Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
JDG wrote: Massive straw man, unworthy of reply. See Charlie's posts on the subject. I don't think that calling my argument a straw man contributes to positive debate on this subject. OK, I'm sorry. Your argument is fallacious because the chance that the male/female ratio becomes severely offset under current circumstances is very close to zero. I believe that Charlie's point is that such a situation would be unstable in the long run. If a generation of people comes out disproportionately female, then this would create an incentive to produce male children. This perhaps may be true - but doesn't do any good for the people who were born in the disproportionate generation. Secondly, the point doesn't consider the possibility of misaligned incentives. There may be many reason why parents perceive children of one sex to be more desireable than those of another - and those reasons might have nothing to do with adulthood. For instance, parents may perceive that they will enjoy playing games with a female child more than a male child, or that a female child is easier to manage while growing up than a male child, etc. These sorts of cultural perceptions could easily result in misaligned sex ratios persisting into the long term. But what indication do you have that any of this would ever happen? You can't make laws based on imaginary scenarios; _nothing_ would be legal! Leaving aside the number of people doing this because of a birth defect, you do realize that you are essentially arguing that this practice is o.k., so long as only rich people do it? The expense of the procedure shouldn't affect the morality of this procedure. If the procedure is moral and sensible for a few rich people to engage in, then it should be moral and sensible for everyone to engage in - should they have the opportunity. No, I'm arguing that I don't believe that the practice (choosing sex) will become widespread. If it _does_ begin to become widespread, then we can worry about banning the procedure. It has nothing to do with ethics. Yes we are. We are talking about conceiving a number of children, and eliminating the children of the undesired sex. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. I mean really, are you going to ban sunglasses next because they might block the twinkle in Daddy's eye? I can only hope that you get the opportunity to join me in supporting a ban on sex-selection abortions. I promise you that if sex selection via termination of pregnancy becomes a problem in the U.S., I'll write my congressperson. Let me ask you again. Do you think we should tailor our laws to remedy the shortcomings of the Chinese social system? I still have no idea what you mean by this. I merely think that if the Chinese Communists think that a certain procedure is too gruesome to allow in their own country, that should be a strong tipoff that we shouldn't be allowing it in our own country either. It doesn't have anything at all to do with gruesomeness. When I suggested that there were no good reasons for banning the procedure you stated isn't the real danger of ending up with an unbalanced population, making it difficult for a generation to find a mate, worth noting? but in fact, that is not a problem in the U.S. It is a problem in China (and a few other nations). Lacking a problem here, the only reason to ban the procedure would be to accommodate the problems in other nations, especially China. If you had good reason to anticipate a problem here, perhaps a ban would be justified, but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that you do; just speculation. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 17/07/2006, at 6:50 AM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15/07/2006, at 3:43 PM, jdiebremse wrote: We weren't discussing abortion. Yes we are. We are talking about conceiving a number of children, and eliminating the children of the undesired sex. As I pointed out elsewhere, this is the main assumption of difference. If you regard an undifferentiated pre-implantion ball of cells as a child, then of course you're going to have a different view to those who think humanity and sentience and so on are sliding scales (that an adult has more rights than a child has more rights than an infant than a foetus than an embryo than a zygote than an ovum). I know that it is oh-so-fashionable in these parts to say that everything comes in shades of grey, and contrast that to pale- conservative JDG who sees things in black-and-white, but sometimes things really are in black-and-white. To put it another way, the right to life is like virginity - either you have it or you don't. (Apologies to the former UN Ambassador from Brazil on that one.) There is no sliding scale on the right to life. Either the organism has the right, or it does not. The question is, at what point does the organism become a fully- fledged member of the group? You say at conception. Possessing a full complement of chromosomes suddenly makes you fully human. Well, others disagree. Some think it's when implantation occurs. Others, at the point where the foetus is capable of independent survival (this is approximately my position at present). Others still, at birth or a specified time thereafter and still others, at the point when the child achieves full self-awareness. A blastocyst is not a child to most people, John. Many, possibly most according to some studies, zygotes *fail to implant* and die in the toilet or soaked up in a panty-liner. The wastage is naturally huge. Clearly, until they're able to implant, they're disposable, *biologically* speaking. Sorry, Charlie, but this is not sound logic. The logical conculsion of what you are saying is that if the infant mortality rate is high, then infanticide is morally acceptable. I hope that makes it clear. Utterly false connection. An infant is an independent and individual. A blastocyst is not. Its completely irrelevant how many children die naturally in determining whether or not it is acceptable to kill a child. The same applies to the fetus, blastocyst, zygote, and even to the cow - the number that would die naturally is completely irrelevant in deciding whether it is moral to intentionally kill another. And if we want to talk biologically, from the very moment of conception, that which you refer to as a zygote, blastocyst, and fetus, are all nevertheless individual members of homo sapiens sapiens - *biologically* speaking, of course. Saying that something which *cannot* survive without biological support from an adult is an individual is stretching the definition beyond breaking point. You're using the classic language of emotion to make your point - talk of killing children and aborting embryos. These are neither, they're balls of cells. They might contain 46 chromosomes, but until they're implanted in the uterus, they're never going to be anything else. Cancer is undifferentiated balls of cells too. Is a tumour a human? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Charlie wrote: A blastocyst is not a child to most people, John. Many, possibly most according to some studies, zygotes *fail to implant* and die in the toilet or soaked up in a panty-liner. The wastage is naturally huge. Clearly, until they're able to implant, they're disposable, *biologically* speaking. Sorry, Charlie, but this is not sound logic. The logical conculsion of what you are saying is that if the infant mortality rate is high, then infanticide is morally acceptable. I hope that makes it clear. Utterly false connection. An infant is an independent and individual. A blastocyst is not. And besides, we are talking about a blastocyst in a petri dish/test tube whatever. JDG, do you also hold that all couples who undergo IVF, have a baby after the first implantation, and decide against further implants are guilty of 'killing children'? I am as big an opposer of female foeticide as anyone else [no one chooses to abort male foetuses in India]. But we are not talking about conceiving and nourishing a baby for a few months and then aborting them because they don't have a penis. Do I think it is advisable to tinker like this in cases other than medical emergencies? No. But neither do I think that there is any need or point in banning it. The technology exists. People who want it will get it. Especially if they are rich. Even if it is illegal. So might as well keep it legal and tax it high. It is a luxury medical service after all. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
At 02:49 AM Monday 7/17/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: Cancer is undifferentiated balls of cells too. Is a tumour a human? The obvious difference is that if left alone a blastocyst has a chance (if nothing goes wrong) of becoming a human being, whereas a tumor does not. Insert Classic Lawyer Joke Here Maru --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Shuttle Deorbit Burn Successful
Deorbit Burn Successful 17 July 2006 8:11 a.m. EDT Shuttle Discovery has begun its deorbit burn, which will slow the spacecraft down by about 302 mph, just enough to allow it to slip back into the Earth's atmosphere. The burn, which lasted three minutes and two seconds, places Discovery on schedule for a 9:14 a.m. EDT landing at Kennedy Space Center. --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jdiebremse Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 11:02 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yet, I don't think this means it is inherently immoral for someone to have a private jet. I have to say that your example did not convince me of the point. Presuming that everyone has a private jet in a market economy, presumably the prices would still reflect the new situation. In other words, as the number of people with private jets increased, the price of oil would increase to reflect the tradeoff of using oil for private jet flights vs. using the oil for other things. In order to keep flying the private jet as the price of oil rises, one would presumably have to provide increasing amounts of value to society through work or capital allocation or both. (Or one would presumably have to value the private jet flight more than the alternative goods and services one could have purchased.) In other words, to have reached a point where everyone had a private jet, we preumably did so at a price level equilibrium that reflects that fact that it really *was* the most efficient use of our oil to spend them on private jet flights. Well, if you are able to assume that the economic cost of choosing a baby's sex goes down, I thought I could assume that the price of oil would not go up...by assuming other technical innovations. For example, let's say the technology needed to covert shale beds developed significantly, or that we find an easy and cheap way to tap under-sea methane. The problem I was thinking about was the fact that CO2 levels in the atmosphere would really go through the roof. You know that I've argued for the middle position on global warmingand consider both those who deny the existence of human induced global warming and those who claim it must be stopped at any price to be in error. But, if everyone had planes and used them, the change in climate would be catastrophicafter a CO2 rise of a factor of 10 or more. Let's assume that, in the future, there would be an easy, cheap method of picking the sex of a child, pre-conception. Let's also assume that it rarely was used to get all boys or all girls, that most families who used it picked a girl if they had a boy and a boy if they had a girl. Why would this be such a significant problem that the government had to ban it? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 7/12/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And lesbians have a huge advantage in selection: they select the father of their daughters based on logical criteria, while hetero women chose based on love [or hormones, etc]. So, the daughters of lesbians will have a competitive advantage over the daughters of non-lesbians. Do we really know that logic has evolutionary advantages over emotion? I imagine that perhaps the mix of the two has advantages over either one, given that's how things have turned out so far. And we have quite a variety of dominance throughout the human population and among cultures, nations and other subgroups. It isn't sensible or kind to compare logic and emotion! At least that's what I think... and feel... ;-) Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 17/07/2006, at 3:04 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 02:49 AM Monday 7/17/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: Cancer is undifferentiated balls of cells too. Is a tumour a human? The obvious difference is that if left alone a blastocyst has a chance (if nothing goes wrong) of becoming a human being, whereas a tumor does not. No, that's the whole point - if left alone a blastocyst has *no* chance of becoming anything. It requires the act of uterine implantation to progress to the next stage of development. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Nick Arnett wrote: And lesbians have a huge advantage in selection: they select the father of their daughters based on logical criteria, while hetero women chose based on love [or hormones, etc]. So, the daughters of lesbians will have a competitive advantage over the daughters of non-lesbians. Do we really know that logic has evolutionary advantages over emotion? Yes. Selection by emotion evolved to chose traits that were advantageous for our caveman ancestors, like bullying power or capacity for deceit. I imagine that perhaps the mix of the two has advantages over either one, given that's how things have turned out so far. Have they? And we have quite a variety of dominance throughout the human population and among cultures, nations and other subgroups. It isn't sensible or kind to compare logic and emotion! At least that's what I think... and feel... ;-) :-) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Dan Minette wrote: Let's also assume that it rarely was used to get all boys or all girls, that most families who used it picked a girl if they had a boy and a boy if they had a girl. Why would this be such a significant problem that the government had to ban it? Certainly in *this* country, that would be the case. Most families that I know with all boys would like their next child to be a girl, and vice-versa. I think the problem lies in that many of the sex- choice tourists (for lack of a better term) are not making their choice based on some paradigm of, well, balancing out the family ledger, so to speak. I think a majority of them are coming here specifically to have a baby of a specific sex because that sex is better than the other one. I personally am repelled by the idea of choosing a baby's sex. I don't see it as a practice that needs banning, but I do see where the logical next step is Why can't my baby be blond, or tall, or any number of other more desirable traits? and I can further see why some people want to nip it in the bud, right or wrong. My question is, at what point would the possible practice of tinkering with one's progeny before they're even conceived be banned? I also wonder, if such tinkering becomes viable, does it have the possibility of damaging an egalitarian society? Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Jim Sharkey wrote: I personally am repelled by the idea of choosing a baby's sex. I don't see it as a practice that needs banning, but I do see where the logical next step is Why can't my baby be blond, or tall, or any number of other more desirable traits? and I can further see why some people want to nip it in the bud, right or wrong. My question is, at what point would the possible practice of tinkering with one's progeny before they're even conceived be banned? People want to ban it already, so I doubt that if abuse starts to get out of hand it will escape early notice. I also wonder, if such tinkering becomes viable, does it have the possibility of damaging an egalitarian society? How so? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 17/07/2006, at 7:12 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote: I also wonder, if such tinkering becomes viable, does it have the possibility of damaging an egalitarian society? No. It's likely to make any society *more* equal in the (possibly quite) long run. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Doug Pensinger wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: I also wonder, if such tinkering becomes viable, does it have the possibility of damaging an egalitarian society? How so? Well, I would imagine that such advances would only be available to the wealthy, at least initially, possibly even for an entire generation. In which case, children of the wealthy, who arguably already have one leg up on the competition, would get yet another tick in the plus column in terms of success, conceivably concetrating wealth and power even more tightly to a select few. I certainly don't mean to sound like an alarmist hack SF writer. I'm just allowing for the possibility. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Jim Sharkey wrote: Well, I would imagine that such advances would only be available to the wealthy, at least initially, possibly even for an entire generation. In which case, children of the wealthy, who arguably already have one leg up on the competition, would get yet another tick in the plus column in terms of success, conceivably concetrating wealth and power even more tightly to a select few. Rich people seem quite selfish but not genetically selfish. Why can't rich men [like those that get 1 Giga $] hire a thousand women and have one or two thousand heirs, spreading their genes? They could do it now or 200 years ago, with no technology, but they don't. They usually have one or no children. Modern rich women could also spread their eggs over a dozen host mothers. But they don't. Why would they change the pattern and worry about their genes? I certainly don't mean to sound like an alarmist hack SF writer. I'm just allowing for the possibility. Maybe the trait that makes people rich is defective for the gene pool, and tends to eliminate itself :-) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 12:52:34 -0400 (EDT), Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doug Pensinger wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: I also wonder, if such tinkering becomes viable, does it have the possibility of damaging an egalitarian society? How so? Well, I would imagine that such advances would only be available to the wealthy, at least initially, possibly even for an entire generation. In which case, children of the wealthy, who arguably already have one leg up on the competition, would get yet another tick in the plus column in terms of success, conceivably concetrating wealth and power even more tightly to a select few. I imagine that even if the manipulation of traits becomes illeagal here it will be legal somewhere and rich people will have access to it anyway. In any case, in the U.S. people from different social stratta have a tendency to mix so I'm not sure that there would be a problem. I'd be interested to hear why Charlie feels that society would become more equal in the long run per his most recent comment... I certainly don't mean to sound like an alarmist hack SF writer. I'm just allowing for the possibility. We're all here at least partly for that reason - discussing possibilities. 8^) -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 17/07/2006, at 8:10 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: I imagine that even if the manipulation of traits becomes illeagal here it will be legal somewhere and rich people will have access to it anyway. In any case, in the U.S. people from different social stratta have a tendency to mix so I'm not sure that there would be a problem. I'd be interested to hear why Charlie feels that society would become more equal in the long run per his most recent comment... Because whatever traits that contribute to discrimination would be weeded out. The population will likely become homogeneous... Or not. I dunno. :) Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Charlie Bell wrote: Because whatever traits that contribute to discrimination would be weeded out. The population will likely become homogeneous... Yes, like the Y-chromossome that will be eliminated, ending up with a lesbian society :-P Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Jim Sharkey wrote: Dan Minette wrote: Let's also assume that it rarely was used to get all boys or all girls, that most families who used it picked a girl if they had a boy and a boy if they had a girl. Why would this be such a significant problem that the government had to ban it? Certainly in *this* country, that would be the case. Most families that I know with all boys would like their next child to be a girl, and vice-versa. I think the problem lies in that many of the sex- choice tourists (for lack of a better term) are not making their choice based on some paradigm of, well, balancing out the family ledger, so to speak. I think a majority of them are coming here specifically to have a baby of a specific sex because that sex is better than the other one. I personally am repelled by the idea of choosing a baby's sex. I don't see it as a practice that needs banning, but I do see where the logical next step is Why can't my baby be blond, or tall, or any number of other more desirable traits? and I can further see why some people want to nip it in the bud, right or wrong. My question is, at what point would the possible practice of tinkering with one's progeny before they're even conceived be banned? I also wonder, if such tinkering becomes viable, does it have the possibility of damaging an egalitarian society? Jim The couple in this case thinks they have a good reason for sex selection: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391264in_page_id=1770ct=5 I don't think that. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 17/07/2006, at 8:33 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: Because whatever traits that contribute to discrimination would be weeded out. The population will likely become homogeneous... Yes, like the Y-chromossome that will be eliminated, ending up with a lesbian society :-P Here we go again www.bigbustybrazilianlesbiansonheat.com, alberto, and come back when you've calmed down... ;) Charlie Might Have Made Up That URL Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Alberto Monteiro wrote: Yes, like the Y-chromossome that will be eliminated, ending up with a lesbian society :-P On one of the forums I frequent, there's a saying: There's a 'Penny Arcade' strip for every occasion. This one must be Alberto's: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/11/04 :-D Jim If a pair of boobies is good, two pairs must be better Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] The couple in this case thinks they have a good reason for sex selection: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391264in_page_id=1770ct=5 I don't think that. Julia B... There was a science fiction story published some time ago in which gay men uniformly came only from Roman Catholic and Evangelical families - who had scruples against abortions. And, of course, were just as down on being gay. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 7/17/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. Selection by emotion evolved to chose traits that were advantageous for our caveman ancestors, like bullying power or capacity for deceit. I imagine that perhaps the mix of the two has advantages over either one, given that's how things have turned out so far. Have they? I'm fairly certain that human beings present have emotions and rationality. Those who devalue either one do so at their peril. Is there any question about this? You seem to be suggesting that emotions are bad to have. Is it? Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Fwd: [sanjosefreecycle] Wanted : Still seeking Casket
At first glance, this is the weirdest freecycle wanted ever... I'm trying to imagine a scenario in which one might purchase a casket and then not need it. Nick -- Forwarded message -- From: Date: Jul 17, 2006 9:34 AM Subject: [sanjosefreecycle] Wanted : Still seeking Casket To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Looking for a real casket or Full sized well made coffin, in good shape. I work in the haunted house industry and really need a good one that will last through several years of use, not just some cheap prop from Spirit or Spencers. Our budget is gone, but we still need one. Thanx in advance. - Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/rcTolB/TM - ~- Freecycle...one simple, brilliant idea that's changing the world one gift at a time. What do you want to post on Freecycle today? http://www.freecycle.org Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sanjosefreecycle/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ - -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Nick Arnett wrote: Yes. Selection by emotion evolved to chose traits that were advantageous for our caveman ancestors, like bullying power or capacity for deceit. I imagine that perhaps the mix of the two has advantages over either one, given that's how things have turned out so far. Have they? I'm fairly certain that human beings present have emotions and rationality. Yes Those who devalue either one do so at their peril. Is there any question about this? You seem to be suggesting that emotions are bad to have. Is it? Yes - emotions are evil. Every good emotion can be rationalized by logic, but evil emotions can't. Alberto Spock ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WTC Redux
Julia Thompson wrote: Robert Seeberger wrote: I hypothesize that the damage to the outer ring caused load shifting, with the inner core acting as a fulcrum. On the other parts of the affected floor compressive forces became [the opposite of compressive] forces or torsive forces beyond the rating of bolts and welds. One by one members give way, transfering even more force to remaining members until collapse is initiated. Tensile? Was that the word you were looking for? No, I think what I mean is more along the lines of elongational or expansive. xponent The Missing Vocabulary Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Novak Comes Clean on the Plame Affair
Its nice to finally know exactly what happened: http://www.slate.com/id/2145889/ I still seems that I wasn't very far off the mark when I noted that it can't have been a very deep secret that the wife of an ambassador was a CIA agent. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, I'm sorry. Your argument is fallacious because the chance that the male/female ratio becomes severely offset under current circumstances is very close to zero. Well, obviously I disagree. You haven't really provided any evidence to back your view that it is very close to zero, other than to refer me to Charlie's posts. As near as I can tell, Charlie's posts are a long run argument. Well, in the long run we're all dead. In the meantime, that could be tens of millions of people being born into unbalanced generations. But what indication do you have that any of this would ever happen? You can't make laws based on imaginary scenarios; _nothing_ would be legal! If we couldn't make laws based on imaginary scenarios, we also wouldn't have laws banning the sale of prescription drugs until they have undergone clinical trials. I also think that we have the experience of countries like India and China to suggest that in the short term, it is possible for misaligned incentives to cause parents to produce imbalanced generations. Here's the thing, Doug. Either you agree that the State has a role in preventing misaligned generations, or you don't. I'm not at all sure if you are denying the role of the State to prevent misaligned generations, or are just saying that our particular State (the USA) shouldn't be taking any action at this time. Yes we are. We are talking about conceiving a number of children, and eliminating the children of the undesired sex. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. I mean really, are you going to ban sunglasses next because they might block the twinkle in Daddy's eye? Abortion is the killing of an unborn child, plain and simple. I can't believe that after all my years on the List you could still bring up the tired old saw about every sperm is sacred, as if you *still* don't recognize where I see the difference. Sigh. It makes me wonder why I bother coming back here... I can only hope that you get the opportunity to join me in supporting a ban on sex-selection abortions. I promise you that if sex selection via termination of pregnancy becomes a problem in the U.S., I'll write my congressperson. How many times does it need to happen for it to be a problem? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 18/07/2006, at 3:12 AM, jdiebremse wrote: Abortion is the killing of an unborn child, plain and simple. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. An unimplanted embryo is not a pregnancy. Plain, and simple. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17/07/2006, at 6:50 AM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell charlie@ wrote: On 15/07/2006, at 3:43 PM, jdiebremse wrote: We weren't discussing abortion. Yes we are. We are talking about conceiving a number of children, and eliminating the children of the undesired sex. As I pointed out elsewhere, this is the main assumption of difference. If you regard an undifferentiated pre-implantion ball of cells as a child, then of course you're going to have a different view to those who think humanity and sentience and so are sliding scales (that an adult has more rights than a child has more rights than an infant than a foetus than an embryo than a zygote than an ovum). I know that it is oh-so-fashionable in these parts to say that everything comes in shades of grey, and contrast that to pale- conservative JDG who sees things in black-and-white, but sometimes things really are in black-and-white. To put it another way, the right to life is like virginity - either you have it or you don't. The question is, at what point does the organism become a fully- fledged member of the group? You say at conception. Possessing a full complement of chromosomes suddenly makes you fully human. Well, others disagree. Some think it's when implantation occurs. Others, at the point where the foetus is capable of independent survival (this is approximately my position at present). Others still, at birth or a specified time thereafter and still others, at the point when the child achieves full self-awareness. That's all well and good Charlie, but at now point have you defending your original assertion that rights are a sliding scale. You have argued that different people have different scales - but you have described all of those scales as being black- and-white. You have not described any of them as being sliding. A blastocyst is not a child to most people, John. Many, possibly most according to some studies, zygotes *fail to implant* and die in the toilet or soaked up in a panty-liner. The wastage is naturally huge. Clearly, until they're able to implant, they're disposable, *biologically* speaking. Sorry, Charlie, but this is not sound logic. The logical conculsion of what you are saying is that if the infant mortality rate is high, then infanticide is morally acceptable. I hope that makes it clear. Utterly false connection. An infant is an independent and individual. A blastocyst is not. I completely disagree. The zygote clearly exists in its own space, has its own genetic code, and that genetic code is clearly human. I see no biological basis for classifying the cells of the zygote as part of some other organisim, so therfore it is its own organism. Also biologically speaking, this organism must be classified as the member of some species, and that species is clearly homo sapiens sapiens. So, that's my view on an individual. Out of curiosity - what makes one an independent individual and what makes one a non- individual in your mind? Cancer is undifferentiated balls of cells too. Is a tumour a human? A tumor is clearly a growth of an existing individual. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 02:49 AM Monday 7/17/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: Cancer is undifferentiated balls of cells too. Is a tumour a human? The obvious difference is that if left alone a blastocyst has a chance (if nothing goes wrong) of becoming a human being, whereas a tumor does not. I don't think that potential has anything to do with it. The organism you are calling a blastocyst is a human being - it ain't a cow, after all. So, I see where you are going with this, but I think that your answer was a little too simplistic. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Internet Archive Wayback Machine
I'm not sure if this archive is cool or disturbing. Cool for historic purposes, but a bit disturbing if you once posted things you may not want potential employers to find. From the webpage... About the Wayback Machine Browse through 55 billion web pages archived from 1996 to a few months ago. To start surfing the Wayback, type in the web address of a site or page where you would like to start, and press enter. Then select from the archived dates available. The resulting pages point to other archived pages at as close a date as possible. Keyword searching is not currently supported. http://www.archive.org/web/web.php ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, if you are able to assume that the economic cost of choosing a baby's sex goes down, I thought I could assume that the price of oil would not go up... For the recrord, I don't see how anything I said implied that the price of oil would go up The problem I was thinking about was the fact that CO2 levels in the atmosphere would really go through the roof. But this has nothing to do with the use of private jets, and everything to do with a pollution externality. Assuming that there was a suitable carbon tax in place to account for the externality, I can't think of anything inherently immoral about everyone owning private jets. Let's assume that, in the future, there would be an easy, cheap method of picking the sex of a child, pre-conception. Let's also assume that it rarely was used to get all boys or all girls, that most families who used it picked a girl if they had a boy and a boy if they had a girl. Why would this be such a significant problem that the government had to ban it? I don't know that this is a valid assumption. For example, in the United States, parents whose first-born child is a girl are quite a bit more likely (sorry I don't have the exact number handy) to have a second child than parents whose first-born child is a boy.A couple with three girls is still 4 percent more likely to try for a 4th child than a couple with three boys. This suggests that in a first iteration of a cheap and easy gender- choosing scenario in the US, that we would end up with more boys than girls. Leaving that aside, as I mentioned earlier, I am unconformtable with the idea that parents have the right to unilaterally alter another human being's (i.e. their child's) genetic code in arbitrary ways without the child's permission. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 18/07/2006, at 3:20 AM, jdiebremse wrote: The question is, at what point does the organism become a fully- fledged member of the group? You say at conception. Possessing a full complement of chromosomes suddenly makes you fully human. Well, others disagree. Some think it's when implantation occurs. Others, at the point where the foetus is capable of independent survival (this is approximately my position at present). Others still, at birth or a specified time thereafter and still others, at the point when the child achieves full self-awareness. That's all well and good Charlie, but at now point have you defending your original assertion that rights are a sliding scale. You have argued that different people have different scales - but you have described all of those scales as being black- and-white. You have not described any of them as being sliding. Huh? I thought it was clear - at different times, you have a different level of rights. You gain more rights as you achieve new levels. The right to vote, to drive, to healthcare, to drink. And the right to live. The question is not whether these exist, it's at what point they apply. You say, at conception the right to life is endowed. I say, at the point when you can survive as an individual without direct biological support from your mother, the right to life is endowed. That's the sliding scale - the increase in rights. And the loss of rights too. A brain-dead shell on total life support is not a human, it's a cadaver with a heartbeat. The right to choose life passes to the relatives. A blastocyst is not a child to most people, John. Many, possibly most according to some studies, zygotes *fail to implant* and die in the toilet or soaked up in a panty-liner. The wastage is naturally huge. Clearly, until they're able to implant, they're disposable, *biologically* speaking. Sorry, Charlie, but this is not sound logic. The logical conculsion of what you are saying is that if the infant mortality rate is high, then infanticide is morally acceptable. I hope that makes it clear. Utterly false connection. An infant is an independent and individual. A blastocyst is not. I completely disagree. The zygote clearly exists in its own space, has its own genetic code, and that genetic code is clearly human. So does a metastasis stage cancer cell. I see no biological basis for classifying the cells of the zygote as part of some other organisim, so therfore it is its own organism. It has no organs. How can it be an organism? Also biologically speaking, this organism must be classified as the member of some species, and that species is clearly homo sapiens sapiens. So, that's my view on an individual. Out of curiosity - what makes one an independent individual and what makes one a non- individual in your mind? Surviving without direct biological support. A new-born baby is an individual. It has broken the direct link, budded away from the mother. Individual. A ball of cells that is unimplanted is just a ball of cells. Cancer is undifferentiated balls of cells too. Is a tumour a human? A tumor is clearly a growth of an existing individual. Really? Some cancer cells function like amoeba. Motile. Others grow in clumps. In fact, they can be removed and cultured indefinitely. They have human DNA. They feed, grow and multiply quite happily. So clearly, according to you, they're human. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa for an example of a human-cell culture. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Abortion is the killing of an unborn child, plain and simple. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. An unimplanted embryo is not a pregnancy. Plain, and simple. Not plain, and not simple. What word would you have me use then? I'm guessing murder isn't it. So, what, then? JDG - Not particularly amused by playing semantics... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The couple in this case thinks they have a good reason for sex selection: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html? in_article_id=391264in_page_id=1770ct=5 I don't think that. Wow... killing all the male embryos, simply because they are more likely to potentially have a disease... How long before we start asking autistic children how come your parents didn't abort you? I'm glad that I'm not the only one that finds that disturbing... JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 18/07/2006, at 3:40 AM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Abortion is the killing of an unborn child, plain and simple. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. An unimplanted embryo is not a pregnancy. Plain, and simple. Not plain, and not simple. What word would you have me use then? I'm guessing murder isn't it. So, what, then? JDG - Not particularly amused by playing semantics... You started the semantic game, by defining abortion contrary to most peoples' usage, and saying plain and simple. You're making it axiomatic that a zygote is a living being. A full human. Others disagree with this most basic premise, so is it any wonder that there'll never be agreement or compromise? See, if one doesn't think that it's a child until it's capable of survival (around 22 weeks at best), then one's not going to see a pre- implantation embryo as human, and there is no amount of insisting on it being otherwise that'll change a thing. If abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, and there is no pregnancy, then it's not an abortion. IVF discards pre-implantation embryos, but it creates humans too. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Internet Archive Wayback Machine
On 7/17/06, Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure if this archive is cool or disturbing. Cool for historic purposes, but a bit disturbing if you once posted things you may not want potential employers to find. From the webpage... About the Wayback Machine Browse through 55 billion web pages archived from 1996 to a few months ago. To start surfing the Wayback, type in the web address of a site or page where you would like to start, and press enter. Then select from the archived dates available. The resulting pages point to other archived pages at as close a date as possible. Keyword searching is not currently supported. http://www.archive.org/web/web.php One of the things that saddens me most about the current state of Wikipedia is that we don't use the Internet Archive all that much. So many dead links just get removed. It's heart-breaking. ~maru on the cool side here ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You started the semantic game, by defining abortion contrary to most peoples' usage, and saying plain and simple. What are you basing your view of most peoples' usage on? I would love to see your evidence on this point. So far as I know, I am using abortion in the standard sense of the killing of a unborn child. Which brings me back to my question - what term would you have me use for the killing of unborn unimplanted children? You're making it axiomatic that a zygote is a living being. Do you wish to disagree that it is alive? I think it is axiomatic. See, if one doesn't think that it's a child until it's capable of survival (around 22 weeks at best), So, how does one measure this point? And so one becomes human at an earlier age today than one did 50 years ago? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see no biological basis for classifying the cells of the zygote as part of some other organisim, so therfore it is its own organism. It has no organs. How can it be an organism? Since when did having organs become a requirement for an organism? I am sure that a couple paramecium would like to have words with you about being an organism. Also biologically speaking, this organism must be classified as the member of some species, and that species is clearly homo sapiens sapiens. So, that's my view on an individual. Out of curiosity - what makes one an independent individual and what makes one a non-individual in your mind? Surviving without direct biological support. A new-born baby is an individual. It has broken the direct link, budded away from the mother. Individual. Of course, I fail to see what direct biological support a free- floating zygote has. It seems that the direct biological support only comes *after implantation.* But you just argued to me that it was this direct biological support that creates an abortion - so now I am thoroughly confused. Really? Some cancer cells function like amoeba. Motile. Others grow in clumps. In fact, they can be removed and cultured indefinitely. They have human DNA. They feed, grow and multiply quite happily. So clearly, according to you, they're human. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa for an example of a human-cell culture. It would seem to me that cancer cells likely fail at least one of the two tests, or both. For one, many cancer cells do not seem to be individuals, any more than a free-floating blood cell is an individual. For two, the wikipedia entry you posted says that these cells in this case are not human, but are instead of another genera. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
JDG wrote: What are you basing your view of most peoples' usage on? I would love to see your evidence on this point. So far as I know, I am using abortion in the standard sense of the killing of a unborn child. There is nothing standard about using the term 'abortion' to refer to 'killing an unborn child'. The standard defintion of abortion covers areas like 'termination of pregnancy', or 'the expulsion of a foetus' [hint: in the latter definition, do consider just where the foetus is supposed to be expelled from]. In fact, in all my 34 years, you are the first person I've ever come across who seems to think that clumps of cell on a petri dish can be aborted. I would like to see *your* evidence that this is a standard usage of the term. Which brings me back to my question - what term would you have me use for the killing of unborn unimplanted children? Discarding foetuses, or implants, works for me. And I must say that while I can easily think of implanted zygotes as children [especially when they are mine], it is too much of a stretch for me to consider unimplanted ones as kids. Might as well start feeling guilty about deforestation everytime I eat a sprout... Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
JDG wrote: Well, obviously I disagree. You haven't really provided any evidence to back your view that it is very close to zero, other than to refer me to Charlie's posts. As near as I can tell, Charlie's posts are a long run argument. Well, in the long run we're all dead. In the meantime, that could be tens of millions of people being born into unbalanced generations. Here's some evidence; Chinese sex ratio male/female 1.06/1 Indian sex ratio 1.07/1 this despite a extremely strong bias towards males and despite pre-birth methods to identify the sex of the child (ultrasound) for over 20 years. You suggest that the U.S. could reach a ratio of 3:1 in a short period of time despite having no sexual bias. I'm sorry John, but the suggestion is absolutely off the scale ridiculous. If we couldn't make laws based on imaginary scenarios, we also wouldn't have laws banning the sale of prescription drugs until they have undergone clinical trials. Drugs often have unintended side effects. Not imaginary. I also think that we have the experience of countries like India and China to suggest that in the short term, it is possible for misaligned incentives to cause parents to produce imbalanced generations. Not anything remotely close to the 3:1 ratio that you have suggested _despite_ a strong cultural bias towards male offspring. Here's the thing, Doug. Either you agree that the State has a role in preventing misaligned generations, or you don't. Sure they have a role: monitor the ratio and if it looks like there might be a problem take appropriate action. I'm not at all sure if you are denying the role of the State to prevent misaligned generations, or are just saying that our particular State (the USA) shouldn't be taking any action at this time. Neither. I'm saying the state has a role if and when there is a problem. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. I mean really, are you going to ban sunglasses next because they might block the twinkle in Daddy's eye? Abortion is the killing of an unborn child, plain and simple. That's your definition, not common usage. I can't believe that after all my years on the List you could still bring up the tired old saw about every sperm is sacred, as if you *still* don't recognize where I see the difference. I know where you see the difference but I think you are being pedantic and I think that you tend to focus on the symptoms of a problem rather than the problem itself. Here you are focusing on a procedure that allows folks to choose the sex of their child, but the problem is the _attitude_ (in places like China) that creates the desire for male children and a male/female offset. Change the attitude and you go a long way towards solving the problem. But if you prohibit the procedure, chances are people will find a way to do it anyway because you haven't changed their attitude. With abortion in general you again focus on prohibiting them while the real problem in most cases is unwanted pregnancy. If you reduce unwanted pregnancy you will reduce the call for abortion. If you outlaw abortion in South Dakota, people will go to Minnesota to get one. You haven't solved anything. How many times does it need to happen for it to be a problem? As with many other things, it's a judgment call. I’ve got to say, I admire your tenacity. I barely have the time and/or patience to keep up with you alone. If I had two or three other people pounding on me, I’d probably give up. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Part 3 is up!
http://photoninthedarkness.blogspot.com/2006/07/seven-most-common-thinking-errors-of_10.html Part 3 of the Seven Most Common Thinking Errors of Highly Amusing Quacks and Pseudoscientists is up, containing errors #s 4 and 5. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
