packsaddle

Longhaul, the tough questions are easy to pose, tough to answer - regarding the abortion issue. The first one has to do with birth control and those methods that work by causing early abortions. An honest pro-life approach would be to ban these birth control measures. The second question is an ethical conundrum: how to act, for example, in the case of ectopic pregnancy (either fetus or both mother and fetus will die). Any action taken (or non-action) will result in death. How to legislate the authority to make this decision without conflicting with the rationale for a ban on abortion? The third question is pragmatic and doesn't require an answer, merely states an unexpected outcome. Abortion is always going to be available as a legal choice for women who have the means. They can afford to travel. This thereby confines the application of the law only to poor women. I suppose this is not a problem for some people. The fourth question is also pragmatic. Technology is not going to stop and new advances are going to give us the ability to terminate pregnancies less expensively and more privately than ever before (for example RU486, but the technology is going to go way beyond that). Given that some pro-lifers feel that 'out of sight, out of mind' is an acceptable approach to resolve the first question, the fourth question will tend to make the need for abortion legislation moot. If successful, new technology could very well make nearly all abortions 'out of sight, out of mind'. Of course this is a huge self-deception on their part and I am merely trying to call attention to the naked emperor. Not many are listening, I fear. Perhaps they like the view.

Hi Longhaul, That might have been long day but it was a good one, wasn't it? I wasn't aiming my comment at you specifically but at the idea of life beginning at conception. My comments are related the need to establish a legal 'line' that must be crossed if we are to apply the term 'human life' to a developing embryo. It is the 'line' that causes part of the disagreement. I'll risk getting it wrong but I think that Ed and Rooster7 and others tend not to agree with the current legal 'line' that is established at viability. Scientifically that line is ok except viability continues to change as technology gets better. And the current viability line doesn't account for the foetal variability, that is, one foetus might be capable of viability at a much earlier stage than another. But in my argument I am trying to apply reductio ad absurdum to the proposed replacements for the current standard of viability. The 'line' represented by fertilization (conception) is completely arbitrary and although it is clearly defined, scientifically I take issue with the characterization that fertilization is when 'life' begins. These are all personal views and opinions and mine is that whether one believes that life began at the moment of creation 4004 years BC or whether it began several billion years ago, once life began it didn't stop and still hasn't. That's why we call it a 'life cycle', it keeps cycling and ours alternates between haploid and diploid generations. If 'life' is what we care about, then we must not draw a line at any stage and we must completely ban all forms of birth control. The 'conception' line (as opposed to fertilization) is one that associates with the question of when the 'soul' enters the body. That is a particular religious viewpoint. It injects a particular religious perspective into the law. Science cannot address the concept of 'soul' but my personal view is that 'soul' is something that should follow all human life regardless of the number of chromosomes. If the proposed legislation used the term 'fertilization' I would still object on the scientific basis. We must answer the hard questions that I have posed previously and I still note that Ed is the only person who has made the attempt (thanks Ed). At least Ed is honest enough to admit that under the conception line, we should prosecute anyone who terminates the pregnancy as a murderer. I merely suggest that if we establish this new standard, we make it clear to those engaging in certain forms of birth control that they will be legally risking murder and the charges associated with that crime. We need to be completely open and honest about this during deliberations of the new legislation. If we can't establish a 'line' then it forces us to think more carefully about how we want to address this issue. And THAT is what I think we need, very careful and honest deliberation. It is my faint hope that such can be accomplished in a legislature.

Wow, Trevorum that was fairly blunt! I was going to mention that the God to whom many of us refer is probably smart (omniscient) enough to spot the deception of hedging one's bet. Rooster7, what you seem to miss is that a lie in one's heart is still a lie. This could be one reason we were all left behind after the rapture of 1996. If judgment is to come it will be to the individual, or am I wrong? My point is that the action of a legislature is unlikely to reflect on my personal actions, beliefs, or thoughts - when or if it comes to the judgment to which you refer. The analogy I was making earlier was to the incredible fallability of the political process. And I now claim that such political process is irrelevant to my own supernatural fate, if there is to be such a thing (I mean, considering I'm already left behind with you slimes). Have a nice day. Edited part: OK, I can't resist. To answer that last part, I am thankfully not responsible for what another individual decides for themself if I am not involved in the decision. I don't understand why you want to take that decision away, or to assume the responsibility for yourself. Beyond that, I disagree with the concept of life beginning at conception. It clearly is a continuum and to think that haploid life is non-living merely because it's haploid is, well, ignorant. As Trevorum said, this ground has been plowed plenty of times and I am still waiting on the answers to the tough questions on that other thread in case you care to answer.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

A small correction, while it was indeed outside NY city, it was most assuredly IN New York.

OK, taking this seriously, I offer a question to the forum that is, in fact, related to the topic of this thread. I've been reading a book that I find thoughtfully written, "The Lysenko Affair" by David Joravsky. It has caused this question in my mind: Neglecting the origins and supposed authorities, but rather concerned with the functional effect on society, what is the difference between ideology and religion? I'm interested in your thoughts.

A similar endeavor: http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/localgov/Second%20Level%20pages/Indiana_Pi_Story.htm Seems ridiculous but I'd be OK with it as long as it was sponsored by a Branch Davidian, or perhaps a licensed dog.

I think Brent has a great approach here. A book on tape (or CD) really holds their attention. I used to play the various episodes of Star Wars and similar stories as well as 'Hatchet'. I'm not familiar with 'A Week in the Woods' but I'll give it a listen soon. As for music, I drag out the CDs I've collected from other countries to see their reaction. Usually get requests for copies of the Russian techno stuff.

First, ahem, I started a religion - The Church of Moral Thermodynamics. Where's my $$$millions? And..you guys seem to have left out consideration of Bokononism, what gives? Rooster7 why is the search for God so difficult? If God makes it difficult, perhaps he doesn't want to be found. Ever play hide and seek? Seems to me that God ought to make finding him easy if that's what he wants. Just hit the 'Easy' button. Hey, it suddently looks like rain outside...

Gern, sorry to disappoint you but the rapture happened back in 1996. You were left behind with the rest of us slimes.

Sure do, only one true way like I said. I understand completely;) I sure wish they made those little wafers so they tasted like fish. Yum! Edited part: OK, did a little looking - http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Christian.shtml Mormons think they ARE Christians. Now to let the religious wars begin.... Also very interesting: http://home.teleport.com/~packham/lds-xian.htm(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Which one, and how much do you want for it? See, the problem is, I've heard similar things said about, let's see now (if someone kills me for making this list, I hope you guys have some fun taking bets on which religion they are a member of - I'll see you in hell): Joseph Smith Mohammed Jim Bakker Jim Jones Billy Graham Jesus Pat Robertson Moses Ghandi The Baghwan Martin Luther King Hitler Haile Selassie Bokonon And yes, Ron Hubbard... Well, you get the picture. It doesn't really matter though, everyone who followed those guys KNEW they were in possession of the absolute truth, at least that's what I was told. OK, not by the Jonestown people, but I surmise that if you are willing to sip the juice you must really believe something...at least that's the thing that happens in communion, right?

I suppose it was too much to expect a simple 'yes' or 'no' to my question. I asked it because I don't know the answer and it seemed that the contention that BSA is slanted toward Christianity would be strengthened if the LDS church was Christian. If not, I'm not sure if the question of influence would ever truly be resolved. However, considering the differences of opinion my question has generated in response, I wonder if there are any LDS members on the forum who could lay this question to rest? Of course, considering the forum, I wonder if any LDS member would be WILLING to come forward in such a manner? I think I'm going to make a few phone calls. Let you know what I find out. Trevorum, I had not previously made the connection between B'hai and Islam. But I had wondered about the Sikhs. No resolution there either. I find religion baffling sometimes...so many flavors to choose from...and every last one of them in possession of absolute truth.

Wow, great site! My body was racked by waves of nostalgia. These guys are good: http://www.seattlefabrics.com/nylons.html But if you google 'coated pack cloth' you'll get a gazillion sources. When I built my sleeping bags (I still use one of them) I used an old treadle sewing machine because I could really control things well. Also it seemed to be able to penetrate the thick layers better. I'll have to see how the modern machines do. I sure wish I still had that old treadle contraption though.

I have great sympathy for the original post. I too backpacked many 100s of miles with my Horizon pack on my Astral Cruiser frame. My solution to my decomposing bag: Buy good packcloth. Meticulously disassemble the old bag and use it as the pattern. Digital photos help a lot. Then get really warm and fuzzy with a good sewing machine. I'll let you know how it turns out. As for the other stuff, the external frame is much cooler in the summer and you can still buy a good padded belt to help with the comfort factor. I'm old anyway, so who cares about comfort anymore? Like I said, I'll let you know how it turns out...I made several sleeping bags and a set of bicycle bags from Frostline kits. This can't be much different.

Hold the mouthpiece in your armpit until time to play. And then don't stop until done.

Another confession. I was a bugler. I loved playing Dixieland and jazz during high school and college and never gave it up. So our troop has a bugler (boy) who is recruited by me, sometimes after I show them how it's done. A cornet works better than a trumpet if you don't have the bugle. First and third valves held down gets the correct key.

Just curious, do the LDS members consider themselves Christian?

I keep 'em busy. Not sitting around on chairs listening to some MB counselor, but active as much of the time as possible. I want them to fall to sleep as soon as they return from the campfire. Incidentally, at the risk of hazing, I now plan to sing to them if they don't go to sleep. Here's the song: http://home.usachoice.net/vcei/tbp-words.htm Enjoy

Kudzu? I'm just sorry I didn't think of it first!

Heh, heh, Brent I would have been disappointed if you hadn't ridden to the rescue. Yes, Fernbank is very nice and the aquarium is indeed the finest on earth. And I didn't mention some good schools in the area. And you're right about the Braves losing when it's important, but then, I also root for the Mets (my entire team sucks). I remember going to the Omni back when you could smell Maravich socks across the court. Those were the days. But you know I'm right about the uban planning, ahem, or lack thereof. The place is like a fungus spreading across the landscape.

Eamonn, I agree with what sst3rd says regarding the unit. As far as Disney World goes, Sea World is far better. As for Atlanta, the airport is big but efficient and I like it. The city? They have a decent aquarium, just opened, and a so-so amusement park off I20. And the Fox Theatre is nice. And it is the only city I know where you can drive right through the middle at 100mph and get passed. But the rest of the place is a monument to unplanned sprawl. No redeeming value whatsoever. Especially that stadium where they lose games all summer. Oh yeah, a really big rock out near Stone Mountain, GA.

I'm chuckling at the exchange so far and anticipating more. So Merlyn, your point is.....?

He's smart for sure. But the voice...I'm getting sleepy just thinking about it.

In case no one else has said this already, welcome to the forums, mgkaiser. Nice to have you here.

CalicoPenn, how did you find those things out about those criminals? Just curious.