Peterkin

That's a good theory. We tried it, in several areas we thought our kids might need guidance. Come 13, they tend to shut down: don't want to be seen with you in public, don't want you to know how they feel, don't eat what you pack in their lunch, don't ask you any questions, slam doors if you ask any. You retaliate with various stratagems that seem clever at the time and that make you cringe in retrospect. In between skirmishes, you can have hilarious family dinners and pleasant evenings of entertainment or homework mentoring, then hostilities resume. The best-laid plans of mice and parents oft go up the generation gap.

Of course. There is a reason young people don't tell their parents everything. At least, there was when I didn't tell mine. They would have been more upset about the grass than the LSD, which they didn't understand. They would have been more afraid of me getting arrested than getting high, simply because it was illegal. In fact, I was a lot closer to being arrested for political activities than pot. They - and I - also didn't know that I was a lot closer to following my father into alcoholism than any of the other dangers they didn't know about. And they didn't know what I would pay, eventually, for the tobacco habit I picked up from them. What parents worry about is not much altered by what's written in the law-books.

Under what? I made my case; you have repeated yours. Again. We are done.

You still get to have sex, though, right?

Not intimately familiar, no. But I do have the general impression that the editing is done by an external agency, not the virus itself. It's not snark: I just don't understand. For a moment, I thought I did, but then couldn't fit the idea of radiation-induced mutation with adaptation to a changing environment, with the figurative use of 'evolution' as it refers to the unfolding of a process. Just don't see how it works as a natural development in an individual. I never said you were wrong; I asked for more information.

Oh, I see now. You might grow extra limbs or sense organs as needed? How long would it take to turn something as complex as human into another kind of life-form? Would a million years be enough?

Sorry, it's a holdover from the SF/fantasy fandom of my youth.

How do you change your own genes?

ForcesofDarkness - those factions dedicated to a return to medieval social hierarchy.

You would have to adapt. Your distant progeny would evolve.

The law is about neither. The law is about the accepted mores of a society. These mores can be set by general consensus, standard behaviour patterns in the majority, or imposed by a powerful minority, according to their own beliefs and interests. That last is by far the most common basis of law. And that's why it always takes a great, dangerous [to the power-structure] groundswell of public sentiment to change any law once it's in effect. Undoing such a change grows more difficult with the passage of time, as the newly-legal act works its way into standard behaviour and eventually, the social mores. (the abolition of slavery has been working hard it for a century and half, yet still encounters backlash) That's why the FoD need so urgently to claw back women's autonomy.

It doesn't matter who tries to relate which rule to what bogus other entity. Lawmakers respond to popular and political pressure, regardless of the motive behind that pressure, and Supreme Court Judges are literally above the law.

As far as addictive substances go, tobacco is up there with the worst of them. But because it's so mildly narcotic that it's not linked to overt expressions of criminality: the damage is to the user and to the user's immediate environment. Cannabis, however, doesn't need to be in cigarette form. That's customary, but water pipe is an option, and ingestion in various forms also serves the mind-altering and soporific functions, without causing the physical damage of smoke inhalation.

Quite so. Along with hashish use and polygamy. But it seems only tangentially related to reproductive rights. Circumcised [genitally mutilated] males, as well as females are both still able to procreate - the women, with more pain, but the lawmakers and prelates do not seem overly concerned with that aspect.

Really? That seems an extreme form of birth control. Wouldn't it be easier to castrate the males? As we do for the unwanted foetus. (Of course, most of us would prefer health education and ready access to birth control information and material and adequate pre- and post-natal care for all infants, whether the biological parents are able to provide it or not... but welfare can't be choosers)

Here you go! Bolding your own misconstruction doesn't really help clarify it. - .How many alcoholics hold up liquor stores? We do not know, because no records are kept. Nobody knows how much of the stolen goods - whether liquor or cigarettes - the thief intends for his own consumption and how much he intends to sell. In contrast, if a heroin addict breaks into a drugstore, it is assumed that he intends all of the stolen drugs for his own consumption and if he breaks into a liquor store, it is assumed that he intends to sell the stolen goods in order to feed his drug habit. Assumed and recorded. - How do you know that all that hold up liquor stors are alcoholics? Where was that ridiculous notion stated? Of ten people who hold up liquor stores, one might be a junkie (which is recorded) and one might be homeless (which is recorded, but does not typically enter statistical tables), and the other eight might be two street gang members (recorded) three high-school kids on a lark (juvenile record sealed), two organized criminals (recorded, if known) and a mother desperate to buy medicine for her baby (not recorded, but taken into consideration by the judge). One or more of those people may also be alcoholics, which is not recorded. - How do you know someone doesn't hold up a liquor store just to resell the alcohol? It is commonly assumed that people who hold up liquor stores usually just want the money, and people who burgle liquor stores do resell the alcohol. - You don't of course, so another invalid comparison. By George, my very message in a nutshell!

Laws are not enacted on the basis of scientific study, or measured, well-reasoned analysis. laws are enacted on the basis of power distribution, expediency, patronage, political pressure, prejudice, custom, fad and panic. They're sometimes altered and modified by sober afterthoughts and to correct unforeseen negative effects... ad hoc, piecemeal, half-assedly, hoping enough tinkering will finally satisfy everyone - well, everyone who matters. Nobody knows. That was my point.

I see where that's not so easy. Do we have any statistics on the breakdown of hard-drug related offenses? How many are for possession and trafficking (directly because the drug is illegal, for which there are no counterparts for legal alcohol). How many for property crimes in order to get money to acquire the drug on which the user is dependent? (Indirectly because the drug is illegal - while alcoholics who hold up liquor stores are not counted as junkies) . How many are actions taken under the influence of a hard drug? Comparisons are not always straightforward: all we have is statistics compiled under the same system of legal disparity, by people with the same bias.

Nor does one need to be physically dependent in order to get drunk once in a while, even if he only consumes his 7-14 ration on Saturday night, and cause a multi-vehicle accident, or beat up his family, or get involved in an incident - say the celebration of a football victory - that leads to serious trouble. No, we don't all; most of us are reasonably restrained, some have simply been lucky.

Aha. Is that the same consideration a defective baby gets? Pretty much.

The law doesn't regard pain, infliction or tolerance thereof, as a criterion for any decision. It certainly is not under consideration by legislatures who forbid abortion to foetuses with serious birth defects or in-utero injuries that would condemn them, if born, to a short or long life of suffering. It is not under consideration by legislators who vote against assisted suicide for terminal patients. And obviously, legislators who send people to incompetent executioners don't give a flying concern.

I don't think that is a definition of self-awareness, let alone the comprehensive definition. This is not exactly a new subject for conjecture and discussion, a great many definitions have been proposed (for which I'm unable to go hunting right now.), some more satisfactory than others. Sez who? You mean man-made objects? Why? For a 15-year-old modern, urban human, mirrors have been a standard fixture of their environment for at least 14 years. For a 15-year-old native of the remote Andes, mirrors may be entirely unknown. They may be surprised and delighted by a mirror, or terrified of it, but the substance and function of it can be explained to them. They also have a considerably larger brain than the average cardinal. I'm not sure why you're so concerned about this cardinal behaviour. It sounds to me more like something a male would do than a female; I have to cover my mirrors in springtime from robins and redwings. They see a reflection and take it for another member of their species who is invading their territory and must be driven off - particularly if it's near their nesting site. The motivation and the behaviour are clear and logical in terms of bird life, but the artifact has no significance in terms of bird culture.

Just as we hope that the generals who send soldiers into battle, the judges who sent offenders to death row, the legislators who condemn defective babies to life, the families who refuse permission to turn off ventilators, etc. do not miscalculate. People live; people make decisions; people die. As a species, we don't exactly have a pristine record of correct decisions.

Yes... But.. This had probably been covered already; I have internet service problems right now, so it's hard to navigate back and find out what's been said; forgive me if this is redundant. Harm to others is very difficult to measure, especially from the POV of someone who finds life difficult to bear. Should he go on suffering for the sake of his children? If their survival depends on him, perhaps. If, however, they insist on his continuing to suffer his life rather then they should suffer his loss, who is doing the the harm to whom? Many suicides do it in order to save their loved from the burden of their own continued existence. Short term grief, even tainted with secret guilt, is easier to recover from than the long-term hardship and secret resentment of caring for an incapacitated dependent. Then again, some people (notably jilted lovers and frustrated teenagers) kill themselves out of spite, to punish somebody. They should stopped and given time, whether they want it or not, to reconsider. Because they usually do.