packsaddle

littlebillie, You can be assured that unless your nail-clipping is a lot more painful than mine, no cells are involved. I would add to the idea, though, that I don't consider life to begin at fertilization. I consider haploid cells to be alive as well and that, in my view, life is a continuum. The question of soul will never be resolved to the satisfaction of all and if that is the basis for drawing the line, I expect that such line will continue to be argued for a long time to come. I don't draw a line because I consider all cells in the human life cycle to be human, even the haploid ones, and I have no idea where souls emerge (although I have been accused of still being on the waiting list myself). I share your feeling about children's lives and I wish abortion would never happen (If that doesn't sound rock solid, you're correct). However, it does and I live with it. I agree with your observation regarding crossing borders and alleys and I think one way to answer your query for an atheist approach could hinge on issues surrounding the commercial aspects of abortion. The market has no sense of morality outside that of the individuals engaged in market activity. The market has no sense of direction or purpose outside maximizing efficiency and profit. Where there is a demand (for abortion services) a supply will emerge and the only question remaining is price. If it is a freemarket, supply and demand will arrive at a fair price. Under freemarket conditions, supply will satisfy most of demand. If something constrains the supply, this will affect price, probably increasing it. This will also be reflected in the venue - backalley services will be more common, costly, and risky; border crossings will be really expensive, thereby forcing the poor to backalleys or increasingly to have unwanted offspring. (neglect, for the time being, the increased cost to society for resultant medical services) The market in this case shifts to black markets or foreign markets, both costly in many ways. The unwanted offspring could stimulate an additional set of services but the nature of that would be decided, again, by the market. Such services could include adoption, housing (orphanages), other government or charity services. But they could bring additional costs (medical treatment, food, housing, education, increased crime, prison housing, government regulation of the above, etc.) We already know the result of this scenario. The market offered a new set of services and we rushed to embrace those alternative market services of contraception and abortion. From the market perspective, it would be easy to conclude that to avoid the costs and to keep the services in the country and out of the black markets, abortion must be available. From the freemarket perspective this is good. I apologize in advance for this limited perspective on markets but I think it encapsulates some of the essential features. I would be interested, however, in hearing how, hypothetically speaking, abortion foes could accomplish their goals. In the ideal world how would abortion be absolutely stopped? How could such control be imposed? What means would foes be willing to use to establish this? Time to stop the hand-wringing and cough up the solutions. Edited part: Rooster7, I should have been clearer. By 'genie' I meant new technologies. Often a new ability raises subsequent questions but most of the time, once discovered, these new abilities are used and it's tough (impossible?) to make them go away. Making them illegal just changes the venue, but if that is all it takes to satisfy you I suppose that's good enough.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Achilleez, Didn't you forget: ...want something for nothing. ...want your cake and to eat it too. ??? There's always....the blue pill.

Adrianvs, You are clearly passionate in your views. I stated my views knowing that I would not convince anyone. Merely a statement. Thanks for yours. BTW I'm not on the payroll nor am I chronically ignorant, at least not for this subject. However, I will never face the personal decision of whether, or whether not to have an abortion. I do recognize that the technology exists, that women have the ability to make the decision, and I merely think that under those circumstances they should be the ones to bear the responsibility for it. That IS the status quo and I am satisfied with it. Regardless, to wring my hands over this issue would have little effect one way or the other. You are correct that the primary objection by the Catholic Church was in regard to procreation. However, I have learned that there are Catholics who interpret some of the same scriptures as being relevant to contraception. Here is a site that expands on this: http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp Of course modern contraceptive methods didn't all exist at that time and until 1930, most (all?) Protestant flavors were in agreement with the Catholic Church. But the Anglican church broke that and in time most Protestant flavors disagreed to some degree, at least on contraception. I merely mentioned the Catholic Church because I admire their consistency. Every method of contraception that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg or that stimulates rejection of the fertilized egg after implantation is, in essence, aborting a human life (to use the pro-life definition). You might want to include those sensationally high numbers in your statistics (I have no source for them, though), the numbers should greatly eclipse those stated in your post. Some idea of their magnitude could be to multiply 13 cycles per year times, say 20-30 years of fertility, times the tens of millions of women worldwide who use those particular methods, times some fraction of the total eggs that happened to be fertilized. Even if the fraction was quite small, say once per 13 cycles, the total numbers would be impressive. To me, anyone using those methods over an adult lifetime has probably engaged in the equivalent of multiple abortions, again using the definition supplied by the pro-life view. In my view, they had the ability to use contraception, it was their choice, and it was their responsibility. I do contrast the two issues, abortion and the death penalty, because I see the irony implied in the original post...only from the other view. Beyond that, for me they are separate issues, one being the personal decision of an individual over the fate of their body, the other being the decision of our society over the fate of an individual. However, where society decides to kill its members I do share the responsibility for such deaths, therefore I do what I can to promote my view. The death penalty is an issue where we do have collective ability, choice, and responsibility.

Man, you guys sure took long enough. My argument stands, I said before that no-one I know LIKES abortion. My approach is simply pragmatic: the ability is there, the choice is there, you can't take either away, the persons involved in the choice should bear the responsibility. OK Rooster7, I suppose some cataclysm that wiped out civilization could potentially eliminate the knowledge base that includes the abortion procedure. But it's fairly simple and probably would be rediscovered quickly. Short of that, the genie (the ability) is out of the bottle. The choice has always been there, always will be. If anyone WERE able to impose control over such decisions (and ultimately you can't), they should also be willing to accept responsibility for the results. So far I'm not hearing any such assurance, only whining complaints. A note. I consider the view of the Catholic Church to be fairly consistent in its approach to abortion (with which I obviously do not agree). They recognize that many of the popular forms of birth control effectively do the same thing or in fact cause an aborted pregnancy. Therefore they oppose birth control as well as abortion. This, at least, recognizes the facts and remains consistent with them. Rhythm, anyone? With regard to the death penalty. I continue to be repulsed by the willingness of the state to kill an innocent person once in a while as long as it assures the state of killing all the guilty. No innocent person deserves that fate. Or is there some biblical mandate for killing the innocent as well? Oops, what am I saying?

Folks, I started to get in on it but the chat room thing, I just don't know. I just can't get the hang of it. Anyway, I have a holiday tomorrow too so I'm taking our crew on a really hard dayhike. Hope I make it. See you later

We've tried the other stuff but spiralbinding is a great idea! Now,any ideas on how to make them waterproof? We've tried Tupperware and zip locks but the boys seem to be able to defeat these. Pellican (sp?) cases are too expensive.

Our venture crew is also just starting up. In the spirit of OGE's response, I suggest you draft your intentions in direct terms and run them past your council. Please tell us how they respond. However, so far in the venture crew we have just started the 'girls' are physically equal to the guys and superior in things like rock climbing. Mentally, ahem, the guys don't even come close. But the women have one vunerability and I occasionally use it to scare them: looking at the guys I tell the women...'someday you're probably going to marry one of those'. How was that OGE, did that live up to your expectations?

Twocubdad, Do I hear some snickering in the background?

In my state, unless you actually JOIN a party, you never have a real party affiliation. I like it that way. Keeps the possibilities open. I leaned your way, Bob White, until the Nixon era (for whom, I'm ashamed to say, I voted). I liked Ford and forgave his golf game, it was still better than mine. For all his faults, I also liked Jimmie Carter and I maintain that few presidents will attain his level of personal integrity. He, at least, hammers a nail once in a while for Habitat. NJ likes to play off of Limbaugh so I will repeat one thing Rush is fond of saying that seems to recur, in spirit, in these threads: "It's all about money". You know, it really seems to be. In 1953 Eisenhour (LTHW) decided NOT to lower the top federal income tax rate of (as I remember) 90%. It was JFK (LTHW) who started the tax-lowering, economy-stimulating idea. It was a huge success. Vietnam didn't exactly cover either party with glory. But Tricky Dicky (LTTP) imploded and a couple of nice honest guys followed (Ford and Carter). We didn't. Then RR (LTTP) promised that he would turn the economy around, balance the budget, and begin to pay down the horrendous deficit that Carter had incurred (about $70 billion). I remember RR's spoken promise - to do this in a mere 5 years using the 'magic of the free market'. RR then cut taxes again and started spending like it was going out of style. The national debt doubled. The next time that any budget was balanced (actually in the black a little) was Bill Clinton (LTHW). We actually paid down a small amount of the debt. Now Dubya (LTTP) stands to add a $trillion or more to the existing debt (maybe a lot more). This debt thing is interesting because Limbaugh explained that as well. If the gov't is not borrowing heavily, according to Rush, money is in great supply and interest rates tend to decline. This is bad for people who have invested heavily in bonds, good for homebuyers. If the gov't borrows heavily the money supply could become tighter and interest rates could increase (although not yet, the effect could be delayed if the economy stays weak). Homebuyers may suffer but bond holders will gain. Guess who gets the benefits of the big tax cuts that add to the debt? Mostly big bond owners, the people who loan the money to the gov't. They get lower taxes AND higher return on their wealth. NJ, I know this is really simplistic, it is after all, Limbaugh. But you have to give Rush a little credit, it's all about money.

Fat Old Guy, If you argue that there are loads of contradictions I can't provide much rebuttal. And all that ambiguity and confusion then strengthens whose argument? I choose the viewpoint I have because it offers me the clearest path while it insures that no person will be falsely killed by the state. As for the other topic, no-one I know likes abortion. But that ability is here and NOTHING will eliminate that ability or the choice to use it. Nothing. Therefore where that choice is made, I feel that it should be made by the individuals who best know the case and who bear the responsibility for it: the physician and the patient.

I consider decisions between a physician and a patient to be their business and their responsibility alone. Not mine nor anyone else's. As for the death penalty, I cannot conceive of Jesus supporting or condoning any person to be killed. Period. And I don't claim to have a higher authority than that. Obviously many do.

When I read it I see that a 16 year old boy can drive on troop outings as long as a trip leader is 21 or older. The conditions are that he must have at least 6 months experience, no violations, and parental permission for any boy who is a passenger. Non-scouts are not subject to scout regs, I'm not sure why they're in the argument anyway. Driving to- and from- regular troop meetings is not regulated, at least that's the way I read it.

Actually, I seem to remember the Emerald Isle as being Ireland. Have I been mistaken? There is an evolutionary element to this topic. If access to care and quality of care are dependent on personal resources (as opposed to gov't handouts/Medicare/Medicaid/whatever), then when this limiting factor is applied to children (pre-reproduction) the greatest selective pressure is brought to bear on those whose families have the least. This means that children with few resources will have less reproductive success than children with adequate resources. Assuming that there is a genetic basis for economic success or something associated with that, the population will gradually change, becoming more efficient and competitive, and the genetic makeup of the population will gradually improve, defectives having been weeded out through the selective process. At least this is what I have been told by others (for some reason, more often in Idaho). Is this along the line of what you're suggesting OGE?

I'm laughing, that's what my wife sees in me too - a mule, ugly and stubborn. Wait a minute, I just figured out the alternative you didn't mention. Hey! Well, that probably fits too.

Achilleez, If I haven't welcomed you to the forum before, I do now. I do appreciate views from citizens of other countries. OGE, isn't it customary for the person who starts something like this to take the first plunge? As if I have to say this, I support personal liberty with regard to social issues. For this people call me a 'liberal' or something similar. At the same time, I strongly support conservation of resources and care and restraint in fiscal matters. For this some people call me 'conservative' and some people call me 'liberal' (this is a bit confusing). I am also active in Scouting. For this I have been called other things (but 'liberal' is not one of them). I try to view every person as an individual and I wish they would return the favor. I also try not to apply labels because I think labels get in the way of the open exchange of ideas. For this I am told I don't 'fit in'. They're probably right (left?).

From a perspective of frequently hauling trailers of many sizes, I add the following to le Voyageur's good advice: Does he know how to BACK a vehicle with a trailer? How much sense of geometry does he have (think turning corners here)? Will he understand the effect on stopping distance? Will he be conscious of the extra length of the overall vehicle and its sluggishness when entering a highway? I know boys who can do this safely so I know it's possible. But it's a judgement call for someone.

You know, I do remember when you announced that and I completely forgot. This is happening with alarming frequency now. But I have to confess something....no, I'll pass that on to you in a private message and you can reveal it if you want. Edited part: I just can't do it. I can't even tell you privately, sorry. I'm afraid it would offend you and that would be so unnecessary. Sorry. Try to forget I mentioned it.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

OutdoorThinker, yours came through correctly. SR540Beaver's notification was replicated and arrived before yours. How about mine? Delete key ready... BTW, SR540Beaver, what does your name mean?

Yep, Rooster, that's pretty much the way I would say it. Eisely, I just received 55 notifications of your response. Anyone else notice something like this? I'm noticing this happening on other threads as well.

Put the two of them in the ring...and my money's on Jesse. I wish everyone in CA the best. I hope Arnold actually does know how to make things better. Edited part: OK, I've decided to do this anyway. FYI, it's "Le Ptomane". And in case you haven't heard of this guy, he was a real person with an unusual talent (hence, use of his name in 'Blazing Saddles'). Read and learn: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_P%E9tomane So the question is...do you tell the boys?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Did anyone else just get a wazillion notifications of a reply by Bob White? Edited part: In the interest of accuracy, a wazillion is converted to precisely 55 notifications within one minute. Fast Bob, nice...or has my ISP just been attacked by the forum?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Fat Old Guy, whether I am addressing the brass with bad news but especially if a boy is posing some situational question, I always maintain that lies are wrong. Period. MarkNoel, you made a comment about BSA being classified as a "religious organization". Could you elaborate on that?

My hat's off to the teacher that explained inheritance involving three alleles to you. My communication skills are clearly not up to it. My original point was that the question of a genetic basis may not be important for some persons. They may continue to believe what they choose regardless of the answer. I am one of them. Rooster, I think, agreed also.

Rooster's argument was that if homosexuality is genetic then it should not persist in the population. I merely identified several examples of known genetic disorders that have little or no reproduction and yet persist in the population. The intent was to demonstrate the fallacy of the fundamental argument that failure to reproduce removes certain traits from the population. Failure to reproduce does remove the traits of the non-reproducing individuals but it doesn't necessarily eliminate those traits from the population. As I have noted before, absolute proof of things outside mathematics is exceedingly difficult. To ask or demand such is rather pointless especially when discussing topics still under investigation. Your comment about the twin studies is one that I answered, as I remember, for ScoutParent long ago. To expect 100% congruence for a characteristic that, if genetic, is likely to be controlled by complex mechanisms, is unrealistic. If an identical study was performed examining the tendency of twins to acquire diabetes or colon cancer (both implicated as having genetic components), you also would not have 100% congruence. The power of the study, however, would be to compare the measured congruence with the 'background' in the population. If the measured congruence is significantly greater than the occurrence in the population, then a genetic connection is suspected. It isn't proof. Actual genes haven't been identified or sequenced. Their mechanisms producing the traits of interest haven't been found. It is merely reason to investigate further. Your argument would carry more weight if the congruence between twins was no different from the congruence between any two random groups of individuals in the population. THAT would be reason to abandon the line of investigation until a better idea presented itself.

"I wonder, regardless if homosexuality is learned or if it is not learned, does it really matter to any of us (outside of academic curiousity?)" This was my basic question. Rooster (or should I call you Lysenko?), did you think it was aimed at you alone? Especially that 'any of us' part? I really thought I had included myself there. I don't agree that homosexuality is a disease. You have your opinion, I obviously think in different terms. But your application of the term 'disease' is interesting, what are the other ones to which you refer? I have seen the tragic results of genetic diseases and I have a strong emotional response. It is one reason I have avoided the subject in my studies. But using your disease analogy, I observe that really simple, fatal genetic diseases involving only one allele have continued through history. Hemophilia is the classic example. Two types occur but the simple story is that the trait is carried on the X chromosome. Until recent history, females homozygous for the trait never survived past puberty (can you figure out why?). But they were carriers as well (just ask the Romanovs). Males (with only one X) with the disease were more common. They rarely survived to reproduction. There is still no cure and about 1/3 of children born with this are born into families with no history of the disease, the result of constant mutation in a large population. It has continued like this through history. More extreme examples include such diseases as Tay-Sachs in which children rarely survive 5 years. Absolutely no reproduction yet the disease continues. And this is the simple stuff. Our understanding of the genetic basis of behavior is still in infancy yet we're fairly sure there is a genetic basis for at least some of it. To make the leap between the two extremes of the simple and the complex takes us through the realm of traits depending on multiple alleles (think eye color) and then to the complex mechanisms controlling the expression of certain genes only under certain conditions. This includes but is not limited to multifactorial genetics (think susceptibility to diabetes or cancer, for example). And it doesn't have to be heritable in the sense of traits like the ability to roll one's tongue. Non-disjunction during meiosis has produced a continual supply of persons afflicted with trisomy of a number of chromosomes including the famous #21. These individuals rarely if ever mated and yet the probability of non-disjunction continues to this day. Its probability is well-known and tends to increase with age of the female. But (as they say on TV) there's more. A small percentage of the trisomy 21 cases are the result of a type of translocation (exchanging with a portion of #14). In these cases the syndrome IS potentially inherited. In addition, there are really interesting conditions of 'mosaicism' in which there is a mixture of cell lines. Some cells are normal and some exhibit trisomy. Or certain tissues are normal and others exhibit trisomy. Fragile X is another example of an inherited disorder that, back in history, probably didn't allow significant reproductive success. It is today the most common inherited cause of mental retardation and it is more common in males than females (who having two Xs have a better chance of possessing a compensatory good gene). Methylation of the CpG island of the FMR1 gene turns it off thus not allowing it to code for the protein FMRP if needed. Then lack of the protein causes the syndrome. This is just another example of a mutation that recurs through time. I know scouts with this syndrome, really nice kids. Your argument was that if homosexuality is genetic then it should not persist in the population. I have given you several examples of known genetic disorders that limit reproduction in varying degrees. And these persist in the population. You seem to protest that I have underestimated your understanding of genetics. I think not. I said there isn't enough space in this forum to bring persons up to date and there just isn't. However, I applaud your invocation of the natural selective process. Evolutionary forces do work in the manner that you suggest and also in those much more complicated ways as supported by modern genetics.