Federal civil unions as a compromise on the gay marriage debate?

[RobinFinderson]

Wikipedia? Really, Robin?

There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia. 95% of the time is provides a decent overview of a subject, and the other 4% of the time a thoughtful review by a critical reader will yield something of value, and 1% of the time it is either missing a topic, or it is full of crap. The discussion pages usually give you a clue about where to look out for trouble. Wikipedia is a people's encyclopedia, and it has changed, for the better, how the world learns about the world. I love it.

So you dismiss Wikipedia out of hand? That isn't very academic or Ph.D'ish of you.

[RobinFinderson]

In both parts of this response you are changing the parameters of the debate. You are implying that the parents are unfairly taking that choice away from the child. Under our original hypothetical scenario, the pill only work when the child is in the womb. There is one chance to make the decision and it can only be made by the parents. Would you deny the parents the chance to make that choice?

BTW, I find it fascinating that you would say that we "guilted" people into eradicating polio.

Well I support the right of a woman to have an abortion, so I basically accept the right of women to ingest just about anything, pregnant or not. But I don't think it would be ethical if the purpose of ingesting something was to alter the developmental chemistry of a developing fetus. Legal but unethical.

[wuapinmon]

There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia. 95% of the time is provides a decent overview of a subject, and the other 4% of the time a thoughtful review by a critical reader will yield something of value, and 1% of the time it is either missing a topic, or it is full of crap. The discussion pages usually give you a clue about where to look out for trouble. Wikipedia is a people's encyclopedia, and it has changed, for the better, how the world learns about the world. I love it.

So you dismiss Wikipedia out of hand? That isn't very academic or Ph.D'ish of you.

No, I'm just shocked that you use it. Go look for user wuapinmon on wiki, I have a presence.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Lebowski, this is an example of legal reasoning. It's not the same as opinion.

And it's not the same as your unsupported theory regarding the ACLU press release. That argument was based on speculation, not reasoning.

I don't say it's your opinoin when you estimate the rate at which a hydrocarbon plume will migrate down to the aquifer.

But you should. By definition, all "estimates" involve a degree of uncertainty. I would never try to claim otherwise.

(You might want to steer clear of environmental law)

[SeattleUte]

(You might want to steer clear of environmental law)

I'm an environmental law hot shot.

[SeattleUte]

But you should. By definition, all "estimates" involve a degree of uncertainty. I would never try to claim otherwise.

Of course. It's underground. But it does involve reasoning, considering the compositoin of the subsurface, the contaminant, consideration of boring data, etc.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Well I support the right of a woman to have an abortion, so I basically accept the right of women to ingest just about anything, pregnant or not. But I don't think it would be ethical if the purpose of ingesting something was to alter the developmental chemistry of a developing fetus. Legal but unethical.

You haven't made a very convincing case as to why it is unethical in this case.

Carrying your "deafness" example a little further, what if they came up with a pill that would prevent blindness. Would you consider that pill to be unethical? What about a pill that prevented Down's syndrome?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Of course. It's underground. But it does involve reasoning, considering the compositoin of the subsurface, the contaminant, consideration of boring data, etc.

Next time I am cross-examined, I hope it is someone just like you. I love your confidence in what we do.

(pssst... It's a wild-assed guess)

[RobinFinderson]

You haven't made a very convincing case as to why it is unethical in this case.

Carrying your "deafness" example a little further, what if they came up with a pill that would prevent blindness. Would you consider that pill to be unethical? What about a pill that prevented Down's syndrome?

Well originally I was thinking that it would be unethical based on some idea that God/Nature knows best what a life needs, and out of trust that there is wisdom in our genetic code, and that we should not put our trust in the arm of flesh, and all of that.

But now that I think about it, I think it would be perversely, ironically entertaining to watch the religious homophobes rewrite their children's developmental chemistry in the name of making it easier to follow God. And all of the pregnant smokers? Maybe they really really believe that low birth weight is good for longevity, or that God prefers preemies. Plus I would like to see a pig-rat-snake-human (insert joke about poster xxxxxx right here).

[TripletDaddy]

If society did not judge homosexuality so harshly (or at all), I wonder how many gays would want to take that pill? I would presume that some gays are perfectly happy to be gay, but for the pressure that society puts on them.

What about a pill for heterosexuals in society.....it allows them to not be disgusted by homosexuality while still retaining all their heterosexual tendencies. In short, nothing changes except their tolerance level for homosexuals. My guess is that pill stays inside the bottle for the most part due to lack of consumption.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Well originally I was thinking that it would be unethical based on some idea that God/Nature knows best what a life needs, and out of trust that there is wisdom in our genetic code, and that we should not put our trust in the arm of flesh, and all of that.

"Wisdom in our genetic code"? How marvelously naive.

The wife of my close friend is slowly dying from a disease. She is in her early 50's. She is 90% blind and in a wheelchair with little control over her body. They have identified the gene that causes it and they have developed a mechanism for eradicating it from the next generation (their two daughters have the gene, their two sons do not). Would that be considered an unethical tampering with the sacred genetic code?

[TripletDaddy]

"Wisdom in our genetic code"? How marvelously naive.

The wife of my close friend is slowly dying from a disease. She is in her early 50's. She is 90% blind and in a wheelchair with little control over her body. They have identified the gene that causes it and they have developed a mechanism for eradicating it from the next generation (their two daughters have the gene, their two sons do not). Would that be considered an unethical tampering with the sacred genetic code?

Amen. I think the better argument is that God is blessing us with the knowledge to learn exactly HOW to repair flaws in our genetic code....thereby preventing or curing so many physical ailments. Bring on the stem cell research, I say.

Of the parents here that have children who may be afflicted with some sort of physical or mental challenge, I wonder how many of them would love to have a magic pill to cure the child? Just my swag, but I would assume that most if not all would pop that pill.

[wuapinmon]

Of the parents here that have children who may be afflicted with some sort of physical or mental challenge, I wonder how many of them would love to have a magic pill to cure the child? Just my swag, but I would assume that most if not all would pop that pill.

I'd settle for some toddler-strength Ambien.

[RobinFinderson]

"Wisdom in our genetic code"? How marvelously naive.

The wife of my close friend is slowly dying from a disease. She is in her early 50's. She is 90% blind and in a wheelchair with little control over her body. They have identified the gene that causes it and they have developed a mechanism for eradicating it from the next generation (their two daughters have the gene, their two sons do not). Would that be considered an unethical tampering with the sacred genetic code?

I think you missed my point. You have convinced me. I was stating my original POV just to point out where I had started compared to where I am now. Good job. You were persuasive.