A Recent Favorite:

Uh Oh, Nothing Here Yet

Why don't you go browse some Comics or Editorials and pick a few to favorite?

Recent Comments

  1. boiler95 commented on Non Sequitur 16 days ago

    There are approximately 7 billion people in the world. That means if you are in the top 70 million for earnings (which works out to somewhere around $32,000/year), you are in the top 1%. That means a vast majority of you are in the same group you are denigrating. As the old saying goes, “when you point a finger at someone, 3 are pointing back at you.”

  2. boiler95 commented on Glenn McCoy over 1 year ago

    So, someone that points out to a friend or loved one they are doing something wrong, they don’t love them anymore. People point out faults to steer their friends and loved ones to the right path, not because they hate them.
    .
    Based on your reasoning, any difference of opinion is because the two sides hate each other.

  3. boiler95 commented on Glenn McCoy over 1 year ago

    Did the president say “If you’re on Medicaid and you like your doctor, you can keep him” or did he say “if you like your doctor, you can keep him” unqualified? I believe it was just before or after stating “if you like your insurance, you can keep it”. Based on context, I believe that would make it an unqualified statement.

  4. boiler95 commented on Gary Varvel almost 2 years ago

    I’m asking for a scientific definition of when human life begins, a specific event in the life of a human being. I’m not asking for a dissertation on the origins of the human species.

  5. boiler95 commented on Gary Varvel almost 2 years ago

    No, a cancer tumor has damaged DNA, not full human DNA. Second, cancer is a clump of cells that expands into a clump of cells. It has no developmental path that would result in anything more than a clump of cells. Therefore, cancer tumors are not human beings.
    .
    Before someone tries to bring up donated organs or blood, again, these do not have a developmental path that would result in a full grown adult. Therefore, they are not human beings on their own either.

  6. boiler95 commented on Gary Varvel almost 2 years ago

    You brought up science, so please provide a consistent, logical, scientific definition of when a human being begins to exist. Such a definition would not be subject to exceptions purely to benefit a particular belief. It should be applicable in all situations, such as premature birth.
    .
    I’ll provide my definition:
    1) Full Human DNA (identity)
    2) Metabolism (living status)
    3) Growth (developmental path)
    .
    I’m interested in hearing your scientific definition.

  7. boiler95 commented on Gary Varvel about 2 years ago

    I hate when I forget to enter a line with a single period so the paragraphs separate properly.

  8. boiler95 commented on Gary Varvel about 2 years ago

    I’m trying to establish a consistent, logical, scientific definition of when a human being begins to exist. Such a definition would not be subject to exceptions purely to benefit a particular belief. It should be applicable in all situations. I’ve have provided such a definition: full human DNA (identity), metabolism (living status) and growth (developmental path). I’m asking for your definition that meets the same standards. My “getting stuck” on a few points is me pointing out the inconsistencies and exceptions you appear to have in your definition.

    With that in mind, I want to propose the following situation and question. Is the baby a human being immediately after birth? Keep in mind that immediately after birth the baby physiology is identical to what it was an hour or even more before birth. It is still connected to the mother and in many cases has yet to taken a breath, water birth for example.

    If you call such a baby a human being, then you are providing a definition where the key component is external to the individual. This is not logical. A human being is ‘what’ the individual is, not ‘where’ it is. The status of being human is not subject to where the individual is in space-time.

    If you say the baby immediately after birth is not a human being, then you are introducing a situation where a human being produces something that is not human. This is in direct conflict with basic biology. Kind produces kind. A human produces a human, not some other species that becomes a human after a period of time outside the womb.

    I also have another question on this topic. You stated late term abortions are “rare and performed to save the life of the mother”. As I understand late term abortion, the procedure is to deliver all but the head of the fetus, terminate the life of the fetus, then deliver the rest. So, what life threatening condition could the mother have that would allow the delivery of a dead fetus, but not a live one? Follow up, what happens in the situation where a mistake happens during the procedure and the entire fetus is delivered prior to the termination step?

    I’m not concerned with the legal arguments right now. I’m just attempting to establish a consistent definition of humanity. Decisions regarding when, where and how a human’s life can be legally ended are subject to morality, beliefs and, honestly, the whim of those in power. In other words, not scientific and, in the case of government, rarely logical.

  9. boiler95 commented on Gary Varvel about 2 years ago

    Actually, I have responded to your chicken and egg argument. The chicken fetus has the full chicken DNA, undergoes metabolic processes, and grows. Ergo, the chicken fetus is a living chicken at an early stage of development, but a chicken none the less. The chicken/egg difference is a developmental difference, not a species difference. FYI, I’d also send back a day old chick if they tried to serve it as chicken, still doesn’t make it any less of a chicken.
    .
    I’m not basing the definition solely on complete human DNA. If I were, then blood transfusions would be individual human beings. I’m defining a living human based on DNA, metabolism, and development together.
    .
    You appear to be stuck on defining a human being based on location. If that’s the case, then is a living fetus outside the womb a human being? What about an astronaut in the vacuum of space without a suit? Both those cases will result in the death of the individual without overt human intervention. This definition also lacks a description of the biologic process by which something not human becomes human. The woman undergoes a process to expel the fetus, but the fetus does not undergo any physical changes. It just changes from breathing amniotic fluid to breathing air because that is what surrounds it. Finally, how will you handle the day when science and technology progress to the point a full term baby can be grown outside a womb?
    .
    So, if location is not a reliable determination, how about developmental stage? This seems more reasonable and lasting. If you choose this path, then I challenge you to provide a developmental definition of a living human being that doesn’t either result in defining a premie as “not human” or some fetuses still in the womb as “human”.

  10. boiler95 commented on Gary Varvel about 2 years ago

    FYI, I’m looking for someone to show me where my logic is incomplete.