Yep, like I said you come to conclusions using your "logic" with a lack of knowledge and no effort on your part.

I agree, REAL humans, not potential humans are experiencing life threatening situations that would benefit from more attention.

A fetus is NOT a human being, no matter how much folks want it to be. Potential is not the same as the thing itself.

What a thing is, is based on what it does, and a fetus or a disabled human that does not live independently from a life support system has either, no rights, or very little rights. (some cases of a living will can protect a person, but that is not the same as being able to express rights). Once you live autonomously within society you are recognized as a person, a citizen, and are protected by presumptive rights, this still does not mean you have the capability to express rights.

Trying to setup rights for things which cannot express rights is not only a slippery slope, but illogical, and out of touch with law, and the history of law.

Many animal rights activists use the same kind of logic pro lifers do in trying to justify rights for beings which cannot express rights, and cannot be responsible for there actions within a society. using this same logic we can say that the rights of sperm should be protected, or eggs, or tubal births, and any arguments otherwise (health of the mother) are tangential, or arbitrary. Why would we care about the health of the mother if the rights of the potential child was on par with the mother? How could you arbitrate what is more important? The contrary position however is internally consistent, rights start at birth, and the ability to express them starts at the ability to be responsible. (in fact the current laws on when an abortion is legal vs not are also NOT internally consistent with how rights are recognized, even tho I personally agree with them, hows that for self contradiction, this topic is full of that IMHO)

Again this is just one reason taking a, "protect the rights of the unborn", position is not a solid platform. I am not saying someone can never figure a way around this, but this is the landscape you are dealing with.

Add to that the other factors I mentioned in my other post and you have a position which just makes no logical sense. It makes emotional sense when you feel, or think about the potential of a baby.

Nudity is stigmatized.


and thread.

If you dont own yourself what do you own?

If what is inside your body is not yours then what is?


Then there is the argument from consequence. Illegal abortion promotes black-market abortion, which is objectively riskier and more damaging to society.

Then there is also the slippery slope of allowing governments to control your body. Once they set that precedent that they control your body for your own well being, or the well being of the potential of a future citizen, then were does that stop, and what logical barriers exist to prevent the slip of personal rights?

There is nothing more personal than reproduction, so it is also an issue of privacy.

In fact this topic touches on just about every rights issue ever.

Cells in your body move around, they then can take root in other places. Lymph nodes are a common transit mechanism.

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerBasics/lymph-nodes-and-cancer

It amazes me people without knowing even the basics of cancer are so ready to make statements about what prevents it or what causes it.

Ok here is your problem in a nut shell. You ask a good question, but then wihtout knowing the answer you create a conclusion from your lack of understanding.


The mechanism(s) for how the cancer develops IS the reason why everyone does not get it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC79671/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090803212053.htm

The factors involved are very specific, and when damage occurs it is unlikely to setup the situation for cancer, however, the more you damage the skin, the more likely you are to get a cancer. Some populations may have advantageous genes which prevent, or restrict the likelihood of a given pathway.

Well I for one welcome our Russian overlords, just make sure to wear your tin foil hat, never know when those brain scanners will be set to your frequency.

Sun burns. Repeated trauma to the skin cells causing mutations.

What do you mean by this, becuase we have shown you examples.

I am also trying to understand what you mean here. I am guessing you mean we do not have examples of bacteria evolving into a higher life form.

I think this is correct for two good reasons. 1) Time scale, really we have only been at this game of understanding evolution for a VERY short period of time compared to the lengths of time things have been evolving and tend to change at a evolutionary pace (bacteria also do not create fossils). 2) is that the state of life on earth is already higher evolved, and there are very few open niches for a species to form. The environment, which includes all competitors must provide support for new mutations, and if a given niche for an organism is very successful then there is little pressure for change to occur. We see this often, sharks are a good example.

I have been reading over this site the last few days, not sure of how accurate, but it seems plausible, and I thought Id share.

http://www.see.org/garcia/e-ct-2.htm

Edit: however this is exactly what I meant when I said it would be best to speak with a real evolutionary biologist, becuase trying to understand early evolution and the pathways to animals is probably one of the most complex and specialized areas of evolution.

Ugh, not true.

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/indexWe have lots of knowledge about various kinds of cancers. Some are easily treated and the person never gets it again, thus a cure. Not all cancers are equal.


My uncle was a very pale, red haired Irish looking fellow . . . who worked as a roofer who never wore sunscreen. He died at the age of 42 from melanoma skin cancer, we know EXACTLY what caused his cancer. Sadly that form of cancer is very aggressive. A tumor would be removed, treat it, it would be gone, and come back some place else, until all of his organs had inoperable tumors and he died. Even the spread of his cancer was well understood, we even know why it killed him.

The body is a huge place to hide a few cells to start a new growth.

A documentary, and newspaper articles are not evidence. If they offered data then we could use that data, but just showing that other hold the same opinion is not evidence.

This is part of the problem, you just do not understand science at all.

Cognitive dissonance.

A living wage 60 years ago when adjusted for inflation is not that different from the low end of the pay scale today. The problem is the hidden inflation that is caused by printing money and overextending lines of credit by arbitrarily lowering interests rates. The political pressure to invest in risky behaviors is also a big problem. Cough freddie, cough cough fannie.

Your the one posting this stuff, that makes it your claims, so yea show us the evidence!

Yea there is already a word for that, its called existence.

Ahh but that is only morality, life is bigger than morality.

These are not the same things you are comparing, and because independent entrepreneurship exists does not make working for a wage bad, or exploitation.

You have failed to make your case against capitalism.

That you had resources, and property rights means you had the ability to use that capital to work independently. Your example was an example in favor of capitalism, not against it.

That is why your assertions are silly.

LOL, sure defending the source of my paycheck, and being realistic about the value of my service is supporting exploitation.

Your silly.

Just because they are pooling capital does not make it something other than capitalism. They are making use of resources, and property rights to create a service, or product without government control.

Now if they were forced to pool capital by the government, then the government told them how to use it, that would be socialism.

Science is self correcting, I read that and had no qualms with posting it. We learn from our mistakes.
So when he speculates based on data it is not ok, but when you speculate based on a lack of data it is ok?

The reality is you have no working theory at all. Creation is an unfalsifiable hypothesis with no predictive power, and offers no useful applications.

Whereas evolution does all of those things.

Your point about the low rate of useful mutations is not a point that favors your argument. They occur, that is what matters, that means over time they get selected for as they develop and that advantage is evolution at work.

There is no boundary for morphological change. ie, you have nothing in your position to show us why changes would stop at any arbitrary threshold, ie creationist "kinds".

Given the extent of time, and the amount of reproduction, .003 is more than enough to explain the diversity of life.

We watch evolution occur, and we know at times it occurs faster, and at times slower. Determining exactly why that is, is what modern research is about.

Again I urge you to take this to the JREF where evolutionary biologists can engage in the conversation.