text:
Let $A$ be any set. Is there a set $E$ such that $A \times E = E \times A = A$?
I thought of the empty set, but Wikipedia says otherwise. This operation changes dimension, so an isomorphism might be needed for such element to exist.
Let $A$ be any set. Is there a set $E$ such that $A \times E = E \times A = A$?
I thought of the empty set, but Wikipedia says otherwise. This operation changes dimension, so an isomorphism might be needed for such element to exist.
It's unfortunate (but not your fault at all) that one needs to place a lot of explanations and specifications in place to be able to give a definite answer to what seems like a reasonable question. Unfortunate because in fact there are a lot of assumptions behind the notation.
The first assumption is what is meant by equality? Do we mean set equality, or do we mean set equivalence (up to a bijection)?
The second question is what is meant by $A\times B$; it is the set of ordered pairs, sure, but what is an ordered pair? There are many different definitions. One of the most standard ones is the Kuratowski definition of ordered pair: $$(a,b) = \bigl\{ \{a\},\{a,b\}\bigr\}.$$ The precise definition of ordered pair will matter if we are asking about equality of sets rather than simple equivalence up to a bijection.
The third question is whether you meant to ask if there is a set $E$ such that for all sets $A$, $E\times A = A\times E = A$; or if you meant to ask if for every set $A$ there exists a set $E$ such that $E\times A = A\times E = A$. Formally, they are different questions (though an affirmative answer for the former implies an affirmative answer for the latter).
And the final question is what Set Theory you are working in.
In some sense, the whole reason we have these things called addition and multiplication and the ring axioms is because of certain properties satisfied by the Cartesian product and disjoint union. Both are associative and commutative (up to natural isomorphism). One distributes over the other (up to natural isomorphism). Both have identity elements (up to natural isomorphism). Decategorify, restricting to finite sets, and you get the non-negative integers. Take the Grothendieck group, and you get the integers, and then at some point you are led to write down the ring axioms in general. But it's good to keep in mind where it all comes from.
For "equality", no ... if $a \in A$ then it does not have the form $(a,e)$ of an element of $A \times E$, by the Axiom of Foundation.
For "bijection", yes. I leave that to you.


text:
Please enter a maximum of 5 recipients. Use ; to separate more than one email address.
The European Union's climate-change commissioner Connie Hedegaard and energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger said Monday they wanted to cap the share of energy in the transportation sector from food crop-based biofuels - such as rapeseed or palm oil - at current levels.
By MICHAEL HADDON
LONDON -- The European Commission, the executive
arm of the European Union, said Monday it plans
to limit the use of biofuels derived from food crops to 5% of
transport fuel, in a radical change to its biofuel policy.
The EUs climate-change commissioner Connie Hedegaard
and energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger said they wanted to
cap the share of energy in the transport sector from food
crop-based biofuels - such as rapeseed or palm oil - at current
It is wrong to
believe that we are pushing food-based biofuels, they said in a joint
statement. In our upcoming proposal for new legislation,
we do exactly the contrary: we limit them to the current
consumption level, that is 5% up to 2020.
The proposal, a draft of which was reported by Dow
Jones Newswires last week, clashes with the target of
having 10% of the energy used in transport coming from
renewable sources by 2020.
This goal was set by the EU three years ago because food
crop-based biofuels account for most biofuels
available in volumes at the moment.
New types are being developed, but are mostly at the
laboratory stage. At the same time, biofuels are expected to be
the main renewable energy source to be used in transport in
However, the Commission's message for post-2020 is
that our clear preference are biofuels produced from non-food
feedstocks, like waste or
agricultural residues such as straw, the statement
These new type of biofuels are not in competition with
food, nor do they require additional land. We are pushing biofuels that help us cutting
substantial CO2-emissions, do not compete with food and are
sustainable and green at the same time, it added.
Dow Jones Newswires
All comments are subject to editorial review.
All fields are compulsory.
Dr.Ing. Roberto Antonelli
It seems as if at last they realized the amplitude of the environmental and social disasters they have perpetrated. Another example of the law of the unintended consequences. If those are the rulers and the decision-makers, who will protect us?
Sign-up for the Free Daily HP Enewsletter!
A searchable database of project activity in the global hydrocarbon processing industry
Engineers and designers are highly skilled individuals. Forcing them to enter design changes using tables, forms and spreadsheets is unproductive and uneconomical, and it increases the likelihood of human error—this is the way that most instrumentation software systems currently work. For too long, software vendors have denied engineers and designers the simple practicality of a graphical visual engineering interface with "drag and drop" capability and inbuilt intelligence, ensuring changes are automatically replicated into all the associated data and databases.
Is 2016 the peak for US gasoline demand?
Too soon to tell
July 2016

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Toll Free: 888-702-7099Local: 205-280-6546 - 7:30am to 4:30pm (ct)
102" Diagonal Horizontal Masquerade Masking System
The Horizontal Masquerade is a 2-way motorized masking system for use with 1.78:1 fixed frame projection screens. You may purchase a Carada Projection Screen for an additional charge, or use your own projection screen (fits most fixed frame screens; please contact Carada for more details).
Choose the appropriate power configuration when ordering
Additional shipping costs must be quoted for international shipments. Please contact customer service for pricing


text: This Angry Birds character is from the 'Angry Birds Space' series. His name is Chuck, but many people just call him Yellow Bird. While other Angry Birds are round in shape or hold an egg shape, his body is like a cone or rounded triangle. What type of bird is Chuck? Well, he's yellow so that must mean he is a canary. It's actually said that Yellow Angry Bird is a wild canary when he made his video game debut back in 2009. Anyways, drawing Yellow Bird should be really simple because you don't have to make any complicated shapes or what have you. Just sit back and enjoy the magic carpet ride. I will be back soon so come back around. Peace out folks.


text:
Interested in the intersection of the three? Dr. Alan Ravitz is a leading youth psychiatrist, one of the nation's foremost experts in the diagnostic evaluation and treatment of youths with psychiatric disorders, and a former professor at NYU. He will be speaking about his extensive experience testifying in domestic violence in cases, and his discussion will touch on how instances of domestic violence play out in custody cases, how the psychological issues of the parties weigh into disputes, and the dynamics of violent tendencies, victimhood, and parenthood. Lunch will be served. Contact: Leslie Jaw, firstname.lastname@example.com
© Copyright 2016, The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York.
For questions or comments, please contact the web administrators.
435 West 116 Street, New York, NY 10027 — 212-854-2640


text:
A lot of the fonts I see are pretty darn expensive, of course you can find some awesome ones for free, but do freelance designers usually buy fonts? Or is buying fonts a practice reserved mostly for studios?
Professional freelance designers buy high quality commercial fonts. It's possible that you may find cheaper alternatives in free fonts. However, a lot of free fonts don't offer full glyphs and other intricacies that high quality commercial fonts offer.
You don't have to buy a bunch of fonts up front, or even the entire family, that'd be costly. But as you create your designs, think of which fonts are appropriate for the design and buy individual variants accordingly. It's cheaper that way.
It is always a good thing to buy fonts for several reasons:
There are ofcourse free fonts on the web, but most of them are made by people who started them as a hobby. There are some good free fonts, but the problem is that the majority of freelance designers use them quite often so you are not that unique.
Google: webdesigner free fonts (smashing magazine) I set Smasing magazine between () since it is an option for your search. The reason i added this is that smashing magazine is one of the leading online magazines on design. So besides this answer i also provide the tip to follow this magazine if you didnt already know it.
Yes. Lots of freelance designers also purchase computers, software, desks, pens, paper, etc. It's all part of the toolset. That said, fonts are software and like other software, you can also use freeware and open source alternatives as you see fit.
By the standards of what they used to cost, fonts are quite cheap. You can buy the complete Adobe Font Folio for a few thousand now. When I was involved in the print industry it would have been the better part of 10x the price.
There are also quite a few other alternatives. For example, Corel Draw is not so expensive and comes with a large set of Bitstream fonts, which are professional quality with good hinting and kerning pair data.
There are lots of good free fonts now (and in fact there were back in the early 1990s when I was doing this), but the professional ones are not all that expensive.
To work as a freelance or to obey to your boss? That is the question!
Sure it's harder to a freelance to buy computers, printers or fonts, but remember there is a guy that draw the font, tune hinting, kerning and more, it's a hard work that's worth being paid for. He too have bills, children to feed and so on, so follow the advices from Jin & Luuk, buy only the variant you need and sometimes mix them with some good free fonts!
protected by Darth_Vader♦ Dec 11 '13 at 21:30
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?


text: Oops! That's what I get for messing around with it on the weekend with two five-year olds running around the house. Those glitches are fixed now, thanks. As for not doing the iterative search but scoring title hits higher, I have two problems with that: 1) returning all of the hits at once can be a bit overwhelming, even if the title hits sort at the top 2) with the directory grouping I'm doing, it wouldn't be intuitive to have the title hits sort at the top and the rest sort below (the directory would appear twice) But all ideas are welcome. Thanks, Roy Tennant On Mon, 22 Jun 1998, Earl Fogel wrote: > Hi, > > I took a look at this, and I am really impressed by the new output format. > Sorting the results by server directory is an absolutely wonderful idea, > although I noticed a couple of very small glitches in your implementation. > > 1) The search results page begins with: > > \nHere are the results of your search for search > > 2) The links to the directories don't work: > >  > > I'm not so sure about the way you do successive searches (first title, > then full text). Wouldn't you achieve much the same results by adjusting > the scoring algorithm to give more prominence to matches in the title? > > Earl Fogel > Computing Services phone: (306) 966-4861 > University of Saskatchewan email: firstname.lastname@example.com > -- > > On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Roy Tennant wrote: > > >I've recently been changing how my site-wide searching works on the > >Digital Library SunSITE, and since I've reached a bit of a plateau I > >thought I'd share with you what I've done in case anyone finds it useful > >(or entertaining <grin>). You can try it out at: > > > >http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/search.pl > > > >The way it works is: > > > >* The first search defaults to finding words only in the titles of Web > >documents; if that would fail, it automatically moves on to looking for > >those words anywhere in the documents > >* If the initial limit to titles would retrieve results, it stops and > >displays them, along with a button which you can use to ask for more > >results on the same search. If the user hits the button for more > >results, the search words are searched across the full text of all Web > >documents. > >* The results are also sorted by server directory. The directory title is > >translated to a more useful title than simply the directory name. > >* The results of the second iteration are merged and displayed with no > >duplicates, but items that were on the first screen are marked by a grey > >bullet rather than the orange bullet which signifies items not previously > >retrieved. > > > >I will let you see the (lousy) code if you promise not to laugh. Please > >remember that I'm not really a Perl programmer, I just play one on the > >Web. See: > > > >http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/~manager/Software/search.pl > > > >This is simply a symbolic link, so as I change the actual executable the > >changes are automatically reflected in the program listing. If you have > >any questions, let me know. > >Roy Tennant > > > >Received on Mon Jun 22 08:56:05 1998


text:
Claudio Grossman
Professor of Law
Dean Emeritus
Raymond I. Geraldson Scholar for International and Humanitarian Law
Office: Room C301D
Phone: 202-274-4001
Email: email@example.com
Claudio Grossman is a Professor of Law, Dean Emeritus, and the Raymond I. Geraldson Scholar for International and Humanitarian Law at American University Washington College of Law. He is an expert on international law, human rights, and Inter-American affairs. Grossman was unanimously re-elected in May 2012 to a third term as chair of the United Nations Committee against Torture, a position which he has held since April 2008, and has been a Committee member following his November 2003 election to that body. He was previously a member of the Commission for the Control of Interpol's Files. Grossman served as president of the College of the Americas, an organization of colleges and universities in the Western Hemisphere, from November 2003-November 2007. Previously, he was a member of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights from 1993-2001, where he served in numerous capacities including twice as its President (1996 and 2001) as well as the special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous populations and the special rapporteur on women's rights. He has participated in numerous on-site visits and election-observing missions in Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East. He has also worked on international legal issues with the United Nations and the International Human Rights Law Group (now known as Global Rights). Grossman is fluent in Spanish, French, and Dutch. He is the author of numerous books and articles on international law, human rights, and the law of international organizations, and the recipient of numerous awards for his work in those fields.
Currently Teaching
- LAW-648-001 Food and Drug Law (Spring)
- LAW-725-002 Sistema Inter-Amer de DDHH (Summer)
- LAW-795U-004 Torture Prohibtn in Intl Law (Fall)
Degrees & Universities
- Doctor in de Rechtsgeleerdheid (Doctor of the Science of Law), The University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands 1980
- Licenciado en Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales, The University of Chile Law School, Santiago, Chile 1971 (summa cum laude)
Selected Presentations
- Claudio Grossman, Panel Remarks, Democracy, Economic Development and Human Rights (Universidad Alfonso X El Sabio, Spain, Mar. 22-24, 2006).
- Claudio Grossman, Seminar, Freedom of Expression in Chile (Universidad Diego Portales, Jan. 23, 2006).
- Claudio Grossman, Panel Remarks, Challenges to Freedom of Expression in the Western Hemisphere (OAS, Jan. 23, 2006).
- Claudio Grossman, Lecture, Human Rights in the Americas (Inter-American Defense College, Jan. 17, 2006).
- Claudio Grossman, Panel Remarks, International Commercial Arbitration (Wash., D.C., Nov. 1, 2005).
- Claudio Grossman, Presentation, Case on Death Penalty against Cuba (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Nov. 1, 2005).
- Claudio Grossman, Introductory Remarks, Conference on International Arbitration; Environmental Law; Intellectual Property Fair Use Conference (Nov. 1, 2005).
- Claudio Grossman, Seminar, Inter-American Human Rights System (Wash., D.C., Oct. 22, 2005).
- Claudio Grossman, Panel Remarks, Latinos in the Global Political Environment (National Latino/a Law Student Association, Oct. 21, 2005).
- Claudio Grossman, Presentation, Introduction to the Inter-American System of Protection on Human Rights (Wash., D.C., Oct. 11, 2005).
- Claudio Grossman, Lecture, Inter-American System of Human Rights (Universidad de San Martin de Porres, Sept. 1, 2005).
Selected Media Appearances
- CNN's International Correspondents, "Discussion About Hugo Chavez" (CNN Jan. 12, 2007) (Television Program).
- National Association of Women Judges Honors U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Part 1 (C-Span Mar. 6, 2006).
- National Association of Women Judges Honors U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Part 2 (C-Span Mar. 6, 2006).


text:
Forget Me Not
by Dieter F. Uchtdorf
Product Description
Inspired by the five petals of the tiny forget-me-not flower, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf reminds us of five things we will be wise to never forget:
A wonderful gift for any woman in your life!
By Deb, Submitted on 2015-02-25
I saw this book, and thought that it would be nice for my mother. For some reason I did not pick it up. As I thought about I decided that it would be perfect. I asked my husband (he is not crazy about stores) to pick it up on his way home from work. He did. I read the book myself, and the message was so, I can not describe the feelings I felt.
On Mothers Day, the bishop gave each mother in the ward the book mark. Now I have both the book and the bookmark
By Amitie , Submitted on 2015-02-25
When you read this book you will know how much your Father in Heaven love you and also how important you are. It is a wonderful book. I think that all LDS woman should own and read this book.
By Mj, Submitted on 2015-02-25
I bought this for my Mom for Mother's Day and wanted to keep it for myself. I absolutely love this book and so does my Mom. The pictures are gorgeous and perfectly accompany the beautiful message President Uchtdorf presents. The 5 forget-me-nots are messages I'll carry with me forever.


text:
The 6 Most Intriguing Stupid Questions Answered by Science
Scientists, in their constant search for answers, don't often worry about how silly they look doing it. After all, if they were too self-conscious, science would still have no idea how farts work. And that's the great thing about science -- even the most ridiculous inquiries wind up answering questions you didn't even know you wanted to know. You're welcome.
#6. What if You Put Three Crazy Jesuses in the Same Room?
Hemera Technologies/AbleStock.com/Getty Images
We've all heard stories about mental patients who think they're some famous figure like Jesus or Napoleon (rarely do they think they're just some bartender named Steve). If you're like us, then you've only had one question on your mind -- what would happen if two people who thought they were the same famous figure came face to face?
Well, psychologist Milton Rokeach wondered the same thing in the 1950s, before ethics and common sense became a thing in the scientific community, so he found three separate mental patients who each believed he was Jesus and shacked them up together in the same room. For two years.
Kim Carson/Photodisc/Getty Images
A fourth guy was released when they realized he was just a South American tourist telling them his name.
Obviously, none of the patients was willing to concede that they could all be Jesus, but they weren't willing to let go of their own delusion either, so they each came up with a theory about why the other two said they were. One believed that the others were robots, the second believed that they might be other gods, and the third came up with a theory that was disarmingly rational -- of course the others thought they were Jesus, they were mental patients.
Thinkstock Images/Comstock/Getty Images
"Well, shit, when he puts it that way ..."
So on a day-to-day basis, how do three mentally ill Jesi exist in the same space and time? In the exact same way the rest of us do it -- for the most part, they dodged the issue. Whenever the topic of their divinity came up in conversation, the others hastily changed the subject. Coming face to face with a metaphysical paradox is something nobody has time for first thing in the morning. Although, on a couple of occasions, the conflict over who was the real Jesus of Nazareth could only be settled with fists.
Medioimages/Photodisc/Valueline/Getty Images
Apparently the whole cheek-turning thing was bullshit.
Eventually, one of the patients seemed to change his mind, and rather than Jesus, he started demanding that people address him as "Dr. Dung." He never renounced the idea that he was the Son of God, but at least he found an equally crazy compromise.
After two years, Rokeach gave up on the experiment, deciding that it wasn't going anywhere, which reveals a lack of creativity on his part. At the very least, he could have introduced them to someone who thought he was the devil.
#5. Does Fudge Taste Less Good if It's Shaped Like Poop?
Jupiterimages/Photos.com/Getty Images
We have mentioned before that the science of what makes us find food appealing gets downright weird (try eating half of a good meal, then eating the rest under a light that turns everything blue). An idea like this is just a veritable playground for the mischievous scientist.
Thus, a set of experiments tested a group of volunteers by offering them glasses of apple juice, some of which contained a nice juicy cockroach. The roaches were sterilized beforehand, and the participants were aware of this, but those who were able to bring themselves to drink the roached juice reported that they didn't like the taste. Remember, the presence of the cockroach didn't actually do anything to the juice -- the foul taste was invented by their brains as a way to tell them to stop putting that shit in their mouths.
"Whatever, you've eaten Arby's."
But the experiment went beyond roaches in an attempt to see just how far they could push the narrow line between science and juvenile prank. They presented the subjects with some delicious chocolate fudge and invited them to eat it. The only catch was that some of the fudge looked exactly like dog shit.
As you might have guessed, the subjects much preferred to try the regular fudge over the stuff they imagined sliding out of a dog's asshole. But even those who did try the poop fudge rated the taste of it lower than the other (completely identical) fudge. Other parts of the experiment involved stirring regular sugar labelled "cyanide" into glasses of water, asking the volunteers to put novelty rubber vomit in their mouths, and various other ideas they came up with while high.
"Hey, get those hot dogs. I want to try something with this yogurt."
But as above, the ridiculous stunt yielded valuable food for thought, calling into question the whole mechanism by which we decide what we eat, and in what amounts. For instance, this is why that butt-shaped pizza chain went out of business so fast.
#4. Does Staring at Sheep Freak Them Out?
Jupiterimages/Photos.com/Getty Images
Animals are idiots. If they weren't, they wouldn't keep blundering into our stomachs. Sure, some are smarter than others, like dogs and dolphins, and we tend to prefer to teach them to do humiliating tricks rather than garnish our plates, but we feel safe in the assumption that they're too oblivious to know what we're thinking. And when it comes to big dumb animals like sheep, well, they probably don't even know we're here. So of course the question was raised: "What if I were to just stand here and stare at a sheep for a while? Would it hate that?"
So, sure enough, some sheep were dragged into a science chamber and researchers stared daggers at them. Just staring those sheep down, like gunslingers at high noon.
Jupiterimages/Photos.com/Getty Images
"Come at me, braaaaaaaaa."
What was discovered was that the sheep were able to know when humans were staring, and to differentiate between stares from humans and non-humans. Researchers observed that for the first two minutes, the sheep would occasionally glance at the staring human, and then would begin to piss slightly more than usual.
Jupiterimages/Photos.com/Getty Images
Basically the opposite of you at a urinal.
So the sheep know what you are, what part of your body is your eyes, and that you're staring at them like a jackass. Scientists say the sheep weren't frightened by the humans staring them down, just aware of it (and presumably annoyed). Of course, if animals are really so lucidly aware of when they're being watched by people, it raises an interesting conundrum -- how can we really study animal behavior if the act of watching them changes that behavior? Are they just waiting until we leave so they can start talking to each other?
Jupiterimages/Comstock/Getty Images
"That idiot keeps calling me 'Waffles.' My fucking name's Todd, man."


text:
Health & Pregnancy
One Baby per Hour Born Drug Dependent
April 30, 2012 -- The number of U.S. babies born dependent on drugs nearly tripled between 2000 and 2009, researchers reported today.
Drug dependence occurs when a person develops a physical dependence on a drug, leading to withdrawal symptoms if the drug is abruptly stopped. Newborns can be drug dependent, but do not have the harmful behavior typically seen with addiction. By 2009, an estimated 13,539 babies -- an average of one an hour -- were diagnosed with a drug withdrawal syndrome, which most commonly occurs because their mothers were taking opiate drugs, or narcotics, while pregnant, according to the new study.
"We were surprised by the magnitude of the increase," says researcher Stephen Patrick, MD, MPH, a Robert Wood Johnson clinical scholar at the University of Michigan.
Patrick and his collaborators used national inpatient databases to find the number of women who were taking opiates when they gave birth and the number of babies born with drug dependency.
"These babies, compared to other babies, are more likely to be irritable and inconsolable," says Patrick, a neonatologist. "They'll likely be born low birth weight. Feeding issues are common."
The use of prescription opiate painkillers such as Oxycontin and Vicodin has increased four-fold over the last decade, according to a recent report from the CDC. Patrick's study found a five-fold increase in opiate use among pregnant women.
"These medications provide superior pain control for cancer and chronic pain, but have been overprescribed, diverted, and sold illegally, creating a new opiate addiction pathway and a public health burden for maternal and child health," Marie J. Hayes, PhD, a University of Maine psychologist, and Mark Brown, MD, a Bangor, Maine, pediatrician, write in an editorial accompanying Patrick's study.
A 2010 survey by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration found that 16.2% of pregnant teens and 7.4% of pregnant women 18 to 25 years old used illicit drugs, including opiates such as heroin and illegally obtained prescription painkillers.
Although the new study did not have information about which opiates women took during pregnancy and why, Patrick says: "It's probably all comers. Some women were using opiates appropriately for chronic pain or in methadone clinics." Methadone is often used to treat heroin addiction.


text:
With Team 118 set to begin spring practice on Friday afternoon, Butch Jones met with the media on Thursday to discuss the state of the Vols.
Click here for the original story.
Welcome to SECTalk.com
|Welcome to SECTalk.com -- The Home of 6 Straight National Titles!
You are currently accessing our site as a guest which means you can't access all of our features such as social groups, sports betting, and many more. By joining our free community you will have access to all of these great features as well as to participating in our forums, contacting other members, and much more. Registration only takes a minute and SECTalk.com is absolutely free, so please join today!
If you have any problems registering or signing in, please contact us.
Latest Topics
Latest News
Top Bettors
Top High Fived
Butch Jones Pre-Spring Presser Transcript
Started by SECTalk.com, Mar 06 2014 11:35 AM
Similar Topics
|Started By
|Last Post Info
Butch Thompson to Auburn
Started by GoldenRebel, 20 Oct 2015 In: SEC Sports → SEC Baseball & Minor Sports Talk
- Hot 31 replies
- 1,923 views
What will Butch's big announcement be?
Started by possumslayer, 14 Apr 2016 In: SEC Sports → SEC Trash Talk
- Hot 30 replies
- 1,171 views
Butch Jones On Peyton Manning
Started by SECTalk.com, 08 Mar 2016 In: The East → Tennessee Sports → Tennessee News
- 0 replies
- 144 views
Butch Jones Press Conference
Started by SECTalk.com, 07 Mar 2016 In: The East → Tennessee Sports → Tennessee News
- 0 replies
- 131 views
Butch Jones has........
Started by possumslayer, 25 Feb 2016 In: SEC Sports → SEC Trash Talk
- 15 replies
- 875 views


text:
Paramount's decision to delay the franchise to make it 3D paid off this weekend
Paramount gambled when it delayed "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" to make it 3D. The gamble paid off on its opening weekend to the tune of $130 million in global grosses. That's roughly the "Retaliation" production budget, so it's no surprise the studio is planning a third "G.I. Joe."
Check out TheWrap's new video in which we discuss what was behind the big debut:


text:
Sometimes when I connect my MacBook Air to the charger, the charge light on the MagSafe connector does not come on (and System Information says the power is not connected and the battery is not charging). I tried using a different charger and the MacBook charges fine. What might be the problem?
In my case, the problem was the temperature of the charger. Since it's currently winter in the southern hemisphere, removing the MacBook from charge causes the charger to cool down (since it apparently draws very little mains power when there is no load on the MacBook side). At some point when it is cool enough, it will refuse to supply power when the MacBook is plugged in again.
The workaround is to warm up the charger (for example, by sitting on it) for a few minutes until the charge light comes on. Then the current running through the charger is enough to keep it warm, and it continues charging.
Update: A year later, after returning from being away for six weeks, my charger refused to work again even after sitting on it. Apple was happy to replace it under AppleCare.
I actually have the same problem but a different solution worked for me:
The problem only arose when I unplugged the charger from the MacBook (but not from the power supply) and plugged it back in. Unplugging the charger from the power supply for a moment solved the issue instantly.
my mba would not charge at all. i literally sat on my charger and warmed it up and now my mba charges-unbelievable. Thanks. from cold new england.
protected by Community♦ Feb 13 '13 at 17:42
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?


text:
Still uncomfortable, 40 years after 'Roe'
Gail Collins is my favorite New York Times columnist (in, yes, a not-very-crowded field). She's funny and she's smart; she does the "writing lightly about serious matters" thing so well it makes me wonder all the more that the same paper should publish someone as bad at that very thing as Maureen Dowd. (She's also good at politely telling David Brooks why he's full of it.) When I read Collins carefully I can see the impressive amount of work that has gone into a seemingly breezy 800 words, but the result is never effortful. She's a master.
The only time my fondness for Collins takes a hit is when she writes about abortion, and not only because we disagree. On that subject I find she writes, like so many other progressives, as though there are no difficult questions left, and support for unrestricted access to abortion is the only decent position a right-thinking, non-woman-hating person can hold. Obviously I'm a bit insulted by that approach. But I'm also disappointed whenever I encounter it. It doesn't sound like an earnest attempt to grapple with a tough issue; it sounds to me like an attempt to convince oneself that there is no more thinking to be done. Coming from either side, self-satisfied absolutism is a dead end.
A couple weeks ago, ahead of today's Roe v. Wade anniversary, Collins published a column with the headline "The Woes of Roe." Somewhat ironically, Collins put her finger on an aspect of what I just described:
Americans are permanently uncomfortable with the abortion issue, and they respond most positively to questions that suggest it isn't up to them to decide anything.
But Collins did not acknowledge any of the reasons I can think of that people might still, all these years after Roe, be "uncomfortable" with abortion. Instead she catalogued the "crazy new rules" that are plaguing the nation's abortion clinics:
In Texas, the Legislature is considering a law that would require that all abortions be performed in ambulatory surgical centers. When the state passed that requirement for pregnancies beyond 16 weeks in 2004, every single clinic doing that procedure was forced to shut down. Only a handful managed to reopen in a state that encompasses more than 261,000 square miles.
It so happens that I read that column shortly after my own sixteenth week of pregnancy.
I had an ultrasound at sixteen weeks, and my husband came along we got a sitter for our older child because we knew from experience that it would be worth it. At sixteen weeks, we could see our new baby's face, start the predictions about whom he or she will look like. (We still don't know the sex, but only because we asked the technician not to tell us. At sixteen weeks we could have found that out, too.) We saw a spine, curling and uncurling; kicking legs; perfectly formed fingers and toes. "This baby is going to be a hand model!" the technician laughed, because every time she tried a new angle our baby flashed us a wave. We heard the heartbeat, stronger and louder than it was the first time I heard it, ten weeks earlier. We counted the chambers of the heart and studied the developing brain. Everything is as it should be, we were told. Our baby is healthy. And they gave us pictures to bring home, to hang on the fridge and show our family.
With those images in my mind, I read that paragraph from Collins and thought, "It should be difficult to get an abortion after sixteen weeks." Sixteen weeks is a long time to be pregnant; a long time for a baby to grow. Within a day of that ultrasound I could feel my baby kicking. Is it any wonder that people remain uncomfortable with the idea that aborting a baby that far along should be a routine procedure? I can imagine situations in which a woman might feel compelled to end the life within her -- for example, if she received awful news about her child's health instead of the good news I was lucky enough to get. It's not a choice I would or could ever make, but I can understand it. But I can't see why making such a choice shouldn't require a lot of effort, at the very least. "Over the last 40 years," Collins complains, "women seeking abortions have been put through a lot of unnecessary trauma" like long trips to clinics, or being forced to have ultrasounds before aborting their babies. I guess I'm supposed to be thinking, "Those poor women," and if I were convinced that abortion had no moral dimension I suppose I would be able to see it that way. And I'm not ready to speak up in favor of any particular regulation, not without knowing the specifics. But in general, I found myself thinking again, "It should be hard."
Collins, like a lot of prochoicers, has a gloomy sense that the abortion-rights movement is struggling more than it should be at this point in history. I'm not out to give advice to abortion advocates, but it does seem to me that the "abortion, to a right-thinking person, is no big deal" approach is never going to win the day. Too many people have had ultrasounds and not experienced them as trauma. Too many people are not ready to be told that their discomfort with abortion is just a matter of their not thinking about it the right way. It's true, as Collins writes, that even in a conservative state, voters will eventually object to "politicians messing with a womans private business." But I suspect it's also true that widespread discomfort about abortion is, as Collins herself says, permanent, and it seems to me that "the nervous, ambivalent, uncomfortable public" is going to stay that way so long as they find no room on either side of the abortion debate for the full range of things that they are nervous about.
About the Author
Mollie Wilson O'Reilly is an editor at large and columnist at Commonweal.
73 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
I don't believe it either, but why is that? Why are they not morally equivalent? Isn't there a better reason than appearances?
Mollie,Thanks for writing this. So thoughtful, sensitive, measured and wise. You say all this far better than I could ever hope to.AA
Interesting op-ed in the NYT this morning by Kate Manning, "the author of a forthcoming novel, 'My Notorious Life,' about a 19th-century midwife."http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/opinion/leeches-lye-and-spanish-fly.ht...
Excellent. When will Collins and others admit that there are some circumstances where the choice for abortion is morally repellant? Most Americans sense this. Collins and the abortion for any reason crowd obviously do not.
William: I take it, then, that, in your mind, there are circumstances in which the choice for abortion is NOT morally repellant? (I happen to agree with that, but find it refreshing to find that implication printed here.)Which is/was more repellant: The Roe decision that has resulted in safer conditions for abortions, or the back alley/coat hanger abortions of the past for poor women, and jetting off to another country for women of means?
Mollie - so excruciatingly problematic. To quote Bill Clinton - it should be safe, legal, and rare. And the devil is in the details. IMO, focus needs to be on supporting folks such that the choice for abortion is way down on the list (rather than the time/effort made to recriminalize abortion and this also goes for the church).Recent stats from various research institutes state that the number one reason why women get abortions:- loneliness- economic reasons- lack of family/community supportIMO, difficult to justify abortions beyond the 1st trimester or earlier. Again, not sure reducing the number of clinics that provide women's healthcare in order to deny abortion is the best direction. Find the catholic pro-life and episcopal stances to be confused; missing the point; judgmental; condemnatory; legalistic. They are also contradictory given that birth control/contraception and abortion are entwined; that the episcopal ranks have a difficult time supporting women's health needs, etc.Always find that this simple question stops folks in their tracks - so, what happens when you recriminalize abortion for the mother, father, doctor?
According to the Pew Forum, people feel pretty much the same now about abortion as they did 40 years ago .... http://www.pewforum.org/Abortion/roe-v-wade-at-40.aspxIreland does criminalize abortion and the penalty for doctors is life in prison at hard labor, which perhaps leads to situations like that of the Indian woman who died there recently - doctors may tend to err on the side that keeps them safe rather than the patient.
@ Bill deHaasYou're right, abortion is the only sin for which the religious right gives women a pass. That is, they presume that anyone who commits burglary, arson, or murder of a BORN person knows exactly what he/she is doing, that it's wrong, and the perpetrator deserves whatever punishment is prescribed for the crime. But try to pin them down on why, if abortion is murder, the patient shouldn't be prosecuted, they make excuses: she didn't know what she was doing because she was brainwashed by greedy doctors, Planned Parenthood clerks, and liberal-media newspaper columnists. I've been pregnant three times and carried all three pregnancies to term, even though circumstances arose during each so that, were I not Catholic, I could easily have justified getting an abortion. So perhaps I should be relieved that the religious right would have given me a get-out-of-jail card on the grounds that I was too stupid to know I was committing murder. Instead I'm offended by their condescension. It's the same low opinion of women's intelligence that once denied them the right to vote.
People are uncomfortable about abortion and would rather change the subject because God's laws are written in our hearts. People are uncomfortable because they know at some level that they have been manipulated and brainwashed to have to say that abortion is a womans right. Even as they instinctively know that to support abortion is to support the taking of innocent human life and is therefore wrong. That someone should have the right to kill an unborn child because it is not healthy -is also an immoral position for any one to take. And that a professed christian could take it -shows the power of manipulation and propaganda. We would not say we have the right to deliberately kill innocent people for any other reason.How does the health status of an innocent already alive unborn being allow one to take their life?Is not the right to life inalienable as it is God given?How could a chrsitian believe otherwise? I don't get it except that such thinking is in fact indicitive of the power of propaganda-if enough "decent" people believe it-it must be good and true!.
We make excuses because it would disrupt the society and harm alot of people to have many women have to abandon their families to go to prison.It's not practical.That in no way means that the unborn are not alive and that it is right and just that abortion is legal.
Some people believe it is wrong to kill any person, whether they are innocent or not (death penalty) but maybe the reason someone can believe that and also not want abortion criminalized is that they haven't been convinced that an embryo or an early fetus is indeed a person.
It may not be a person[as it has no self awareness] but it is biologically a human and it is alive. That is sufficient for its' life to be protected. If being human means more then being genetically human and alive then it becomes arbitrary [what being human means]and therefore a human beings' life[the right to life] is no longer an inalienable right. And the concept "person" is also, as we see in euthansia issues, arbitrary.
Thank you, Mollie, for your thoughts on the abortion issue. You brought me back to 1982 when I was pregnant with my son. Then, ultrasounds were not that routine and usually were prescribed when there was some situation that needed to be explored. I remember being anxious yet when I saw the 2 month fetus, moving around with very obvious arms and legs, I thought: I can never be cavalier about abortion.I hope that I do not freak out anyone, but I seemed to hear the words, Dont worry, Mom, I want to be born. I did not actually hear those words but they crossed my mind. I thought: Now thats interesting. A mother is supposed to console her child and here was the child consoling his mother. Things worked out just fine and he was born seven months later. (He is journalist and writes for The Huffington Post - a shameless plug.)I do not understand how a woman can have an abortion. Yet, I cannot help thinking about the fact that I was in the committed relationship of marriage with enough resources to raise a child with no disability. So, I cannot be cavalier (I like that word.) about taking a position opposing abortion without taking into consideration the difficult choices that many other women have to make.
A person who is ill or in a vegetative state or whatever is still a person, just a person who is suffering from some impairment. An embryo or an early fetus has not yet become a person. The two cases seem different to me. People already do not have an inalienable right to life - both the present civil law and church guys like Thomas Aquinas support the killing of "non-innocent" humans.
Crystal --I have read that Aquinasthought that not only does the little creature become fully human only in stages (in fact, metaphysical it is a series of several little creatures!), he also said that that is was possible to die in stages. If this reversal is so, then the higher faculties and human soul might depart before the lower levels of life. I haven't actually read him on the subject. Wish I knew where he says this. It could have great ramifications in the debates about "end-of-life" treatment.
Rose Ellen Caminer is exactly right.
Ann,I saw this article that kind of touches on what you wrote ... Aquinas versus Locke and Descartes on the Human Person and End-of-Life Ethics ... but they seem to conclude that ... " for Aquinas, there is no such thing as a human non-person any more than there can be a red non-colored thing."I didn't really understand it very well ;)
So true: Abortion is the one issue progressives seem willing to close down both conversation and minds over. As one who's been so treated, I can tell you it seems downright weird to be shut down by a liberal. A liberal! Conservatives act this way all the time...but progressives? Why on earth do they act this way? I suppose the psycho-babblers are right, that repressed guilt may play some small part, but I suspect the real culprits are the people pro-choicers think of as The Enemy, i.e., the less-than-genius minds at work among pro-lifers. It's easy to get distracted by the sheer meanness and insensitivity of those who shout the loudest on our side of the fence.As Catholics we're used to reasoned arguments, but what most pro-choice advocates identify with the pro-life cause are the epithets and pseudo-science proclaimed by spokesmen for the Christian right. Even I, a longtime pro-lifer, get angry enough to turn more than a deaf ear on men who say women who've been "legitimately" raped can't get pregnant, not to mention bishops who claim God sends those who vote for a pro-choice President to Hell and yet leaves judgments about war and torture up to individual consciences. Only oblivious but arrogant male legislators would pass laws requiring women seeking abortions to undergo ultrasounds using transvaginal probes!Should those who oppose such foolishness look beyond all that and consider rational arguments and/or the general intuition of Americans who, 40 years after Roe v. Wade, still find abortion problematic? Of course. How to get them to do so remains the question.
Congratulations, Mollie. I've taken a vow never to discuss abortion with Catholics, including my husband, for the remainder of my life. I do follow these threads sometimes and appreciate the comments as my views evolve.
I was just sent this remarkable video:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alexander-tsiaras/pregnancy-anatomy_b_2499...
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/01/daily-chart-15Roe v Wade at 40 Jan 22nd 2013, 15:18 by Economist.comAbortion in America since 1965(Open the article URL to see the chart and map referenced in the text)IT'S an old joke, but when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word. Thus began the argument of Jay Floyd before the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade. Mr Floyd duly lost, and 40 years ago today the Court delivered what has become one of its most famous judgments. As the chart below shows, the number of women dying from botched abortions had actually begun to decline before the Court recognised a woman's right to choose: a handful of states had already decriminalised abortion before 1973. Though a majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal, several states retain trigger laws that would come into force if Roe v Wade were ever overturned (see map). Leaving them in place is a cheap way for politicians to place themselves on one side of a culture war without having to accept the consequences of their position. Those who side with Jane Roe point out that states have been piling extra regulations on abortion clinics in the past two years, with the aim of reducing an abortion rate that was falling already. In 2012 states enacted 43 such provisions. In 2011 they passed 92, a record.
Jean, I also avoid commenting on threads about abortion.
Six and a half years ago, my daughter showed everyone video of our soon-to-be born granddaughter Sasha Grace. She moved around, sucked her thumb, and in general, charmed us all, to the point of tears. If someone had suggested that this unborn child be put to death, for any reason, we would have, all of us, been filled with horror at the suggestion of such an atrocity. There is a kind of spiritual hatred that exists in our universe, a cold and icy hatred, nay, a demonic malice so accurately demonstrated in Nazi Germany, and in Cambodia by Pol Pot. In the present circumstances it takes on the false mantle of kindness and concern about women's rights, but a huge percentage of American citizens senses that something about abortion is hideous, is satanic. In the end, abortion will end; the exact logistics of that finale are as yet unknown..., ,
Speaking of emotional reactions and of the power of images, most people have a different level of comfort thinking of abortion at very early stages, for example before the fourth week of gestation:http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/images/e/ed/Stage6_bf03.jpgand of the roughly one fifth of abortions that happen beyond the transition to the fetal stage after 10-11 weeks of gestation:http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/images/a/a1/Stage23_bf1c.jpgAt that point the risk of miscarriage also decreases sharply. Virtually all of the 50% of pregnancies that end in spontaneous abortion end during the embryonic stage: if one wants to take their cue from nature, nature solves embryo problems, but not fetal problems, by miscarriage. As Mollie wrote, "sixteen weeks is a long time to be pregnant". To which I would add, "and six weeks (gestation) is a short time to be pregnant" (5mm, http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/images/5/59/Stage13_sem1c.jpg ). Based on nature's efforts and on the emotional power of images, it should be hard, quite exceptional, to have an abortion at sixteen weeks, and it should be easy, quite straightforward, to have an abortion at six weeks. That's the natural prolongation of Mollie's reflection.
Many of these reflections are profound and helpful to me, but the "devil in the details" of legislation that is workable and the always convoluted question of "who decides" the punishment to whom for a violation/abortion (as raised above) make me hold my tongue. In an ethics class, I once developed 15 scenarios in which abortion was a consideration and this class, in a Catholic nursing college, generally "approved" 11. Many different ethical and emotional bases were given - often with inconsistency and confusion. This was disappointing and it stirred the pot in approaching the issue and teaching, but could we come up with better legislation and review?Surely most of these growing present restrictions do not do that. Does anyone have an example of a solid legislation that might meet national and legal approval that will reduce the number?
Perhaps a starting point in the abortion issue is - for the pro-choice people to refrain from calling pro-life people, anti-woman and - for the pro-life people to refrain from calling pro-choice people, pro-abortion. It only distracts from the real differences, which are that pro-choice people affirm the right of a woman to choose and the pro-life people affirm the right to life of the unborn child.It seems to me that we are dealing with apples and oranges. How can each group ever find common ground?
Today's NYT has two letters to the editor about "Leeches, Lye and Spanish Fly," yesterday's op-ed.From one of the letters:If we are sincere about reducing abortions, we have to reduce unwanted and unplanned pregnancies. That means providing sex education, birth control, fair minimum wages, equal pay for women, child care services and familial support all policies that those working to overturn Roe v. Wade are against. Go figure.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/opinion/abortion-and-health-care-40-ye...
Though only 0.5 inches in size, there is an incredible amount of activity in that fetus of 6 weeks gestation. The heart started beating a week or two earlier, and it's now developed a steady rhythm that is almost audible. Brain activity can be recorded as the differentiation of complex brain structures continues. In fact, the neural tissue and brain development are so active that they account for about 1/3 the size of the fetus at this stage of its development. The eyes have formed, though for the time being they remain lidless. All of this (and much more) is the result of the self-directed and unceasing biochemical unfolding of the immensely complex genetic blueprint that was present from conception. The fetus may not yet look like us outwardly (is physical appearance a sine qua non of who counts as one of us?), but there is no doubt that a singular and unique member of the human family is under construction.
my husband came along we got a sitter for our older childNot all pregnant girls/women have husbands. WIthout "wedlock," babies are "illegitimate" (unselected by their fathers). Always interesting in the abortion threads to see how everyone ignores another obvious way of reducing abortions (along with education and contraception): hold the boys/men who impregnate girls/women financially responsible for the children they beget.With the ease of DNA analysis these days, every child can know her/his father. Why do those who seek to punish girls/women give the boys/men a pass? Why no laws to ensure support of children by their fathers? Why no picketing of the homes and offices of men who refuse to pay? Why no public praying and "counseling" on their sidewalks? Why no garnishment of their wages? A father who refuses to support his child through graduation from college should be excommunicated. Do the "pro-life" bishops insist on that?
Couldn't agree with you more, Gerelyn, that child support laws need to be much more strictly enforced. Most, if not all, states have "Deadbeat Dads" laws on the books (the vast majority of those not paying child support are men). The problem is that the laws are either not strictly enforced or they have loopholes in them that allow delinquent fathers to avoid their financial responsibilities to their children. As a result, the states end up paying out taxpayer monies for the support of the children. This seems like an area where everyone should be able to agree that stricter laws and/or better enforcement are necessary. As you say, the DNA amalysis is so precise in this day and age that perhaps the only time such testing won't meet the legal standard for establishing parentage is the rare instance when a dispute exists as to which of two identical twins is the biological father of a child.
The notion that the relatively high incidence of miscarriage early in pregnancy justifies abortion is illogical. The village in Slovakia my father's family came from saw 50% or so of children die of natural causes in the nineteenth century. Similar statistics can be found in many places and many historical epochs; indeed, there are places in the world today where such statistics may be found. It does not follow from such statistics that children should be able to be killed.
"If we are sincere about reducing abortions, we have to reduce unwanted and unplanned pregnancies. That means providing sex education, birth control, fair minimum wages, equal pay for women, child care services and familial support all policies that those working to overturn Roe v. Wade are against. Go figure."Gerelyn --Introducing balanced sex education would be a beginning. When I say "balanced" I mean presenting not just biology but ethics as well. Adolescents are not impressed very much with biology, but they are generally ethical creatures, if in an impassioned way, and given a change, many are idealistic. They need to learn the biological and social consequences of their actions, and more important their responsibility for the consequences. They need to learn to be truly independent, that is to oppose the judgment of their peers when necessary. Their literature classes could help with this by giving them images of people who accept responsibility for their own acts and who act courageously in difficult circumstances. (The Scarlet Letter is perhaps too distant in culture to impress them.) This would only begin to solve the problems, but it would help many. Come to think of it, this should be a program in the churches as well.
Safe, legal, rare? Now theres a real Clinton whopper. Too bad it is not as humorous as some of his other quips.While abortion is legal in the US, it is neither safe nor rare. A million abortions a year for 40 years nice - that statistic is enough to make a nazi blush. As for being safe; an abortion is not successful unless when the abortionist is finished, a baby is dead.Nope they will have to sell the safe-legal-rare nonsense somewhere else.
(The quotation in the Ann Olivier post is from a letter to the editor of the NYT, not something I wrote.)
Ken --When you imply that all those who think abortion is OK are Nazis you do them a huge injustice. The evidence tells us that Americans do not think that the fetus is a person until well along in the pregnancy, and if there is no person, thre is no murder. These people are, therefore, not approving murder, even though they may be mistaken about the ontological status of the fetus.Calling them Nazis is grossly unfair and is itself wicked. Unless, of course, you have some magical way to get into their consciousness and have discovered that they are in fact hypocrites. If you have discovered such a technique, do let us know how you do it. Should be interesting. We could even look into YOUR consciousness to find out if you are really sincere.
There's a huge over-population problem with pets and thousands are killed because no one wants them, so animal welfare places often neuter kittens and puppies at very young ages. I suspect that in the future, there will be a way to render people reversibly infertile before puberty, and those people will only turn fertility back on when they want to get pregnant.But in the meantime, early sex education and the support for effective contraception that isn't obviated by pilot error (IUD, shots, etc) seems like the best way to avoid abortion. Tuning the US into some kind of abortion free zone, like Malta and Ireland, will just never realistically happen.
And there will always be some women who genuinely need an abortion-to protect their health or life- so of course it needs to be legal.
See also: http://www.religionnews.com/2013/01/22/40-years-after-roe-v-wade-how-do-...(RNS) In the past four decades, American attitudes have changed markedly on gay marriage, smoking, bullying and a host of other cultural issues.But on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, public opinion today looks much as it did back then.When it comes to American views on the legality of abortion, the trend lines look about as flat as they can be, said Daniel Cox, research director at the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute.
Ann - Please, I did not call anyone a nazi. I simply pointed out that even a nazi would be uncomfortable with such a high number; 40 million eliminations is quite a number after all. That hardly seems an unfair or "wicked" comment.
Mercy! Can't Catholic organizations at least get their stories straight?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/catholic-hospital-argues-_n_253...
"The evidence tells us that Americans do not think that the fetus is a person..."Not sure what the point here could possibly be. Didn't the evidence tell us that Nazis did not think Jews were persons? At least, not worthy of life?
Crystal --Thanks for the article. I think that the first part of the article explainins some difficult Aristotle rather well in a short space. But I think it gets hung up on some language problems when it tries to apply the theory, and I didn't understand the little symbols it used. The Weinberg theory it alludes to looks like it's more amenable to end of life discussion, but the metaphysics looks rather shakey (substance as sets of properties)..
Didnt the evidence tell us that Nazis did not think Jews were persons? Mark Proska,No, I have never seen any evidence that the Nazis did not consider Jews to be persons, or that slave owners did not consider slaves to be persons, or or that the Europeans who came to the Americas did not consider the native peoples here to be persons. At least, not worthy of life?That is an utterly different matter.
Jean, thanks for the congratulations. We are excited.Perhaps I should have said this earlier, but people (as Gail Collins would say), if you cannot respond to this post without mentioning the Nazis, please refrain from responding.
First and foremost, congrats!And thanks for a thoughtful and thought-provoking reflection. It seems both sides on the abortion wars feel like they're backed up against a wall, and so they hurl slogans at each other. Choice! Life! My body! Beating heart! In fact I think most abortion decisions are far more ambivalent and conflicted, even when the woman decides, as most do, that they made the right choice (either way.) (In class I use the abortion debate as an example of a failure in deontological ethics: people endlessly flinging principles at each other, both sides claiming that the other is using a person as a means rather than an end...) What troubles me most in the public debate, I think, is when women disappear: pro-lifers show giant pictures of fetuses as though they float in the air like Macy's parade balloons. Magisterial teaching on the topic rarely mentions women except in a "tough luck" way, as when JPII said that threats to the mother's health don't matter. The Society of Jesus issued a press release on the Roe anniversary trumpeting its anti-abortion bona fides, but never saw fit to mention women, or the difficulties or dangers pregnancy can present. (Of course, the fact that there are no women in the Society might play a role in this "oversight.")Reciprocally, there is a tendency among pro-choice folks to downplay the fetus, to ignore the marvelous process of human development that goes on as pregnancy continues. In a way, there's an odd parallel between the pro-lifers wanting to absolutize the fetus from conception and the pro-choicers wanting also to see only cells, to de-absolutize the fetus from beginning to birth. Neither side wants to recognize biological development, or admit that development might have moral meaning.Otoh, public opinion shows that while most people approve of early abortion essentially on demand, people are increasingly uncomfortable with it as development proceeds. The moral "reflexes" of Americans (rightly or wrongly) see the moral significance of the fetus increasing as it develops. 16 weeks is well into the range where most Americans begin to get squeamish about termination without clear cause. It's also, to my understanding, the general pattern of current law: the state has an increasing interest in protecting the fetus as it progresses in development. But neither magisterial teaching nor the sloganeering of both sides of the debate can figure out what to make of that moral reflex and the legal stance that reflects it.So thanks for pointing us to the gray zone, the non-absolute places where the more complex truths lie.
(is physical appearance a sine qua non of who counts as one of us?)Mollie's post: At sixteen weeks, we could see our new babys face, [...]With those images in my mind, I read that paragraph from Collins and thought, It should be difficult to get an abortion after sixteen weeks. Helen 01/22/2013 - 5:45 pm:When I saw the 2 month fetus, moving around with very obvious arms and legs, I thought: I can never be cavalier about abortion.Bob Schwartz 01/22/2013 - 11:48 pm:My daughter showed everyone video of our soon-to-be born granddaughter Sasha Grace. She moved around, sucked her thumb, and in general, charmed us allPhysical appearance is a big part of what convinces people that this must be, or can't possibly be, a person. I'm not saying it's rational, but there it is.One might think that Catholics, who can look at a consecrated piece of bread and see Christ beyond the appearance of bread, may have a greater propensity to look at a just-fertilized egg or at a bizarre creature and see a person. Or not.There is no doubt that a singular and unique member of the human family is under construction.No doubt about that. I take back the word "straightforward" that I used above. Even at the earliest stage, abortion always stops the construction of a future member of the human family, so it should never be a straightforward decision. But I don't think it is, for the vast majority of women undergoing abortions; most take it seriously. I've heard some women say, effectively: "Don't worry, if I get pregnant, I'll just have an abortion", but only inexperienced teenagers are so flippant about it, I think - I hope!...
The truth about abortion does not lie in "the gray zone," in the "non-absolute places."This is the truth: "direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church."Or, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, "Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder."
Here is a Salon article from 1/23 entitled "So What if Abortion Ends Life." Near the end of the article, the author writes --"And I can say anecdotally that Im a mom who loved the lives she incubated from the moment she peed on those sticks, and is also now well over 40 and in an experimental drug trial. If by some random fluke I learned today I was pregnant, you bet your ass Id have an abortion. Id have the Worlds Greatest Abortion."http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/
Abe: that seems to reduce the rape victim even further. She/it is nothing more than an evidence bag.
Ah yes, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the guy who conspired to murder. Oh, but wait, the person he wanted to kill wasn't "innocent" so that's ok then.I think what makes some pro-choice people over-react to any restrictions on abortion is fear, a fear that's represented by examples like the pregnant nine year old Brazilian girl who was raped by her stepfather. The docs told her she would probably die without an abortion. This from TIME ...** The Church excommunicated the doctors who performed the procedure as well. "God's laws," said the archbishop, dictate that abortion is a sin and that transgressors are no longer welcome in the Roman Catholic Church. "They took the life of an innocent," Sobrinho told TIME in a telephone interview. "Abortion is much more serious than killing an adult. An adult may or may not be an innocent, but an unborn child is most definitely innocent. Taking that life cannot be ignored." **I hate this distinction made between the lives of people who are innocent and not - this isn't Christian, it's Thomist.
"both sides claiming that the other is using a person as a means rather than an end)"" ... odd parallel between the pro-lifers wanting to absolutize the fetus from conception and the pro-choicers wanting also to see only cells, to de-absolutize the fetus from beginning to birth."Lisa --I think the argument that the principle that people should not be used as mere means is generlly a fine one, but, like the "never do evil to attain good" needs revisions. As to abortion == no, make that as to pregnancy == yes, the mother is in a senses used to produce a child's life. But the mother also used her own mother in order to live. Doesn't a woman's place in the continuation of the species count for something morally? Complexity, complexity.Your second sentence above is a fine capsulation of the bare basics. It needs endless repeating.
"I hate this distinction made between the lives of people who are innocent and not this isnt Christian, its Thomist."Crystal =-Aw, c'mon. it's Thomas at his worst. And who knows, had he been presented with tha real, stunning, tmost extreme case he might have rethought some things. Also, it is my understanding that for Thomas abortion in the pre-hominizaiton period is not murder, though it is a venial sin.
Ms Watson: You wrote: I hate this distinction made between the lives of people who are innocent and not this isnt Christian, its Thomist.Isn't it biblical? Claire: You wrote: "One might think that Catholics, who can look at a consecrated piece of bread and see Christ beyond the appearance of bread, may have a greater propensity to look at a just-fertilized egg or at a bizarre creature and see a person."I think you've hit on something here. Catholic belief in the Real Presence relies, not on appearances, but on Christ's word. Think of the words of the "Adoro te devote": Visus, tactus, gustus in te fallitur / Sed auditu solo tuto creditur. / Credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius; / Nil hoc verbo verittis verius." (When the other senses fail, we may rely solely on hearing, because we believe whatever the Son of God has said: Nothing is more true than the word of Truth.)Whether or not the fetus deserves to be treated as a person is not something that can be settled by appearances, but by intelligence and reason taking into account all that ought to be taken into account. They will have to do in the absence of a clear word from Truth himself. But we can at least agree, perhaps, that appearances don't suffice in this matter or any other.
It may be biblical but it isn't Christian. There's a lot that's biblical that Christians eschew .... this example seems even more important than avoiding shellfish. Either all life is sacred without exception or it isn't. And if it isn't then you have to look elsewhere than the gospels for backup. I guess then you're for the death penalty?
The traditional argument of the Churchs teaching is that there is never any justification for abortion; direct killing of the innocent is always and everywhere a sin. During the Second World War, the American, British and German air forces deliberately bombed cities with the intention of killing civilians. There was no pretense that these deaths were the consequence of the victims living close to military targets. The use of atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki also had the intention of killing civilians. Even if it were argued that the civilian populations contained war workers who were not innocent in the context of war, their deaths would not justify the killing of the children and fetuses in these populations. The main purpose of bombing whole cities was not to kill workers but to break civilian morale, and/or to bring the war to an early close. To the best of my knowledge (but I am prepared to be corrected on this), neither the Catholic hierarchies in the countries concerned, nor the Pope, condemned these bombings. And no Catholic participating in them was excommunicated. Before someone says, but, but, but .. let me quote from this publication from the past: (Nor can) the dropping of the atomic bomb on Nagasaki be justified on the score that what was being done was to end the war and the deaths of the inhabitants were side effects. Double effect can be invoked only when the act is in itself morally legitimate, even though in the particular circumstances it will have foreseeable evil side effects. Nothing can be a side effect if it is the means by which the objective of the act is realized.Michael Dummett, February 11, 2011, Indefensible: Moral teaching after Humanae Vitae http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/indefensible
Ms. Watson: I indicated that the distinction is biblical to counteract the unfounded statement that it was Thomist. It's rather older than that. And, indeed, I'm not prepared to say that the death penalty violates biblical teaching, including that of the New Testament.
Serious question, though off topic: What does it mean that a comment is awaiting moderation? Is one supposed to submit a more moderate version of it?
Jim McCrea,Two moral theologians who supported Humane Vitae were unwavering in their condemnation of terroristic bombing. "In 1944 [John Ford, S.J.] published a forty-nine page article cogently arguing that the rights of the innocent were being violated by the obliteration bombing which the United States and the United Kingdom were even then conducting. In 1945, having mentioned in Notes on Moral Theology the atrocities committed by the Soviets, Nazis, and Japanese, Ford spoke bluntly of the greatest and most extensive single atrocity in the history of all this period, our atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Father Ford was one of the "minority" members of Pope Paul VI's Pontifical Commission on Population, Family, and Birth-rate. He supported the Church's traditional teaching on contraception and was a defender of Humane Vitae. Germain Grisez, another moral theologian who supported Humane Vitae, also has written that the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima are morally indefensible. Moreover, he believes that maintaining a nuclear deterrent is also immoral. Sources:http://www.twotlj.org/Ford.htmhttp://twotlj.org/OW-MorImpNucDeter.pdf
But we can at least agree, perhaps, that appearances dont suffice in this matter or any other.Perhaps. But I remember, back when I was pregnant with my daughter (and eagerly expectant), having insistent and unbidden reminiscences of the life-sucking water lily in Boris Vian's "Ecume des Jours"; and, possibly after too much browsing of books with pictures of embryos, having a nightmare that a tapeworm was invading my body. I'm just not into embryos, I guess. Maybe on this topic one cannot put "intelligence and reason" to good use. There is too much personal bias.
Fr. Komonchak,I mentioned Aquinas because I had thought that until he and Augustine, Christians were pretty much behind pacifism (but maybe I'm wrong?). Ideas about death penalties and just wars were expedient but from what I've read of Jesus, I can't help but think the rating of life based on innocence would have been alien to him.
But we can at least agree, perhaps, that appearances dont suffice in this matter or any other.Coincidentally, Cdl Dolan goes in the opposite direction: http://cny.org/stories/The-Ultrasound-Generation,8775?content_source=&ca...I think of you as the Ultrasound Generation. You are different than any generation that came before you in that your very first baby pictures were taken not with you in your mothers arms, but you alive in her womb. [..] And you have grown up with ultrasound technology that has opened a window into the womb, allowing us to glimpse preborn babies from the earliest weeks of gestation.You have seen your little brothers and sisters before they were born in these grainy videos and photographs pinned to the fridge. Your mom or your dad has shown you those first images of yourself. Some of you have even seen your own children for the first time with newer, clearer 3- and 4-dimensional ultrasound technology. You have gasped with wonder at the sight of little arms flailing and legs kicking, heads bobbing and hearts beating, mouths sucking thumbs.You have seen, and you believe.[] right to choose. [] You are rightly skeptical. They may believe what they say, but in this matter they are wrong. Think of your first baby picture, the one on the flimsy paper with the dark background and the unmistakable image of you. You know better.You have seen, and you believe.[] others are counting on you having some sort of grand epiphany once you get older and, as she said, reality hits. But what they arent counting on is that when you saw yourself, your kid brother or sister, your own child, in that ultrasound photo, reality did hit. And it hit hard.You have seen, and you believe.Politically, I think that he may be right: that, not an appeal to "intelligence and reason", is the way to convince people that the laws ought to be more restrictive. But he's never going to get people on board all the way back to conception if he goes about it in that fashion. Now, I have to say that the fact that Cdl Dolan examines the abortion question solely by an appeal to emotions based on appearances makes me want to not go about it in that way. There's a piece of paradoxical episcopal influence!Since images and videos so easily overpower reason, might it not be better to avoid them in a discussion about abortion? Mollie laid the rule "no mention of Nazis"; how about adding the rule "no mention of appearances"? Then most of the comments above would disappear.
Claire: The problem with emphasizing images in the debate is that the argument can just as easily go in the other direction, as you suggest. I remember a fairly well-known U.S. moral theologian saying once that he had held an early embryo in his hand and he could tell by looking that it couldn't be considered a person. It's the "already out there now real" that Bernard Lonergan so criticized, that is, the notion that knowing is like taking a look and that the real is what you see when you take that look.
There's taking a look and taking a look. How do you know that *any* individual material phenomenon is (or is very probably) a person? Usually it's by hearing the phenomenon using words rationally, but also at times seeing the object reacting to circumstances in a rational way. True, a brief look won't do it. But we only know the rational animals by their rational actions which are given by the senses. So images can be evidence.
Ann: No one denied that sense-data may provide evidence, but evidence is evidence only in reply to a question for understanding, and evidence needs to be marshalled in order to reach a reasonable judgment. And neither understanding nor judging is a matter of taking a look. So I stand by my statement: "appearances dont suffice in this matter or any other."
I think appearances matter a little bit. I don't believe destroying a 100 cell blastocyte is the moral equivalent of throwing a baby off a bridge. I'm not saying it's not wrong, but I don't think it's the same thing.
JAK --I agree that appearances alone are insufficient to settle the matter. But neither are they not part of the evidence. It also seems to me that there many different kinds of evidence needed to come to a reasonable conclusion, including biology, psychology and philosophy, and these days even physical properties might be relevant in establishing whether or not the higher cognitive parts of the brain are operating at any given point in time. Unfortunately, the whole thing is terribly complex, and that inclines us to look for simple answers.
Why such division? Contrary to sloganeering, we Catholics can be pro-life and pro-choice. There's nothing wrong with pro-choice. Some choices, of course, can be wrong or sinful. But if we were all doing what we could to provide a supportive culture for troubled pregnant women -- if we were all living the Gospel -- far fewer wrong choices would be made. But, instead, we seem bent on a divisive discussion to divert our focus from living more Christ-like lives. We are all called to be pro-life. And over 50 percent of us see, as the way to answer this call, ensuring a safety net for troubled pregnant women. This is a necessary first step toward providing that supportive culture which reduces the number of abortions. Removing this safety net will increase the number. So if some of us focus more on this and others more on law change, hey, we've got it pretty well covered. Different gifts, different approaches. Pro-life and pro-choice.
Neither side wants to recognize biological development, or admit that development might have moral meaning.Isn't that the crux of the problem? Development is gradual, but becoming a person is not; it's a discrete event, in our current understanding of it, and that's the problem. It's as though there was a need for something like a theory of mathematical continuity and calculus - the math of motion and change. What troubles me most in the public debate, I think, is when women disappear: pro-lifers show giant pictures of fetuses as though they float in the airIt's true that the link between the pregnant woman and the developing being inside her is unique, without parallel, but that they are looked at separately, centering on one or on the other, rather than as a pair. The fetus is always presented as the powerless one, but the woman is also powerless to prevent the fetus from drawing on her strength and from causing her body to change - powerless, other than by having an abortion. If abortion was out of the picture, they would be chained to one another like a pair of convicts.
Excellent piece, Mollie. It captures where many Catholicsm, including myself, actually are on the issue. Far less helpful for me are lectures by bishops and almost repellent to me was that hyper-triumphalistic "Vigil for Life" at the DC shrine on Wed (televised on Catholic TV). An ocean of male celibates all dressed up in their white silks, their representatives speaking quite cavalierly about sins they themselves cannot commit (we shall leave their actual and unrepented sins against the life of God's people aside for today). To paraphrase a journalist I read long ago here in one of the Boston papers: "If bishops could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament..."But back to Mollie: your piece, indeed, speaks for many of us who are uncomfortable and uneasy with the current state of abortion rights. Safe, legal and rare are the correct "compromise" terms, but I doubt the "rare" part will ever be a reality in the current socio-cultural climate. Thanks for your thoughtful writing.
Claire --The Donceel and Wolter articles I keep referring to give arguments which combine biology and philosophy. There are collections of articles on the matter, but they include technical philosophical stuff. (The aforementioned articles are technical too. But as you know technical does not mean irrelevant. Far from it.) And there are histories of the moral problem. Those I've seen are less satisfactory to me --- they mainly just present conclusions.So far as I can see there has been precious little real debate on the matter. I mean systematic presentations of the pros and cons. JP II on the subject is quite superficial.