~Di

On the off chance that your question is a serious one, I shall reply seriously. Because the supreme court, which is charged with interpreting constititional issues, has decreed that the constitional right to bear arms does not require every household to have a basement full of military and nuclear weapons, but does require that the average, non-felonious citizen has the right to carry a weapon suitable to protect himself, his property and his family. Furthermore, I have not seen in this thread any place where "americans" (all of them, I presume?) consider the constitution as 'perfect'. As for our ability to change the constitution if it contains something we do not like, indeed we as a nation have that ability. If we do not like it, we will certainly change it. However, we will not change it simply because YOU do not like it. See the difference?

First, I heartily agree with those who have repeatedly pointed out the cultural difference between the Average American and the Average European regarding gun ownership. It has been rather brushed aside in the discussion, but frankly it is a huge reason that most Americans so strongly believe in maintaining the power of the individual, which protects society as a whole, whereas most Europeans believe in the maintaining the power of the government, which in turn protects society as a whole. That's a whole 'nother debate topic, of course, but I brush on it because certain posters *cough* keep trying to imply that Americans are genetically a violent species as a whole. That's ridiculous, particularly since at any given point in the past 50 years a huge hunk of our population was born somewhere else in the world. Also, America's birth was not 2000 years ago; it was barely over 200 years ago. So yes, we are still a baby country with a frontier mentality. Part of that is because, well... this is a very, very big chunk of land and a hell of a lot of it IS wilderness and frontier. A lot of us live in those rural, frontier areas. Weapons are as necessary to the average ranch, farm and rural home as is a good well and a solid fence. Even without the cultural differences, comparing a country comprised of 300 million people, millions upon millions of them naturalized citizens, and covering approx. 3,600,000 square miles with a country (Switzerland) with a population of 7 million and covering 16,000 square miles is ludicrous. That said, America has always valued individual rights over societal rights, believing that unless the individual's rights were protected, society's rights would be non-existant since without the individual there could be no society. Now I'm not saying that is the world's best theory on which to build a country (not saying it isn't, either)... just telling those of you who don't understand us how it is. That said, Americans will never willingly relinquish their constitutional protections, nor will we relinquish our right to bear arms. We just won't. Now most of us agree that certain legal controls are necessary as technology changes... we cannot have a nuclear weapon in our basement, mount an anti-aircraft gun on our deck, or go to the shopping mall with an RPG draped over our shoulder (which is more than I can say for all too many countries around this planet nowadays, lol!). However, we are allowed to own weapons to protect our lives and property (on a farm or ranch, these weapons are used VERY frequently to protect livestock from predators); we are allowed to own weapons to revert to our hunting/gathering ancestry; we are allowed to own weapons just because we want to hang them on our walls; we are allowed to own weapons just because we like the security of having a shotgun in the closet or a handgun in the nightstand drawer. We don't have to own weapons, but if we want to, we can. BUT... and it's a big one... we are also held accountable in every way for our use of those weapons. There are strict licensing rules for gun ownership. Not as strict as I'd like, and there are definitely holes in the licensing laws, but one cannot normally trot into a local gun shop and trot out with a glock in one's pocket. There are strict laws about where and when firearms can be discharged. Shoot a rat or bird in a city or a residential neighborhood and you will be getting your picture taken by the local law enforcement folks. American is not one big shooting gallery, despite what y'all might have heard on forums like this one! Also, if you blow away an intruder in your home, you will be investigated just as if you'd blown away a stranger on the street. You will probably go to trial, and have to prove that you felt your life was in imminent danger. If the intruder was armed, you'll probably not be convicted and may not be charged at the end of the investigation. If the intruder wasn't armed, was not actually inside your house, or was shot in the back you're most likely looking at jail time even if you really did believe your life and your family's life was at risk. Some of y'all are acting like the average American goes around blowing people away for fun and frolic, which is not only ridiculous, it's bigoted and insulting. I think it's fine if other countries want to ban guns and prevent its citizens from owning firearms. Why should I care what another country wishes for its own self-determination? My question is, why do other countries get so damned foam-faced over America's internal gun ownership policies? I don't want to be rude enough to say outright that it's none of your business... but dang. It's none of your business! LOL! So tell me... why the global obsession over America's gun laws? Inquiring minds want to know! :D

I am not in favor of the Texas law. In fact, I am very much against it. However, I am against the law because I do not believe government should mandate medical matters, not because I consider cervical cancer to be "rare"... it isn't rare at all, dispite the fact that you continually refer to it as such. Precancerous lesions, which are incredibly common , are not included in that number. Frankly you appear to be trying to dismiss the disease by stressing the lowest possible statistical denominators to boster your position, but if not for the blessing of the pap test, those figures would be considerably higher since cervical cancer was a leading cause of death in women not so many decades ago. I believe that most gynocologists, and physicians in general, would agree. Yes, 10,000 women a year are currently diagnosed with it... and even with our modern treatments, 40% of them will die. This vaccine, however, is not just for women in the USA. It's for women globally. At least, I hope it will be available globally. Not so much that you didn't want the vaccine available as the impression that you would rather have the money used for this vaccine, which you have spent considerable time and effort as portraying to be not properly tested and basically useless except for a very few "rare" cases of cervical cancer annually, on other research which would benefit more people. In other words, I felt as if you were saying you wished it hadn't been researched and developed because other things were more important. As I've said, I may have misunderstood you. But upon rereading those passages several times, I really don't think I did. That's fine. I asked the question... because this particular topic IS gender related... and you answered. You could have done so without the selective indignant condescention, however. First, men do not get cervical cancer so of course this entire discussion is gender related. What concerned me was that the discussion was also centered around the sexually-transmitted nature of the HPV virus, and many seemed to feel that if women just used safe sex and didn't sleep around she wouldn't have to worry about cervical cancer. You seemed to think this as well, unless I'm misinterpreting the following statements... which of course, I very well may be: As I've already stated, you were not the only person to whom I was speaking, since others have also been involved in this conversation. The concept that this is a sexually transmitted virus, with the implication that it could be avoided if the woman simply had safe sex and didn't sleep around, appeared to be on the minds of several folks inside this thread. Of course, men could avoid transmitting the virus by the same means, but men don't have a cervix. So I'm sure you'll agree that the discussion IS gender related. Okay, okay. I call Uncle! Seriously, LOL, I am now beginning to realize that nothing about HPV or cervical cancer or a vaccine that can prevent either strikes you as significant. You've made that quite clear. However, we will have to agree to disagree at this point. The fact that 80% of all women over 50 have had an HPV infection in their lifetimes... and one can infer that a reasonably similar percentage of males have also had an HPV infection... IS significant despite the fact that some of those infections may have been the type of HPV that hasn't so far been linked to cancer. The mere fact that cervical cancer, prior to the blessing of a pap test and early detection of precancerous lesions (which are not included in the number actually diagnosed with cancer, but which would probably increase that statistic tenfold or a hundredfold or more) was a leading cause of death in women makes it significant. Medical science has actually done two wonderful things here, in my personal opinion: (A) It has discovered that one form of cancer is caused by a virus, and has isolated that virus. And (B) it has created a vaccine which, when taken before exposure to the virus, can prevent a female from ever contracting that particular type of cancer. To you that may not be significant. To me it's a miracle... then again, my daughter had a hysterectomy due to pre-cancerous lesions (before she became a statistic), and my mother-in-law nearly died from her bout of cervical cancer. But as thrilled as I am by this medical step forward, I still do not believe the government has a right to force it upon unwilling people. So you see, we do agree on one thing, though perhaps not for the same reasons!

I have to confess I'm a bit nonplussed by some of the comments in this thread. Cervical cancer is a terrible disease and a huge problem for women worldwide. I personally know of 5 women, 2 family members, who have been diagnosed with it. Nearly a half million women are diagnosed with it every year. This vaccine is a real breakthrough, and not just... as some of you seem to be implying... for women who run around having unprotected sex (and therefore deserve to get cancer? 'Cause that's honestly what some of the comments I read seem to imply). It's a huge breakthrough for cancer research and the future of other cancer vaccines. To those who are against the vaccine even being available, may I ask why? Serious question. Is it because it's only for one kind of cancer? Is it because it's for a female-only kind of cancer? Is it because it costs too much? And if so, would it still cost too much if it was a prevention of 70% of prostate cancer cases? Is it because a government is mandating medical procedures, which is not the government's business? Or does anyone here honestly believe that a potential cancer-preventative, potential live-saving vaccine should be withheld from girls because it will encourage those girls to run out and have unprotected sex (since the even greater possibility of syphillis, gonorrea, HIV/AIDS and pregnancy certainly isn't as frightening to them as the possibility of cervical cancer twenty years from now)? And the fact that most HPV infections go away on their own without causing cancer is no more an excuse to ignore the cancers that they do cause than it would be for me to state that most smokers do not get lung cancer, therefore we should ignore those that do, or that exposure to most known carcinogens do not cause cancer, therefore we should ignore the fact that some such exposures do. According to The CDC , over 20 million people are infected with HPV at any given time; over 6 million new infections in the USA alone each year. By age 50, 80% of all women will have contracted an HPV infection. To me, that's rather significant. Now I expected a lot of protests about government sticking its nose into medical procedures, and even complaints about the cost, although we currently subsidize nearly all routine preventative medical procedures for those who cannot afford them otherwise... but I didn't expect the fact that this virus is sexually transmitted to be stressed as an objection. That almost... almost... gives the impression of a "if she's a tramp she deserves it" mentality, which I certainly do not believe anyone here actually holds. That's why I find myself so bewildered. Obviously I'm misunderstanding. So please, wise me up!

A couple of observations. First, I agree with those who do not believe the government should be in the business of legally forcing people to take vaccinnations, unless said vaccinations are required for the health of the society as a whole... examples--smallpox, diptheria, polio, etc.... all communicable diseases that ravaged schoolchildren for generations. Even in those cases the government did not force people to vaccinate their children under pain of legal prosecution. It was required by school districts to protect their students. If parents did not want to immunize their children for religious or other reasons, or if the children were allergic to eggs (as well as to vaccines incubated in eggs), then those children could certainly go to private schools that may not have had immunization requirements. Nowhere, IIRC, did the government itself actually legislate mass vaccinations. Hell, flu shots are not even legally mandatory... and I think we all know what happens when an influenza pandemic turns entire continents into ghost lands. The government should never, and I do mean never, legislate medical care. Second, 70% of cervical cancers are caused by this HPV virus. It is incredibly widespread. Simply having sex only with a condom for one's entire life, married and otherwise, may be a preventative (since a huge percentage of men carry this virus)... but of course, that means no children. That's seriously not an option for most women. They are not willing to go childless simply because their husbands in all probability carry the virus. Most people do. To suggest that the vaccine is unnecessary because women can avoid HPV by using condoms all of their lives, even if it means remaining childless, is like suggesting that women can avoid breast cancer by simply having their breasts removed. There is no legitimate reason any parent would withhold this vaccine from their young daughters unless they are either incredibly ignorant or abusively cruel. Cervical cancer is one of the most common cancers in women; and it kills. Nevertheless, the government should not be allowed to legislate medical care. Period.

And if it is for the greater good, would it still be called murder? Of course it would. Murder is murder. Of course it is. Murder is always a bad thing. At least murder is always a bad thing in this particular society as far as the law goes. Unless you wish to split hairs between governmentally-sanctioned execution after a legal trial, a killing in self-defense or in defense of others, and the bald-faced homocide you referred to when you said that those 100 people "needed" to die in order for the 100,000 others to live. That question presumed that one person stood in one spot, and 1,000 other people stood in the other spot; and that if the single person was murdered, the 1,000 other people would not be murdered. But in the single person was not murdered, then 1,000 other people would be murdered. Your question was basically, does preventing 1,000 from suffering cold-blooded murder justify the murder of one person? My answer, only if the one person being murdered is the person who plans to murder the other thousand. It's not a philosophically-deep question, and it is either an attempt to justify human sacrifice as a culture, or it's a not-so-subtle jab at the war in Iraq. Either way, murder is murder and murder is wrong. Now killing the bloodthirsty thug who is standing there with a machine gun ready to murder people would be, in my mind, a matter of justifiable homicide, killing in the defense of self and others... not murder. It's simple. Just scan a lawbook and ye shall have your answers.

The question sounds to me as if it could refer to human sacrifice. After all, certain cultures believed it was okay to murder a few folks for the good of the community. Now if someone volunteers to sacrifice themselves in order to save 1,000 of their compadres (as do those who willingly throw themselves on a grenade or perform some equally courageous act to save others), that's one thing. But the act of throwing an unwilling person onto the grenade is simply an act of murder. That seems rather simple to me.

Hmm. After reading all the various and sundry piracy threads over the years, I thought y'all believed copyrights were something to be ignored while stealing... er, downloading ... somebody else's music and video games. Guess it all depends on who is the stealer and who is the stealee, eh? LOL!

No medical procedure should be "public policy" in my view. I do not want a bunch of bureaucrats deciding who in my family can have what medical care and under what circumstances such care can be given. Families should make those decisions with their personal physicians on a case-by-case basis. Nobody has the right to tell another family that their loved one doesn't deserve wanted treatment; nor do they have the right to tell another family that their loved one must be forced to undergo unwanted treatment. Physicians and families make medical decisions, not bureaucrats, not lawyers, not religious leaders. To me, it's rather a simple and logical concept.

I don't read the comics, and frankly I found myself scratching my head after the last episode, going... "Whaaa?" I was perplexed and disappointed. Maybe the next episode will clear things up for me, but at the moment I am totally lost.

What makes you think these people knew in advance the kind of problems their child would have? Even today only a small percentage of pregnancies are subjected to risky and invasive amniotisis, and only when a high degree of suspicion based upon ultrasound or family history of genetic disease is worth the risk. The diagnosis ability of amniotisis is also quite limited. Most children with severe autism or mental retardation are not diagnosed until the symptoms began to surface, and the children are not developing normally. Calling people selfish for making the best of a sad situation seems a bit uncalled for, in my view. Although I myself am pro-choice, and if I knew that a child I was carrying would suffer severe mental and physical handicap for life, I might choose abortion if I found out early enough in the pregnancy. Others, however, would not... and that is what being pro-choice is all about, allowing others to make decisions for themselves and their own families without being coerced or forced into doing what others want them to do.

These parents have made a difficult decision based on the best interests of the child. This child will never have the mental ability beyond an infant... and her parents will probably not be able to care for her for all of her life. A sexually mature female body can be impregnated, as all too many have been in the horrible care facilities where this child will be relegated if her family cannot care for her. Also, sexual maturation unleashes hormones that raise the risk of cancers, benign tumors, cists and other serious, painful diseases of the breasts, uterus and ovaries. Try not to be too judgmental toward these poor people. They are honestly doing the best they can.

Lucky for you there isn't a multi-player version of the oh-so-manly game of Jagged Alliance, 'cause this gurl could kick your little boy bottom before you could pull your pistol out of your pants... er... so to speak!

I finally got my video card upgrade, and am now playing Oblivion. I... unlike some others, apparently... am really enjoying it. I daresay there are parts of it I actually love! Maybe I'm just easily amused.

The map provided, although colorful, isn't particularly accurate. Although it's true that California has a medicinal marijuana exception in state law, and theoretically allows certain "marijuana" sales with a physician's prescription for certain medical conditions, the federal government refuses to recognize any law which contradicts federal statute. Therefore, a state-approved medical marijuana store has been repeatedly closed down and the owner jailed by federal agents. Bottom line, there is no place in the USA where marijuana is truly legal or decriminalized, because the feds simply laugh at state laws and continue to run roughshod over them.

OMG... I'd given up all hope. How wonderful! It sounds like an enormous project for one person, but if anyone can pull it off, you can, Josh. I have wanted this game for so very long... *gets giddy with excitement!*

Oh good grief, he did not.

That's right! I mean, heaven forbid (literally!) a human being be trusted to make decisions about his/her own body and own life. Why, people will begin to think they have the right to make decisions for themselves or some such rot. Thank you, religion, for divesting us of such quaint notions!

Yep. And I was taught in Southern Baptist Bible Study class that anyone who did not accept Jesus Christ as a personal savior would go to hell. Period. Didn't matter if the person spent a lifetime feeding the poor, doing good deeds, saving the lives of peasants simply for the joy of doing good... if they didn't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, God didn't want them and they would burn in hell forever. Yes, religion is the foundation of morality.... not.

I would do neither; I would shrug. I have little use for politicians, given the ridiculous manner in which they are bought and paid for. Until we change campaign finance laws to the point where holding office no longer garners power and money for the politician themselves, we have little chance of being governed by those who are actually interested and enthusiastic about upholding the constitution and keeping the country strong. And I still think it's unconstitutional to drag religion into every aspect of our political process.

I'm a big fan of separation of church and state, but I'm also very respectful of the symbolic nature that any holy book, whether it's the bible, torah, or Qur'an, has in our society. I expect my elected officials to respect the nature of those books whether they believe in God or not. Those books aren't just about religion, they are a foundation for living a humble and charitable life. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If by respectful you mean that a non-Christian (or atheist) elected official should place hand on Bible and swear to a god he/she doesn't believe in, then I must disagree. The separation of church and state offers everyone freedom to worship as they wish; it also offers everyone freedom not to worship, and not to be forced to "worship" as a condition of public service. A religious text should not be used as a basis for governmental oaths, vowing to uphold a constitution which specifically states that religious is not a condition for public service. Nor should congressional sessions be opened with Christian prayers, in my opinion. And I certainly disagree that religious texts are the foundation of a humble, charitable life. There were charitable, humble people long before the old testament hit the shelves. Some of the most humble and charitable people I know have never set foot in a church or peeked inside a religious text of any kind. Some of the greediest, most two-faced people I've ever known are in church every Sabbath doing their weekly "I am so godfearing and pious" masquarade to make up for the past six days of moral squalor. So I certainly disagree with your theory that religion is the foundation for living a humble and charitable life. That gives credit for all good in the word to a diety that some folks don't even believe in, and places blame for all bad in the world on a lack of belief in said diety. With all due respect, I strongly disagree.

I've always been annoyed that any religious text is used when swearing to uphold the constitution of the United States. If our congress-critters need to touch anything while taking their oath of office, it should be a copy of the constitution itself.

Rights for robots? LOL. I think not. As for the "conscious thought" thing, a robot is not cabable of conscious thought. A robot is only capable of processing variables that have been programmed into it. Therefore, a robot can "sue" for its "rights" simply by virtue of that process having been programmed into it. As far as I'm concerned, a robot has no more right to rights than does my PC. My cats, on the other hand, is quite self-aware, cognizant and brilliant. If they had fingers, they would rule the world. They deserve rights. A tangle of bits and bytes does not.

You are making the same mistake all too many people make when discussing the termination of a pregnancy; you are giving a 3-week old cluster of cells the same rights and consideration as a full-term or nearly full-term infant capable of survival outside the womb. A termination of pregnancy in the first trimester is not by any stretch of the imagination "killing a baby." It is terminating a zygote or a partially-formed fetus, which had the potential of becoming a baby in the future. Please don't lose sight of the fact that pregnancy and childbirth is not equivalent to a common cold. It has been, and still is today, a leading cause of female death around the world. Even today hundreds of thousands of women die every year from complications of childbirth, and a substantial number of those deaths occur in so-called modern western societies. The potential for harm to the mother is even higher in high-risk pregancies of women over 40, young girls (in the 12-15 range) or women with certain physical problems, like diabetes. My point is that pregnancy can be life-threatening and health-threatening. The only people qualified to make an educated determination on whether or not a pregancy can be or should be carried to term is the woman herself, hopefully in consultation with her family members, and her physician. You may want to consider that when you are tempted to impose your poltical views onto the body... and the life... of another. /annoying lecture mode

What? YOU are the one making statements of fact about American law. Since when do I have to prove you wrong? YOU have to prove that your facts are correct, since YOU are the one who is spouting them. Oh, the irony. I have merely lived here my whole life, but I am ignorant about the laws that govern me, whereas you, who do not live here, are apparently not ignorant about the laws that govern me. What's more, you feel obliged to spout arrogant idiocies, challenging me to prove you wrong rather than supporting your "facts" with sources. ROFL. Again, oh the irony. I guess your own comment doesn't apply to you, hmmmmm? You are the one who is being arrogant and rude, sir, not I. I made no comment whatsoever about Europe, since I do not even know what country you are from. You are the one "teasing" and taunting Americans, even going so far as to claim you had even gotten the reaction you had hoped for. THAT, young man, is rude. At least I was raised that it was rude to taunt people and insult their ethnicity. I have no idea what kind of manners you were raised with. Nice conclusion. Jump there often? You know absolutely nothing about me or my views on capital punishment other than the fact that I happen to be an American living in California. Guess all of us yanks are alike, huh? LOL. Conclusion-jumping is also rude. Have a nice day.