Proposed Ohio Abortion Ban Hinges on Heartbeat

[james&olya 1,121]

How is the bench situation not a morality based law? Yeah most people would find that offensive and disturbing but that seems to stem from morally thinking it's wrong for someone to do that publicly. I am sure some (nasty) people out there don't think it's offensive. While a loud car is offensive to someone's ears and more a physical annoyance than anything moral.

I see nothing immoral in Danno masturbating on a park bench. I do find it offensive though. Because it offends me and most other decent people the government has enacted laws prohibiting it. The morality is determined based on religious or humanistic sensibilities of the perpetrator and can vary according to each individual. The legality has to do with the offense felt by members of the public witnessing this disgusting display. His right to pursuit of happiness is offset by society's rights also to pursuit of happiness which is impaired if they witness him doing this! It could be argued that his right should trump society's rights. If he were instead saying very offensive things about our government he would probably be protected by law and our constitution and its free speech right. Ultimately, all laws are somehow based on the rights of PERSONS as delineated in the constitution. And often these laws define the boundaries of conflicting rights. Morality, on the other hand, is for each individual to determine himself. I have no right to dictate your morals and you have no right to dictate mine.

[Danno 1,228]

I see nothing immoral in Danno masturbating on a park bench. I do find it offensive though. Because it offends me and most other decent people the government has enacted laws prohibiting it. The morality is determined based on religious or humanistic sensibilities of the perpetrator and can vary according to each individual. The legality has to do with the offense felt by members of the public witnessing this disgusting display. His right to pursuit of happiness is offset by society's rights also to pursuit of happiness which is impaired if they witness him doing this! It could be argued that his right should trump society's rights. If he were instead saying very offensive things about our government he would probably be protected by law and our constitution and its free speech right. Ultimately, all laws are somehow based on the rights of PERSONS as delineated in the constitution. And often these laws define the boundaries of conflicting rights. Morality, on the other hand, is for each individual to determine himself. I have no right to dictate your morals and you have no right to dictate mine.

Dude you are trying to spin but you just seem to be flailing.

Why can't you marry your father or sister? How would a law like that ever come about... if not for a moral base?

Most areas have "adult establishiment" zoning laws.

Why can a BArnes and Nobles open up next to a school but an adult book store can't?

When you are on that Park bench tonight.... think about that.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Danno

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Hard core Right to Lifers are American Taliban. Murder, bombings, etc. All justified by their personal religious based high moral standards.

[sandinista! 1,816]

what do they have to do with this particular conversation though? is there a reason for bringing them up at this point in time that i'm somehow missing?

[james&olya 1,121]

Why can't you marry your father or sister? How would a law like that ever come about... if not for a moral base?

You obviously do not understand human genetics and genetic disease in particular.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

what do they have to do with this particular conversation though? is there a reason for bringing them up at this point in time that i'm somehow missing?

My sincere apologies to the Taliban?

[mawilson 2,133]

You mean.....LIE TO A PHARMACIST?!?!

Funny how people get all up in arms about the right to own... arms, but apparently

not the right to your own body (which includes the right to inject any drugs or

chemicals if that's what you want to do) and which is routinely infringed by your

local pharmacy, as well as the FDA, USDA, DEA and a dozen state and federal agencies.

[Amby 490]

Why can't you marry your father or sister? How would a law like that ever come about... if not for a moral base?

its very risky to have a child with someone so closely related because it causes gene mutations

Edited February 11, 2011 by Amby

[slim 1,525]

Funny how people get all up in arms about the right to own... arms, but apparently

not the right to your own body (which includes the right to inject any drugs or

chemicals if that's what you want to do) and which is routinely infringed by your

local pharmacy, as well as the FDA, USDA, DEA and a dozen state and federal agencies.

I didn't see any amendments about "Mood-altering substances, being necessary to a healthy life; the right to inject yourself shall not be infringed."

[mawilson 2,133]

I didn't see any amendments about "Mood-altering substances, being necessary to a healthy life; the right to inject yourself shall not be infringed."

You don't think we should have "legs" in there right next to "arms"?

"You as a person have the right to your own body and what you can or cannot do to it shall not be infringed"?

[Amby 490]

This is for Danno

Many of the illnesses we suffer today are down to our ancestors not having enough choice in the mating game, UK researchers believe.

Inbreeding over the millennia has left us with "sloppy" control over our genes, making us vulnerable to disease.

Had there been a greater choice of mates, natural selection would have removed these harmful gene mutations, the Bath University team says. Their findings appear in the journal Public Library of Science Biology.

They looked at how the DNA of humans, monkeys, rats and mice had evolved.

They found key regions of our DNA, which control the switching on and off of genes, have been altered by around 140,000 naturally occurring mutations over the last six million years.

Compared with the DNA of rats and mice, human and chimpanzee DNA was much less carefully controlled.

Mutation 'balance'

The researchers believe that most of the damaging mutations occurred when there was only a small population of early hominids - the two-legged primates who later evolved into humans and chimpanzees.

At the time, there may have been as few as 10,000 hominids to breed with one another. In comparison, rats and mice had plenty of mates to choose from and harmful DNA mutations were rapidly eliminated from the gene pool, according to the study authors from the Universities of Bath, Edinburgh and Sussex.

Dr Martin Lercher, a co-researcher, said: "We are used to viewing us as the pinnacle of evolution, but seeing that rodents control their genes much more precisely is somewhat sobering."

Lead investigator Professor Peter Keightley, from Edinburgh University, said that although humans now had many more mates to choose from, it was unlikely that the harmful mutations would be eliminated in the near future.

However, he said each mutation had only a small effect and it was likely that "positive" mutations had also been selected during human evolution that balanced out some of the harmful ones.

He said the effects were more of a concern for our nearest primate relatives - the chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans - because accumulation of harmful mutations was more of an issue in small captive populations.

"They are in imminent danger of becoming extinct," he said.

Chris Tyler-Smith, at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, said: "We know that population sizes in the past were very small.

"We also know that natural selection is less efficient in small populations. "But this work is the first to spell out the consequences: less precise control of gene expression in humans. It shows how useful genome sequences can be."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4204789.stm

[slim 1,525]

You don't think we should have "legs" in there right next to "arms"?

"You as a person have the right to your own body and what you can or cannot do to it shall not be infringed"?

I'm under the impression the govt. shouldn't be telling us what we CAN do, only what we can't do. That's why the 2A is so clear in it's verbiage. It spells out that the govt. cannot ever tell us we can't own arms.

With the drugs and other related stuff being regulated, most of that could fall under regulating interstate commerce since Viagra and stuff isn't exactly made in every city.

[mawilson 2,133]

With the drugs and other related stuff being regulated

There's no constitutional basis for drug prohibition or regulations.

[james&olya 1,121]

There's no constitutional basis for drug prohibition or regulations.

It is ironic that of my many doctor and pharmacist friends, most of them right-wingers and opposed to evil government regulations, none of them advocate for regulations to be abolished that pertain to the prescribing and dispensing of medications, requirements for training and licensure to practice, etc. I am sure this is the case for others as well, they only see the issue of regulation in terms of how it helps or hurts their own bottom line. They don't give much thought to the long-term consequences to society for de-regulation of business, etc.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

its very risky to have a child with someone so closely related because it causes gene mutations