Mikee

An act of choice, mo matter how heroic, does not necessitate an act of force in the name of honor

that just reinforces my point that late term abortions should indeed be banned.

Couldn't that be an argument to ban late term abortions.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10015/

some of the comments on there are rather amusing

i think he could have been a bit more certain e.g. " well in all actuality, I earned it"

One of the co-owners of a National Park , remarked that he is pretty happy that it wasn't vandalised so some slightly cheaper coal could be sent to India. He said that steel is important but so is protecting in his words: "unique tracts of amazing landscape and biodiversity and that this will be even more apparent when everywhere else has been dug up for coal." would this be an example of instrincism

If I take my hard earned money and give some away to a child in need, does that make me morally superior to another man who refuses to help that child even though we share the same wealth and lifestyles?

it opens fine on mine

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/campaign/genetically-engineered-food/crops/other-resources/monsanto-vs-u-s-farmers-report/

how are Sharia courts different in principle than the Orthodox Jewish ones?

does that make environmentalism more rational ?

There are environmentalists that think CO2 reduction is more important than nuclear waste issues or dessert wilderness protection, and those that think the reverse. So there's dissent.

It is relevant because they are being forced (bullied) into using Monsanto's seeds instead of having the choice otherwise. Your ignorance here is astounding. To defend yourself in court, you have to have certain documents and know the pertinent laws and similar cases. Hence, unless you are one, you have to hire a lawyer. Farmers that barely break even as it is simply have no cash at hand for these fees. Simply google "Monsanto Sues Farmer". Here's one: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2001/2001fct256/2001fct256.html [92] Thus a farmer whose field contains seed or plants originating from seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a neighbour's land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into his field from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the seed or plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them. He does not, however, own the right to the use of the patented gene, or of the seed or plant containing the patented gene or cell. So when contamination happens, Monsanto owns the plant and can sue for patent infringement if the farmer didn't buy the seed from them and sign an agreement. Bt genes have been found in wild teosinte, does Monsanto own these plants too? I'm for choice, but here, farmer's don't have it.

i think this topic touches onto the problem of first acquisition.

there have been a number of cases where farmers have not bought Monsanto seed, but saved seed that didn't have a copyright. The problem comes in when their crops are contaminated by a neighbor farmer's pollen who had bought seed from Monsanto. Under current law, Monsanto can sue and win, forcing farmers to buy Monsanto seed anyway; never mind that most farmers couldn't even afford the legal fees. Hence the conflict...

I have a question on this subject in particular. Is it possible to own the DNA of an organism? especially when only a few genes are changed out of tens of thousands

are these truly the "core" of american values as they claim? and what are those "american values" ? Do they mean right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness

http://www.slate.com/id/2264770/ http://www.slate.com/id/2263334/

one guy remarked that in a civilized society thats called shared responsibility.

i think the use of the word humanist is misguided actually. there is nothing "humanist" about it. Its just awesome

I' be surprised if he didn't

a lot of people use the word "humanist" or "secular humanist" and refer to a "duty to humanity". sounds to me like collectivism

well he does say he likes kant and how he's a "humanist"

heh the guy doesn't know when to stop the human embryo is not a "potential" life, it is alive and human. Since abortion kills the developing child, the act of abortion itself illustrates the scientific absurdity of the embryo being a "potential" life -- you can't kill what isn't alive to begin with. Because I am pro-life, I am quite familiar with the arguments and attitudes of various groups that share my opposition to abortion. Some are religious, some are not. I have friends who have had abortions, and know first-hand how injurious it was to them. One of my friends has had two abortions -- she now works against abortion, speaking around the country, becsuse of the destructive psychological effects.