I didn't say that since nature does it, it's ok if we do it too. You must have missed the part where I said '... and that we'd all like to see them performed as little as possible.' I'm all for being responsible. I have been myself, and only had a child when I was darn well good and ready for it (if one can ever be truly ready for it). Don't use abortion unless it is a last resort. Just the same, it may be necessary to do so. The whole point of mentioning the relatively high mortality rate is to illustrate how risky a process pregnancy is, not to make some inane relative comparison to validate abortion. Risky processes require flexibility in handling them with the most positive outcome possible. It won't always be possible to save every mother-to-be AND zygote/embryo/fetus. I seriously recommend you read up on ectopic pregnancies (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy). Those rare events are almost always fatal for someone, usually the fetus. It is nice to have a tool by which to address these kind of problems that doesn't involve accusations of murder or manslaughter attached.

To the point, my argument isn't a naturalistic fallacy, it is objective realism.

And I would tend to agree with that definition, as inaccurate as it sometimes is. The only point to make was that species boundaries are not clear cut lines. Sometimes, similar species can interbreed, something that distant species cannot do. It fudges the lines a little when capabilities like that are retained, flawed though they are. Divergence, therefor, allows for reintegration between differing strains until the traits become different enough that some fatal flaw occurs in the offspring (for example, sterility).

Personally, I'm not opposed to the providing for your children through inheritance. I do find it funny, though, that most people say you can improve your condition if you work hard, that those that have currently earned it all for themselves. That dismisses the notion of inheritance, about the benefits that brings, and about how much better off a child is when their parents are better off. An argument for a different day.

The problem with inheritance comes when you talk about ideas and culture. The content we experience, the world in which we live, shapes our culture and our lives. I learn how to sing Happy Birthday as a child, I'm going to carry tradition forward and teach my children how. Only problem is that.. oh ya, that oh so famous Happy Birthday song, so much a part of our culture, is copyrighted, and will be for quite some time (ref: http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp). With the rate the copyright extensions are going, 2030 is being optimistic for something of that nature to come to the public domain. That's just one example, a really obvious one, but it applies to most creative works.

The whole idea of copyright is a construct that we people made up. We wanted to give incentive for people to create works for us to enjoy, so we said 'you can have exclusive control over that work for a limited time'. That exclusive control includes the right to control when, how, and why it is copied. The one question that I have yet to have answered is this; How exactly do you provide incentive for a dead man to create more works for you to enjoy? Adding to that, what incentive is there to their children to create works if they've been given a money train they never had to work for?

If there is incentive for the children to continue their parent's legacy, it wouldn't stop just because their parent's work was in the public domain. They would have the same incentive as any other creator. They just wouldn't have a flow of money from something they didn't make. The only reason we have copyright extensions as far into the future as we do is thanks to corporations attempting to retain control of works long past. They have no care for providing into the public domain, only extracting works from it, told in new ways, that they can then copyright and profit from for a long time.

Well, every group has its fringe elements. The group as a whole should not be judged based on them, but rather what the majority opinion is.

I don't know that science can decide matters of ethics. We may use our ethical standards to decide what knowledge we want to learn, though. If science discovered a process to clone a human being, the process would not be in question whether it could be done. Our ethical standards would tell us whether it is something we wanted to do or not. If you want a good rule, science discovers what we can be done. Ethics define whether we should do them or not.

The problem with using 'when a baby develops a substantial part of its central nervous system' is that it completes the major structural development well before the 20 week mark (around week 8-9, actually). It will continue developing from there til the end of the pregnancy and beyond. Unfortunately for your definition, week 8-9 is still within what is generally acceptable for abortions. That 20 week mark is important because it is just about the earliest possible date that a fetus can survive outside the womb (with major support from a NICU). That ability to survive isn't defined by how well developed the central nervous system is, but rather how well formed the lungs and other internal organs are.

The problem with the above logic is this.. even in this day and age, life from conception to birth is still has a really high morbidity rate. That is, women miscarry all the time for reasons that have nothing to do with abortion, and often times aren't even recorded. Sometimes the body determines that the embryo is not viable. Sometimes the embryo has a flaw which kills it early in the process. Sometimes it's late in the process. Sometimes random chance puts a perfectly viable embryo into a situation where it just grabbed onto the wrong spot (ectopic pregnancies), putting itself and the mother at risk. Post-birth, the morbidity rate drops significantly as the child's physiology isn't so dependent on a delicate balance between mother and child.

This is a problem that has no good solution. That there is a ton of controversy around it only reflects that fact. I'm pretty sure that even most pro-choice folks would carry the opinion that abortions should not be a replacement for responsible behavior, and that we'd all like to see them performed as little as possible. Mandating that they cannot be done for any reason whatsoever places those prospective mothers into servitude at the whim of a potential child which may not even make it to term, which may kill the mother, or which may inflict years of torment on an unfortunate victim of rape. The idea of banning abortions completely, or the current tactic of defining a fertilized egg as a legal person, is a problem for women because this natural process is about as high risk a venture as is ever carried out. Flexibility is a must when there is this much risk involved, if you value human life at all.

For my mind, though, I just can't stand the hypocrisy of (generally) the same folks crying for less government interference in their lives, while going on how you should live by their morals (injecting government into someone else's life). Can't have it both ways.

Explain Mules then: http://www.lovelongears.com/about_mules.html

Donkeys (Equus africanus asinus) and Horses (Equus ferus caballus) are generally able to crossbreed, but they cannot breed true. That is, if you mix an American Paint pony and a Donkey together, they can produce offspring. However, the offspring cannot reproduce. Now you used the term 'to produce the same offspring'. What is considered the same? Thoroughbred and American Paint? Palomino and Lipizzaner? Clydesdale and Spanish Mustang? Some are big and some are small, but all considered to be in the same species. Is their offspring the same as if you paired them differently?

That's the kind of fuzziness I think the Parent is trying to get at. If you saw two purebred Clydesdale horses and they produced another Clydesdale, it would be obvious by your definition that they're the same species. If you paired different horse breeds, the offspring would not be 'the same' as it would contain characteristics of both parents, but not look exactly like either.

This only furthers the notion I have regarding the wisdom of allowing copyright of a work to persist beyond the death of the original author. While I understand the logistical nightmare it would cause if it ended there (omg, you're trying to kill authors!), the return of works to the public domain could be a conditional state. Copyright is retained for X years or author's natural death, whichever is longer, even though I feel even that might be too long. In the case of unnatural death, it would be retained for that period of time or an estimated date based on the average lifespan for that generation.

I mean, if copyright is TRULY to be incentive for creating more works, exactly how do you give incentive for a dead person to create more for us? Allowing copyright to persist for the estate, beyond a reasonable period in cases of a quick demise after a work's creation, does nothing to further the creation of creative works. This is especially true if the estate or children are not creatively-inclined.

Most cellular phones and other wireless devices contain some equivalent form of a 'hardware ID'. MAC address, ESN, SID or MIN all help identify wireless devices to their respective networks. These numbers don't usually change each time you go into an area, and as such can be used to remember you from a previous encounter. Aside from missing one link (a given owner of a particular 'hardware ID'), I don't see how they're particularly anonymous. Since it's often not necessary to know your name, helpful though it might be, they can always send you targeted information based on past tracking.

The problem with doing away with patents all together is the idea of lost knowledge. Patents allow inventors to come up with some novel new way to do something (supposedly) and tell the world about it. In exchange for that, they're guaranteed to be able to use that innovation as they see fit for the duration of the patent. In the absence of patents, what companies would likely revert to is trade secrets, keeping as much of their product away from public knowledge as possible. Many an idea has been lost because it was considered a 'trade secret' and never shared.

I'm no great fan of patents as they stand and feel they should be greatly narrowed in scope, but I am cautious in abolishing them all together. I would rather see the public ultimately gain so ever more innovative products can be made, rather than people always having to reinvent the wheel over and over.