That doesn't contradict what I said about the evolutionary advantage that Marsupials clearly have over Placentals in Australia. No, it is immunosuppression. Plain and simple. Trying to dress it up as anything else is pure obfuscation. It contains foreign proteins, foreign antigens, so from the bodies perspective, it is a foreign object - which is the only thing I have ever actually stated in this thread, although you have managed to infer some truely bizzare things from that statement. All of this bleeding heart nonsense of yours is just trying to dress it up as something that it isn't. More obfuscatory drivel. From your own source: All that exquisitely synchronized activity can be derailed by viral or bacterial infection. Clinical studies have shown that infections cause as much as 40 percent of incidence of preterm labor. Furthermore, of the most severe cases of preterm delivery (pregnancies that end after less than thirty weeks of gestation), 80 percent show evidence of infection... ...To our surprise, my research group discovered that the signals triggering miscarriage may be initiated by the same guest Conductor, the trophoblast. If a virus, say, is infecting the uterus, the trophoblast recognizes the virus through its TLRs, just as in normal implantation the trophoblast recognizes dead cells from the mother's uterus. With the virus, however, the trophoblast's response is different. Its cells signal the mother's immune-system cells to mount an aggressive immune response. Instead of suppressing her cytolytic T cells and natural killer cells, she activates them. Not only do they attack the infection, but they attack the trophoblast as well. The battered embryonic tissue is then expelled; the mother miscarries.An infection induced miscarriage occurs when the trophoblast stops suppressing the maternal immune response, and antagonizes it into rejecting it as a foreign body.
I said its all an INTERNALIZED SYSTEMIC PROCESS! The mitochondria are then not 'yours'- which is technically true. BUT the SYSTEM has INTERNALIZED them! So that is how the 'system works'.. there are antimitochondrial antibodies too... that can kill the cells. BUT the point IS IT IS SYSTEMICALLY NOT FOREIGN. Its called 'cellular regulation'. A body is a SYSTEM working together. Try fucking surviving without the mitochondria. The point is quite simple its the SYSTEM that matters because the body is run systemically. If the lysosome bursts the cell could die of acidity- but there is systemic cellular regulation! So its the SYSTEM that matters. The whole reproduction process of the embryo under normal conditions was being carried out by highly coordinated INTERNALIZED SYSTEM! The system is in place for that. If you're going to hang on well TECHNICALLY its foreign. Then ya. But systemically its going through a normal systemic process of the body! if something is part of that 'system' its not foreign to that SYSTEM. Although TECHNICALLY mitochondria are foreign (there ARE antibodies for it) BUT it is an integral PART of the SYSTEM that makes your body run! A body is a system. Anything that is part of those systems is not 'foreign' in that systemic sense. The 'technical' definition is useless because if we were to remove the mitochondria the body DIES! Its the systemic definition that is important. And if I may repeat a parasite doesn't give a shit about the host (unlike the embryo's self-destruct policy essentially). Everything was being coordinated in a systemic fashion. The 'suppression' is simply cell regulation nothing more which happens in all parts of the cell for a SYSTEM TO RUN. If there was no regulation of Calcium try moving your muscle. Inhibition and Excitation process are all parts of a system. If the antimitochondrial bodies were not kept away from the mitochondria then the cell would die, its all part o cell regulation! So instead of looking at 'technically foreign' you need to look at systemically foreign. The events were highly coordinated through an internalized system where the embryo and the maternal response was all being coordinated for the internalized system of reproduction. Everything is simply systemic regulation which is important for any part of your system to work.
I'm voting for Paul in 2012. I don't agree with his philosophy regarding abortion, but, so what? I also think a Libertarian leaning government will also be corrupted in due time, as that's what we do. But, unlike most people, I really would like to see change and I'm willing to vote for it. Most people cannot imagine a system different than the one we have and most people are scared of future events they cannot imagine, so, we'll probably end up with Obama anyway. The reason why people so strongly support Paul, is because he really does stand for Freedom and Liberty. That strikes a cord with many people from all walks of life.
None of this is relevant, and amounts to distraction and obfuscation. More Obfuscation. You're clutching at straws, your own source explicitly states that the first step in the process has to be immune suppression to prevent the body from rejecting the fetus as a foreign body. Everything else you're presenting is smoke and mirrors to make it out to be something more. My DNA, my proteins, are not part of my wifes body any more than they are a part of yours. In your irrelevant, uninformed opinion. You just spent the last how many pages trying to tell me that a blastocyte doesn't have to suppress the immune system in order to survive, even though your own source states it must. This is emotional nonsense, and I'm fairly certain that it's trivially wrong, but at this stage I have better things to do with my evening. More obfuscation. It is Immunosuppression, nothing less, it specifically interfers with the normal immune response in an act of self preservation, to stop it from being rejected as a foreign object. The proof is pretty trivial. None of this is actually relevant. Of course, I think the funniest thing of all may be that your own source implies parasitic behaviour in the first Trimester. :roflmao:
'parasitic' is you understanding of it, not that it is.. Ya Mitochondria isn't yours, try to live without them you should be fine since its foreign bacterial DNA. A dumbass like you who thinks a 'body' is simply a 'body' of some 'purist' molecules is infact fucked up. A body is a biological system. I never said anything about not having to suppress anything, I said its part of systemic regulation. Simply because the maternal immune system is suppressed mean nothing, You have to look at the system as a whole. Our body suppresses itself most of the time. For a purist like you though I guess its better off you purged your body of those foreign molecules, I'd love to see the state of 'your' 'pure' body then. But just so that you know. A body is a biological SYSTEM. Anything that is coordinated within that system is an evolutionary internalized system. You're a molecular purist- "that shit isn't mine" I'd like you to defend the idea that a 'body' is made up of purist molecules that 'belong to you' :roflmao: In fact the sperm you create is foreign material (not the same DNA as yours) You never sent in 'your' material into your woman :roflmao: whose is it!! Can't be 'your' sperm because 'your' body will attack it (autoimmune infertility) :roflmao: (Fun aside: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC305337/) (Fun aside: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10647746 "fetus more closely resembles "developmental self'") And I'm done.
No, parasitic is precisely what it is. The relationship precisely meets any working definition of parasitism. No amount of dressing it up in touchy feeley bleeding heart feel good prose is ever going to change that. Seriously? This is the level of argumentation you're resorting to? A simple statement of fact upsets your value system that much? Strawman hypothesis, and a slippery slope fallacy all rolled into one. This is, if I am being polite, laughable. Words fail me, this is a whole new level of absurd - even for you. Do you know what Autoimmune means? It's when the body fails to recognize itself as itself. I mean... I can only assume you're trolling at this point, because the level of stupidity and desperation implied by the absurdity of the connection you're trying to draw, it's just mind boggling.
(Something, something, Burt Ward) I would assert that you are incorrect. Section 3 lost according to the Tenth Amendment in federal court. Indeed, when I quoted Attorney General Holder's explanation of the administration's stance on Section 3, he did note the outcomes of Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States. You did mention licenses. You gave me a law that was passed because of DoMA, which essentially supports my argument. And I'm certain you know the judicial history of that. How many times has it been contested? Or we might consider that you've raised a new aspect in this part of the discussion; I've left alone the talk of First Amendment claims against DoMA. But, yes, since you are convinced of the constitutionality, I'm certain you can provide an example of someone suing a state on the grounds of, "How dare you say I'm not married to my uncle!" and point us to the court's decision that this does not violate Article IV. Oh, please. It's so damn hard, isn't it? There are unconstitutional laws on the books all over the place. In the 1990s, at least, it was still technically illegal to sell alcohol to an indigenous tribal American. The law was never struck by the courts because the local authority stopped enforcing it long before things ever got that far. There is a town in Oregon where it is illegal to talk dirty to your wife during coitus. Or perhaps I should correct myself; there was such a town. I don't think the law went away. Rather, the town eventually disappeared. Point being, the question was resolved by circumstance before the constitutional question ever made it into court. Of course, as I noted, you did make an issue of licensing. So don't complain about questions of licensing. You know, like the validity of a driver license.
So what is truly 'itself'? Sperm cells don't have 'your' exact DNA. Its not 'yours' truly Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And although it is 'autoimmune' isn't necessarily a 'defect', autoimmune can also be your cells kill cells like the sperm which clearly by its definition 'not yours'... Why have you suddenly started defining what is 'yours' 'truly'. DNA in sperm is not the same as yours, everyone knows that.
Nope: Placental mammals have been subjected to two opposing selective pressures during evolution, as survival of the species depends on the ability to eliminate microbial pathogens while at the same time protecting fetuses from immune rejection.Immune rejection that occurs because of the presence of foreign proteins, and foreign DNA, and an adaptation that results in the suppression of the immune system to stop it from rejecting the fetus. And now you're cherry picking from abstracts? Meanwhile: The effects of pregnancy on autoimmune diseases Note that it discusses exactly the same immunological response as the other papers you have cited, and poses exactly the same thing I have said, and every link you have provided says. Because the blastocyst is foreign, or semi-foreign, it must first suppress the normal immunological response, and the most anything that you have posted has added has been to suggest that part of this process involves training the immune system, or fooling the immune system into thinking that the blastocyst is something like 'self'. But that spontaneous miscarriage is associated with an aggravated immune system, and the source of that aggravation appears to be the trophoblast, which provokes the immune system into rejecting it as a foreign object. And I'm done.[/QUOTE]
In fact I remember specially putting in 'bold' the other years that it was on the book. 1998 is simply an amended version of it. I don't have access to the historical laws of Washington though to find out what the law said during the years I bolded. Never, so its not unconstitutional until declared but it is on the books. And again DoMA was only shot down on Section 3 (which only relates to federal definition), it is still being defended on all other parts, which means they were held to be constitutional by the Administration, which makes it legal for States to recognize marriage as such.. Now given this, even if the law is 1998 (may have been there in previous years) and you're suggesting unconstitutionality, then the President is yet defending it on those accounts (just not Section 3). The President is still defending the other sections of DOMA which permit exactly that. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.025 2A.-- again the statutory laws are there that recognize them- so they are 'lawful'. So those 'licenses' are valid. Now for exceptions. North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming allow license for driving at age 14-14.5 which would NOT be acceptable in the state of Washington if you read the law(least is 15 years of age). The ages of license for these states is from wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver..._States#Licensing_laws_by_states_and_district
What you are failing to grasp is that there has been a systematic 'tolerance' developed and there is also a foreign component (duh, the male!). It simply promotes the idea that there is a SYSTEM at work. And this is 'normal' systematic procedure.
Insipid, vapid, and fails to address the point being made. There are a number of adjectives I could use to describe this post, none of them a polite.
No, I understand that this is the spin you choose to put on it to pretty it up so that it fits within your asthetic, but the simple fact of the matter is that a fetus is foreign matter that the body has to be tricked and/or trained into not rejection, and on those instances where the trickery and training is insufficient, complications result that typically result in the death of the fetus and/or the mother. No amount of bleeding heart prose is ever going to change the facts.
Keep making those adjectives but under your definition of 'not foreign' your sperm is foreign material. :roflmao:
Once again, you demonstrate you don't understand my definition of foreign material. There's a name for the specific fallacy you're perpetrating, but it's name escapes me, just now. I mean, your assertion is just completely inane, it's contradicted by mendelian inheritence for a start.
So what is your definition of foreign material I'm pretty sure you used DNA as one and 'proteins'. And the egg has nothing to do with mendelian inheritance Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Stop compounding the problem.
Fair 'nuff Fair 'nuff. It's not just that I live up here and remember it; I suppose my familiarity helped resolve the dates in other ways, too. We didn't pass our incest laws in 1998, for instance; those came a while before. To the other, I don't think we got around to outlawing bestiality until the twenty-first century, when a guy died while having sex with a horse, and the only crime they could find to charge anyone with was trespassing, filed against the guy who filmed the fatal interspecies intercourse. Apparently, it just hadn't come up. Strange, since we call Pullman, Washington, "Cowtown". Never mind, local joke. But, in the end, it's a long issue up here, and those who pay attention ... well, yeah. Read Dan Savage's editorial, written in the wake of that law. You'll find that marriage equality advocates actually have a far more subtle grasp of the politics involved than you conservatives "libertarians" give us credit for. I'll let the Jewish niece-fucker from Rhode Island file the suit. I don't have legal standing to test the law. You need to take some time to consider how the presidential oath works. The president must enforce the laws; the Constitution, to which he ultimately pledges, is the supreme law of the land. In 2008, the Ninth District, long regarded as a liberal bastion, upheld the dismissal of a Section 2 challenge for lack of standing. The issue has yet to be tried on its merits. Accordingly, on the first go, there is a reasonable argument that administration must defend it on merit; this would likely consist of reminding that Congress has the power to pass laws. Article IV is a sticky issue from this position; one must argue that the phrase, "the effect thereof" in IV.1 means Congress has the power to select which public acts, records, and judicial proceedings are entitled to full faith and credit. This is a thin argument when presented against equal protection, privileges and immunities, and due process. When this or any president loses in federal court, one would see Obama take the same course he followed on Section 3: he did his job trying to enforce the law, and he lost. Now, respecting the supreme law of the land—i.e., the Constitution—he won't defend Section 3 against further legal challenges; so it will be with Section 2. Of course, there is also the argument that a president is perfectly within his right, when answering the suit, to say, "We concur that the law is unconstitutional." This is a politically tenuous strategy with dubious projection for success. If, on the other hand, President Obama does like so many conservatives and simply starts making up stupid, emotional, and ultimately religiously supremacist bullshit, yes, one could suggest he has a constitutional problem. Who, though, is going to impeach him? I do wonder how conservatives "libertarians" such as yourself and Rep. Paul will feel if the Supreme Court rules in your favor—that the federal government gets to dictate to the states what public acts, records, and judicial proceedings are excluded from the Full Faith and Credit Clause. But, hey, they're icky gay people, right? So why not give the federal government more power over the states? ____________________ Notes: Savage, Dan. "Don't Blame Muray for Marriage Ban". The Seattle Times. April 7, 1998. Community.SeattleTimes.NWSource.com. October 7, 2011. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980407&slug=2743819 Carter, David O. "Order Dismissing Case Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Order". Smelt and Hammer v. Orange County et al. August 29, 2008. GLAD.org. October 7, 2011. http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/smelt/smelt-district-court-dismissal.pdf
Ron Paul doesn't support much of any legislation on the federal level, no? Specifically, he'd like the states to make all abortion illegal, from the moment of conception. But as long as he's not advocating the federal government do that, I guess it's totally different. Somehow. So here's another salient facet of libertarianism - it's plastic enough to demand radical restriction of the government one moment (bring back segregation!), and the very next moment insist on radical government intrusion (the morning after pill is murder!). All with a straight face - not even a passing blink of self-consciousness. Just the wild gaze of fundamentalism. But then that's how totalizing discourses roll, I guess...
Time for the Pokies I hate the word "disconnect" when used as a noun. Apparently people are too lazy to type the extra three letters, or speak the extra syllable. Never mind. Personal reflection. Beside the point. But there does seem to be a disconnection, in the life-at-conception outlook, between slogans and practical effects. Or, as I put it earlier this year, "Time for the Pokies".
True. Yes. It shows that he's not willing to sacrifice his principle of everyone's right to choose, just so that he can enforce his understanding of when 'life' begins.. He would allow any state to legalize abortion as they fit, however distasteful it may be to him. And let me rephrase your wording to something more correct: Specifically, he'd like the states to make their own choice about abortion. President's can't dictate to the State to make laws according to their liking. I would hope you could at least appreciate that without your strong wording sharped tongued accusative approach, which always somehow ends up putting his 'belief' as stated policy somehow. Not everyone is like you who wants to forcefully put on their belief on someone, that is what State's right symbolize. Again fucking stop the accusation, no one is asking to bring back segregation, it may be a a consequence though of people's choice..BUT Ron Paul has NOT said he would amend the CRA NOW. I said he would have THEN BUT NOT NOW. Read that again: NO CHANGES TO CRA NOW! NO PLAN ON AMENDING OR REPEALING IT. He was asked about what he would have done THEN, he'd have protected freedom of choice, but if you ask him about NOW, he says HE WOULDN'T DO ANYTHING because IT IS A SETTLED DEBATE that people think it should be part of our law. So HE HAS NO PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THAT. Like I said, HE DOESN'T like to ENFORCE HIS VIEWS on YOU THROUGH FEDERAL FORCE. Get THAT through your HEAD. CRA will NOT CHANGE. So if you really care about what POLICIES he'll enact, which is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than what he believes personally (which he WON'T enforce through Fed Regulations) you should only cite what his POLICY would he as President NOW propose. CRA changes is NOT his proposal. One could 'discuss things' without making them into law, if you are philosophical enough to do so- which is the type of person he is. Everyone knows that no one would support such a change, and NEITHER IS HE PROPOSING to change it. You'd rather spend talking about policies that won't change than what he'd actually try to do as President to fix current problems. GET FUCKING REAL. Secondly go fucking read his positions. In fact he is not against the morning after pill. Now you have been wrong about him twice on abortion. I think the problem you are having is that this the first time you have come across a politician who doesn't want to enforce his beliefs on people, but your experience with other politicians makes you believe that whatever they 'believe' must be what they will do as President. That is where you have it all wrong. This is why he doesn't want many Federal Regulations. Do you see the very meaning of less federal regulations? That is HE DOESN'T WANT TO IMPOSE HIS VIEWS ON YOU! You think you're some hero talking shit to someone's face, "YOU WILL DO THIS I JUST KNOW IT", when you don't know fucking shit about the positions as you have demonstrated. I will await your pointed sharped 'questions' to hide the fact you didn't know the positions he holds which you attribute to him. Because that is all you know how to do. Make up position and say THAT IS WHAT YOU'D DO without knowing shit. And you do it all with a straight face. I wonder if you could be tried for libel for deliberately construing his positions. Doesn't matter WHAT he believes, so long as he doesn't enforce it through Federal Regulations YOU HAVE the option of legislating your views within your state. He might 'want' State's to ban abortion, BUT that is NOT what will happen. He is running for the Presidency, and the President has NO CONTROL over the State legislature. And how do you not see the difference: If he imposed his view on abortion through Federal Government. Abortion WOULD BE ILLEGAL IN USA. But since he won't. There is a very high chance (especially in heavily Democratic states) that ABORTION WOULD BE LEGAL. Yes there is a HUGE difference. Go fucking check how many states vote Democrat, all those states could potentially legalize abortion! If Federal government makes it illegal none of them can! Yes there is a HUGE FUCKING DIFFERENCE! There is a HUGE difference between FORCING your views on the whole country than LETTING THEM CHOOSE by their local State governments. Keep your shit to yourself please. Since I really can't trust you to read up on him here is an excerpt: I want you to keep reading those words. He doesn't want to enforce his morals on you. So he lets you make your own moral choices. This is WHY he doesn't want Federal Regulations. The more local, the better control people have. And like I argued the question 'when life begins' is a totally subjective question, and no on should enforce his views on the other by force. To me Ron Paul makes that sense, even though he may disagree with your definition he still has the courage to understand that the Federal Gov shouldn't restrict choices on subjective issues like these. You just need to stop hating, and for god sake know a little bit before you say shit. Because that is all that you say, even though with a very 'confident voice'- like that even matters when you don't know what the hell you're talking about. More like lying about another candidate propositions and saying what he'll do. Like talking about CRA when he won't even touch it. Excuse the language but I think its because I haven't slept yet and its 5 in the morning and I don't feel like correcting it.
