| (no subject) |
[May. 9th, 2006|09:47 pm] |
1) Unless you are anti-death penalty, anti-war, and vegetarian you are NOT pro-life. You are simply anti-choice as far as womens reproductive choices.
2) Abortion has NOTHING to do with god. Period. Not everyone lives under the same God as you - and once you bring religion into the debate, those arguements are not valid. Sure - religon can be your reason why YOU personally would not get an abortion - but it is NOT a valid reason for women in general to not be able to terminate pregnancies.
3) If you are personally pro-life but politically pro-choice, then guess what that makes you pro-choice. Not all pro-choicers want, have had or would have abortions - they simply believe that they DO NOT have the right to tell another woman what to do with her body.
4)While I cringe at the idea of no exceptions being made for rape cases - if you are pro-life, why is abortion okay in instances of rape? Is it still not "murder"?
5) If you are pro-life there is no good or valid reason for you to be anti birth control. PERIOD. There is no discussing this EVER.
6)Stop talking about women that have abortions as "sluts", or saying "they should keep their legs closed" this is not an argument. this is IGNORANCE. If I have to explain WHY this is ignorance, you have no right debating this topic
7)Overturning Roe V Wade will NOT make abortion illegal. It will give the rights back to the states. Yes some states will outlaw it, but many states (like NY) had legal abortion before Roe V Wade. In fact when America was formed, abortion was legal in all cases - following the British rule of "quickening" which is when the baby can first be felt - around 5 months for first pregnancies and 4 months for subsequecent pregnancies. Connecticut was the first state to outlaw abortion. But even then, women performed at home abortions (as has been done for thousands of years) via the use of herbs, injury to the stomach etc . . . All making abortion illegal will do, is endager women and lead to the increase of dumpster babies, more children in foster care, more abused children. Sure the numbers will go down ON PAPER, but that doesn't mean there is less women obtaining them - just less women admitting it.
8) Stop calling late term abortions "partial birth" THAT IS NOT A LEGAL MEDICAL TERM Its D&X - and it is only legal in most states for women who have health complications - or the baby has serious health complications. In most states D&X is ILLEGAL for a routine abortion procedure.
9) Stop with the emotional cries - of, but its a baby - how could you do that - waaa waaa waaa. These are not valid arguments - they are opinons. YOU do not need to know why a woman is having the procedure done. It is a medical procedure - that is LEGAL AND CONFIDENTIAL and is between a WOMAN AND HER DOCTOR. You have ZERO right to know her reasons.
10) Your morals have nothing to do with my rights
11) Stop posting dead baby pictures. Aside from the fact that they are innaccurate - its is degrading and disgusting to use what you call yourself "a human life" for nothing more than shock value purposes.
12)You can want to restrict abortions. You can want to restrict contraceptive use. You can want to severely restrict welfare. But you can only want two out of the three of those things simultaneously unless you are an uncaring bastard. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[May. 3rd, 2006|12:48 am] |
| [ | music |
| | ben folds five - uncle walter | ] |
If anyone feels ignored, please don't take it personally. Well, unless you're just some random creep reading this... then it's probably for a reason.
But of my friends, don't feel ignored... I'm just insanely busy. I'll be available around may 19. |
|
|
| rice krispie treat disaster |
[Apr. 27th, 2006|11:15 am] |
|
I can't make rice krispies treats. I can't do it. I'm a failure to (wo)man-kind. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Apr. 26th, 2006|10:25 pm] |
I don't update often.
School... it's busy.
Busy, but almost over.
Word. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Feb. 11th, 2006|09:22 pm] |
|
haven't been updating. big surprise. busy with school. not too busy. dropped biology. i hated that class. i hope UCSDs version of it is different. speaking of which, i'll be there in the fall. fucking awesome. hope i can live with stephanie (and probably some other random person). life is cool. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jan. 10th, 2006|06:10 pm] |
|
classes start next tuesday. been snowboarding. been chilling. living it up. looking forward to classes. kind of. |
|
|
| not quite true... |
[Dec. 18th, 2005|09:25 am] |
 | You scored as atheism. You are... an atheist, though you probably already knew this. Also, you probably have several people praying daily for your soul.
Instead of simply being "nonreligious," atheists strongly believe in the lack of existence of a higher being, or God.
atheism | | 63% | Buddhism | | 63% | agnosticism | | 54% | Paganism | | 42% | Satanism | | 38% | Christianity | | 33% | Judaism | | 25% | Islam | | 21% | Hinduism | | 4% | </td>
Which religion is the right one for you? (new version)
created with QuizFarm.com |
I'm not an athiest: I don't deny the existence of a higher poewer. I do not believe that there is one, but I do believe that -no- -one- can ever know for sure. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Dec. 13th, 2005|01:32 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  bitter | ] |
| [ | music |
| | jimi thing - dmb | ] |
I don't like my mom.
I don't hate her, I just don't really like her. I am more annoyed than not when she's around, and I don't miss her when I don't see her.
Oh, and my birthday sucked, sort of. the actual day sucked and the next couple of days will suck, but the couple of days leading up to it were nice. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Dec. 6th, 2005|06:40 pm] |
Due to rising public consciousness of animal rights issues, animal experimentation has become one of the foremost issues in bioethics. Currently there are many valuable uses for animal testing although not all of them are ethical or absolutely necessary. Animal testing is important both for the development of new drugs and for understanding fundamental principles of biology, and is used primarily by research laboratories and pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies. Despite technological advances new and reliable methods for performing critical experiments without the need for animals have not yet been developed. In some cases there are alternative methods available that use cell lines or computers and increased efforts have been made in recent years to maximize the use of these alternatives. However, certain aspects of biomedical research and drug development, such as ensuring the safety of new drugs before they are given to human patients, still remain heavily dependent on in vivo experiments. Although there has been a general decline in animal testing and its use has become heavily regulated by advisory boards, many animal rights groups continue to strongly—and ignorantly—oppose animal testing of any nature.
Throughout history we humans have used animals to meet our survival needs for food, work, clothing, and shelter. Now as technology advances, we have more uses for them, one of which is animal medical testing. All animals use other animals for survival: aphids puncture sieve tubes in order to access the pressured sap in certain plants, ants and bees eat the sap exiting the aphid, and ladybugs eat aphids; ticks reside in the coats of animals and live off the blood of their host; a wide range of animals will eat their own offspring; Nile crocodiles allow Egyptian plovers to eat the leeches out of their mouths - symbiosis that benefits both animals. There are countless animals (carnivores and omnivores) which use other animals as their primary food source, often killing them in a painful manner. The biological kingdom is an interdependent and cruel system. While there are aspects to nature that are unpleasant, it is the harsh reality of the natural world.
Humans are animals as well although living in the modern world causes us to lose sight of this sometimes. As advanced as we have become, we will never truly escape our instinctual roots of doing what we need to in order to increase our quality of life. One way in which quality of life for humans all over the world has increased in the last century is through the development of advanced medical knowledge and specific drugs for treating diseases. At one point, AIDS was essentially a death sentence; yet, thanks to years of research, it is now possible to live a longer and more fulfilling life while still being infected with HIV. Because of the research and development efforts of pharmaceutical companies, which have depended heavily on animal testing as a means for ensuring the safety of new drugs before they are initially tested in humans, millions of people worldwide are experiencing a higher quality of life. Research laboratories also use animals in studying basic principles of biology and behavioral psychology, early stages of testing for potential drugs, and producing “biologicals” such as hormones and antibodies. More questionable are the use of animals in tests for extravagant luxury items, such as the popular erectile dysfunction drug Viagra. Animal testing for cosmetics is also brought into question. The overwhelming majority of popular cosmetic companies do not use animals in testing: Almay, M.A.C. Cosmetics, and Mary Kay. 1 Unfortunately, many cosmetic companies continue to test their products on animals although there is no FDA guideline requiring it as with the FDA approval for new drugs.
The many applications of animals in research have proven to be invaluable to us. Using animals such as fruit flies and worms in earlier genome sequencing efforts enabled the later completion of the human genome project. The mapping of the human genome has enabled us to do extensive investigative research on computers and, ironically, allows for important research to be conducted without the use of animals. In vivo pharmacology looks at the effects of a drug administered to an animal, reviewing important aspects such as how it is metabolized in the liver, how quickly it is both dispersed to various organs and then eliminated from the body. Also measured is the toxicity of the drug and what, if any, reproductive hazards are linked to it. These are all too complex to be modeled via computers or to be tested within a cell line. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires animal tests be conducted for the drugs awaiting approval: “compiling existing nonclinical data from past in vitro laboratory or animal studies on the compound.”2 The strict FDA guidelines for new drugs are in place to help minimize the loss of human life in clinical trials or once the drug is approved.
Science relies critically on experimental controls to obtain reliable and useful data. Many animal rights activists believe that we should be testing on prison inmates and those in persistent vegetative states. While the highly unethical nature of such testing is beyond the scope of this paper, relevant to the issue at hand is the difficulty in controlling such studies due to the extraneous influences on the subjects. Animal testing allows for a controlled and sterile environment, genetic background and life history. Furthermore, biological systems are far too complex to be able to model in silico with our current level of computing and the in-depth biological mapping available for creating such models. Computer modeling has increased, but because the people designing programs do not fully understand biological functions, it is difficult to write a program that is able to account for the multitude of unexpected possibilities inherent in complex biological systems. Thus many reputable scientists agree that animal testing is still a much-needed device. Alan M. Goldberg, a researcher in search of alternatives to animal testing, has said: “An integrated approach of clinical, whole animal and vitro studies is currently the best approach to advance science, develop new products and drugs, and treat, cure and prevent disease."3 Even the researchers most opposed to animal testing are still able to see the tremendous value in it.
Animal testing is a complex issue and many of the one-sided arguments don’t bother to take into account the complexity of this issue. Animal rights activists resort to scare tactics and lies in order to persuade an uninformed public, trying to elicit an emotional response rather than a rational, informed decision. In fact, propagandizing people in order to get them to agree to one’s viewpoint is defined as brainwashing. It is essential to explain in better detail to the general public the full significance of animal testing; unfortunately, the complexities of animal testing are unlikely to register with the public. One of the tactics that animal rights activists use involves taking a minority of animal tests and exemplifying it, even if it isn’t a fair representation. It is estimated that over 95% of animals used in research are rats and mice,4 yet animal rights groups tend to exaggerate the cases involving dogs and monkeys which are used in less than 1% of tests. They also lie to people about “alternatives” to using animals such as cell lines and computer modeling. While there are alternatives to many tests we might have once used animals for, the existing alternatives simply cannot replace everything. Animals used in research are contributing to a better understanding of biology and an increase in the quality of life. This is a far better reason for animal suffering than entertainment: rodeos, horse races, dog shows, zoos, and puppy mills are only a few examples of tortuous environments animals are subjected to purely for our entertainment.
Using animals in research is expensive and time consuming. Unfortunately, alternatives to using animals in research have not yet been developed to a reliable degree. In contrast, the general idea portrayed by activists appears to be that researchers have alternatives, ones that cost less and are more reliable, but continue to test on animals out of sheer malice: “Unlike crude, archaic animal tests, non-animal methods usually take less time to complete, cost only a fraction of what the animal experiments they replace cost, and are not plagued with species differences that make extrapolation difficult or impossible.”5 This is very convincing except that PETA fails to offer any explanation as to why researchers continue to use animals. Researchers use animals because they have no reliable alternatives for many experiments, not because they want to torture and kill animals; the very notion is absurd. PETA’s Bruce Friedrich is quoted as saying: "If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we're going to be blowing things up and smashing windows... I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow."6 I feel this sort of speech is irresponsible and irrational coming from anyone, but especially a person in a position of leadership. This is an example of someone resorting to threats and hate mongering because of their lack of a clear and respectable argument, and their failure to offer an alternative.
Despite my support for animal testing, I will be the first to admit that not all elements are positive. The pain and suffering endured by research animals, the unnecessary and failed experiments, and the monetary expense are all negative aspects of using animals in laboratories; if it weren’t for these kinds of undesirable aspects, this would not be such a widespread and sensitive issue. More emphasis needs to be put on developing research and testing methods that do not involve animals. Nonetheless, it stands as an irrefutable fact that animals used in research help to further our understanding of biology, and thus enable us not only to improve our own quality of life but also to move forward and design more efficient and cruelty-free methods of experimentation. While new techniques need to be discovered, it is unreasonable to put important and potentially life-changing research on hold until the day that cruelty-free research is the norm and standard.
References
1. “Companies that don’t test on animals.” Caring Consumer.com, a subsidiary of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). October 4, 2005 <http://www.caringconsumer.com/page/companiesdonttest.doc>.
2. “Frequently Asked Questions on Drug Development and Investigational New Drug Applications” Food and Drug Administration (FDA): requirements for pre clinical studies for new drugs. <http://www.fda.gov/cder/about/smallbiz/faq.htm>.
3. “Biomedical Research and Testing: What Are The Options?” New Jersey Association for Biomedical Research. < http://www.njabr.org/programs/research_options/>.
4. “Fact vs. Myth.” California Society for Biomedical Research. <http://www.ca-biomed.org/csbr/factvsmyth.html>.
5. “Alternatives: Testing Without Torture.” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. <http://www.peta.org/factsheet/files/factsheetdisplay.asp?id=87>.
6. “Animal Welfare and Animal Rights.” New Jersey Association for Biomedical Research. <http://www.njabr.org/programs/animal_rights/>. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Nov. 14th, 2005|12:29 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  exhausted | ] |
| [ | music |
| | fiona apple - Tymps (The Sick In The Head Song) | ] |
12/17 weeks completed.
5 to go... |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Nov. 7th, 2005|10:07 pm] |
had a calc test tonight
bio quiz tomorrow morning
chem homework and (late) english paper due wednesday
bio quiz wednesday, chem lab report due
i'm trying to stay sane and productive... but i don't think it's really working.
rhea out. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Oct. 25th, 2005|02:58 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  stressed | ] |
| [ | music |
| | dave matthews - what would you say | ] |
this week is insane. i had a 3-4 page paper due monday at 7, a chem lecture test at 9:30 (monday also), biology homework that took several hours to do due today, a chem lab test today, a biology test thursday, and an INSANE amount of studying to do for calculus.
i made some major scheduling errors this semester... and my calc grade is hurting from it. live and learn, i guess.
i'm trying not to stress too much... i'd really like to know how i did on my chemistry test (the lecture one); i think i did well. same with the lab test today... i think it went really well. the biology homework was a bitch, but at least i finished it and turned it in. as for my paper... i've gotten As on the rest of them, so i'm sure i'll get one (an A) on this one too
i have an A in english and Biology. Hopefully when I get my chem lecture exam back I'll have an A in that class... I have an A or a B in my chem lab (it's really hard to tell, i think i technically have a B, but he keeps saying not to worry about it too much when I ask why points here and there are gone, so long as i'm doing well for the most part I'll be fine because he curves it... or some shit like that, he's really tricky to get a solid, comprehendible explanation from). In calc I have D. The good news is that a B in the class is actually possible so long as I can manage Solid Bs or As on the next two tests and finals... it IS possible if I can find and make time to study well. So that's my new course of action for calculus. |
|
|
| stole this from _staryeyedloser |
[Oct. 17th, 2005|02:15 pm] |
| [ | music |
| | seven kings - dawn | ] |
10 reasons why gay marriage is wrong:
1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were
allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Sep. 27th, 2005|02:32 pm] |
This semester REALLY sucks.
A whole lot.
I'm to the point where I'm strongly considering putting off my transfer (can I even do that since I signed the agreement?) by a semester/quarter just so I don't fail everything, which it looks like is going to happen thus far.
I'm depressed/frustrated/overwhelmed pretty much all of the time now. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Sep. 21st, 2005|04:41 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  hungry | ] |
| [ | music |
| | guster - keep it together | ] |
calc test was monday (didn't do well)
chem test was today (i think i did really well)
3 page paper due monday (i'm sure i'll do fine)
bio test tuesday (we'll see...)
chem lab test sometime next week (again, we'll see)
... i go to to six flags (with jay, cat, and eliot) on sunday =D i haven't been there for a couple of years. (and i've only been once) i loooove roller coasters.
other than school kicking my ass, there isn't much to say. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Sep. 8th, 2005|05:35 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | stressed | ] |
bio 200 + lab (2x week)
chem 110 + lab (2x week)
math 140
eng 100
19 units
kicking my ass. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
radiatedpurr's journal