syntax252

Well I would be the first to agree that it would be morally wrong to kill someone without good reason, including but not limited to self defense, in defense of another,in a war, or as punishment for murder. What I am having trouble understanding is why you think it is morally OK to kill someone who has not been born yet simply because that person has not yet had an opportunity to have experienced life outside the womb. It is almost as if once one has been exposed to the atmosphere, something majic happens that makes his existence somehow more sacred that it was prior to delivery. Do you think that the point at which the pregnancy is interrupted is of any consequence? Does the desires of the mother trump the life of the baby right up to the point of delivery?

Well OK, I am willing to admit that I do not see how it (the piston) could reverse directions without stopping. However, since the time it is stopped (or the rime we think it is stopped) is incalculable, how can one really say for sure that it is stopped, and not constantly in motion, to and fro?

So, if the crank turned at high speed for many months, and all those "instants" when the piston was at rest were added up, it would still be zero, correct? Now if that is correct, the question is, can an object in motion come to a stop and then start to move again without any time passing while it was at rest? Is this what is meant by the old saying---"no time?"

At the very top of it's arc, if it moves sideways, it also moves down.

But it does bring out whether or not you think of an unborn child as human or not. I didn't suggest that someone be shot because they didn't disagree with abortion. Where didja get that idea? And again, we all know what the law says. Now, since you equate the unborn as something more than just unwanted meat, don't you think that killing it should be preceeded by a considerable amount of thought about the justification?

So, your answer is that it does indeed stop, but for an infnately short period of time?

There seems to be a rather large segment in society that would disagree that there has been no loss in the case of an abortion. Do you think that the fetus is somehow inhuman? that it should hive absolutely no more rights to be protected by society than finger nail clippings?

OK, what I am asking is, is there a time when the piston is neither rising nor lowering and if so, givin the rpm and the stroke I submitted above, what is the amount of time that it is motionless?

For those of you who like to calculate things: The throw on the crankshaft is 4" and the rotation is a constant 1000 rpm. If you think the piston stops, tell me how long it remains motionless.

It seems that way don't it? But since the crank turns continually, that means that the throw on the crank is either going up, or it is going down. If the piston is attached to the rod and the rod to the crank, then why wouldn't the same thing that goes for the throw, go for the piston?

Perish the thought !!

Can an animal that is not consious of himself have dreams? Because I used to have a rabbit dog who would sleep in front of the fireplace and in his sleep he would be doing little "woff woffs" and sometimes his hind legs would kick a little bit. I figured that he was dreaming about running rabbits. Whaddya think?

Does an object necessarily have to come to a stop before it can reverse it's direction? Take for example a piston attached to a connecting rod, which is attached to a crankshaft. Now--assuming that there is no side play of the piston in the cylinder, and assuming that the connecting rod would not either compress of stretch during the cycle, and assuming that this particular piston was not part of the fireing cycle, would it have to stop at the top before it started down? Remember, the crankshaft does not stop, so once the throw on the crank reaches the top of the stroke it immediately starts down pulling the piston behind it. If there is no clearance in the rod bearings, the rod didn't stretch or compress, how could the piston stop if the crank kept turning?

If one is born to American parents, even if he/she was not born inside the USA, they would be citizens of the USA--absent any renunciation of their citizenship. I think they would be elegible to vote in US elections even if they had never set foot inside the country.

Quote: Originally Posted by syntax252 Not that there are not perfectly ligitimate reasons for abortion, but shouldn't a person have to have a pretty good reason to do it? I also think that one needs a very good reason to kill another person who has already been born, and that there are reasons that satisfy me. The government has laws that apply to that, why not abortion?

Wouldn't the temporary nature of the discomfort of a pregnacy be subordinate to the permanent deprivation of a life? In other words, to take away the chance of living a whole life so that the mother wouldn't have to endure the discomfort of 3 more months of a pregnacy seems like high price to pay, particularly when the one doing the paying had no input in the contract in the first place. Not that there are not perfectly ligitimate reasons for abortion, but shouldn't a person have to have a pretty good reason to do it?

couldn't a 2 dimentional life form get it's energy from light? If so, would that solve the ingestion problems?