Nemesio

I remember the first time I saw the episode in which Jefferson's son (Lionel) was having his engagement party and the woman to whom he was engaged was of biracial parentage. Both Bunker's and Jefferson's racism (towards white and black respectively) is brought out in sharp relief, each one horrified that 'the other' would marry one of 'their own.' A brilliant episode -- well crafted from front to back, a clear but subtle moral, and hysterically funny. Nemesio

Doh! I didn't see the request! I'll email her tonight (I don't have her address here at work) and see if she has anything to add to the discussion from a legal standpoint. Nemesio

This is not true, at least not in the formal rules of chess (you can invent all house rules you want). A person can only win if either 1) you put the king in checkmate, or 2) your opponent resigns. You can force draw from a losing position if 1) you can avoid checkmate for 50 moves (which means a white-black pair) without a pawn's moving (at which point the number resets), or 2) you get put in stalemate (which means there is no move available such that the king will not be putting himself in check). A draw can also be claimed when there is 'insufficient mating material,' generally K+K, K+KB or K+KN. There are a few other obscure 'insufficient mating material' combinations which are probably unnecessary to explain. Lastly, a draw can also be claimed when a position is repeated three times on the board (and by repeated, that takes into account the potentialities to castle and the availability of en passant moves by pawns). To computerages: To improve your endgame, you should probably study various endgame strategies including the principals of 'opposition' and how to advance pawns successfully (or prevent their advance), as well as the ways in which rooks (especially) and minor pieces can control parts of the board. A K+KQ endgame should be the most straightforward in which you can force a mate, so if you are struggling with this, you might want to study the strategic strengths and weaknesses of pieces (how to use them to control the board), because a firm grasp on the pieces will make mating with them self-evident. I'm a subscriber to the site http://www.redhotpawn.com (you don't have to pay to play, but you only get six games at once) which is a correspondence chess website, but there are many other free online chess sites, too. The more you play, the better you will understand the pieces, but understanding subtle chess strategy is a life-long process (and I'm a neophyte to be sure). Nemesio

I'm not so sure about this. With estates, there is an indefinite period of time for lawyers to bicker and examine and have a judge intervene and make a decision. With organ donation, it's often not that convenient. Many times, the harvesting has to take place promptly or the organs will no longer be useful. And, in my limited experience and knowledge, while donor cards are generally honored, if a spouse, guardian, or steward tries to oppose it, the doctors tend to lean that way for fear of lawsuits. That is, all the spouse has to say is 'S/He forgot to change his/her card to reflect his/her most recent beliefs,' and I'm pretty sure the doctors will ignore the card, unless there is some lawyer on hand with a notarized will to contradict a specious claim made by a grieving relative, I guess. I have heard of legal cases where brain dead people are be kept 'alive' for a period of time while this sort of argument takes place (say between a spouse, who wants to honor the donating and parents who don't want their child cut up for the opened-casket funeral) and it's not a cut-and-dried sort of affair, regardless of what the card says. I could ask my sister-in-law (who is a lawyer with a focus on ethics) about it if it would of interest to the forum. She might be able to offer a non-anecdotal contribution to this discussion. Nemesio

I voted yes. I am understanding the term 'human being' as distinct from 'person,' and taking it to mean simply contains all the properties which allow for the possibility of developing into (or being, or having been) an adult member of the species homo sapiens sapiens. A sperm or biopsy lack this possibility (and actuality, of course). The implicit question of whether simply because it is a human being it therefore has rights is deeply problematic, however. That it is a human being is simply descriptive for me; it doesn't have any particular relevance for any sort of moral discussion -- that Missouri afforded some sort of moral distinction on the basis of a dividing line somewhere between a blastula and an embryo is confusing to me. Nemesio

I know a few people as dense as rocks. Would it work for them? Nemesio

Nice touch!

This was precisely my thought as I read the opening post. Nemesio

Another thing to keep in mind is that the knuckles which are amputated during the declawing operation provide balance to the cat. Removing them, especially late in life, makes them tentative. Further, since they know that they now lack their primary defenses, they become much more defensive in situations that they perceive as even slightly threatening, whereas before they know that they can rely on their claws if things escalate. They are also far more likely to bite. If I recall correctly, I think the operation is illegal in England because of its barbaric nature. Nemesio

You are misrepresenting that position, whether intentionally or in error. Whereas a zygote is human life from conception, that doesn't entail that it is a person. That is, think about the morally relevant qualities that defines what a person is. A zygote doesn't have these qualities, it just has the potential of developing them. A zygote is merely a clump of cells, containing, at that moment, no more personhood than any other randomly selected clump of cells. By contrast, animals do have these qualities. This is an argument (among many) that animal advocates make and why they can be perfectly comfortable with abortions as late as 24 weeks or so, when the capacities for personhood manifest themselves, but still demand that animals be afforded moral consideration. Now, if you want to use the argument of ensoulment (and that it takes place at conception), that's fine and, naturally, abortion would be murder. But ensoulment is a religious concept and doesn't carry any currency in a system that claims a separation of Church and State; that is, just because one believes that a zygote has a soul doesn't entail that such an opinion be imposed upon the person who doesn't believe it. From a legal standpoint, the issue has to be one of rights, and a person has them, and a non-person doesn't. Nemesio

Bump. In My Memory, Would you kindly empty out enough of your private messages that I might make an Animal Testing inquiry to you? Nemesio