RedDenver

Response from this post: As I've said multiple times, I'm opposed to medical research that's not independent of the death that allows for the research, including profit motives that would directly or indirectly result in more deaths. Medical research on aborted fetuses (or aborted babies if you prefer) isn't any different than any other medical research on a dead body. Unless you're also against medical research on all bodies as a result of non-natural causes, but that's a different issue that doesn't have to do with abortion. The only reason to think abortions are different than other deaths is to fit an agenda.

Sorry. Maybe one of the mods can take some time to move the posts to one of the abortion threads?

I hope so. And for the record, I don't think 'right to life' starts at birth but sometime before, so maybe we aren't as far apart as it might appear.

The basic idea is that the workers collectively own the company they work at. Another way to view it is if we employed the idea of democracy to the work place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

Well, they've lasted over a hundred years so far, but their power has been fading since the 1970's. I'll keep saying this though: I think worker coops would be a better alternative to unions.

I agree that were arguing over the phrasing and definitions, but in this case it matters. If we had telepathy or some other way of communicating True Meaning, then we wouldn't have this problem, but we're restricted by the language we're using to communicate. I understand that you think anything that can develop into a human person has certain rights and should be protected. I don't think possibility of development is a sufficient condition, but rather actually being a human person is what matters. Just as you see my view as a support of baby killing, I see your view as a call to protect body parts as if they're people. It doesn't mean we can't ever come to some sort of agreement or compromise on the issue, but it highlights how hard it would be for us to figure that out because we're starting from such different places. Yep, Singer takes the unrestricted expanding circle argument to the extreme - it's ridiculous and I don't support it. But that's because I don't have the same expanding circle issue because I don't want unrestricted abortions, and I think there are very few that do.

The bold is fear-mongering, as people are obviously opposed to that, including the pro-choice crowd. If you can find those people (I seriously doubt they even exist), then you'll also easily be able to find a whole bunch of both pro-life and pro-choice people that are opposed to them. The reason I'm pointing out the ridiculousness of consider human sperm as needing to be protected is I'm reducing your argument to it's logical absurdity (i.e. reductio ad absurdum). If you're going to use "any stage of human life" as the basis for your argument, then you have to include every stage of human life. If there are exceptions such as not considering individual cells or an organ, then it opens the door to other exceptions like a fetus.

I'll let @BigRedBuster answer what he meant, but I'd be right there with anyone else who opposes medical research that is not independent of human deaths.

But that's not the argument you were making. You were saying that medical research on the dead baby shouldn't be allowed because the baby didn't give consent. I'm saying that's irrelevent because no baby or minor can give consent - the consent is given by the parents. The cow, chicken, or pig people eat also has a beating heart, so that's not an argument unless you're going to also say we shouldn't be killing those animals. Abortion isn't unchecked - there's restrictions on when an abortion can be performed. Even all the angst over late-term abortions is still restricted by a medical doctor stating that it's in the best medical interests of the mother. And I don't buy into your "any stage" argument as then you're also saying that we can't devalue human sperm as it's also part of the stages of human life. That's ridiculous.

Then the medical research and the death would NOT be independent, and I'd be opposed to it. But I haven't seen any evidence that they're not independent. No, that's the exact case I'm saying is no different. Unless someone is also against murder victims being used for medical research, but that's a different issue than abortion. This goes back to the research not being independent of the deaths, which I'd oppose whether it's abortions, euthanasia, executions, etc.

I don't see how that can possibly be true. Using the tissue of dead people for medical research is independent of the way in which they died.

If you think the fetus is a person, then that person is a minor who can't give consent anyway. In which case the parents give consent, so that argument doesn't hold any weight. First, you have an expanding cirlces argument issue in that if protecting life is so important, then that should expand to protecting animal life and then expand to protecting plant life; however, humans must take life even in order to simply survive. What you probably mean to say is "human life" as being important to protect. But a liver or a kidney is also "human life" in that it's human DNA and it's alive. So then you need to be more narrow and say "person's life" is important to protect, which falls back into the problem of when do we consider the transition from a bunch of cells to being a person. That's very dependent on how you define "person", and we're back to the same point this issue is focused around: differing definitions of a person. And that's also where your analogy breaks down: Nazism, Stalin, etc. were definitely killing people, but this isn't true for abortion depending on your definition.

Note that these aren't all the same as "grafting human tissue onto mice" as claimed in the conservative outlets. They're injecting human tissue into mice to make them a better match to human biology for lab testing, which reduces the risk of human trials. If you're upset that fetal tissue is used, then you should be equally upset that human bodies and tissues are used for medical research after people die. This is absolutely no different. And that's if you consider the fetus a person, if you don't think the fetus was a person, then it's even less than that - more like using a removed liver, kidney, mole, etc.

@TGHusker, I searched the internet and only the usual conservative propaganda outlets are reporting this, and they're simply copy-and-paste versions of the same story, which is usually a strong sign this is a hoax. But I haven't seen a fact-check yet.

nominate @TGHusker

I don't think you read any of my post because I already explained this. I already said it's not a free for all because each state would send delegates - not just anybody can show up and propose or debate at the convention. If you don't trust the states to send reasonable delegates, or at least most of the states to send reasonable delegates, then we simply disagree. Note that wolf-pac has conservative and even GOP support, so it's not like this is something that has no support in the state governments. The bolded part is flat-out wrong because the CONVENTION CANNOT CHANGE ANY LAW OR RATIFY ANY AMENDMENT. The only result that the convention can have is a proposal for an amendment. Read Article V of the Constitution if you need clarification. Plus I already cited that the states can request a limited scope convention, which many scholars agree is possible. And what Hamilton said is that Congress is required to call the convention - they have no ability to agree or disagree with the calling of the convention - so they have no authority to accept or reject a limited convention. The entire point is that the states can amend the Constitution in the event the federal government becomes unresponsive to the people. There's never been an Article V convention called, so all of this is just hysteria. It is entirely rational to think that state delegates will be rational since the only way for the convention to be called in the first place is if 2/3rds of the states call for the convention. And states can have different ways to select their delegates - I don't know the laws of every state but I can't imagine they're setup such that the governors will all simply select the delegates. But that wasn't an Article V Constitutional Convention - because there was no Constitution. There's very specific limits for what an Article V Convention can and cannot do. This is just more hyperventilating and hysteria. The governors don't get to ratify any proposed amendments - the state legislatures do. And Article V has literally nothing to do with forming or abolishing the government - if that's going to happen, then there's no reason for the people doing it to follow any part of the Constitution. I stand by my original statement: you completely misunderstand what Article V does and does not allow.

Devaney did ok

Unsubsidized - as in these numbers don't include government subsidies. Also, just because rooftop solar isn't directly competitive with utility scale solar , doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. It just won't be as profitable as the utility company can do.

That's a TERRIBLE misunderstanding of how the Constitutional Convention process works. The convention can only PROPOSE potential amendments. After the Convention is over and before any amendment is actually adopted, it must be ratified by at least 3/4ths of the states. So all of these the-sky-will-fall takes on a convention are indeed just alarmists and/or don't want to see a particular amendment pass. But even besides all of that, there's some debate that a limited convention could be called by the states (so that other amendment ideas could not even be considered in the convention): "Some scholars believe that states have the power to limit the scope of an Article V convention. Larry Sabato is one scholar who advanced that view. Some feel that Congress's duty to call a convention when requested by the states means that it must call the convention that the states requested. If the states, therefore, request a convention limited to a certain subject matter, then the convention that is called would likely need to be limited in the way the states requested." Also, the convention isn't some free-for-all where anybody can just show up. Each state would send delegates, and only those delegates would propose and debate any amendments.

FYI, chicken drumsticks are inexpensive still. The organic ones at Costco are $1.89/lb, and you can find non-organic for less than that.

The difference between the orange and red lines is the difference between how productive US workers are and how much they are compensated. The rich are taking everyone else's hard work without giving them any of the increases in their own productivity. If you're going to complain about taking money from the rich, then you should also complain about the rich taking that money from their workers in the first place.

There's a financial company called Lazard that's been tracking the energy sector for decades and has a publicly available annual report. They've also started tracking energy storage in the last few years as well. Quick summary: Note that these are all unsubsidized numbers.

Holy crap! The runner strangled the mountain lion to death!

They deliberately don't have a draft as they want to get more input as additional states sign on and have a draft for the Constitutional Convention.

teachermp4