DISQUS

I think it is great that you are discovering nature. I also think it's pretty sad that you never saw seeds sprout. Owen's developmental movement therapist told us to plant seeds to use as a metaphor for him. To show him that things grow and change (we are trying to coax him into potty training). Anyway, I just thought of that when you said you never saw seeds sprout before.

Yeah, I'm not a fan, so I wasn't familiar with the fact that this was an established recurring argument and I was supposed to fill in the blanks and just know what he was talking about. Makes sense now that the blanks have been sufficiently filling in.

Blastocysts aren't ever even aborted, as you wouldn't even get a positive pregnancy test if you were hosting a blastocyst. I totally agree that they don't feel pain or resemble anything human yet. He didn't make it entirely clear (at least to me - and maybe I just wasn't paying close enough attention) that he was talking about a bastocyst. He said embryo, not blastocyst. As for making "hazy claims" his saying that animals don't adopt orphaned infants of their kind unless they are tricked into doing so seems sort of hazy after just watching a couple documentaries on animals.

Yay, no more incessant tweeting! Also, you might want to update to our new site on your blogroll :-)

You may be right, now that I think about it I think he said "embryo" and not "fetus". Then he must have been referring to stem cell research and not abortion, which to me is an odd comparison, so I jumped to thinking "fetus" and not hearing "embryo". I'd be interested to see his talk again online too to clarify what his point was there.

Chadly,

What, so I'm not allowed to question Dawkins ;-) Hmm, that seems to remind me of something...

It has been long thought in our society that newborns can't feel pain, don't have emotions, and thus wont be affected by mistreatment or suffering infringed on them. Well, that is a load of crap, and the fact that it is not a well established scientific fact by now is astounding. We know that a newborns nervous system is well developed enough to feel pain, because they respond with a different cry as well as other forms of distress when presented with painful stimuli. So the nervous system develops sometime in utero. Fetuses also move away from painful stimuli, and they even have been observed crying in utero. Of course, there is a point where a fetus is a conglomeration of cells, and there is a point where it is a fully formed fetus that responds to it's environment, and I realize there is a gray area there as far how quickly they get from point A to point B, but we do know that at some point a fetus can feel pain, because we know that a newborn can feel pain, and they feel it profoundly - not in an underdeveloped nervous system sort of way. Dawkins didn't clarify the age of gestation he was speaking about, and perhaps that was his error, however, I don't understand how a scientist can claim to quantify a beings pain.

I thought it was good and interesting overall, but I did raise an eyebrow at a few of the things he said. Like when he said that people get upset about killing a fetus, but not a cow, when the cow can actually feel pain. Aside from the fact that the cow isn't going to carry on our genetic material and keep the human race alive, fetuses do feel pain. They are actually highly advanced at a very young age of gestation. He talked about how large our brains have evolved to be, yet seemingly failed to see that this would make smarter more advanced fetuses. It sounded like he was spewing political propaganda and not true science in that instance. I also thought his points about adoption being a subversion was just not totally accurate. He said that animals don't adopt unless they can be convinced that the offspring is their own. That just isn't true, many animals routinely adopt babies that are not their own, some even adopt babies of another species. Animals like elephants and gorillas live in a cummune of sorts, and babysit other's offspring, and if the mother dies the baby is adopted by other females. The strong maternal instinct often overrides evolutionary goals, and this is true for many kinds of animals, not just humans. In those instances he seemed to trying to bend science to fit into his agenda, and not allowing it to speak for itself. Other then that though, I found his speech highly interesting, and I loved the way he handled the questions at the end. He seems like a very smart guy. I wished that they had preselected the questioners though, instead of allowing just the first people who could get to the microphone. Some of those people were really annoying.

Someone sounds a little paranoid. Is it that unbelievable that a person could know what they are talking about without an organization telling them what to say? I guess it is to a JW.

Check out their statement of belief: http://www.tccsa.tc/believe.html

Our computers names:

imac special edition: Lemon

ibook lime special edition: Mac the Knife

imac flat screen: Edith

ipod second generation: Mini Mac

Our "twin" intel ibooks: Anikan and Annika

My eyes have opened, and now I can make the right choose.

Yeah, that site didn't work for me either. Just took all my info and I ended up at an FAQ page. I still don't know if I'm registered or not.

Don't feel so bad Melanie, I couldn't go either. Though we tried, we couldn't get a sitter for Owen. Sorry Ryan, I'll have to catch you next time.

Did you see this? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/report... I wonder if she'll be asked to leave the ticket.

Wow, thanks for totally freaking me out Ryan.

It's okay to use "Mrs." in general (unless your referring to me, then you better use Ms. :-) ), it was the context that caused me to raise an eyebrow, and the fact that it was only used in that one sentence, and paired with the other two issues I raised, and also that you have never referred to any other candidate that way (as far as I can recall). It wasn't JUST the Mrs. thing, it was the entire sentence, that was just part of it.

First of all, I don't like Palin, I think it's an idiotic pick. As if women are so stupid, that since Hilary isn't running, then we'll obviously vote for this woman, just because she's a woman. McCain obviously doesn't think that women have any brains in their pretty little heads.

However, I was a bit taken aback by this sentence of yours: "If he were to die or have a stroke that incapacitated him (very real possibilities) and Mrs. Palin were to become President the most powerful political leader on the planet would be a 44-year-old mother of 5 with the following experience:"

I'm confused as to why you used the abbreviation "Mrs." Maybe it's a picky thing on my part, but when referring to anyone else, you don't use "Mr." or "Mrs." I don't recall ever reading anything here about "Mr. Obama" or "Mr. McCain" or "Mrs. Clinton". Why is she "Mrs. Palin", and why only in this sentence? I also was unsure why you said "a 44-year-old mother of 5". What does being 44, or being a mother of 5 have to do with her competency in running the country? No one ever says, "Obama, a father of 2", so why do we have to say "Palin, a mother of 5"? Is the fact that she is a "Mrs.", that she is "44" and that she is a "mother of 5" make her somehow less qualified to lead the country? Your list was quite compelling without the inclusion of these remarks, which, if I didn't know you better I may just call sexist. I think it is fine that you included autobiographical information, but you seem to be including it in a place and in a way that is supposed to negatively sway our opinion of her, and the information isn't inherently negative.

But that sentence aside, I haven't liked anything I've heard about her politics, and your post just added to the list of things I don't like about her. I will be scared if McCain gets elected that she would actually become president someday.

That's funny, I "stumbled upon" this the other day.

I can't say it really matters to my life whether Jesus existed or not, so I haven't given it the research that you have. I can't tell from what you've wrote here whether he existed or not, as I don't find any of your evidence to be convincing beyond any doubt. I think you raise some interesting points, but for example, I can't really pick out part of one sentence of John and be sure that John didn't write that book of the bible and therefore he didn't ever see Jesus. Maybe that is just the way they wrote back then. Lots of people now talk in the third person, maybe that's how John talked. Who knows.

I think the most interesting thing is that there are many pagan gods with the same story as Jesus. To me that proves that Jesus was nothing special, and perhaps made up. Or perhaps he was a real person and just had made up stories associated with him. I guess I lean more towards scenario number 2, but I'll have to read the other parts of your article.

There probably is not consensus on the age of sexual maturity because it varies culturally. In some areas of the world girls start menstruating at 9 years old, so I suppose by 12 they are sexually mature. But, there is just so much more involved in successful reproduction then the act of sex, that I still think you have to look at all the factors when making this decision. I think we have to look at the age of "optimal" sexual maturity, not whether or not sex might be possible.

Also, I think whenever anyone is under age 18, we have to look at the age discrepancy between the two parties. If a guy in his 30's is having sex with 12 year olds, that weird and creepy no matter how sexually mature she is. If my 18 year old son has sex with a 16 year old, I don't want him to be sent to jail over it because they are peers. So, I think that you can't just factor in sexual maturity, but how much older the other person is and how much power they hold over the younger person.

Just a little correction: I said that human babies are the least developed of all animals, but I meant they are the least developed of all primates. They are also comparatively underdeveloped when you look at most animal species, but not all, there are kangaroos after all, and perhaps some others :-)

I can kind of see what you are saying. However, children are born as sexual beings. Pedophilia is more of a seduction than a rape, no matter what the age of the child. That is why it is so confusing and distressing to children who have experienced it, because it is unwanted, yet it feels good.

Furthermore, there is more to reaching sexual maturity than simply being able to have sex. Is a 12 year old female sexually mature? No way. Many 12 year old females are not even menstruating yet. Gestating, birthing and breastfeeding are part of sexuality. Our species has large headed offspring, which is why they are born about three months before they end their "fetal" stage (no other animal's offspring are born at such a helpless, immature stage of development). Therefore, I would argue that evolutionary driven sex occurs more around the age of 16, when the females hips have widened sufficiently to allow a baby to grow to a normal size, and to pass through the pelvis, and after her breasts have fully developed. Also, she is full grown by this age, so her own growth or the baby's growth would not be affected by a pregnancy, all the nutrients could go to the baby. If our species had started coupling off at 12 years old, the infants and the 12 year old mothers would have had a much higher rate of death during pregnancy and childbirth and our species would have suffered. They both may have had growth retardation if they did not have access to vast amounts of nutrients (which they wouldn't if another 12 year old was providing for them), which in turn would affect subsequent pregnancies. Also, a 12 year old would not have had a very high rate of success in breastfeeding her offspring due to both physical and mental immaturity. And a male 12 year old would not have been chosen, even by an older woman, because he would not have been able to hunt, build shelter, or do the things needed to keep his offspring alive. He would not be full grown, so he would want to eat all the food he managed to get.

So, what I'm trying to say is, 16 or 17 is a much more biologically appropriate age to start having sex, and the development of our species reflects that this is true. Also, just because a 12 year old may be a sexual being, and may have experimented with sex with their peers, doesn't mean they are ready to have sex with a truly sexually mature adult. It is the same as having sex with a 10 year old, or a 7 year old. Those children may be sexual beings, they may have sexually experimented with their peers, but no one is ever ready for a sexual relationship where one person has all the power and another has none.

"12 and 13 year old kids have sex. That’s a fact of life. Sure, they usually do it with other 12 and 13 year olds, granted, but it doesn’t change the fact that it happens. It’s something our culture doesn’t like to talk about, but it’s been true throughout the history of our species and is still legally accepted in many parts of the world."

So because 12 and 13 year olds have sex with each other, then are you saying that makes it easier to understand why an adult and a 12 or 13 year would have sex with each other?

I've been in therapy for almost three years now. I was told that therapists were like Jean, but I also got one like Paul, which I am glad about. My therapist says her job in a nutshell is to challenge and support me. And boy does she challenge me, but she does also support me. She challenged me right out of the witnesses, and then supported me in the aftermath. It is a strange relationship, but meaningful and incredibly helpful. It's really hard, but I keep going back for more. It has proved to be worth it and has helped me a great deal.

Have you read Obama's statement on this? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/my-p... That is what makes me the most uncomfortable, as I don't really understand the laws and bills and all that, but a statement I can understand. To me he seems to be saying, "oh, sorry, but I had to pander to the republicans, but don't worry, I'll be liberal once I'm elected." Yeah right. And also, "hey, if you don't like it, too bad buddy, I'm still better than the other guy and your stuck with me now." I don't like his changing tone. He's right, we are stuck with him, he is still better than the other guy. But it seems he is letting us down. He's flip flopping. He's acting like just another politician, instead of who we thought he was. Oh well, in this messed up two party system we only have two choices, and that is what sucks and why he isn't kept in check. I hope he learns something from the backlash.