syntax252

No. It is part of it, but not all of it. A far larger part is that a human life is distroyed, merely because it would be a temporary inconvenience to the mother. I find this to be utterly reprehensible. One does not kill just because allowing a baby to live is inconvenient. If the mother's health was in danger, or if the baby was badly deformed, or any of a number of other ligitimate reasons, that would be different, but convenience? No.

Are you personally offended by the word "terror?" When did government demand that those who were offended refrain from anything? When did the government encourage children to say the pledge every day? Didn't the government specifically rule that children couldn't be compelled to say the pledge? Didn't you ask me to define "religious concepts?"

But there is still a conflict of interests, The conflict is that if anyone takes care of that baby, and it is paid for with tax money, then the general public is obligated to finance something that they had no part in creating--the care and well being of a newborn. Now, if the interest of the pregnant mother trumps the interest of the fetus--to the extent that she can kill it and still be on safe ground morally --why does the general public necessarily have to pick up the bill for taking care of a newborn that the mother doesn't want to feed and care for? Can you see that there are two moral standards here? One for the pregnant girl, and another for society? So you would agree that the fetus feels pain?

OK, I will make a statement without a question mark behind it. OK? OOPS! There has been a lot of concern expressed about children hearing the word "God" in a classroom and I just wondered if it was the word that evoked this terror, or if it was the fact that it was part of a voluntary recitation of a pledge that the kids all made together. On a side note, there are those who do not want kids exposed to any information regarding differing sexual orientations, and these folks are usually laughed at and called "homophobic." I wonder how many, who would call others "homophobic," are deiophobic (not sure that is a word) themselves.

Don't you think that one can elicit responses that reflect the opinions of others by asking questions?

Do you think that a child should be diciplined for saying "I believe in God," out loud at school?

"Congress shall make no law affecting an establishment of religion....." Does the use of the word "an" indicate a singular? Do you suppose that it was worded that way to prevent congress from passing a law affecting a particular religion? Since "god" is a referrence to a deity, and nost religions have a deity, can the term "God" be taken as promoting a particular religion?

If by "it" you are referring to the throw on the crankshaft, I don't see how this is possible since it discribes an arc and an arc is not a straignt line. Sideways suggests a straight line.

Well then since a newborn baby would suffer if we killed it after it was born, how can you think that it would not suffer before it was born? What happen during that passage through the birth cannal that suddenly makes it sensitive to pain? You were talking about pain when you used the term "suffer?" My opinion on abortion is that it is the taking of a human life and as such is sometimes justifiable, and sometimes not. I could not think of myself as moral if I killed someone because not killing him was inconvienent, but I could kill someone if there was the question of safety to me or to others, or if I was a soldier at war, or if he had committed a crime that called for the death penalty in the society in which I lived. There may be other cases where I could kill someone, but I think you understand.

Well, it really doesn't matter how big the parts are, since this a hypothetically perfect mechanical device.

If you will refer to post # 1 in this thread, it is laid out there.

The taste of bacon is one of the major factors in my disregarding evidence of intelligence as denoting rights. Indeed!

Here in SW Michigan, we are practically over run with Whitetail deer. These are marvelous little animals of about 125 lbs. to 200 lbs for an adult specimen. One of our problems is that deer/car accidents are a real hazard in Michigan. Chances are that if a person has been involved in 3 accidents involving autos, 2 of them will be deer/car accidents. Also, crop damage is a consideration to the point that farmers have sued the state for damages caused by deer. In an effort to control the herd..... We have about 3 monthe of deer season here counting the archery season. During the gun season, in the southern part of the state, one can get a doe permit for each day of the season, so it is not at all uncommon for a diligent huner to kill 6 or more deer a year. I usually get 2 and call that good enough for an old man. Wolves have been reintroduced in the upper peninsula of Michigan and there have been sightings in the upper lower peninsula of wolves. The problem with wolves is that if they did bring the deer herd down to sustainable levels, then the wolves are not going to just lay down and starve to death, they are going to start taking dogs, cats, sheep, cows, and even in some cases--humans. In California, Pumas were reintroduced and already they have taken human prey. The real problem is that there are altogether too many people in the world to allow enough space for the number of animals that we used to have. Where would we put 6,000,000 American Bison today? I see no moral problem in hunting. If one eats meat, one is responsible for the death of an animal. What is the difference, morally, between hunting and raising pigs and the like for the slaughter house?

Not to be argumentative' date=' but I have a hard time understanding how..... 1)an object cannot reverse direction without stopping and 2)an object cannot stop and then move in the reverse direction without using [b']some[/b] amount of time, yet 3)the piston under discussion would not use any time to do that very thing thousands of times over. What am I missing here?

Well, I will say that I have seen instances where animals appear to have learned from the mistakes of others (making them more concious than many humans). When I was a kid, we lived on a farm, and this being back in the 40s, we slaughtered our own meat. When it came time to butcher a pig, my father would put some feed into the trough that the pigs fed from, and when they began to feed, he would shoot the one we wanted to butcher in the head with a rifle. The other pigs would run off into a far corner of the pig lot, and would not return to the feeding trouth as long as one of us was nearby. I noticed this, even as a child, and since one of my chores was to feed the pigs, I conducted a little experiment. I would put the feed into the trough and when the pigs started to eat, I would point a stick at one of them. Instantly, they would retreat from the feed trough. This little lesson stuck in their heads for about a week. After than, they paid no attention to me. I am not at all convinced that animals--at least some animals--are not aware of themselves. How does the scientific community establish whether or not an animal is self aware? What is the criteria for establishing that condition?

No sweat.

How would you define "instant."

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but the direction of the crankshaft is not the question posed. The question was whether or not the piston comes to a stop before it reverses direction.