<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_25_2256226</id>
	<title>A High-Res 3D Video of the Embryonic Heartbeat</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256468400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Researchers at the University of Houston, TX, adapted an imaging technique called optical coherence tomography to <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/24280/">capture 3D video of the mammalian heart as it forms</a>. They used the method to image a mouse embryo just 8.5 days past conception and about a day after it starts to form. In the remarkable video a normal heartbeat is visible. Normally optical coherence tomography is used for clinical imaging of the retina. Having such a high-resolution, non-invasive way to image the developing heart could perhaps help doctors treat congenital heart disorders in human babies."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Researchers at the University of Houston , TX , adapted an imaging technique called optical coherence tomography to capture 3D video of the mammalian heart as it forms .
They used the method to image a mouse embryo just 8.5 days past conception and about a day after it starts to form .
In the remarkable video a normal heartbeat is visible .
Normally optical coherence tomography is used for clinical imaging of the retina .
Having such a high-resolution , non-invasive way to image the developing heart could perhaps help doctors treat congenital heart disorders in human babies .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Researchers at the University of Houston, TX, adapted an imaging technique called optical coherence tomography to capture 3D video of the mammalian heart as it forms.
They used the method to image a mouse embryo just 8.5 days past conception and about a day after it starts to form.
In the remarkable video a normal heartbeat is visible.
Normally optical coherence tomography is used for clinical imaging of the retina.
Having such a high-resolution, non-invasive way to image the developing heart could perhaps help doctors treat congenital heart disorders in human babies.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29873303</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so...</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1256576160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>What purpose does abortion serve?</i>
</p><p>Averting pregnancy when "condoms and pills, plan B/morning after pill, and many other old fashion ways to not get pregnant" either weren't or couldn't be used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What purpose does abortion serve ?
Averting pregnancy when " condoms and pills , plan B/morning after pill , and many other old fashion ways to not get pregnant " either were n't or could n't be used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> What purpose does abortion serve?
Averting pregnancy when "condoms and pills, plan B/morning after pill, and many other old fashion ways to not get pregnant" either weren't or couldn't be used.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867769</id>
	<title>Re:Cool tech.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256473560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>a new round of weepy <b>pro-life</b> ads</p></div></blockquote><p>

FTFY</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a new round of weepy pro-life ads FTFY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a new round of weepy pro-life ads

FTFY
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29874675</id>
	<title>Re:We're onto a new path now...</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1256582760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I have no interest in seeing my way of life continue any further than my life does.   So frankly, you can have your cultural hegemony.  It may well be that living with delusion is more adaptive than logic, the religious impulse wouldn't have evolved if it wasn't adaptive.</p><p>But that doesn't mean that you are right, and it doesn't mean that you are good.  Going to war, slaughtering the men and raping the women has long been a highly advantageous evolutionary strategy.  Millions of people today are descended from Genghis Khan. If the best argument you have for your conservatism works just as well for raping and pillaging by warlords, I dunno, maybe you should consider whether your evolutionary success should really be that important to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I have no interest in seeing my way of life continue any further than my life does .
So frankly , you can have your cultural hegemony .
It may well be that living with delusion is more adaptive than logic , the religious impulse would n't have evolved if it was n't adaptive.But that does n't mean that you are right , and it does n't mean that you are good .
Going to war , slaughtering the men and raping the women has long been a highly advantageous evolutionary strategy .
Millions of people today are descended from Genghis Khan .
If the best argument you have for your conservatism works just as well for raping and pillaging by warlords , I dunno , maybe you should consider whether your evolutionary success should really be that important to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I have no interest in seeing my way of life continue any further than my life does.
So frankly, you can have your cultural hegemony.
It may well be that living with delusion is more adaptive than logic, the religious impulse wouldn't have evolved if it wasn't adaptive.But that doesn't mean that you are right, and it doesn't mean that you are good.
Going to war, slaughtering the men and raping the women has long been a highly advantageous evolutionary strategy.
Millions of people today are descended from Genghis Khan.
If the best argument you have for your conservatism works just as well for raping and pillaging by warlords, I dunno, maybe you should consider whether your evolutionary success should really be that important to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867867</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so...</title>
	<author>schnikies79</author>
	<datestamp>1256474700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because with all those options to not get pregnant, accidents still happen.  I'm not going to even touch the issue of health reasons, rape, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because with all those options to not get pregnant , accidents still happen .
I 'm not going to even touch the issue of health reasons , rape , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because with all those options to not get pregnant, accidents still happen.
I'm not going to even touch the issue of health reasons, rape, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29871995</id>
	<title>Re:Cool tech.</title>
	<author>bhartman34</author>
	<datestamp>1256569920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I never understood the "pro-life" (actually more like anti-health) movement. A fetus is nothing special. Because a human is nothing special. It is very arrogant to think that we're oh-so-special. We're not. Life in itself is nothing special. It's just a state of the machine of the class "lifeform". You can make a new fetus in what? Weeks? And this time a healthy one. One that is more likely to create healthy offspring. Or even offspring at all.</p><p>The numbers of people who have a very hard time making children grows like crazy. With the current trend, in 3 generations, there will be no human left in the western world, who can reproduce without advanced medical help. A few generations later we're done. At least if we continue to go that way.</p></div><p>
There are at least two problems with this line of thinking:<br>
<br>
1)  It reduces human beings to the level of disposable widgets.  While it's true that there's nothing special about the human species on a biological level, actually <i>behaving</i> that way leads to some very dark places.<br>
2)  I can't speak for everyone, but I consider <i>my</i> life pretty damn special, and I would take particular, violent exception to anyone who intended to treat it as trivially expendable.<br>
<br>
If you want to talk about it on an evolutionary level, the way you get biological diversity is to <i>not</i> kill off your offspring.  Sure, badly deformed offspring probably wouldn't live to reproduce anyway, but the current abortion climate goes well beyond that, into eliminating <i>healthy</i> offspring.  (Last time I checked, being poor or underprivileged was not a congenital birth defect.  And I should know, since I <i>have</i> such a birth defect.)<br>
<br>
If the issue is really babies being born to drug-addicted mothers, or being born into abusive homes, how about treating drug addiction and improving child welfare services?  Wouldn't that work out just a tad better than allowing the hellish conditions to persist and just endeavoring to make sure that children were never born into them?  After all, you can't force an unfit mother to have an abortion any more than you can force someone to be a good parent.<br>
<br>
As to the article itself:  I think the technology will be used for both treatment <i>and</i> abortions.  Some couples will go in one direction, some will go in the other.  It's the same with most pre-natal screening.  The technology, broadly speaking, allows the couple to make an informed decision about what they want to do.  Their actual decision could go either way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never understood the " pro-life " ( actually more like anti-health ) movement .
A fetus is nothing special .
Because a human is nothing special .
It is very arrogant to think that we 're oh-so-special .
We 're not .
Life in itself is nothing special .
It 's just a state of the machine of the class " lifeform " .
You can make a new fetus in what ?
Weeks ? And this time a healthy one .
One that is more likely to create healthy offspring .
Or even offspring at all.The numbers of people who have a very hard time making children grows like crazy .
With the current trend , in 3 generations , there will be no human left in the western world , who can reproduce without advanced medical help .
A few generations later we 're done .
At least if we continue to go that way .
There are at least two problems with this line of thinking : 1 ) It reduces human beings to the level of disposable widgets .
While it 's true that there 's nothing special about the human species on a biological level , actually behaving that way leads to some very dark places .
2 ) I ca n't speak for everyone , but I consider my life pretty damn special , and I would take particular , violent exception to anyone who intended to treat it as trivially expendable .
If you want to talk about it on an evolutionary level , the way you get biological diversity is to not kill off your offspring .
Sure , badly deformed offspring probably would n't live to reproduce anyway , but the current abortion climate goes well beyond that , into eliminating healthy offspring .
( Last time I checked , being poor or underprivileged was not a congenital birth defect .
And I should know , since I have such a birth defect .
) If the issue is really babies being born to drug-addicted mothers , or being born into abusive homes , how about treating drug addiction and improving child welfare services ?
Would n't that work out just a tad better than allowing the hellish conditions to persist and just endeavoring to make sure that children were never born into them ?
After all , you ca n't force an unfit mother to have an abortion any more than you can force someone to be a good parent .
As to the article itself : I think the technology will be used for both treatment and abortions .
Some couples will go in one direction , some will go in the other .
It 's the same with most pre-natal screening .
The technology , broadly speaking , allows the couple to make an informed decision about what they want to do .
Their actual decision could go either way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never understood the "pro-life" (actually more like anti-health) movement.
A fetus is nothing special.
Because a human is nothing special.
It is very arrogant to think that we're oh-so-special.
We're not.
Life in itself is nothing special.
It's just a state of the machine of the class "lifeform".
You can make a new fetus in what?
Weeks? And this time a healthy one.
One that is more likely to create healthy offspring.
Or even offspring at all.The numbers of people who have a very hard time making children grows like crazy.
With the current trend, in 3 generations, there will be no human left in the western world, who can reproduce without advanced medical help.
A few generations later we're done.
At least if we continue to go that way.
There are at least two problems with this line of thinking:

1)  It reduces human beings to the level of disposable widgets.
While it's true that there's nothing special about the human species on a biological level, actually behaving that way leads to some very dark places.
2)  I can't speak for everyone, but I consider my life pretty damn special, and I would take particular, violent exception to anyone who intended to treat it as trivially expendable.
If you want to talk about it on an evolutionary level, the way you get biological diversity is to not kill off your offspring.
Sure, badly deformed offspring probably wouldn't live to reproduce anyway, but the current abortion climate goes well beyond that, into eliminating healthy offspring.
(Last time I checked, being poor or underprivileged was not a congenital birth defect.
And I should know, since I have such a birth defect.
)

If the issue is really babies being born to drug-addicted mothers, or being born into abusive homes, how about treating drug addiction and improving child welfare services?
Wouldn't that work out just a tad better than allowing the hellish conditions to persist and just endeavoring to make sure that children were never born into them?
After all, you can't force an unfit mother to have an abortion any more than you can force someone to be a good parent.
As to the article itself:  I think the technology will be used for both treatment and abortions.
Some couples will go in one direction, some will go in the other.
It's the same with most pre-natal screening.
The technology, broadly speaking, allows the couple to make an informed decision about what they want to do.
Their actual decision could go either way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29871321</id>
	<title>Re:Cool tech.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256565900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And of course nobody would think of modding you down simply because they disagree with what you think... not here on Slashdot.  They're way too open minded and tolerant of all views to let a difference of opinion distract them from modding down the truely malicious posts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And of course nobody would think of modding you down simply because they disagree with what you think... not here on Slashdot .
They 're way too open minded and tolerant of all views to let a difference of opinion distract them from modding down the truely malicious posts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And of course nobody would think of modding you down simply because they disagree with what you think... not here on Slashdot.
They're way too open minded and tolerant of all views to let a difference of opinion distract them from modding down the truely malicious posts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868257</id>
	<title>Re:Cool tech.</title>
	<author>ChromeAeonium</author>
	<datestamp>1256479980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that is why atheists are the least liked group on the religious spectrum.  People don't think of the wonder and beauty and magnificence that people like Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins see in life, or the value that must be placed on all human life because it only comes once, despite the fact that we're all just blobs of carbon based machines and no special soul has ever been discovered.  No, they instead think of nihilistic twats like the parent.  Sad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that is why atheists are the least liked group on the religious spectrum .
People do n't think of the wonder and beauty and magnificence that people like Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins see in life , or the value that must be placed on all human life because it only comes once , despite the fact that we 're all just blobs of carbon based machines and no special soul has ever been discovered .
No , they instead think of nihilistic twats like the parent .
Sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that is why atheists are the least liked group on the religious spectrum.
People don't think of the wonder and beauty and magnificence that people like Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins see in life, or the value that must be placed on all human life because it only comes once, despite the fact that we're all just blobs of carbon based machines and no special soul has ever been discovered.
No, they instead think of nihilistic twats like the parent.
Sad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868453</id>
	<title>Re:We're onto a new path now...</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1256482800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>religious societies are the ones producing the most children</p></div></blockquote><p>But their children grow up to hate their parents and become either secular libertines or suicide bombers.</p><p>I'm telling you, we should all just get along to go along and start going to megachurches, since their ownership of the world is inevitable.</p><p>However, it's interesting that in such a devoutly "Christian" country like the USA, a majority of the population favors legal abortions (though regulated).  Less than 35 percent believe that abortion should be illegal.  I guess there's a practical side to even a very pious folk.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>religious societies are the ones producing the most childrenBut their children grow up to hate their parents and become either secular libertines or suicide bombers.I 'm telling you , we should all just get along to go along and start going to megachurches , since their ownership of the world is inevitable.However , it 's interesting that in such a devoutly " Christian " country like the USA , a majority of the population favors legal abortions ( though regulated ) .
Less than 35 percent believe that abortion should be illegal .
I guess there 's a practical side to even a very pious folk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>religious societies are the ones producing the most childrenBut their children grow up to hate their parents and become either secular libertines or suicide bombers.I'm telling you, we should all just get along to go along and start going to megachurches, since their ownership of the world is inevitable.However, it's interesting that in such a devoutly "Christian" country like the USA, a majority of the population favors legal abortions (though regulated).
Less than 35 percent believe that abortion should be illegal.
I guess there's a practical side to even a very pious folk.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868433</id>
	<title>2D</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256482560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless this video comes with some 3D glasses and I missed out on them, this is 2D. The image has height and width, but I can't rotate it around to see the heartbeat from the side or the back or the top or the bottom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless this video comes with some 3D glasses and I missed out on them , this is 2D .
The image has height and width , but I ca n't rotate it around to see the heartbeat from the side or the back or the top or the bottom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless this video comes with some 3D glasses and I missed out on them, this is 2D.
The image has height and width, but I can't rotate it around to see the heartbeat from the side or the back or the top or the bottom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868739</id>
	<title>Re:We're onto a new path now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256486280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a vacuum, I agree entirely, but if this were the case, wouldn't it already have happened? I mean, how many hundreds of years is it going to take for fundamental religion to take over the planet?</p><p>It seems that, even though a lot of religious societies are having a lot of religious babies, many of those babies must be growing up into people who are somewhat more secular.</p><p>(I'm not sure if you were trying to be neutral, but I am.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a vacuum , I agree entirely , but if this were the case , would n't it already have happened ?
I mean , how many hundreds of years is it going to take for fundamental religion to take over the planet ? It seems that , even though a lot of religious societies are having a lot of religious babies , many of those babies must be growing up into people who are somewhat more secular .
( I 'm not sure if you were trying to be neutral , but I am .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a vacuum, I agree entirely, but if this were the case, wouldn't it already have happened?
I mean, how many hundreds of years is it going to take for fundamental religion to take over the planet?It seems that, even though a lot of religious societies are having a lot of religious babies, many of those babies must be growing up into people who are somewhat more secular.
(I'm not sure if you were trying to be neutral, but I am.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29870697</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so...</title>
	<author>biryokumaru</author>
	<datestamp>1256558460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've always thought it was a great way to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Impact\_of\_Legalized\_Abortion\_on\_Crime" title="wikipedia.org">cut down on crime</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always thought it was a great way to cut down on crime [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always thought it was a great way to cut down on crime [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29870637</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so...</title>
	<author>gerf</author>
	<datestamp>1256557740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is only one thing that distinguishes humans from any other life form.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>  Yeah, humans have souls from the moment of conception, whereas animals do not.</p></div></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is only one thing that distinguishes humans from any other life form .
Yeah , humans have souls from the moment of conception , whereas animals do not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is only one thing that distinguishes humans from any other life form.
Yeah, humans have souls from the moment of conception, whereas animals do not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29870873</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256561460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many people get pregnant while taking birth control pills. There are a multitude of factors that reduce the effectiveness of birth control, and your failure to recognize this is a disservice to all those who end up with unwanted pregnancy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many people get pregnant while taking birth control pills .
There are a multitude of factors that reduce the effectiveness of birth control , and your failure to recognize this is a disservice to all those who end up with unwanted pregnancy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many people get pregnant while taking birth control pills.
There are a multitude of factors that reduce the effectiveness of birth control, and your failure to recognize this is a disservice to all those who end up with unwanted pregnancy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29871359</id>
	<title>Great news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256566260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who has lost a child to one of the worst heart defects out there (Hypoplastic left heart) I consider this to be wonderful. I am hoping that HLHS will be truly curable in 10 or 15 years. Now it is sort of curable for many, but not all. Forgive me for being negative after losing a child.</p><p>As a pro-lifer, please stop the flame war. You are making us look stupid. While I do not believe in abortion, there are cases it is understable, such as in the most hopeless cases of HLHS. My son died so quickly that it does not seem any surgery could have fixed it. Nobody is truly pro-abortion. We only differ on when abortion is acceptable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who has lost a child to one of the worst heart defects out there ( Hypoplastic left heart ) I consider this to be wonderful .
I am hoping that HLHS will be truly curable in 10 or 15 years .
Now it is sort of curable for many , but not all .
Forgive me for being negative after losing a child.As a pro-lifer , please stop the flame war .
You are making us look stupid .
While I do not believe in abortion , there are cases it is understable , such as in the most hopeless cases of HLHS .
My son died so quickly that it does not seem any surgery could have fixed it .
Nobody is truly pro-abortion .
We only differ on when abortion is acceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who has lost a child to one of the worst heart defects out there (Hypoplastic left heart) I consider this to be wonderful.
I am hoping that HLHS will be truly curable in 10 or 15 years.
Now it is sort of curable for many, but not all.
Forgive me for being negative after losing a child.As a pro-lifer, please stop the flame war.
You are making us look stupid.
While I do not believe in abortion, there are cases it is understable, such as in the most hopeless cases of HLHS.
My son died so quickly that it does not seem any surgery could have fixed it.
Nobody is truly pro-abortion.
We only differ on when abortion is acceptable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868199</id>
	<title>Re:Cool tech.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1256479020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never understood the "pro-life" (actually more like anti-health) movement. A fetus is nothing special. Because a human is nothing special. It is very arrogant to think that we're oh-so-special. We're not. Life in itself is nothing special. It's just a state of the machine of the class "lifeform". You can make a new fetus in what? Weeks? And this time a healthy one. One that is more likely to create healthy offspring. Or even offspring at all.</p><p>The numbers of people who have a very hard time making children grows like crazy. With the current trend, in 3 generations, there will be no human left in the western world, who can reproduce without advanced medical help. A few generations later we're done. At least if we continue to go that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never understood the " pro-life " ( actually more like anti-health ) movement .
A fetus is nothing special .
Because a human is nothing special .
It is very arrogant to think that we 're oh-so-special .
We 're not .
Life in itself is nothing special .
It 's just a state of the machine of the class " lifeform " .
You can make a new fetus in what ?
Weeks ? And this time a healthy one .
One that is more likely to create healthy offspring .
Or even offspring at all.The numbers of people who have a very hard time making children grows like crazy .
With the current trend , in 3 generations , there will be no human left in the western world , who can reproduce without advanced medical help .
A few generations later we 're done .
At least if we continue to go that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never understood the "pro-life" (actually more like anti-health) movement.
A fetus is nothing special.
Because a human is nothing special.
It is very arrogant to think that we're oh-so-special.
We're not.
Life in itself is nothing special.
It's just a state of the machine of the class "lifeform".
You can make a new fetus in what?
Weeks? And this time a healthy one.
One that is more likely to create healthy offspring.
Or even offspring at all.The numbers of people who have a very hard time making children grows like crazy.
With the current trend, in 3 generations, there will be no human left in the western world, who can reproduce without advanced medical help.
A few generations later we're done.
At least if we continue to go that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867669</id>
	<title>Here goes...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256472300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hijacked by anti-abortion kooks in 3... 2... 1...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hijacked by anti-abortion kooks in 3... 2... 1.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hijacked by anti-abortion kooks in 3... 2... 1...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869355</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256496420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact, the ectodermal cells that are the undifferentiated neurons destined to become the nervous system are in place and begin their morphological formation before implantation into the uterine wall.</p></div><p>The ectodermal cells don't arise until gastrulation at around 15 days post fertilization in the human. They are also not 'undifferentiated neurons'. Ectodermal cells have the potential to form neurons, but also to form many other cell types.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , the ectodermal cells that are the undifferentiated neurons destined to become the nervous system are in place and begin their morphological formation before implantation into the uterine wall.The ectodermal cells do n't arise until gastrulation at around 15 days post fertilization in the human .
They are also not 'undifferentiated neurons' .
Ectodermal cells have the potential to form neurons , but also to form many other cell types .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, the ectodermal cells that are the undifferentiated neurons destined to become the nervous system are in place and begin their morphological formation before implantation into the uterine wall.The ectodermal cells don't arise until gastrulation at around 15 days post fertilization in the human.
They are also not 'undifferentiated neurons'.
Ectodermal cells have the potential to form neurons, but also to form many other cell types.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868629</id>
	<title>More please?</title>
	<author>fragMasterFlash</author>
	<datestamp>1256484660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are many medical imaging applications which could improve diagnosis without subjecting patients to ionizing radiation, yet very little if any R&amp;D dollars are invested to productize them given that all the major medical imaging vendors are heavily invested in 'big iron' solutions such as CT and digital XRay. As long the current ecosystem is in place these companies will push their multimillion dollar imaging systems while throwing in Ultrasound and laproscopy systems merely to sweeten the deal. This is one area where eastern countries are way ahead of the west in that care providers seek imaging solutions based on utility, not on the reimbursement rates per procedure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many medical imaging applications which could improve diagnosis without subjecting patients to ionizing radiation , yet very little if any R&amp;D dollars are invested to productize them given that all the major medical imaging vendors are heavily invested in 'big iron ' solutions such as CT and digital XRay .
As long the current ecosystem is in place these companies will push their multimillion dollar imaging systems while throwing in Ultrasound and laproscopy systems merely to sweeten the deal .
This is one area where eastern countries are way ahead of the west in that care providers seek imaging solutions based on utility , not on the reimbursement rates per procedure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many medical imaging applications which could improve diagnosis without subjecting patients to ionizing radiation, yet very little if any R&amp;D dollars are invested to productize them given that all the major medical imaging vendors are heavily invested in 'big iron' solutions such as CT and digital XRay.
As long the current ecosystem is in place these companies will push their multimillion dollar imaging systems while throwing in Ultrasound and laproscopy systems merely to sweeten the deal.
This is one area where eastern countries are way ahead of the west in that care providers seek imaging solutions based on utility, not on the reimbursement rates per procedure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868769</id>
	<title>Re:We're onto a new path now...</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1256486760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If we can then privatize schools and do the other things so that your input to our culture can be blocked</p></div></blockquote><p>This will be much harder to do, than to simply have children... Your opponents have recognized this attack vector long ago &mdash; and spared no effort to entrench themselves at the "public" education front. (Their strong positions in popular culture is, likely, natural &mdash; having fewer children leads one more time to pursue other interests.)</p><blockquote><div><p>But, at the end of the day, your way of life is doomed, simply because, for better or for worse, our religious culture has been evolved by hundreds of generations of human cultural evolution, and your culture will fall by the wayside as much as your genes will perish forever in the dust.</p></div></blockquote><p>As long as they can convert <em>your</em> children to their mentality &mdash; and they aren't going to stop trying &mdash; they don't need to outbreed you. <em>Worse</em> &mdash; by seeding <em>your</em> children's minds with <em>their</em> ideas, they make their ideology (if not their genes) come out ahead. You get to go through pain and expense of birth and child-rearing, and then struggle to win your kid's mind from the State's "educators".

</p><p>This is not meant to discourage you &mdash; while this recent immigrant finds both of the main sides of America's culture-wars unpleasant, I'd rather the conservatives win &mdash; but to point out, that taking back the schools and the popular culture should be <em>the primary</em> target, rather than a mere afterthought.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we can then privatize schools and do the other things so that your input to our culture can be blockedThis will be much harder to do , than to simply have children... Your opponents have recognized this attack vector long ago    and spared no effort to entrench themselves at the " public " education front .
( Their strong positions in popular culture is , likely , natural    having fewer children leads one more time to pursue other interests .
) But , at the end of the day , your way of life is doomed , simply because , for better or for worse , our religious culture has been evolved by hundreds of generations of human cultural evolution , and your culture will fall by the wayside as much as your genes will perish forever in the dust.As long as they can convert your children to their mentality    and they are n't going to stop trying    they do n't need to outbreed you .
Worse    by seeding your children 's minds with their ideas , they make their ideology ( if not their genes ) come out ahead .
You get to go through pain and expense of birth and child-rearing , and then struggle to win your kid 's mind from the State 's " educators " .
This is not meant to discourage you    while this recent immigrant finds both of the main sides of America 's culture-wars unpleasant , I 'd rather the conservatives win    but to point out , that taking back the schools and the popular culture should be the primary target , rather than a mere afterthought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we can then privatize schools and do the other things so that your input to our culture can be blockedThis will be much harder to do, than to simply have children... Your opponents have recognized this attack vector long ago — and spared no effort to entrench themselves at the "public" education front.
(Their strong positions in popular culture is, likely, natural — having fewer children leads one more time to pursue other interests.
)But, at the end of the day, your way of life is doomed, simply because, for better or for worse, our religious culture has been evolved by hundreds of generations of human cultural evolution, and your culture will fall by the wayside as much as your genes will perish forever in the dust.As long as they can convert your children to their mentality — and they aren't going to stop trying — they don't need to outbreed you.
Worse — by seeding your children's minds with their ideas, they make their ideology (if not their genes) come out ahead.
You get to go through pain and expense of birth and child-rearing, and then struggle to win your kid's mind from the State's "educators".
This is not meant to discourage you — while this recent immigrant finds both of the main sides of America's culture-wars unpleasant, I'd rather the conservatives win — but to point out, that taking back the schools and the popular culture should be the primary target, rather than a mere afterthought.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867817</id>
	<title>We're onto a new path now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256474040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And yes, for the anti-abortion readers</i></p><p>Oh, the great irony of politics is that Darwin is firmly on the right wing side.  In the end, the earth belongs to those who have the most babies, and, all those things you advocate, undermine your own culture as much as they undermine your genes.  A quick spin of the globe shows that religious societies are the ones producing the most children - and secular societies the least.  You can condemn Islam's male domination, or the quaint traditions of American Christianity, but, the fact is, they are the ones having the babies while secular people are not.</p><p>So sure, please, believe it: marriage and having a person stay at home is quaint.... if you get your girlfriend pregnant, its better to get rid of the child than to ruin your lives, believe all of it.  If we can then privatize schools and do the other things so that your input to our culture can be blocked, we can exterminate liberalism all the more quickly, simply by out-breeding it.  But, at the end of the day, your way of life is doomed, simply because, for better or for worse, our religious culture has been evolved by hundreds of generations of human cultural evolution, and your culture will fall by the wayside as much as your genes will perish forever in the dust.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yes , for the anti-abortion readersOh , the great irony of politics is that Darwin is firmly on the right wing side .
In the end , the earth belongs to those who have the most babies , and , all those things you advocate , undermine your own culture as much as they undermine your genes .
A quick spin of the globe shows that religious societies are the ones producing the most children - and secular societies the least .
You can condemn Islam 's male domination , or the quaint traditions of American Christianity , but , the fact is , they are the ones having the babies while secular people are not.So sure , please , believe it : marriage and having a person stay at home is quaint.... if you get your girlfriend pregnant , its better to get rid of the child than to ruin your lives , believe all of it .
If we can then privatize schools and do the other things so that your input to our culture can be blocked , we can exterminate liberalism all the more quickly , simply by out-breeding it .
But , at the end of the day , your way of life is doomed , simply because , for better or for worse , our religious culture has been evolved by hundreds of generations of human cultural evolution , and your culture will fall by the wayside as much as your genes will perish forever in the dust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yes, for the anti-abortion readersOh, the great irony of politics is that Darwin is firmly on the right wing side.
In the end, the earth belongs to those who have the most babies, and, all those things you advocate, undermine your own culture as much as they undermine your genes.
A quick spin of the globe shows that religious societies are the ones producing the most children - and secular societies the least.
You can condemn Islam's male domination, or the quaint traditions of American Christianity, but, the fact is, they are the ones having the babies while secular people are not.So sure, please, believe it: marriage and having a person stay at home is quaint.... if you get your girlfriend pregnant, its better to get rid of the child than to ruin your lives, believe all of it.
If we can then privatize schools and do the other things so that your input to our culture can be blocked, we can exterminate liberalism all the more quickly, simply by out-breeding it.
But, at the end of the day, your way of life is doomed, simply because, for better or for worse, our religious culture has been evolved by hundreds of generations of human cultural evolution, and your culture will fall by the wayside as much as your genes will perish forever in the dust.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868221</id>
	<title>Re:We're onto a new path now...</title>
	<author>Mr2001</author>
	<datestamp>1256479440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But, at the end of the day, your way of life is doomed, simply because, for better or for worse, our religious culture has been evolved by hundreds of generations of human cultural evolution</p></div><p>What, you think other cultures just fell from the sky one day?</p><p>You're focusing on genetic evolution but ignoring memetic evolution. The beliefs you're promoting were the default for centuries; the ones you're denigrating <i>evolved from your beliefs</i>, because people saw how much squalor and human suffering comes from crapping out kids willy-nilly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But , at the end of the day , your way of life is doomed , simply because , for better or for worse , our religious culture has been evolved by hundreds of generations of human cultural evolutionWhat , you think other cultures just fell from the sky one day ? You 're focusing on genetic evolution but ignoring memetic evolution .
The beliefs you 're promoting were the default for centuries ; the ones you 're denigrating evolved from your beliefs , because people saw how much squalor and human suffering comes from crapping out kids willy-nilly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, at the end of the day, your way of life is doomed, simply because, for better or for worse, our religious culture has been evolved by hundreds of generations of human cultural evolutionWhat, you think other cultures just fell from the sky one day?You're focusing on genetic evolution but ignoring memetic evolution.
The beliefs you're promoting were the default for centuries; the ones you're denigrating evolved from your beliefs, because people saw how much squalor and human suffering comes from crapping out kids willy-nilly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29870635</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so...</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1256557680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nervous systems, heartbeats, lungs -- these things do not make one human.</p></div><p>Absolutely right.  However, they do mean that the creature is <i>alive</i>, so the "it's not alive" people lose all ground there.  It doesn't matter whether it's a bug, a dog, a fish, or a person, if something has a heartbeat and you cause it to stop, you killed it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How can you consider a fetus to be fully human when it lacks the one basic characteristic of humanity?</p></div><p>So you follow the view that the doctor has a magic wand that turns a fetus into a human baby?  Dogs reproduce as dogs, trees reproduce as trees, humans reproduce as humans.  To claim that a baby isn't human just because it hurts your argument that "it's not really a baby" to avoid acknowledging what's really being done is laughable.</p><p>I have no problem with killing, don't get me wrong (though I do find killing someone who can't fight back to be cowardly and despicable - regardless of if they're a baby, old, handicapped, sick, etc).  Just admit that you are killing and I'll at least respect you for it (I'm using the general "you" here, not attacking you personally).  It's quite common for people (such as racists) to claim that those they kill "aren't really human" to try to pretend that they have some justification throughout history.  Just look up the justifications made for genocide throughout history.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nervous systems , heartbeats , lungs -- these things do not make one human.Absolutely right .
However , they do mean that the creature is alive , so the " it 's not alive " people lose all ground there .
It does n't matter whether it 's a bug , a dog , a fish , or a person , if something has a heartbeat and you cause it to stop , you killed it.How can you consider a fetus to be fully human when it lacks the one basic characteristic of humanity ? So you follow the view that the doctor has a magic wand that turns a fetus into a human baby ?
Dogs reproduce as dogs , trees reproduce as trees , humans reproduce as humans .
To claim that a baby is n't human just because it hurts your argument that " it 's not really a baby " to avoid acknowledging what 's really being done is laughable.I have no problem with killing , do n't get me wrong ( though I do find killing someone who ca n't fight back to be cowardly and despicable - regardless of if they 're a baby , old , handicapped , sick , etc ) .
Just admit that you are killing and I 'll at least respect you for it ( I 'm using the general " you " here , not attacking you personally ) .
It 's quite common for people ( such as racists ) to claim that those they kill " are n't really human " to try to pretend that they have some justification throughout history .
Just look up the justifications made for genocide throughout history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nervous systems, heartbeats, lungs -- these things do not make one human.Absolutely right.
However, they do mean that the creature is alive, so the "it's not alive" people lose all ground there.
It doesn't matter whether it's a bug, a dog, a fish, or a person, if something has a heartbeat and you cause it to stop, you killed it.How can you consider a fetus to be fully human when it lacks the one basic characteristic of humanity?So you follow the view that the doctor has a magic wand that turns a fetus into a human baby?
Dogs reproduce as dogs, trees reproduce as trees, humans reproduce as humans.
To claim that a baby isn't human just because it hurts your argument that "it's not really a baby" to avoid acknowledging what's really being done is laughable.I have no problem with killing, don't get me wrong (though I do find killing someone who can't fight back to be cowardly and despicable - regardless of if they're a baby, old, handicapped, sick, etc).
Just admit that you are killing and I'll at least respect you for it (I'm using the general "you" here, not attacking you personally).
It's quite common for people (such as racists) to claim that those they kill "aren't really human" to try to pretend that they have some justification throughout history.
Just look up the justifications made for genocide throughout history.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256473740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am a PhD student of Neurobiology and I consider abortion murder.  Who cares about a heart beat when the embryo's circulation is directly linked to that of the mother?  On the contrary, the nervous system is formed in humans within three days, before any woman would even notice being pregnant.  In fact, the ectodermal cells that are the undifferentiated neurons destined to become the nervous system are in place and begin their morphological formation before implantation into the uterine wall.  All of this talk of trimesters and trigger points like the first heart beat in development are not reflected by biological development, rather they are simple terms we use for convenience.<br> <br>I don't even understand why people feel there is a need for abortion.  There are condoms and pills, plan B/morning after pill, and many other old fashion ways to not get pregnant.  What purpose does abortion serve?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a PhD student of Neurobiology and I consider abortion murder .
Who cares about a heart beat when the embryo 's circulation is directly linked to that of the mother ?
On the contrary , the nervous system is formed in humans within three days , before any woman would even notice being pregnant .
In fact , the ectodermal cells that are the undifferentiated neurons destined to become the nervous system are in place and begin their morphological formation before implantation into the uterine wall .
All of this talk of trimesters and trigger points like the first heart beat in development are not reflected by biological development , rather they are simple terms we use for convenience .
I do n't even understand why people feel there is a need for abortion .
There are condoms and pills , plan B/morning after pill , and many other old fashion ways to not get pregnant .
What purpose does abortion serve ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a PhD student of Neurobiology and I consider abortion murder.
Who cares about a heart beat when the embryo's circulation is directly linked to that of the mother?
On the contrary, the nervous system is formed in humans within three days, before any woman would even notice being pregnant.
In fact, the ectodermal cells that are the undifferentiated neurons destined to become the nervous system are in place and begin their morphological formation before implantation into the uterine wall.
All of this talk of trimesters and trigger points like the first heart beat in development are not reflected by biological development, rather they are simple terms we use for convenience.
I don't even understand why people feel there is a need for abortion.
There are condoms and pills, plan B/morning after pill, and many other old fashion ways to not get pregnant.
What purpose does abortion serve?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869547</id>
	<title>Brush up on your embryology</title>
	<author>Kaseijin</author>
	<datestamp>1256498640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who cares about a heart beat when the embryo's circulation is directly linked to that of the mother? On the contrary, the nervous system is formed in humans within three days, before any woman would even notice being pregnant. In fact, the ectodermal cells that are the undifferentiated neurons destined to become the nervous system are in place and begin their morphological formation before implantation into the uterine wall.</p></div><p>Fetal and maternal circulation are independent and separated by the chorion. The ectoderm also gives rise to the epidermis, and nobody thinks that's special. Neurulation begins around day 19 with the formation of the neural plate. It takes months for this to develop into a distinctively human nervous system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares about a heart beat when the embryo 's circulation is directly linked to that of the mother ?
On the contrary , the nervous system is formed in humans within three days , before any woman would even notice being pregnant .
In fact , the ectodermal cells that are the undifferentiated neurons destined to become the nervous system are in place and begin their morphological formation before implantation into the uterine wall.Fetal and maternal circulation are independent and separated by the chorion .
The ectoderm also gives rise to the epidermis , and nobody thinks that 's special .
Neurulation begins around day 19 with the formation of the neural plate .
It takes months for this to develop into a distinctively human nervous system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares about a heart beat when the embryo's circulation is directly linked to that of the mother?
On the contrary, the nervous system is formed in humans within three days, before any woman would even notice being pregnant.
In fact, the ectodermal cells that are the undifferentiated neurons destined to become the nervous system are in place and begin their morphological formation before implantation into the uterine wall.Fetal and maternal circulation are independent and separated by the chorion.
The ectoderm also gives rise to the epidermis, and nobody thinks that's special.
Neurulation begins around day 19 with the formation of the neural plate.
It takes months for this to develop into a distinctively human nervous system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868173</id>
	<title>Re:Cool tech.</title>
	<author>ChromeAeonium</author>
	<datestamp>1256478420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only real problem(beyond the usual high start up costs of new technology) will be the inevitable co-opting of this imagery for a new round of weepy anti-abortion ads. "Oh Noes!, Lookat the wittle heart..."</p></div><p>Yes.  Showing people biological facts with new technology.  How terrible pro-lifers must be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only real problem ( beyond the usual high start up costs of new technology ) will be the inevitable co-opting of this imagery for a new round of weepy anti-abortion ads .
" Oh Noes ! , Lookat the wittle heart... " Yes .
Showing people biological facts with new technology .
How terrible pro-lifers must be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only real problem(beyond the usual high start up costs of new technology) will be the inevitable co-opting of this imagery for a new round of weepy anti-abortion ads.
"Oh Noes!, Lookat the wittle heart..."Yes.
Showing people biological facts with new technology.
How terrible pro-lifers must be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29870667</id>
	<title>Re:High Res?</title>
	<author>biryokumaru</author>
	<datestamp>1256558160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the contrast is that traditional ultrasound is, in fact, a 2D slice. This technique combines many 2D slices to generate a 3D volume, and then uses a 2D video to display it. I'm certain if 3D imaging techniques were more mainstream, they would be used instead. But, if you like, in contrast to traditional ultrasound, this could be called "4D" if you define time as a dimension.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the contrast is that traditional ultrasound is , in fact , a 2D slice .
This technique combines many 2D slices to generate a 3D volume , and then uses a 2D video to display it .
I 'm certain if 3D imaging techniques were more mainstream , they would be used instead .
But , if you like , in contrast to traditional ultrasound , this could be called " 4D " if you define time as a dimension .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the contrast is that traditional ultrasound is, in fact, a 2D slice.
This technique combines many 2D slices to generate a 3D volume, and then uses a 2D video to display it.
I'm certain if 3D imaging techniques were more mainstream, they would be used instead.
But, if you like, in contrast to traditional ultrasound, this could be called "4D" if you define time as a dimension.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867657</id>
	<title>Cool tech.</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1256472240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Impressive for noninvasive imagery. It'll probably end up having all sorts of high-end surgical uses.<br> <br>

The only real problem(beyond the usual high start up costs of new technology) will be the inevitable co-opting of this imagery for a new round of weepy anti-abortion ads. "Oh Noes!, Lookat the wittle heart..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Impressive for noninvasive imagery .
It 'll probably end up having all sorts of high-end surgical uses .
The only real problem ( beyond the usual high start up costs of new technology ) will be the inevitable co-opting of this imagery for a new round of weepy anti-abortion ads .
" Oh Noes ! , Lookat the wittle heart... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Impressive for noninvasive imagery.
It'll probably end up having all sorts of high-end surgical uses.
The only real problem(beyond the usual high start up costs of new technology) will be the inevitable co-opting of this imagery for a new round of weepy anti-abortion ads.
"Oh Noes!, Lookat the wittle heart..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868407</id>
	<title>Re:We're onto a new path now...</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1256482200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, the entire world of genetics will turn itself upside down in the next 30-100 years as we gain the ability to understand genes and modify them at will, so we'll at most have 2 more generations where that sort of thing matters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , the entire world of genetics will turn itself upside down in the next 30-100 years as we gain the ability to understand genes and modify them at will , so we 'll at most have 2 more generations where that sort of thing matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, the entire world of genetics will turn itself upside down in the next 30-100 years as we gain the ability to understand genes and modify them at will, so we'll at most have 2 more generations where that sort of thing matters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869007</id>
	<title>Re:We're onto a new path now...</title>
	<author>rock\_climbing\_guy</author>
	<datestamp>1256490900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You're focusing on genetic evolution but ignoring memetic evolution. The beliefs you're promoting were the default for centuries; the ones you're denigrating evolved from your beliefs, because people saw how much squalor and human suffering comes from crapping out kids willy-nilly.</i></p><p>My name is Charles Darwin, and I want you to know that I said that natural selection does not necessarily favor those who are the strongest or the smartest ( or for that matter, those who avoid squalor and suffering ).  It favors those who survive and reproduce.</p><p>Thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're focusing on genetic evolution but ignoring memetic evolution .
The beliefs you 're promoting were the default for centuries ; the ones you 're denigrating evolved from your beliefs , because people saw how much squalor and human suffering comes from crapping out kids willy-nilly.My name is Charles Darwin , and I want you to know that I said that natural selection does not necessarily favor those who are the strongest or the smartest ( or for that matter , those who avoid squalor and suffering ) .
It favors those who survive and reproduce.Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're focusing on genetic evolution but ignoring memetic evolution.
The beliefs you're promoting were the default for centuries; the ones you're denigrating evolved from your beliefs, because people saw how much squalor and human suffering comes from crapping out kids willy-nilly.My name is Charles Darwin, and I want you to know that I said that natural selection does not necessarily favor those who are the strongest or the smartest ( or for that matter, those who avoid squalor and suffering ).
It favors those who survive and reproduce.Thank you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29870643</id>
	<title>Re:Cool tech.</title>
	<author>biryokumaru</author>
	<datestamp>1256557860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's right, though. The attribution of value to human life is completely arbitrary. Just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it isn't true. It would foolish not to admit that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's right , though .
The attribution of value to human life is completely arbitrary .
Just because it makes you uncomfortable does n't mean it is n't true .
It would foolish not to admit that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's right, though.
The attribution of value to human life is completely arbitrary.
Just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it isn't true.
It would foolish not to admit that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868393</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so...</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1256481960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I don't get is how anything growing inside your body and living off your tissue can NOT be considered to belong to you in the sense of it being your choice what to do with it.</p><p>Unless you bring God into the equation, and I'm guessing He'd rather stay out of it, thank you very much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't get is how anything growing inside your body and living off your tissue can NOT be considered to belong to you in the sense of it being your choice what to do with it.Unless you bring God into the equation , and I 'm guessing He 'd rather stay out of it , thank you very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't get is how anything growing inside your body and living off your tissue can NOT be considered to belong to you in the sense of it being your choice what to do with it.Unless you bring God into the equation, and I'm guessing He'd rather stay out of it, thank you very much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869133</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so...</title>
	<author>gillbates</author>
	<datestamp>1256493120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>
There is only one thing that distinguishes humans from any other life form.
</i>
</p><p>
Actually, there's quite a bit more, and here are some just off the top of my head:
</p><ul> <li>Humans appreciate beauty, and build things for that purpose alone.</li>
<li>Humans are capable of self control. (Though, admittedly, liberals - while seemingly human - do not seem to understand the concept of self control.  They believe it is impossible for teenagers to abstain from sex, for bums to refrain from alcohol, etc...)</li>
<li>Humans are capable of selfless service.</li>
<li>Humans are capable of love.</li>
<li>Humans have a soul.</li>
</ul><p>
But on to the crux of the argument: <b>If a human does not possess rights - specifically, the right to live - simply because they are human, created by God, then no human has any rights at all.</b>
</p><p>
Any other theory of the rights of man can be easily extended to deny *certain people* their rights based on completely arbitrary characteristics.  You said, "How can you consider a fetus to be fully human when it lacks the one basic characteristic of humanity?".  Let's run with that, shall we:
</p><ol> <li>First, let's define humanity in our own particular way, to exclude the groups we want to oppress:
<ul>
<li>White skin is a <i>basic characteristic</i> of humanity.</li>
<li>Being male is a <i>basic characteristic</i> of humanity.</li>
<li>Being "civilised" is a <i>basic characteristic</i> of humanity.</li>
<li>Being Aryan is a <i>basic characteristic</i> of humanity.</li>
</ul></li>
<li>Then, take these definitions, and get the public to agree with them:
<ul> <li>Blacks are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred\_Scott\_v.\_Sandford" title="wikipedia.org">"beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."</a> [wikipedia.org]</li>
<li>What right does a woman have to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's\_suffrage" title="wikipedia.org">vote</a> [wikipedia.org]?</li>
<li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native\_Americans\_in\_the\_United\_States" title="wikipedia.org">The Indian [was thought] as less than human and worthy only of extermination.</a> [wikipedia.org]</li>
<li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final\_Solution" title="wikipedia.org">It is not for us to feel sympathy for the Jews.</a> [wikipedia.org]</li>
</ul></li>
<li>Profit!</li>
</ol><p>
The notion that a person isn't human because of some arbitrary factor or fine-sounding theory of what-it-means-to-be-human is that these judgments always pave the way for oppression and atrocities whenever there arises social stressors.

</p><p>
Now, these are not hypothetical examples.  They actually happened, because someone thought they "Just Knew" their pet theory of what-it-means-to-be-human was correct.  And they applied that theory to those "other people" and made fine sounding arguments justifying what were ultimately very oppressive practices.
</p><p>
To make a more salient point, I'd like you to prove, using your definition of what it means to be human, that:
</p><ol>
<li>pre-Civil War era Blacks are human.  Remember, most can barely speak English, can't read, and would have a difficult time demonstrating what White people of the time would consider intelligence.*</li>
<li>That women of the same time period are human.</li>
<li>That Native Americans are human.  They don't even speak English, can't handle liquor*, and can't/don't build dwellings a white man would consider adequate.</li>
<li>That Jews are human.</li>
</ol><p>
I think you will have a hard time with at least two of the above, and determined devil's advocate could convincingly argue a third and possibly a forth against your definition.  <b>If, OTOH, we argue that a person is a human because they are constructed of and by human DNA, we have no problem at all with the above questions</b>.
</p><p>

* - Yes, you have to take into account the prejudices of the time and the notion of intelligence at this time was not well-developed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is only one thing that distinguishes humans from any other life form .
Actually , there 's quite a bit more , and here are some just off the top of my head : Humans appreciate beauty , and build things for that purpose alone .
Humans are capable of self control .
( Though , admittedly , liberals - while seemingly human - do not seem to understand the concept of self control .
They believe it is impossible for teenagers to abstain from sex , for bums to refrain from alcohol , etc... ) Humans are capable of selfless service .
Humans are capable of love .
Humans have a soul .
But on to the crux of the argument : If a human does not possess rights - specifically , the right to live - simply because they are human , created by God , then no human has any rights at all .
Any other theory of the rights of man can be easily extended to deny * certain people * their rights based on completely arbitrary characteristics .
You said , " How can you consider a fetus to be fully human when it lacks the one basic characteristic of humanity ? " .
Let 's run with that , shall we : First , let 's define humanity in our own particular way , to exclude the groups we want to oppress : White skin is a basic characteristic of humanity .
Being male is a basic characteristic of humanity .
Being " civilised " is a basic characteristic of humanity .
Being Aryan is a basic characteristic of humanity .
Then , take these definitions , and get the public to agree with them : Blacks are " beings of an inferior order , and altogether unfit to associate with the white race , either in social or political relations , and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect .
" [ wikipedia.org ] What right does a woman have to vote [ wikipedia.org ] ?
The Indian [ was thought ] as less than human and worthy only of extermination .
[ wikipedia.org ] It is not for us to feel sympathy for the Jews .
[ wikipedia.org ] Profit !
The notion that a person is n't human because of some arbitrary factor or fine-sounding theory of what-it-means-to-be-human is that these judgments always pave the way for oppression and atrocities whenever there arises social stressors .
Now , these are not hypothetical examples .
They actually happened , because someone thought they " Just Knew " their pet theory of what-it-means-to-be-human was correct .
And they applied that theory to those " other people " and made fine sounding arguments justifying what were ultimately very oppressive practices .
To make a more salient point , I 'd like you to prove , using your definition of what it means to be human , that : pre-Civil War era Blacks are human .
Remember , most can barely speak English , ca n't read , and would have a difficult time demonstrating what White people of the time would consider intelligence .
* That women of the same time period are human .
That Native Americans are human .
They do n't even speak English , ca n't handle liquor * , and ca n't/do n't build dwellings a white man would consider adequate .
That Jews are human .
I think you will have a hard time with at least two of the above , and determined devil 's advocate could convincingly argue a third and possibly a forth against your definition .
If , OTOH , we argue that a person is a human because they are constructed of and by human DNA , we have no problem at all with the above questions .
* - Yes , you have to take into account the prejudices of the time and the notion of intelligence at this time was not well-developed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
There is only one thing that distinguishes humans from any other life form.
Actually, there's quite a bit more, and here are some just off the top of my head:
 Humans appreciate beauty, and build things for that purpose alone.
Humans are capable of self control.
(Though, admittedly, liberals - while seemingly human - do not seem to understand the concept of self control.
They believe it is impossible for teenagers to abstain from sex, for bums to refrain from alcohol, etc...)
Humans are capable of selfless service.
Humans are capable of love.
Humans have a soul.
But on to the crux of the argument: If a human does not possess rights - specifically, the right to live - simply because they are human, created by God, then no human has any rights at all.
Any other theory of the rights of man can be easily extended to deny *certain people* their rights based on completely arbitrary characteristics.
You said, "How can you consider a fetus to be fully human when it lacks the one basic characteristic of humanity?".
Let's run with that, shall we:
 First, let's define humanity in our own particular way, to exclude the groups we want to oppress:

White skin is a basic characteristic of humanity.
Being male is a basic characteristic of humanity.
Being "civilised" is a basic characteristic of humanity.
Being Aryan is a basic characteristic of humanity.
Then, take these definitions, and get the public to agree with them:
 Blacks are "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.
" [wikipedia.org]
What right does a woman have to vote [wikipedia.org]?
The Indian [was thought] as less than human and worthy only of extermination.
[wikipedia.org]
 It is not for us to feel sympathy for the Jews.
[wikipedia.org]

Profit!
The notion that a person isn't human because of some arbitrary factor or fine-sounding theory of what-it-means-to-be-human is that these judgments always pave the way for oppression and atrocities whenever there arises social stressors.
Now, these are not hypothetical examples.
They actually happened, because someone thought they "Just Knew" their pet theory of what-it-means-to-be-human was correct.
And they applied that theory to those "other people" and made fine sounding arguments justifying what were ultimately very oppressive practices.
To make a more salient point, I'd like you to prove, using your definition of what it means to be human, that:

pre-Civil War era Blacks are human.
Remember, most can barely speak English, can't read, and would have a difficult time demonstrating what White people of the time would consider intelligence.
*
That women of the same time period are human.
That Native Americans are human.
They don't even speak English, can't handle liquor*, and can't/don't build dwellings a white man would consider adequate.
That Jews are human.
I think you will have a hard time with at least two of the above, and determined devil's advocate could convincingly argue a third and possibly a forth against your definition.
If, OTOH, we argue that a person is a human because they are constructed of and by human DNA, we have no problem at all with the above questions.
* - Yes, you have to take into account the prejudices of the time and the notion of intelligence at this time was not well-developed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869297</id>
	<title>Re:Cool tech.</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1256495820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can think of quite a few more problems &mdash; such as subjecting the newly-forming tissue to the high amounts of whatever energy is used in this particular kind of tomography. Getting close enough to the heart of a human embryo may also prove more problematic, than in the case of mice.</p> </div><p>There is <a href="http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Bad+vibrations\%3F+Ultrasound+disturbs+mouse+brains-a0150090686" title="thefreelibrary.com">some evidence</a> [thefreelibrary.com] that ultrasound might disturb brain cells.  Of course, they left the ultrasound on the pregnant mouse for half an hour, as I understand it a lot longer than a normal ultrasound session, and it wasn't a profound effect, the brain layers were largely undisturbed.  No idea though how much of an effect on brain function that would cause.</p><p>I guess this technique uses light instead of sound though?  Anyone know what the intensity of the light they're shining in would be?  The heart initially forms before the retina does, but if they're using this to diagnose later developmental problems in the late term, and -if- this is a lot of light, I'd worry about frying photoreceptors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can think of quite a few more problems    such as subjecting the newly-forming tissue to the high amounts of whatever energy is used in this particular kind of tomography .
Getting close enough to the heart of a human embryo may also prove more problematic , than in the case of mice .
There is some evidence [ thefreelibrary.com ] that ultrasound might disturb brain cells .
Of course , they left the ultrasound on the pregnant mouse for half an hour , as I understand it a lot longer than a normal ultrasound session , and it was n't a profound effect , the brain layers were largely undisturbed .
No idea though how much of an effect on brain function that would cause.I guess this technique uses light instead of sound though ?
Anyone know what the intensity of the light they 're shining in would be ?
The heart initially forms before the retina does , but if they 're using this to diagnose later developmental problems in the late term , and -if- this is a lot of light , I 'd worry about frying photoreceptors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can think of quite a few more problems — such as subjecting the newly-forming tissue to the high amounts of whatever energy is used in this particular kind of tomography.
Getting close enough to the heart of a human embryo may also prove more problematic, than in the case of mice.
There is some evidence [thefreelibrary.com] that ultrasound might disturb brain cells.
Of course, they left the ultrasound on the pregnant mouse for half an hour, as I understand it a lot longer than a normal ultrasound session, and it wasn't a profound effect, the brain layers were largely undisturbed.
No idea though how much of an effect on brain function that would cause.I guess this technique uses light instead of sound though?
Anyone know what the intensity of the light they're shining in would be?
The heart initially forms before the retina does, but if they're using this to diagnose later developmental problems in the late term, and -if- this is a lot of light, I'd worry about frying photoreceptors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29873739</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so...</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1256578380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try stating your arguments without appeals to unprovable entities such as "God" or the "soul" if you want to be taken seriously by the kinds of people who operate based on logic instead of faith.  If you're going to appeal to faith in "God" or the "soul", why even bother constructing an argument in the first place?  You either believe or you don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try stating your arguments without appeals to unprovable entities such as " God " or the " soul " if you want to be taken seriously by the kinds of people who operate based on logic instead of faith .
If you 're going to appeal to faith in " God " or the " soul " , why even bother constructing an argument in the first place ?
You either believe or you do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try stating your arguments without appeals to unprovable entities such as "God" or the "soul" if you want to be taken seriously by the kinds of people who operate based on logic instead of faith.
If you're going to appeal to faith in "God" or the "soul", why even bother constructing an argument in the first place?
You either believe or you don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868337</id>
	<title>Re:Cool tech.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256481300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't think the first thing people think about when they see a headline with the words "human embryo" is the abortion debate, then you must not live in the middle of the US.</p><p>Right now, in any town between the Adirondacks and the Rockies, you can find people with poster-sized photos of bloody fetuses standing around in front of Womens' Health Clinics waiting to show their compassion by hassling young women trying to get a pap smear.  And those are the ones <i>not</i> busy cutting crosses into their wadcutters hoping to get a shot at the doctor who would perform that pap smear.</p><p>This is a Christian Country after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't think the first thing people think about when they see a headline with the words " human embryo " is the abortion debate , then you must not live in the middle of the US.Right now , in any town between the Adirondacks and the Rockies , you can find people with poster-sized photos of bloody fetuses standing around in front of Womens ' Health Clinics waiting to show their compassion by hassling young women trying to get a pap smear .
And those are the ones not busy cutting crosses into their wadcutters hoping to get a shot at the doctor who would perform that pap smear.This is a Christian Country after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't think the first thing people think about when they see a headline with the words "human embryo" is the abortion debate, then you must not live in the middle of the US.Right now, in any town between the Adirondacks and the Rockies, you can find people with poster-sized photos of bloody fetuses standing around in front of Womens' Health Clinics waiting to show their compassion by hassling young women trying to get a pap smear.
And those are the ones not busy cutting crosses into their wadcutters hoping to get a shot at the doctor who would perform that pap smear.This is a Christian Country after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869123</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so...</title>
	<author>Animaether</author>
	<datestamp>1256492880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>On the contrary, the nervous system is formed in humans within three days, before any woman would even notice being pregnant.</p></div></blockquote><p>So, then... if you hit a person in your car, get slapped with involuntary manslaughter or something of the sort, and the coroner finds a little clump of cells 3 days old.. woop: TWO counts of involuntary manslaughter?</p><blockquote><div><p>In fact, the ectodermal cells that are the undifferentiated neurons destined to become the nervous system are in place and begin their morphological formation before implantation into the uterine wall.</p></div></blockquote><p>And what if that implantation fails?  It happens, you know.  Who do we look to blame then?<br>Did the mom maybe eat something wrong?  Should -she- be accused of involuntary manslaughter (or even murder, depending on the scenario)?</p><p>I respect your belief that life starts at 3 days, 2 days, heck, at conception - I may disagree, but I respect it.  But only with the added note that ending a life is not necessariy murder (or even (in)voluntary manslaughter); see euthanasia for the other end of what that encompasses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the contrary , the nervous system is formed in humans within three days , before any woman would even notice being pregnant.So , then... if you hit a person in your car , get slapped with involuntary manslaughter or something of the sort , and the coroner finds a little clump of cells 3 days old.. woop : TWO counts of involuntary manslaughter ? In fact , the ectodermal cells that are the undifferentiated neurons destined to become the nervous system are in place and begin their morphological formation before implantation into the uterine wall.And what if that implantation fails ?
It happens , you know .
Who do we look to blame then ? Did the mom maybe eat something wrong ?
Should -she- be accused of involuntary manslaughter ( or even murder , depending on the scenario ) ? I respect your belief that life starts at 3 days , 2 days , heck , at conception - I may disagree , but I respect it .
But only with the added note that ending a life is not necessariy murder ( or even ( in ) voluntary manslaughter ) ; see euthanasia for the other end of what that encompasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the contrary, the nervous system is formed in humans within three days, before any woman would even notice being pregnant.So, then... if you hit a person in your car, get slapped with involuntary manslaughter or something of the sort, and the coroner finds a little clump of cells 3 days old.. woop: TWO counts of involuntary manslaughter?In fact, the ectodermal cells that are the undifferentiated neurons destined to become the nervous system are in place and begin their morphological formation before implantation into the uterine wall.And what if that implantation fails?
It happens, you know.
Who do we look to blame then?Did the mom maybe eat something wrong?
Should -she- be accused of involuntary manslaughter (or even murder, depending on the scenario)?I respect your belief that life starts at 3 days, 2 days, heck, at conception - I may disagree, but I respect it.
But only with the added note that ending a life is not necessariy murder (or even (in)voluntary manslaughter); see euthanasia for the other end of what that encompasses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869489</id>
	<title>Re:Cool tech.</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1256498040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is funny that your post is modded as insightful. I think you and I both know what this technology will be used for.</p><p>This is just a screening process. So foetuses that will have any sign of cardiovascular abnormalities will be aborted. It will become just another in a round of tests that determine if a foetus will be aborted or get to live.</p></div><p>Yes, this is technology that can be used for something some people don't like.  That makes it bad.</p><p>Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to use this computer and this internet to hack into a bank and steal someone's life savings, then I'll go to a lab and make a killer virus and clone some serial killers.  Then probably come back home and use my stolen money to buy some child porn and upload it with the previously used internet.  Then I might take a nap... an EVIL nap.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is funny that your post is modded as insightful .
I think you and I both know what this technology will be used for.This is just a screening process .
So foetuses that will have any sign of cardiovascular abnormalities will be aborted .
It will become just another in a round of tests that determine if a foetus will be aborted or get to live.Yes , this is technology that can be used for something some people do n't like .
That makes it bad.Now if you 'll excuse me , I 'm going to use this computer and this internet to hack into a bank and steal someone 's life savings , then I 'll go to a lab and make a killer virus and clone some serial killers .
Then probably come back home and use my stolen money to buy some child porn and upload it with the previously used internet .
Then I might take a nap... an EVIL nap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is funny that your post is modded as insightful.
I think you and I both know what this technology will be used for.This is just a screening process.
So foetuses that will have any sign of cardiovascular abnormalities will be aborted.
It will become just another in a round of tests that determine if a foetus will be aborted or get to live.Yes, this is technology that can be used for something some people don't like.
That makes it bad.Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to use this computer and this internet to hack into a bank and steal someone's life savings, then I'll go to a lab and make a killer virus and clone some serial killers.
Then probably come back home and use my stolen money to buy some child porn and upload it with the previously used internet.
Then I might take a nap... an EVIL nap.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868009</id>
	<title>Re:We're onto a new path now...</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1256476500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we follow this line of reasoning, the logical conclusion is that an Indian or Chinese person is going to steal the food right out of your mouth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we follow this line of reasoning , the logical conclusion is that an Indian or Chinese person is going to steal the food right out of your mouth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we follow this line of reasoning, the logical conclusion is that an Indian or Chinese person is going to steal the food right out of your mouth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29871667</id>
	<title>oops!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256568120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oops!  I accidentally fell into this naked chick... Over and over and over...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oops !
I accidentally fell into this naked chick... Over and over and over.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oops!
I accidentally fell into this naked chick... Over and over and over...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867899</id>
	<title>Re:High Res?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256475300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two of the dimensions are spatial and the third is temporal, so it is 3d, just not what we were all expecting from the headline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two of the dimensions are spatial and the third is temporal , so it is 3d , just not what we were all expecting from the headline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two of the dimensions are spatial and the third is temporal, so it is 3d, just not what we were all expecting from the headline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868537</id>
	<title>Re:We're onto a new path now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256483760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So sure, please, believe it: marriage and having a person stay at home is quaint.... if you get your girlfriend pregnant, its better to get rid of the child than to ruin your lives, believe all of it.  If we can then privatize schools and do the other things so that your input to our culture can be blocked, we can exterminate liberalism all the more quickly, simply by out-breeding it.  But, at the end of the day, your way of life is doomed, simply because, for better or for worse, our religious culture has been evolved by hundreds of generations of human cultural evolution, and your culture will fall by the wayside as much as your genes will perish forever in the dust.</p></div><p>From the sound of it, you think the ultimate purpose of conservativism is to exterminate all liberals. What ever happened to preserving truth, order, justice and all that stuff I thought conservatives cared about?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So sure , please , believe it : marriage and having a person stay at home is quaint.... if you get your girlfriend pregnant , its better to get rid of the child than to ruin your lives , believe all of it .
If we can then privatize schools and do the other things so that your input to our culture can be blocked , we can exterminate liberalism all the more quickly , simply by out-breeding it .
But , at the end of the day , your way of life is doomed , simply because , for better or for worse , our religious culture has been evolved by hundreds of generations of human cultural evolution , and your culture will fall by the wayside as much as your genes will perish forever in the dust.From the sound of it , you think the ultimate purpose of conservativism is to exterminate all liberals .
What ever happened to preserving truth , order , justice and all that stuff I thought conservatives cared about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So sure, please, believe it: marriage and having a person stay at home is quaint.... if you get your girlfriend pregnant, its better to get rid of the child than to ruin your lives, believe all of it.
If we can then privatize schools and do the other things so that your input to our culture can be blocked, we can exterminate liberalism all the more quickly, simply by out-breeding it.
But, at the end of the day, your way of life is doomed, simply because, for better or for worse, our religious culture has been evolved by hundreds of generations of human cultural evolution, and your culture will fall by the wayside as much as your genes will perish forever in the dust.From the sound of it, you think the ultimate purpose of conservativism is to exterminate all liberals.
What ever happened to preserving truth, order, justice and all that stuff I thought conservatives cared about?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867725</id>
	<title>High Res?</title>
	<author>Loomismeister</author>
	<datestamp>1256473080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a grainy 2D film, not a high res 3D film!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a grainy 2D film , not a high res 3D film !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a grainy 2D film, not a high res 3D film!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868625</id>
	<title>Re:Cool tech.</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1256484660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you don't think the first thing people think about when they see a headline with the words "human embryo" is the abortion debate</p></div></blockquote><p>People do think of that, and these people are wrong. That was the point of my response...</p><blockquote><div><p>And those are the ones not busy cutting crosses into their wadcutters hoping to get a shot at the doctor who would perform that pap smear.</p></div></blockquote><p>As evidenced by, what, a whopping <em>five</em> abortion-providers killed since 1993? Although <em>each</em> death is one too many, you are still overly concerned with <a href="http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer\_friendly.cgi?article=315" title="anncoulter.com">this particular injustice</a> [anncoulter.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't think the first thing people think about when they see a headline with the words " human embryo " is the abortion debatePeople do think of that , and these people are wrong .
That was the point of my response...And those are the ones not busy cutting crosses into their wadcutters hoping to get a shot at the doctor who would perform that pap smear.As evidenced by , what , a whopping five abortion-providers killed since 1993 ?
Although each death is one too many , you are still overly concerned with this particular injustice [ anncoulter.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't think the first thing people think about when they see a headline with the words "human embryo" is the abortion debatePeople do think of that, and these people are wrong.
That was the point of my response...And those are the ones not busy cutting crosses into their wadcutters hoping to get a shot at the doctor who would perform that pap smear.As evidenced by, what, a whopping five abortion-providers killed since 1993?
Although each death is one too many, you are still overly concerned with this particular injustice [anncoulter.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29871423</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so...</title>
	<author>Archades54</author>
	<datestamp>1256566560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear this abortion this is pretty immoral, but for some cases where the child will grow up SEVERELY disadvantaged, body messed up, mental ability low, possibly a lot of pain, even just the emotional pain of knowing you're basically lesser than the others, I find it pretty immoral that people would willingly allow this child to get to the stage it's born and truly starts to active/become self aware/reach a stage of consciousness.</p><p>It's humane to put down dog's etc with debilitating illness, yet we're still at a point where people think that bringing some messed up child into the world is some miracle, it truly makes me sick.</p><p>We're in a society where it's soon going to be the time where we can reasonably expect sex to be a conception free event (Hopefully the work on the male pill proves to be the 100\% they are stating), it'd solve a lot of this debate, at least for those who are smart enough to use it.</p><p>I am pro choice, not all abortions are done because of defects/rape, but abortions will ALWAYS HAPPEN whether legal or not, the great thing when it's legal is that it tends to be done in nice clean sterile safe( well as much as possible) environments, and I am hoping that the fetus brain is destroyed/disabled at the highest speed possible in order to limit any pain if it exists for them at that point. I can only guess that it would be like sleeping, no real consciousness of our pain etc so no pain would be felt, simply a quick painless death/end. If this isn't the case feel free to show me the evidence, I just haven't seen any decent info relating to any pain felt at abortion.</p><p>As for the purpose? To save people the "hassle", to be humane and not allow a child to suffer needlessly, to avoid having to give birth, raise or adopt out a child, maybe from rape? maybe because the mother really isn't ready to be a mother, doesn't want the child to be born and truly become "alive". It's usually heartbreaking to abort, but adopting out can also be heartbreaking, as well as trying to raise a kid when your means are low.</p><p>People mess up, abortion is an option that can help avoid more possible mistakes/troubles/etc for the person, I really doubt the fetus would even know they existed at that point, and earlier the better.</p><p>I think pro life should really be looking at ways to truly be prolife, protect the children by giving indepth contraception + sexual health education, hell even care for every human that is ALIVE. Millions are hungry, they are alive, conscious, feeling pain and suffering, the fetus hasn't gotten to this point.</p><p>These comments are based upon the fetus being unconscious/not self aware/for all intents and purposes just something growing before blossoming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear this abortion this is pretty immoral , but for some cases where the child will grow up SEVERELY disadvantaged , body messed up , mental ability low , possibly a lot of pain , even just the emotional pain of knowing you 're basically lesser than the others , I find it pretty immoral that people would willingly allow this child to get to the stage it 's born and truly starts to active/become self aware/reach a stage of consciousness.It 's humane to put down dog 's etc with debilitating illness , yet we 're still at a point where people think that bringing some messed up child into the world is some miracle , it truly makes me sick.We 're in a society where it 's soon going to be the time where we can reasonably expect sex to be a conception free event ( Hopefully the work on the male pill proves to be the 100 \ % they are stating ) , it 'd solve a lot of this debate , at least for those who are smart enough to use it.I am pro choice , not all abortions are done because of defects/rape , but abortions will ALWAYS HAPPEN whether legal or not , the great thing when it 's legal is that it tends to be done in nice clean sterile safe ( well as much as possible ) environments , and I am hoping that the fetus brain is destroyed/disabled at the highest speed possible in order to limit any pain if it exists for them at that point .
I can only guess that it would be like sleeping , no real consciousness of our pain etc so no pain would be felt , simply a quick painless death/end .
If this is n't the case feel free to show me the evidence , I just have n't seen any decent info relating to any pain felt at abortion.As for the purpose ?
To save people the " hassle " , to be humane and not allow a child to suffer needlessly , to avoid having to give birth , raise or adopt out a child , maybe from rape ?
maybe because the mother really is n't ready to be a mother , does n't want the child to be born and truly become " alive " .
It 's usually heartbreaking to abort , but adopting out can also be heartbreaking , as well as trying to raise a kid when your means are low.People mess up , abortion is an option that can help avoid more possible mistakes/troubles/etc for the person , I really doubt the fetus would even know they existed at that point , and earlier the better.I think pro life should really be looking at ways to truly be prolife , protect the children by giving indepth contraception + sexual health education , hell even care for every human that is ALIVE .
Millions are hungry , they are alive , conscious , feeling pain and suffering , the fetus has n't gotten to this point.These comments are based upon the fetus being unconscious/not self aware/for all intents and purposes just something growing before blossoming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear this abortion this is pretty immoral, but for some cases where the child will grow up SEVERELY disadvantaged, body messed up, mental ability low, possibly a lot of pain, even just the emotional pain of knowing you're basically lesser than the others, I find it pretty immoral that people would willingly allow this child to get to the stage it's born and truly starts to active/become self aware/reach a stage of consciousness.It's humane to put down dog's etc with debilitating illness, yet we're still at a point where people think that bringing some messed up child into the world is some miracle, it truly makes me sick.We're in a society where it's soon going to be the time where we can reasonably expect sex to be a conception free event (Hopefully the work on the male pill proves to be the 100\% they are stating), it'd solve a lot of this debate, at least for those who are smart enough to use it.I am pro choice, not all abortions are done because of defects/rape, but abortions will ALWAYS HAPPEN whether legal or not, the great thing when it's legal is that it tends to be done in nice clean sterile safe( well as much as possible) environments, and I am hoping that the fetus brain is destroyed/disabled at the highest speed possible in order to limit any pain if it exists for them at that point.
I can only guess that it would be like sleeping, no real consciousness of our pain etc so no pain would be felt, simply a quick painless death/end.
If this isn't the case feel free to show me the evidence, I just haven't seen any decent info relating to any pain felt at abortion.As for the purpose?
To save people the "hassle", to be humane and not allow a child to suffer needlessly, to avoid having to give birth, raise or adopt out a child, maybe from rape?
maybe because the mother really isn't ready to be a mother, doesn't want the child to be born and truly become "alive".
It's usually heartbreaking to abort, but adopting out can also be heartbreaking, as well as trying to raise a kid when your means are low.People mess up, abortion is an option that can help avoid more possible mistakes/troubles/etc for the person, I really doubt the fetus would even know they existed at that point, and earlier the better.I think pro life should really be looking at ways to truly be prolife, protect the children by giving indepth contraception + sexual health education, hell even care for every human that is ALIVE.
Millions are hungry, they are alive, conscious, feeling pain and suffering, the fetus hasn't gotten to this point.These comments are based upon the fetus being unconscious/not self aware/for all intents and purposes just something growing before blossoming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29870501</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256555040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree wholeheartedly with your argument.</p><p>consequence logic though:</p><p>is it ok to kill retards?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree wholeheartedly with your argument.consequence logic though : is it ok to kill retards ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree wholeheartedly with your argument.consequence logic though:is it ok to kill retards?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29873153</id>
	<title>Re:Cool tech.</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1256575560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The numbers of people who have a very hard time making children grows like crazy. With the current trend, in 3 generations, there will be no human left in the western world, who can reproduce without advanced medical help. A few generations later we're done. At least if we continue to go that way.</i>
</p><p>The problem in the West is not that women can't have babies, it's that they choose not to.
</p><p>Obviously, in countries where women are unlucky enough not to have that choice, babies appear with more frequency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The numbers of people who have a very hard time making children grows like crazy .
With the current trend , in 3 generations , there will be no human left in the western world , who can reproduce without advanced medical help .
A few generations later we 're done .
At least if we continue to go that way .
The problem in the West is not that women ca n't have babies , it 's that they choose not to .
Obviously , in countries where women are unlucky enough not to have that choice , babies appear with more frequency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The numbers of people who have a very hard time making children grows like crazy.
With the current trend, in 3 generations, there will be no human left in the western world, who can reproduce without advanced medical help.
A few generations later we're done.
At least if we continue to go that way.
The problem in the West is not that women can't have babies, it's that they choose not to.
Obviously, in countries where women are unlucky enough not to have that choice, babies appear with more frequency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869787</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so...</title>
	<author>GreatBunzinni</author>
	<datestamp>1256588340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless your PhD is about abortions and their motivations then your attempt at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument\_from\_authority" title="wikipedia.org">argument from authority</a> [wikipedia.org] is at least unwarranted for. On the other hand, if you find it reasonable to simply claim that all abortion is somehow murder, while ignoring all reasons that lead to it, particularly the life-threatening ones, then as easily as you try to impress everyone with your PhD claims I also put in question not only the truthfulness of that statement but also if you really have an education with a scientific background, let alone biology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless your PhD is about abortions and their motivations then your attempt at argument from authority [ wikipedia.org ] is at least unwarranted for .
On the other hand , if you find it reasonable to simply claim that all abortion is somehow murder , while ignoring all reasons that lead to it , particularly the life-threatening ones , then as easily as you try to impress everyone with your PhD claims I also put in question not only the truthfulness of that statement but also if you really have an education with a scientific background , let alone biology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless your PhD is about abortions and their motivations then your attempt at argument from authority [wikipedia.org] is at least unwarranted for.
On the other hand, if you find it reasonable to simply claim that all abortion is somehow murder, while ignoring all reasons that lead to it, particularly the life-threatening ones, then as easily as you try to impress everyone with your PhD claims I also put in question not only the truthfulness of that statement but also if you really have an education with a scientific background, let alone biology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867813</id>
	<title>Re:Cool tech.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256473980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The only real problem [...] will be the inevitable co-opting of this imagery for a new round of weepy anti-abortion ads.</p></div></blockquote><p>I can think of quite a few more problems &mdash; such as subjecting the newly-forming tissue to the high amounts of whatever energy is used in this particular kind of tomography. Getting close enough to the heart of a human embryo may also prove more problematic, than in the case of mice.

</p><p>But hey, nothing like getting an "insightful" moderation for your off-topic frosty piss, is there?</p><blockquote><div><p>"Oh Noes!, Lookat the wittle heart..."</p></div></blockquote><p>Have you ever seen such language in an ad? Do you really think, no people with clean English think of embryos as humans?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only real problem [ ... ] will be the inevitable co-opting of this imagery for a new round of weepy anti-abortion ads.I can think of quite a few more problems    such as subjecting the newly-forming tissue to the high amounts of whatever energy is used in this particular kind of tomography .
Getting close enough to the heart of a human embryo may also prove more problematic , than in the case of mice .
But hey , nothing like getting an " insightful " moderation for your off-topic frosty piss , is there ?
" Oh Noes ! , Lookat the wittle heart... " Have you ever seen such language in an ad ?
Do you really think , no people with clean English think of embryos as humans ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only real problem [...] will be the inevitable co-opting of this imagery for a new round of weepy anti-abortion ads.I can think of quite a few more problems — such as subjecting the newly-forming tissue to the high amounts of whatever energy is used in this particular kind of tomography.
Getting close enough to the heart of a human embryo may also prove more problematic, than in the case of mice.
But hey, nothing like getting an "insightful" moderation for your off-topic frosty piss, is there?
"Oh Noes!, Lookat the wittle heart..."Have you ever seen such language in an ad?
Do you really think, no people with clean English think of embryos as humans?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869613</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so...</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1256499600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the contrary, the nervous system is formed in humans within three days, before any woman would even notice being pregnant. In fact, the ectodermal cells that are the undifferentiated neurons destined to become the nervous system are in place and begin their morphological formation before implantation into the uterine wall.</p></div><p>Formed within three days?  Are you sure? Can you point to the nervous system on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Embryo,\_8\_cells.jpg" title="wikipedia.org"> this</a> [wikipedia.org] 3 day old human embryo?</p><p>You appear to have meant three -weeks-.  And not -formed- but -specified-.  The neural ectoderm is specified and begins to form the neural tube that will make the brain and spinal cord.  It doesn't do it instantly either.  There is still brain development after birth in humans.  It has definitely not "formed" in three days.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the contrary , the nervous system is formed in humans within three days , before any woman would even notice being pregnant .
In fact , the ectodermal cells that are the undifferentiated neurons destined to become the nervous system are in place and begin their morphological formation before implantation into the uterine wall.Formed within three days ?
Are you sure ?
Can you point to the nervous system on this [ wikipedia.org ] 3 day old human embryo ? You appear to have meant three -weeks- .
And not -formed- but -specified- .
The neural ectoderm is specified and begins to form the neural tube that will make the brain and spinal cord .
It does n't do it instantly either .
There is still brain development after birth in humans .
It has definitely not " formed " in three days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the contrary, the nervous system is formed in humans within three days, before any woman would even notice being pregnant.
In fact, the ectodermal cells that are the undifferentiated neurons destined to become the nervous system are in place and begin their morphological formation before implantation into the uterine wall.Formed within three days?
Are you sure?
Can you point to the nervous system on  this [wikipedia.org] 3 day old human embryo?You appear to have meant three -weeks-.
And not -formed- but -specified-.
The neural ectoderm is specified and begins to form the neural tube that will make the brain and spinal cord.
It doesn't do it instantly either.
There is still brain development after birth in humans.
It has definitely not "formed" in three days.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868391</id>
	<title>Re:We're onto a new path now...</title>
	<author>smaddox</author>
	<datestamp>1256481960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the end, the earth belongs to those who have the most babies, and, all those things you advocate, undermine your own culture as much as they undermine your genes.</p></div><p>Survival of the fittest is about adaptation, not about who can have the most babies. When resources start to run out it is the species that is ready to change and adapt that wins out. I don't think anyone will disagree with me when I say religions aren't exactly proponents of change.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So sure, please, believe it: marriage and having a person stay at home is quaint.... if you get your girlfriend pregnant, its better to get rid of the child than to ruin your lives, believe all of it.  If we can then privati[s]e schools and do the other things so that your input to our culture can be blocked, we can exterminate liberalism all the more quickly, simply by out-breeding it.</p></div><p>Privatising schools won't do much to shield children from alternate viewpoints in the age of the Internet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the end , the earth belongs to those who have the most babies , and , all those things you advocate , undermine your own culture as much as they undermine your genes.Survival of the fittest is about adaptation , not about who can have the most babies .
When resources start to run out it is the species that is ready to change and adapt that wins out .
I do n't think anyone will disagree with me when I say religions are n't exactly proponents of change.So sure , please , believe it : marriage and having a person stay at home is quaint.... if you get your girlfriend pregnant , its better to get rid of the child than to ruin your lives , believe all of it .
If we can then privati [ s ] e schools and do the other things so that your input to our culture can be blocked , we can exterminate liberalism all the more quickly , simply by out-breeding it.Privatising schools wo n't do much to shield children from alternate viewpoints in the age of the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the end, the earth belongs to those who have the most babies, and, all those things you advocate, undermine your own culture as much as they undermine your genes.Survival of the fittest is about adaptation, not about who can have the most babies.
When resources start to run out it is the species that is ready to change and adapt that wins out.
I don't think anyone will disagree with me when I say religions aren't exactly proponents of change.So sure, please, believe it: marriage and having a person stay at home is quaint.... if you get your girlfriend pregnant, its better to get rid of the child than to ruin your lives, believe all of it.
If we can then privati[s]e schools and do the other things so that your input to our culture can be blocked, we can exterminate liberalism all the more quickly, simply by out-breeding it.Privatising schools won't do much to shield children from alternate viewpoints in the age of the Internet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735</id>
	<title>I don't think so...</title>
	<author>bradbury</author>
	<datestamp>1256473140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A mouse at 8.5 days out of a 19-21 day gestational cycle is about equal to a human at 3-4 months (out of 9 months).  I'm not sure but I doubt physicians would be willing to operate on an unborn 3-4 month (12-16 week) old human.  However there seems to be a presumption that one would want to invest such time and expense in that potential individual to repair such a congenital defect when it is accepted (at least by my myself) that it might be better to simply abort such a potentially problem prone potential individual and start over.</p><p>It is worth noting that 60-70\% of conceptions end in "natural" terminations (presumably due to a self-error detection and correction process).  Most likely heart defects may make it past or around such self-regulatory screening processes.</p><p>And yes, for the anti-abortion readers, I'm a cold heartless SOB who will take any "MOD -" points and stick them in the cookie jar on my desk -- and --  FYI, you most probably have no idea what is coming and I am simply going to sit back behind my cookie jar and chuckle when it gets here.  For the people who don't know what this really means there are tools that might help called Google and Wikipedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A mouse at 8.5 days out of a 19-21 day gestational cycle is about equal to a human at 3-4 months ( out of 9 months ) .
I 'm not sure but I doubt physicians would be willing to operate on an unborn 3-4 month ( 12-16 week ) old human .
However there seems to be a presumption that one would want to invest such time and expense in that potential individual to repair such a congenital defect when it is accepted ( at least by my myself ) that it might be better to simply abort such a potentially problem prone potential individual and start over.It is worth noting that 60-70 \ % of conceptions end in " natural " terminations ( presumably due to a self-error detection and correction process ) .
Most likely heart defects may make it past or around such self-regulatory screening processes.And yes , for the anti-abortion readers , I 'm a cold heartless SOB who will take any " MOD - " points and stick them in the cookie jar on my desk -- and -- FYI , you most probably have no idea what is coming and I am simply going to sit back behind my cookie jar and chuckle when it gets here .
For the people who do n't know what this really means there are tools that might help called Google and Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A mouse at 8.5 days out of a 19-21 day gestational cycle is about equal to a human at 3-4 months (out of 9 months).
I'm not sure but I doubt physicians would be willing to operate on an unborn 3-4 month (12-16 week) old human.
However there seems to be a presumption that one would want to invest such time and expense in that potential individual to repair such a congenital defect when it is accepted (at least by my myself) that it might be better to simply abort such a potentially problem prone potential individual and start over.It is worth noting that 60-70\% of conceptions end in "natural" terminations (presumably due to a self-error detection and correction process).
Most likely heart defects may make it past or around such self-regulatory screening processes.And yes, for the anti-abortion readers, I'm a cold heartless SOB who will take any "MOD -" points and stick them in the cookie jar on my desk -- and --  FYI, you most probably have no idea what is coming and I am simply going to sit back behind my cookie jar and chuckle when it gets here.
For the people who don't know what this really means there are tools that might help called Google and Wikipedia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869145</id>
	<title>Should read: Low res grainy 2D video</title>
	<author>viking80</author>
	<datestamp>1256493240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA has a Low res grainy 2D video, and the author readily admits: "Though it looks grainy, this and other video of the developing heart made by the Houston group are some of the best ever taken."</p><p>I think, and probably, it is very impressive to make a videothe beating hart of a tiny mouse embryo, even if it is grainy and 2D.</p><p>BUT WHERE THE HELL is the H.D. 3D video announced in the headline?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA has a Low res grainy 2D video , and the author readily admits : " Though it looks grainy , this and other video of the developing heart made by the Houston group are some of the best ever taken .
" I think , and probably , it is very impressive to make a videothe beating hart of a tiny mouse embryo , even if it is grainy and 2D.BUT WHERE THE HELL is the H.D .
3D video announced in the headline ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA has a Low res grainy 2D video, and the author readily admits: "Though it looks grainy, this and other video of the developing heart made by the Houston group are some of the best ever taken.
"I think, and probably, it is very impressive to make a videothe beating hart of a tiny mouse embryo, even if it is grainy and 2D.BUT WHERE THE HELL is the H.D.
3D video announced in the headline?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868845</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so...</title>
	<author>rantingkitten</author>
	<datestamp>1256487900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I am a PhD student of Neurobiology and I consider abortion murder.</i> <br>
<br>
Since you think abortion is <b>murder</b> because the fetus has a nervous system, you must consider killing anything else with a nervous system -- including worms and insects -- to be morally equivalent to the killing of a human.  Is that a stance you're willing to take, or would you like to adjust your criteria?
<br> <br>
Maybe you should find a more compelling reason to call something "murder".<ul>
<li>"Murder" is specifically the taking of a human life -- not an animal life, a plant life, the life of a fungus, or anything else.  It must be human.  Merely "being alive" affords you no special status on this planet, as we're perfectly content to slaughter all kinds of life wholesale.  But we draw the line at humans.</li>

<li>There is only one thing that distinguishes humans from any other life form.  Most of them are far superior to us in physical abilities; they can run faster, jump higher, shred with claws, cut with teeth, fly, breathe underwater, have a variety of senses and appendages we don't have, and so forth.  But we have one thing no other life form seems to have -- our ability to rationalise, abstract, conceptualise.. in short, our ability to think.  Other forms of life can certainly think to some degree but there is something unique about our abilities.</li>

<li>This one important, uniquely human feature requires a functional human brain.</li>
<li>If it does not have a functional human brain, whatever else it might be, it is not human.</li>
<li>A human brain requires billions or trillions of interconnected neurons in order to function.</li>
<li>Large-scale neuron linkup does not occur in humans until the sixth or seventh month of gestation.</li>
</ul><p>
A "nervous system" is <b>utterly irrelevent</b> -- we kill millions of living things with nervous systems daily, and whatever else that may be, we do not consider it to be murder.  The hamburger you had for lunch came from an animal that had a nervous system, and one quite a bit more advanced than any week-old fetus anyway.  <br>
<br>
Nervous systems, heartbeats, lungs -- these things do not make one human.  There is one, and only one thing that humans have that no other animal has.  How can you consider a fetus to be fully human when it lacks the one basic characteristic of humanity?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a PhD student of Neurobiology and I consider abortion murder .
Since you think abortion is murder because the fetus has a nervous system , you must consider killing anything else with a nervous system -- including worms and insects -- to be morally equivalent to the killing of a human .
Is that a stance you 're willing to take , or would you like to adjust your criteria ?
Maybe you should find a more compelling reason to call something " murder " .
" Murder " is specifically the taking of a human life -- not an animal life , a plant life , the life of a fungus , or anything else .
It must be human .
Merely " being alive " affords you no special status on this planet , as we 're perfectly content to slaughter all kinds of life wholesale .
But we draw the line at humans .
There is only one thing that distinguishes humans from any other life form .
Most of them are far superior to us in physical abilities ; they can run faster , jump higher , shred with claws , cut with teeth , fly , breathe underwater , have a variety of senses and appendages we do n't have , and so forth .
But we have one thing no other life form seems to have -- our ability to rationalise , abstract , conceptualise.. in short , our ability to think .
Other forms of life can certainly think to some degree but there is something unique about our abilities .
This one important , uniquely human feature requires a functional human brain .
If it does not have a functional human brain , whatever else it might be , it is not human .
A human brain requires billions or trillions of interconnected neurons in order to function .
Large-scale neuron linkup does not occur in humans until the sixth or seventh month of gestation .
A " nervous system " is utterly irrelevent -- we kill millions of living things with nervous systems daily , and whatever else that may be , we do not consider it to be murder .
The hamburger you had for lunch came from an animal that had a nervous system , and one quite a bit more advanced than any week-old fetus anyway .
Nervous systems , heartbeats , lungs -- these things do not make one human .
There is one , and only one thing that humans have that no other animal has .
How can you consider a fetus to be fully human when it lacks the one basic characteristic of humanity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a PhD student of Neurobiology and I consider abortion murder.
Since you think abortion is murder because the fetus has a nervous system, you must consider killing anything else with a nervous system -- including worms and insects -- to be morally equivalent to the killing of a human.
Is that a stance you're willing to take, or would you like to adjust your criteria?
Maybe you should find a more compelling reason to call something "murder".
"Murder" is specifically the taking of a human life -- not an animal life, a plant life, the life of a fungus, or anything else.
It must be human.
Merely "being alive" affords you no special status on this planet, as we're perfectly content to slaughter all kinds of life wholesale.
But we draw the line at humans.
There is only one thing that distinguishes humans from any other life form.
Most of them are far superior to us in physical abilities; they can run faster, jump higher, shred with claws, cut with teeth, fly, breathe underwater, have a variety of senses and appendages we don't have, and so forth.
But we have one thing no other life form seems to have -- our ability to rationalise, abstract, conceptualise.. in short, our ability to think.
Other forms of life can certainly think to some degree but there is something unique about our abilities.
This one important, uniquely human feature requires a functional human brain.
If it does not have a functional human brain, whatever else it might be, it is not human.
A human brain requires billions or trillions of interconnected neurons in order to function.
Large-scale neuron linkup does not occur in humans until the sixth or seventh month of gestation.
A "nervous system" is utterly irrelevent -- we kill millions of living things with nervous systems daily, and whatever else that may be, we do not consider it to be murder.
The hamburger you had for lunch came from an animal that had a nervous system, and one quite a bit more advanced than any week-old fetus anyway.
Nervous systems, heartbeats, lungs -- these things do not make one human.
There is one, and only one thing that humans have that no other animal has.
How can you consider a fetus to be fully human when it lacks the one basic characteristic of humanity?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868279</id>
	<title>Re:We're onto a new path now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256480640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I completely agree.  If you can discount life at 8 days, you can discount it at any point.  Life is life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree .
If you can discount life at 8 days , you can discount it at any point .
Life is life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree.
If you can discount life at 8 days, you can discount it at any point.
Life is life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29871509</id>
	<title>Re:Cool tech.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256567040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The attribution of value to human life is completely arbitrary. Just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it isn't true. It would foolish not to admit that."</p><p>Somehow I think you'd change your tune pretty quickly if you felt the blade of my knife sliding into your heart, or saw me doing so to a loved one of yours.  It would be foolish not to admit that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The attribution of value to human life is completely arbitrary .
Just because it makes you uncomfortable does n't mean it is n't true .
It would foolish not to admit that .
" Somehow I think you 'd change your tune pretty quickly if you felt the blade of my knife sliding into your heart , or saw me doing so to a loved one of yours .
It would be foolish not to admit that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The attribution of value to human life is completely arbitrary.
Just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it isn't true.
It would foolish not to admit that.
"Somehow I think you'd change your tune pretty quickly if you felt the blade of my knife sliding into your heart, or saw me doing so to a loved one of yours.
It would be foolish not to admit that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29870643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868237</id>
	<title>I want to build a pyramid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256479740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want to build a pyramid. Does anyone here have any Jews for sale?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to build a pyramid .
Does anyone here have any Jews for sale ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to build a pyramid.
Does anyone here have any Jews for sale?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29871037</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so...</title>
	<author>rbochan</author>
	<datestamp>1256563380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I am a PhD student of Neurobiology and I consider abortion murder.</p></div></blockquote><p>The first part of your statement means nothing. No one cares if you're a student or a janitor. The second part is a moral belief of yours. Not all share \_your\_ morals beliefs. End of story.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a PhD student of Neurobiology and I consider abortion murder.The first part of your statement means nothing .
No one cares if you 're a student or a janitor .
The second part is a moral belief of yours .
Not all share \ _your \ _ morals beliefs .
End of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a PhD student of Neurobiology and I consider abortion murder.The first part of your statement means nothing.
No one cares if you're a student or a janitor.
The second part is a moral belief of yours.
Not all share \_your\_ morals beliefs.
End of story.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869595</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256499420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>    *  Humans appreciate beauty, and build things for that purpose alone.</p></div><p>Dolphins have a lot of fun. I could say they appreciate beauty and their play is an expression of that beauty. What greater display of joy in the beauty of the world is there than to enjoy it to its fullest?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>    * Humans are capable of self control. (Though, admittedly, liberals - while seemingly human - do not seem to understand the concept of self control. They believe it is impossible for teenagers to abstain from sex, for bums to refrain from alcohol, etc...)</p></div><p>http://www.livescience.com/animals/070905\_chimps\_distract.html</p><p>Leafing Through Magazines, Chimps Exhibit Self-Control</p><p>Hurp Durp. The attack on liberals there is awfully petty isn't it? And I always thought liberals believed in letting people make their own decisions? Wouldn't that mean they'd be trusting them instead of forcing them to do things?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>    * Humans are capable of selfless service.</p></div><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism\_in\_animals</p><p>Beep.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>    * Humans are capable of love.</p></div><p>Prove to me, good sir, that animals cannot love. Or that human love is more than mere chemical confluences combined with brain activity.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>    * Humans have a soul.</p></div><p>I'll let you either prove to me that humans have a soul or that animals don't have a soul. Take your pick.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* Humans appreciate beauty , and build things for that purpose alone.Dolphins have a lot of fun .
I could say they appreciate beauty and their play is an expression of that beauty .
What greater display of joy in the beauty of the world is there than to enjoy it to its fullest ?
* Humans are capable of self control .
( Though , admittedly , liberals - while seemingly human - do not seem to understand the concept of self control .
They believe it is impossible for teenagers to abstain from sex , for bums to refrain from alcohol , etc... ) http : //www.livescience.com/animals/070905 \ _chimps \ _distract.htmlLeafing Through Magazines , Chimps Exhibit Self-ControlHurp Durp .
The attack on liberals there is awfully petty is n't it ?
And I always thought liberals believed in letting people make their own decisions ?
Would n't that mean they 'd be trusting them instead of forcing them to do things ?
* Humans are capable of selfless service.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism \ _in \ _animalsBeep .
* Humans are capable of love.Prove to me , good sir , that animals can not love .
Or that human love is more than mere chemical confluences combined with brain activity .
* Humans have a soul.I 'll let you either prove to me that humans have a soul or that animals do n't have a soul .
Take your pick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>    *  Humans appreciate beauty, and build things for that purpose alone.Dolphins have a lot of fun.
I could say they appreciate beauty and their play is an expression of that beauty.
What greater display of joy in the beauty of the world is there than to enjoy it to its fullest?
* Humans are capable of self control.
(Though, admittedly, liberals - while seemingly human - do not seem to understand the concept of self control.
They believe it is impossible for teenagers to abstain from sex, for bums to refrain from alcohol, etc...)http://www.livescience.com/animals/070905\_chimps\_distract.htmlLeafing Through Magazines, Chimps Exhibit Self-ControlHurp Durp.
The attack on liberals there is awfully petty isn't it?
And I always thought liberals believed in letting people make their own decisions?
Wouldn't that mean they'd be trusting them instead of forcing them to do things?
* Humans are capable of selfless service.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism\_in\_animalsBeep.
* Humans are capable of love.Prove to me, good sir, that animals cannot love.
Or that human love is more than mere chemical confluences combined with brain activity.
* Humans have a soul.I'll let you either prove to me that humans have a soul or that animals don't have a soul.
Take your pick.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29878977</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so...</title>
	<author>sonnejw0</author>
	<datestamp>1256559960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I also need to modify my above statement.  Ectodermal cell differentiation occurs at day 16 in humans, after implantation, but still before most women would suspect a pregnancy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also need to modify my above statement .
Ectodermal cell differentiation occurs at day 16 in humans , after implantation , but still before most women would suspect a pregnancy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also need to modify my above statement.
Ectodermal cell differentiation occurs at day 16 in humans, after implantation, but still before most women would suspect a pregnancy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29876405</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so...</title>
	<author>jeffb (2.718)</author>
	<datestamp>1256547660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>If, OTOH, we argue that a person is a human because they are constructed of and by human DNA, we have no problem at all with the above questions</b>.
</p></div><p>You know what else is constructed of and by human DNA?</p><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma" title="wikipedia.org">A teratoma.</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>A malignant tumor.</p><p>Fingernail clippings.</p><p>Cultured human tissue grown outside the body.</p><p>Which of these are you prepared to accord "personhood"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If , OTOH , we argue that a person is a human because they are constructed of and by human DNA , we have no problem at all with the above questions .
You know what else is constructed of and by human DNA ?
A teratoma .
[ wikipedia.org ] A malignant tumor.Fingernail clippings.Cultured human tissue grown outside the body.Which of these are you prepared to accord " personhood " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If, OTOH, we argue that a person is a human because they are constructed of and by human DNA, we have no problem at all with the above questions.
You know what else is constructed of and by human DNA?
A teratoma.
[wikipedia.org] A malignant tumor.Fingernail clippings.Cultured human tissue grown outside the body.Which of these are you prepared to accord "personhood"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869765</id>
	<title>Re:Cool tech.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256588040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>    a new round of weepy pro-life ads</p><p>FTFY</p><p>FOAD</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a new round of weepy pro-life adsFTFYFOAD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>    a new round of weepy pro-life adsFTFYFOAD</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29871259</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think so...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256565420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just another 2 cents...</p><p>I have four young children (ages: 1, 2, 4, and 5) who I love dearly.  I say this to provide background information showing that I a)love children and b)have experience dealing with them.</p><p>IMHO, They have a right to life.  This right, far from being based on their "ability to rationalise, abstract, conceptualise...", is really despite the lack of their apparent "ability to think".  Some pets demonstrate better reasoning skills than young children!</p><p>If I used "thinking" as the criteria for whether killing was murder, then I would be forced to consider killing small children "OK".  Even teenagers could potentially fall under that category!  It should be needless to say that I don't hold that belief.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Peoples views differ on this, not because some people want to do the "right thing" and others are "just selfish", but because there is really is no technical basis for determining where to draw the line.  The conventional place (i.e. birth) is entirely arbitrary (as regards technical merit in judging "human-ness".</p><p>We (individually) are left to base our decision on our own (individual) culture/beliefs (although, legally, I like the supreme court's distinction wherein, given the current level of medical technology, it is "human" when it can survive outside the mother).</p><p>That is why even though I am "pro-life", I cannot hate anyone for believing/advocating otherwise.</p><p>I can disagree and try to convince others of the merits of my viewpoint, but in the end I must limit my involvement to advocating (in a friendly and reasonable manner) for the rights of all people (and providing support for those who have the desire but not the means to birth/raise their children).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just another 2 cents...I have four young children ( ages : 1 , 2 , 4 , and 5 ) who I love dearly .
I say this to provide background information showing that I a ) love children and b ) have experience dealing with them.IMHO , They have a right to life .
This right , far from being based on their " ability to rationalise , abstract , conceptualise... " , is really despite the lack of their apparent " ability to think " .
Some pets demonstrate better reasoning skills than young children ! If I used " thinking " as the criteria for whether killing was murder , then I would be forced to consider killing small children " OK " .
Even teenagers could potentially fall under that category !
It should be needless to say that I do n't hold that belief .
: ) Peoples views differ on this , not because some people want to do the " right thing " and others are " just selfish " , but because there is really is no technical basis for determining where to draw the line .
The conventional place ( i.e .
birth ) is entirely arbitrary ( as regards technical merit in judging " human-ness " .We ( individually ) are left to base our decision on our own ( individual ) culture/beliefs ( although , legally , I like the supreme court 's distinction wherein , given the current level of medical technology , it is " human " when it can survive outside the mother ) .That is why even though I am " pro-life " , I can not hate anyone for believing/advocating otherwise.I can disagree and try to convince others of the merits of my viewpoint , but in the end I must limit my involvement to advocating ( in a friendly and reasonable manner ) for the rights of all people ( and providing support for those who have the desire but not the means to birth/raise their children ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just another 2 cents...I have four young children (ages: 1, 2, 4, and 5) who I love dearly.
I say this to provide background information showing that I a)love children and b)have experience dealing with them.IMHO, They have a right to life.
This right, far from being based on their "ability to rationalise, abstract, conceptualise...", is really despite the lack of their apparent "ability to think".
Some pets demonstrate better reasoning skills than young children!If I used "thinking" as the criteria for whether killing was murder, then I would be forced to consider killing small children "OK".
Even teenagers could potentially fall under that category!
It should be needless to say that I don't hold that belief.
:)Peoples views differ on this, not because some people want to do the "right thing" and others are "just selfish", but because there is really is no technical basis for determining where to draw the line.
The conventional place (i.e.
birth) is entirely arbitrary (as regards technical merit in judging "human-ness".We (individually) are left to base our decision on our own (individual) culture/beliefs (although, legally, I like the supreme court's distinction wherein, given the current level of medical technology, it is "human" when it can survive outside the mother).That is why even though I am "pro-life", I cannot hate anyone for believing/advocating otherwise.I can disagree and try to convince others of the merits of my viewpoint, but in the end I must limit my involvement to advocating (in a friendly and reasonable manner) for the rights of all people (and providing support for those who have the desire but not the means to birth/raise their children).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868469</id>
	<title>Re:We're onto a new path now...</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1256482980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If we follow this line of reasoning, the logical conclusion is that an Indian or Chinese person is going to steal the food right out of your mouth.</p></div></blockquote><p>They better have some quick hands because I've got some sharp-ass incisors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we follow this line of reasoning , the logical conclusion is that an Indian or Chinese person is going to steal the food right out of your mouth.They better have some quick hands because I 've got some sharp-ass incisors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we follow this line of reasoning, the logical conclusion is that an Indian or Chinese person is going to steal the food right out of your mouth.They better have some quick hands because I've got some sharp-ass incisors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867909</id>
	<title>Re:Cool tech.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256475480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is funny that your post is modded as insightful. I think you and I both know what this technology will be used for. <br> <br>

This is just a screening process. So foetuses that will have any sign of cardiovascular abnormalities will be aborted. It will become just another in a round of tests that determine if a foetus will be aborted or get to live. <br> <br>

Yet somehow you pre-emptively blame people who are opposed to abortion (because you imagine that it is they who will use this technology).</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is funny that your post is modded as insightful .
I think you and I both know what this technology will be used for .
This is just a screening process .
So foetuses that will have any sign of cardiovascular abnormalities will be aborted .
It will become just another in a round of tests that determine if a foetus will be aborted or get to live .
Yet somehow you pre-emptively blame people who are opposed to abortion ( because you imagine that it is they who will use this technology ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is funny that your post is modded as insightful.
I think you and I both know what this technology will be used for.
This is just a screening process.
So foetuses that will have any sign of cardiovascular abnormalities will be aborted.
It will become just another in a round of tests that determine if a foetus will be aborted or get to live.
Yet somehow you pre-emptively blame people who are opposed to abortion (because you imagine that it is they who will use this technology).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868425</id>
	<title>Re:Cool tech.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256482440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So wait I can kill you? Ok, I mean after all your nothing special. Wait you mean your not perfect in every way... lets just kill you, I mean we can just make more. Oh you have mental issues, lets just kill you. Oh your paralyzed lets kill you. Heck if we kill people with problems we wouldn't have so many great people, like Steven Hawking, not every person is smart or athletic but that doesn't mean we should kill them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So wait I can kill you ?
Ok , I mean after all your nothing special .
Wait you mean your not perfect in every way... lets just kill you , I mean we can just make more .
Oh you have mental issues , lets just kill you .
Oh your paralyzed lets kill you .
Heck if we kill people with problems we would n't have so many great people , like Steven Hawking , not every person is smart or athletic but that does n't mean we should kill them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So wait I can kill you?
Ok, I mean after all your nothing special.
Wait you mean your not perfect in every way... lets just kill you, I mean we can just make more.
Oh you have mental issues, lets just kill you.
Oh your paralyzed lets kill you.
Heck if we kill people with problems we wouldn't have so many great people, like Steven Hawking, not every person is smart or athletic but that doesn't mean we should kill them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29877055</id>
	<title>Let me fix that for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256550180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, as Planned Parenthood would say -muscular contractions in non-viable, pre-human flesh packets?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , as Planned Parenthood would say -muscular contractions in non-viable , pre-human flesh packets ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, as Planned Parenthood would say -muscular contractions in non-viable, pre-human flesh packets?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29870635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29871259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29871423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29870501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29870637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29876405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29873739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29870697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29871037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29870873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29874675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29871667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29873153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29871509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29870643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29878977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29873303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29871321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29871995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29870667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_25_2256226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_2256226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867899
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29870667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_2256226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868433
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_2256226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869145
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_2256226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867789
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29870873
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29871423
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869787
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869123
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29870697
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29878977
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869547
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29871037
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867867
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868393
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29871667
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869355
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29873303
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869613
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868845
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29871259
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29870501
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29870637
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29870635
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869133
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29876405
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869595
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29873739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867817
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29874675
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868739
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868391
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868221
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869007
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868279
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868769
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868407
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868537
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868453
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868009
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868469
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_2256226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_25_2256226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867813
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869297
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868337
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867909
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869489
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868199
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29871995
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868257
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29870643
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29871509
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868425
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29873153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29867769
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29869765
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29871321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_25_2256226.29868237
</commentlist>
</conversation>
