear of consequences. Rumsfeld did very little in that regards & neither did the Pentagon chiefs.

New Survey by American Marriage Lawyers (as reported in the Christian Science Monitor): The divorce rate was at 68% last year. 62% attributed to new love interests over the net. 58% attributed to new porn obsessions over the net. Needless to say in a society void of any redeemable values or morals hedonism will find strong roots. At what point to we begin to say "more" is simply excess & a lack of self-restraint & control?

I can't even post a poll about this issue because it is so complex. What this Iraqi abuse case & the general war on terrorism is bringing to light is that a business as usual approach to criminal investigations can not beat the media in bringing this news to the public. The general answer is that the investigations take time because in the process of gathering information the goal is to prosecute those who are suspect. So every t must be crossed & i dotted so to speak before an investigation can go forward. This is the process that was occuring in the US military at the time. This is also the process that occured in 2001 & continues to occur today. Events happen so quickly & information leaks to the media so rapidly that the need to cross every t results in undermining the very goal in doing so. So what do we do about this? This is a huge problem going forward because the very people that need to be informed may actually be called to testify against the very suspects being charged. I believe the need to get the information to these people supercedes the need to insure the process results in effective prosecution. I am willing to accept that in that expedited process we lose the right to prosecute them. However; I don't think the world & the average American will be willing to accept that in the process of preventing abuses & acts of terrorism that the very people who plan or have intent to do them can not be brought to justice. Which brings us to opening up for debate the need to create exceptions to the current criminal justice system. This is considered a taboo subject in America but what else is there to do? The exception would introduce the concept of severity of crime in that subjected to a grand jury that if it found that a crime was so severe in nature the procedures of law to prosecute that case would be relaxed making it very difficult for such a case to be dismissed on technicalities. Please don't just comment on this one. If you have a better one to offer please do so. But keep in the realm of reality to where you can not keep a lock on news events any more from the media.

Certainly the fault does not lie with Rumsfeld alone. You can argue that training perhaps did not stress the importance of upholding human rights but certainly as this investigation unfolds the majority of soldiers got the message. So I think pysche evaluations & probing the backgrounds of the bad apples throughout the chain of command is in order. But even that being said this is my problem with Rumsfeld on this issue: He knew in late 2001 when this war unfolded that this was a war of liberation on the road to building an American driven democracy in Iraq. He knew this even when we did not. Given the enormous cost associated with building democracy in Iraq how could he simply stand by & expect business to function normally? This was a propaganda war as much as a military war! These pictures & the pending videos are the WMD's against the prop war. Given all the comments he receives as being incredibly intelligent & detailed oriented how could he not have taken safeguards to prevent this? God help us when the video surfaces. If a picture speaks a 1000 words a video must speak a book.

Sargent Darby (sp?) I salute you! A true American hero! It is perposterous to think that without his actions our highest chain of command would not be aware of the serious nature of the pictures. To you AP exam applicants here at SOXTALK I salute you as well. There are roughly 1.5 million applicants a year now & though that number seems large %-wise in comparison to the numbers that take either the SAT or ACT it is rare. You are a rare breed & your intelligence is severely needed in America today. Rumsfeld today brought to mind what is come. Many more pictures & videos of similar abuse. This is the powder-keg to leave him with a dishonorable legacy. It's sad given his many years of service but when you hear his name from this day forward they will forever be associated with the pictures we have seen today & the pictures & video coming tommorrow.

SS got me thinking & I want to change my vote to OTHER. I don't know what it's like in every school but in my day we had to become patrol boys in junior high. This was the first time in our lives that we were responsible for the safety of others. It's that daily endoctrination of being in that role that leads you to a protector role. This was not an elective, this was an assignment. At first it was volunteer but the numbers dwindled to where it became an obligation. This role was not without consequence. If you left your corner after the 2nd bell because there were no kids in sight it didn't matter. The teacher who was in charge & driving around in his car checking up on you might see kids you could not. You would serve detention if that was the case. He took it that serious. Why not extend & adopt the same idea to patrolling the school in general? Not just a corner, but every stair way, entrace & court yard. Obligate boys to patrol the school & then others to monitor their patrol to make sure they are doing their job. It seems to me this idea has the lowest cost & the best benefit. There are plenty of sports clubs in schools to where you could obligate certain persons to fill this role.

Ok, I think what you're saying is that anything that looked like a fight was quickly brought to the attention of the police & both parties were arrested. So the snitch so to speak could be any body & not the kid being bulied. Eventually the fear of being arrested greatly dimiinishes the fights & solves a greater part of the bully problem. The only think I don't like about this is that in the beginning at least those who stand up to bullies or fight for others are seen no better or worse than the bully themselves. Grant it the numbers are probably small but it does present injustice for people like myself that were endoctrinated to do so at an early age. I can't believe it was unique to my day & so there must be kids in school today then why they see someone being bullied they are compelled to fight in defense of the kid. I would hope there would be some means to not lump the defender with the offender. Those of you who know me know that I do not believe that fighting for a just cause is wrong. Certainly there is a lot more latitude as a minor than an adult with respect to the law in this regards. I think fighting for justice instills a sense of pride & courage not just for the defender but for those who witness their acts. I know this was the case with me because I met many people in my life I probably wouldn't have if I had not taken on that role. I have been stabbed, slashed, & beaten as a result but always did enough damage to where the kid was never bullied in my sight again. Maybe it stems from being endoctrinated as a football player at a young age or perhaps the books we read. I can't really say. From the time I was 4 yrs old I was a fighter. In any case, it sounds like a good idea but I doubt if every school district would get that cooperation from it's police district. I kind of think a Guardian Angels movement in high school might work as well. Active recruitment in a club designed to police the school by students of the school. Limiting the club to soph, jrs, & snrs places better term limits on the members to prevent corruption. There mere presence on the school campus may be enough to deter bullying actions. Certainly enrollment as a peace-keeper would be resume worthy.

Me thinks it's not very accurate. JUGGERNAUT -> 50% evil, 50% good Jesus Christ -> 50% evil, 50% good Lord & Savior -> 80% e, 20% g Redeemer -> 50/50 Messiah -> 1% e, 99% g Lord -> 99/1 Savior -> 50/50 Angel = 50/50 Angelic 1/99 Demonic 1/99 Heavenly 50/50 Hellish 1/99 Saintly 1/99 Wicked 50/50 Hitler was saintly in nature 1/99 Hitler was demonic in nature 1/99 Hitler's final solution known as the Holocaust exterminated millions of Jews 25/75 Hitler's final solution known as the Holocaust murdered millions of Jews 1/99 Holocaust 50/50 Me think it's down right insane!

No offense but if you understand the topic you would realize that the inevitable consequences of stem-cell reasearch & genetics in general is equivalent to pandora's box. Eventually someone will use the science for evil intentions & there's not a thing any body can do about it. Now one can certainly argue that letting it run wild (as your comment suggest is the right thing to do) will only speed us to that day. The only solution that has any remote possibility of preventing that day is Big Brother (the thought police). That sucks big time, but this might be the inevitable consequence of opening Pandora's box. Orwell might have been wrong about the date by say 30-40 yrs but he wasn't wrong about the outcome. This is not something you can control with blockades, ban with laws, or detect with satellites. This is stuff that can be easily hidden & cultivated in secrecy. I for one would prefer that it not be allowed to run wild so that we have time to both grasp the inevitable consequences & formulate a plan on how to deal with them. It may be too late as it is but we certainly shouldn't aid it's progression. One obvious thought that comes to mind immediately is that the very best minds in this area should no longer be allowed to roam free. Are they not a matter of national security now? Perhaps we can bargain a big brother approach on geneticists in exchange for safe-guarding our own freedom. But even that will not prevent the emergence of self-taught geneticists from springing up. Eventually even through trial & error they will obtain a level of production that is useful to someone like Bin Laden.

How did this come about because your district deserves greater study. The biggest problem in attacking bullying is breaking through the fear syndrome. The bullies instill enough fear so that nobody talks. So how is it that people started talking to where the fear of being arrrested became reality? I do not think we should take Columbine lightly. The evidence is overwhelming now that had the administrators acted upon the information that was collected beforehand this tragedy might have been prevented. Likewise the reality of what is to come in the near future will make modern solutions obsolete. We will have plastic guns & plastic bullets & they will be capable of killing people. This is inevitable. Metal detectors will not prevent & more expensive scanning machines are cost prohibitive. To sit & wait for something to happen before acting seems to be the consensus of what we do in America. I feel this is a foolish approach. The best way to deal with problems is to anticipate them & plan against them.

It's the end of the world as we know it Ahh .. nothing like a good Chicago story to scare the s*** out of us. In the news, Chicago: A stem cell from a diseased boy was used to create 5 disease-free embryos. Cells from the 5 embryos were used in cell transplants to treat the disease in the boy. The cloning process gives the highest prob that the transplanted cells will be readily accepted by the body in the effort to fight the disease. Well before you make plans for you 200th birthday by using new versions of yourself to support the eldest version, consider this .. Since this technology exists today & is certainly within reason for millionaires what is to stop someone say like Bin Laden from cloning himself today? All he needs is a lab & qualified geneticists to pull it off & he certainly has the $ to do that. Normally we think of cloning in terms of one, but I think this news brings the realization that the only thing that prevents 1 from becoming millions is resources. And here lies the perpetual resource machine of the human body. The cell division that takes place in an embryo is a marvel. In terms of resources it produces more than it consumes. In other words the cost to generate cell division is much less than the output of cell division. Relatively speaking of course. Hence a perpetual supply of edible food for an army. Where all this leads is that for a reasonable cost of time, money, & space it's theoretically possible for someone like Bin Laden to build a million man army of himself. When you eliminate all sense of morality from the equation you can literally feed & mature this army from an infant to an adult on embryos itself. There are issues of the 4 food groups but if you are essentially growing them to be suicide bombers it's not like you're concerned with long term health consequences. What's even worse, is that if he grows a million a year he can literally perpetuate his future losses. So now imagine Bin Laden with an endless supply of suicide bombers all bearing his resemblance. It's the end of the world as we know it & there's not a thing we can do to prevent it in time. I sure hope he doesn't give SOXTALK the credit for this idea. Of course as I write this from the American perspective I can imagine the rest of the world saying: Holy s***! The Americans have the ability to grow troops perpetually & feed them! They're like cockroaches! We'll never be rid of them! Want a boy or a girl? You decide. On the heels of the Chicago story comes what you would expect: Gender bender tech. Science now has the ability to manipulate the reproductive system to produce a boy or a girl. A family in Cleveland has done it. You can assume as the years advance that the tech will go from a better than 70% success rate to better than 90%. As you probably guess they do it before the embryos are created. Now if Bin Laden wants mixed pair of suicide bombers he's all set.

This one is tough & if you feel it requires a new thread let me know. The topic: Gender benders : genetists allow us to play God Geneticists in support of a CLE couple wishing to fix the sex of their unborn children did exactly that. Conception occured invitro & the genes were altered before development of the embryos to create 2 boys. My memory fails me, but I think they had 7 girls up to that point. Now this is case where you sympathize with the couple but can't help seeing how this can drastically alter demographics if left to become a mass-market industry. The ethical & moral question is whether the marketplace should be allowed to alter the demographics that are clearly defined in nature. Nature tips the scales in favor of women because the role they play in reproduction. Abortion in China & other parts of the world is already being used to counter nature's predication. In 20 yrs China will have a shortage of women. I believe this should be viewed in no lesser terms of seriousness than atomic power is. Just because we have the science to use nucs doesn't mean we ever should. gender selection should fall under that category. This comes on the heels of news out of Chicago on just how advanced genetic engineering is becoming. I will save that for another "end of the world" thread because there really isn't anything we can do about it. It certainly looks like the science of genetics is the modern world's version of pandora's box. http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=18509