so it's reasonable to say that ability to show value to the lords of industry should not be the sole qualification for whether a way of life should be preserved, but that's a smokescreen when the issue is that coal miners are unwilling to seek alternate career paths that will help them support their current way of life.
well, it's not unreasonable.
What Dave is really asking, of course, is why we (or some of us) do not regard unborn fetuses as babies in the legal sense of being a person.OK I'm listening.
It's a decent question, given that we do in fact refer to "unborn babies" in many contexts, including when we are pregnant.
I'm happy to give my answer to that question.
First of all, I do not hold the belief that human beings have an immortal soul, whether allocated at conception, birth, or some time in between (or for that matter, later). So bear that in mind as you read what follows.
I think that the development from fertilized ovum to human being is a gradual one. In other words, I think the characteristics that are typical of human beings become gradually more present as the embryo, then fetus, then baby develop. I also, by the way, think that death is a gradual process, which is why we no longer define death as the cessation of the heart-beat - we know we can often reverse a cardiac arrest, but that it ceases to become sensible as the brain becomes progressively more starved of oxygen, and therefore more irrecoverably damaged.
However, I also think that human beings have rights, and that we have a responsibility to other human beings. I think we also have a responsibility to sentient animals, as it happens. I think we should avoid causing pain and/or terror if we can. So I am happier about the humane killing of animals for food than I am about keeping animals in conditions that cause them distress.
But when it comes to human beings (and possibly some animals) I think we also have a responsible not to take away their future. So if a human being, or sentient animal, has a future they can envisage, I think it is a form of theft to take it away.
And so it makes sense to me to mark the moment of birth (however premature) as the point at which that baby requires the rights of an adult human being. It is the moment at which the baby's interests become independent of her mother, and so also the moment at which we can balance the rights of both equally without encroaching on either. And it is also the beginning of the child's understanding that she is part of a world in which she has a role to play.
That is not to say we should disregard the rights of the unborn child to be comfortable and free of pain. But the preceding arguments are why think the moment of birth is the most appropriate time to confer the right to a future, i.e. full human rights, on a baby.
The urban poor are cast as victims. They are stuck in a cycle of poverty that is intergenerational with long-lasting effects. They can't break out of that cycle themselves - they need our help! It's not their fault!
The rural poor are cast as villains. They're determined to make bad decisions fueled by their ignorance and their hick ways. They don't have the hutzpah to just move to a better place. They don't deserve our help. They're responsible for their decisions.
on a scale of 1-10, how high are you right now?
From my perspective, she's engaged pretty honestly and modified her positions when she's discovered discrepancies. That's actually more than I can say for lots of people. We arrive at our positions by assembling and synthesizing our experiences including the information we encounter along the way. When those positions don't change with further experiences it's a reasonable hypothesis that the individual that doesn't modify their position is stuck in an ideological bubble and is unlikely to be particularly useful in real world community problem solving.
Not pointing any fingers or expressing support for any position put forward here, but I'm not sure why the meme of Pandora being a bot or a horrible person is as quickly referenced as it is. Her past positions seem to be substantially modified to me.
Son of a bitch, today's is John Lasseter:
they locate in cities because they are racist against ruralsThis just in, City Government's spend their money on City services.And State Governments spend their money on Urban services.
So... the lower income cities and counties take in lower amounts in local revenues... and they receive lower allotments of state-level revenues.
It's almost as if in-State spending is proportional to population density!!!
Our state is always trying to attract businesses just as any other state, when we do get a big manufacturer or corporation, where do you think that company chooses to locate to and why?
And no one caring