recibe

He didn't want to participate in the building of the atom bomb.

Hero.

The Chinese are tired of being paid a fraction of what citizens in developed countries make for doing the same work.

This is a blog about how a citizen in a developed country is "shocked" at the concept that other people should be paid a fair wage even if - gasp - they're Chinese.

Ross made the decision, now Ross pays the price.

Lots of people could have done this, and lots of people were smart enough not to.

Just because you perceive something makes the world "more fair" doesn't mean it should EVER be implemented exclusively on that basis.

Great source.

The growth rate is slowing as the population is increasing.

Stop a moment to consider how that observation is irrelevant.

That's both flimsy and a perversion of my logic, which is a direct rebuttal of the logic of the article itself.

The article gives an example of a woman who tried 7 times to have children and failed because she is genetically defective in terms of her ability to have children.

The government, however, has made special allowances to a 1990 law prohibiting egg and embryonic re-engineering so that this woman can.

The Prime Minister's stated rationale: "We're not playing god here, we're just making sure that two parents who want a healthy baby can have one."

So clearly - the state is paying for people who can't have children to be able to have them - under the pretense that doing so is beneficial to society.

To be able to select this procedure, the prospective mother must already know about her condition. If she knows about her condition, she should be educated to abstain from having children instead of receiving public funds to have her defective DNA altered to facilitate the process of reproduction.

I had a similar experience - but never said anything about "bombs" and thus wasn't taken to jail.

I just tried to complain about one of the inspectors making a smartassed remark to me when I went through was forced to wait for an hour for enhanced interrogation while I missed my flight.

From the article:

"The method, which was developed in Newcastle, should help women like Sharon Bernardi, from Sunderland, who lost all seven of her children to mitochondrial disease."

Reasoning:

Sharon Bernardi hasn't been able to reproduce naturally without this "method".

But the UK is going to make this method legal - and because its healthcare system is publicly funded the UK government (and thus the public) will also pay for the implementation of the method.

This represents an example where the state is making a guarantee - a formal promise or assurance - that it will pay for citizens that normally couldn't have children to be able to have them.

From the article:

Prime Minister David Cameron said: "We're not playing god here, we're just making sure that two parents who want a healthy baby can have one."

What's not logical about that?

Its not sensational because of the clickbait title.

It is sensational because it is an example of the state sanctioning the customization of human eggs and embryos - which is a pivot of public policy that creates vast consequences.

Not really. This procedure is likely to be inaccessible to the general public without subsidy via insurance (public or private).

My argument is that one's ability to reproduce should not be guaranteed by the state, and therefore the state should not create laws that overtly or inadvertently sanction the genetic engineering of eggs or embryos to that end.

This law does precisely that.

excellent remark.

Opposition is also from those who don't think that human reproduction is a moral imperative to be guaranteed by the state - under the fallacy that it somehow increases our collective quality of life.

Like me.

Based on what? Your opinion?

The U.N. projects world population to increase to 10.8 billion by 2100 from 6.9 billion in 2010.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publication...

The academic laziness of you and those who agree with you is disgusting.