Lawtalkers, what say you? Will the Supreme Court uphold or strike down this ban?
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2011/03/30/20110330arizona-abortions-race-sex-crime.html#ixzz1I4vFkqeJ
QuoteArizona outlaws abortions based on race, sex
by Ginger Rough - Mar. 30, 2011 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
Arizona is the first state in the nation to make sex- or race-selection abortions a crime.
Gov. Jan Brewer on Tuesday signed into law House Bill 2443, which makes it a felony for a doctor to perform an abortion based on the sex or race of the fetus.
Opponents of the measure have questioned whether such a practice was really occurring.
Republican supporters had said that statistics show a high percentage of abortions are being sought by minority women and that abortion clinics intentionally locate in minority areas.
They said statistics show that some populations are increasingly seeking abortions based on the fetus' sex.
Democrats argue that statistics show that neither is happening.
Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park, said he pushed the legislation because of fears women would choose to abort because they didn't like the gender or the race of the baby.
Rep. Katie Hobbs, D-Phoenix, said the only proof Montenegro offered was a magazine article on such practices in China and India.
The law allows the father of an aborted fetus - or, if the mother is a minor, the mother's parents - to take legal action against the doctor or other health-care provider who performed the abortion. If convicted of the felony, physicians would face up to seven years in jail and the loss of their medical license.
The governor did not comment on the bill before it reached her desk, but her spokesman, Matthew Benson, said Tuesday that the legislation is "consistent with her pro-life track record."
"Governor Brewer believes society has the responsibility to protect its most vulnerable, the unborn," he said.
They abort because they don't like the race of the baby?
What sluts must they be to get into that situation...
I am glad that Arizona Republicans don't make any claims that smaller government is better, else this kind of lawmaking for the sake of adding laws to the books would be hypocritical.
I don't think such a law would be challenging on constitutional grounds, unless it would be on the grounds of vagueness (since "race" is a purely subjective thing).
Ridiculous. It's targeting doctors based on the motivations of the patient? :huh:
Extremely lame law. Personal freedom is not a priority in America.
So this law makes it illegal to...what exactly? How can you possibly prove in trial why somebody wanted to have an abortion?
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 11:30:07 AM
So this law makes it illegal to...what exactly? How can you possibly prove in trial why somebody wanted to have an abortion?
Pic of the father?
Seems like a totally meaningless law, that cannot possibly achieve even its rather dubious goals.
I wonder if the idea is just to get some kind of restriction out there, let it stand, then expand it later.
Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2011, 11:50:30 AM
Seems like a totally meaningless law, that cannot possibly achieve even its rather dubious goals.
I wonder if the idea is just to get some kind of restriction out there, let it stand, then expand it later.
I wish anti-abortion activists would instead try to find new and creative ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies and thus work to make the whole point of abortions moot. Trying to use the power of the state without addressing the root cause of the problem seems destined to fail IMO.
Ah well maybe they do donate alot of money to those efforts as well.
Quote from: Tyr on March 30, 2011, 05:40:00 AM
They abort because they don't like the race of the baby?
What sluts must they be to get into that situation...
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Tyr on March 30, 2011, 05:40:00 AM
They abort because they don't like the race of the baby?
What sluts must they be to get into that situation...
That does seem weird. I'll let CdM make the obvious joke.
QuoteRep. Katie Hobbs, D-Phoenix, said the only proof Montenegro offered was a magazine article on such practices in China and India.
Are India and China also Rep-R?
Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2011, 11:50:30 AM
Seems like a totally meaningless law, that cannot possibly achieve even its rather dubious goals.
I wonder if the idea is just to get some kind of restriction out there, let it stand, then expand it later.
Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2011, 11:50:30 AM
Seems like a totally meaningless law, that cannot possibly achieve even its rather dubious goals.
I wonder if the idea is just to get some kind of restriction out there, let it stand, then expand it later.
I can't see how it could stand, frankly. But as screwed up as our judiciary has become, who knows?
I thought you don't have to give a reason for abortion in America...?
Quote from: Zanza2 on March 30, 2011, 02:26:24 PM
I thought you don't have to give a reason for abortion in America...?
You don't. The law makes no sense.
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 02:27:10 PM
Quote from: Zanza2 on March 30, 2011, 02:26:24 PM
I thought you don't have to give a reason for abortion in America...?
You don't. The law makes no sense.
Yeah this has been my first thought too.
What's up with Arizona and whacky laws? First the apartheid-style anti-immigration law, now thought police style anti-abortion law.
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2011, 02:40:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 02:27:10 PM
Quote from: Zanza2 on March 30, 2011, 02:26:24 PM
I thought you don't have to give a reason for abortion in America...?
You don't. The law makes no sense.
Yeah this has been my first thought too.
What's up with Arizona and whacky laws? First the apartheid-style anti-immigration law, now thought police style anti-abortion law.
To be fair, this second law seems to be in a different direction. After all, it is preventing the deaths of non-whites.
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2011, 02:40:59 PM
What's up with Arizona and whacky laws? First the apartheid-style anti-immigration law, now thought police style anti-abortion law.
Too much sunlight bakes one's brain? :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on March 30, 2011, 02:55:27 PM
After all, it is preventing the deaths of non-whites.
So noble :cry:
Quote from: dps on March 30, 2011, 02:16:23 PM
I can't see how it could stand, frankly. But as screwed up as our judiciary has become, who knows?
On what basis do you see the law challenged?
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2011, 03:29:13 PM
Quote from: dps on March 30, 2011, 02:16:23 PM
I can't see how it could stand, frankly. But as screwed up as our judiciary has become, who knows?
On what basis do you see the law challenged?
Right you need a case to challenge the law on.
What might one do? Sue for the right to abort your baby because it is a girl when you can already do so for no reason at all?
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 03:30:16 PM
Right you need a case to challenge the law on.
What might one do? Sue for the right to abort your baby because it is a girl when you can already do so for no reason at all?
I am aware of no "right to abort your baby" for which one could sue. RvW was decided on privacy grounds, and explicitly noted that there was no right to an abortion; that the state had a compelling interest and so could ban abortion in the third trimester, with a few exceptions.
If this law forces disclosure of the grounds for abortion in the first trimester, then it could be challenged on that basis; if it simply makes illegal things which would be illegal anyway, one presumably couldn't challenge.
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2011, 03:36:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 03:30:16 PM
Right you need a case to challenge the law on.
What might one do? Sue for the right to abort your baby because it is a girl when you can already do so for no reason at all?
I am aware of no "right to abort your baby" for which one could sue. RvW was decided on privacy grounds, and explicitly noted that there was no right to an abortion; that the state had a compelling interest and so could ban abortion in the third trimester, with a few exceptions.
If this law forces disclosure of the grounds for abortion in the first trimester, then it could be challenged on that basis; if it simply makes illegal things which would be illegal anyway, one presumably couldn't challenge.
Sorry Grumbles. Poor word choice on my part.
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2011, 03:36:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 03:30:16 PM
Right you need a case to challenge the law on.
What might one do? Sue for the right to abort your baby because it is a girl when you can already do so for no reason at all?
I am aware of no "right to abort your baby" for which one could sue. RvW was decided on privacy grounds, and explicitly noted that there was no right to an abortion; that the state had a compelling interest and so could ban abortion in the third trimester, with a few exceptions.
If this law forces disclosure of the grounds for abortion in the first trimester, then it could be challenged on that basis; if it simply makes illegal things which would be illegal anyway, one presumably couldn't challenge.
The state would have to demonstrate a compelling state interest in restricting abortions during the first trimester. The challange would of course be that the state has no compelling interest here.
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2011, 03:36:59 PM
I am aware of no "right to abort your baby" for which one could sue. RvW was decided on privacy grounds, and explicitly noted that there was no right to an abortion; that the state had a compelling interest and so could ban abortion in the third trimester, with a few exceptions.
If this law forces disclosure of the grounds for abortion in the first trimester, then it could be challenged on that basis; if it simply makes illegal things which would be illegal anyway, one presumably couldn't challenge.
Grumbler, you need to review Planned Parenthood v. Casey http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6298856056242550994&q=505+US+833&hl=en&as_sdt=40003 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6298856056242550994&q=505+US+833&hl=en&as_sdt=40003), which is a more recent case than Roe v. Wade, and which is the foundation of current abortion jurisprudence. Casey did not explicitly reject the privacy justification, but it did reformulate the right to terminate pregnancy as explicitly protected under the liberty interest in the due process clause. Casey recognized the right to terminate an abortion. What Casey also recognized is that this is not an absolute right; the state has an interest in the life of the fetus after it obtains viability. The trimester distinction in Roe v. Wade was dropped.
As DPS basically stated, going forward, the test is whether a disputed law burden places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an pre-viability abortion.
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 11:55:06 AMI wish anti-abortion activists would instead try to find new and creative ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies and thus work to make the whole point of abortions moot. Trying to use the power of the state without addressing the root cause of the problem seems destined to fail IMO.
Ah well maybe they do donate alot of money to those efforts as well.
This will never happen, because generally the more opposed to abortion someone is, the more likely they also oppose measures like the morning after pill, availability of condoms, sex education in schools, or the very concept of family planning itself.
Long story short, most pro-lifers support anything that increases birth rates, and oppose anything that reduces them.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on March 30, 2011, 07:36:05 PM
This will never happen, because generally the more opposed to abortion someone is, the more likely they also oppose measures like the morning after pill, availability of condoms, sex education in schools, or the very concept of family planning itself.
Long story short, most pro-lifers support anything that increases birth rates, and oppose anything that reduces them.
I wish they would study history then because large amounts of infanticide and child abandonment occured prior to birth control and abortions.
Well, as long as "whim" remains legal, this is pretty much unenforceable...except on the significantly stupid.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 30, 2011, 09:00:58 PM
Well, as long as "whim" remains legal, this is pretty much unenforceable...except on the significantly stupid.
And we should encourage them to get abortions.
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 08:52:32 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on March 30, 2011, 07:36:05 PM
This will never happen, because generally the more opposed to abortion someone is, the more likely they also oppose measures like the morning after pill, availability of condoms, sex education in schools, or the very concept of family planning itself.
Long story short, most pro-lifers support anything that increases birth rates, and oppose anything that reduces them.
I wish they would study history then because large amounts of infanticide and child abandonment occured prior to birth control and abortions.
But if you are of the view that abortion and infanticide are morally equivalent, there is almost certainly a higher rate of those (in combination) today than in the past. Throw in birth control ( :rolleyes:), and we are shutting out a strong majority of potential lives.
I can't figure out how to enforce these laws, or the point of the race aspect. Is that really a problem?
I think abortion based on sex of the embryo/fetus should be prohibited, but obviously enforcement is an issue and I don't think this is so much of a problem in this country. Maybe enforcement would be possible is if a couple is pursuing fertility treatments for a certain sex of the child, and is able to get pregnant but with the opposite sex.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on March 30, 2011, 07:36:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 11:55:06 AMI wish anti-abortion activists would instead try to find new and creative ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies and thus work to make the whole point of abortions moot. Trying to use the power of the state without addressing the root cause of the problem seems destined to fail IMO.
This will never happen, because generally the more opposed to abortion someone is, the more likely they also oppose measures like the morning after pill, availability of condoms, sex education in schools, or the very concept of family planning itself.
Your both seem to be pre-supposing that the "root cause" of abortion and unwanted pregnancies in general is a lack of availblity and knowledge of birth control. It's not--the root cause is people just being irresponsible. I'm not saying that lack of knowledge of birth control in
never an issue, but--let me put it this way: I've known lots of people who had unwanted pregnancies. None of them didn't know about or have birth control available. The vast majority just didn't care enough to use it. The 2 exceptions that I know about were using contraception and suffered contraceptive failure.
Quote from: stjaba on March 30, 2011, 07:03:25 PM
Grumbler, you need to review Planned Parenthood v. Casey http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6298856056242550994&q=505+US+833&hl=en&as_sdt=40003 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6298856056242550994&q=505+US+833&hl=en&as_sdt=40003), which is a more recent case than Roe v. Wade, and which is the foundation of current abortion jurisprudence. Casey did not explicitly reject the privacy justification, but it did reformulate the right to terminate pregnancy as explicitly protected under the liberty interest in the due process clause. Casey recognized the right to terminate an abortion. What Casey also recognized is that this is not an absolute right; the state has an interest in the life of the fetus after it obtains viability. The trimester distinction in Roe v. Wade was dropped.
As DPS basically stated, going forward, the test is whether a disputed law burden places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an pre-viability abortion.
Your interpretation of Casey differs from mine. "Liberty" in that case means nothing different than the right to make private decisions did in Roe. Casey just uses some different words to reach the same conclusions as Roe, and I don't see Casey granting a "right" in a "constitutionally-protected right" sense. The "right of the woman to terminate the pregnancy" is explicitly the "constitutional liberty of the woman to have some freedom to terminate her pregnancy." The trimester framework was explicitly dropped, though, and I hadn't seen this.
What I am saying is that i don't disagree with all of your point, but do disagree that Webster created a "right to abort." It, instead, reaffirmed that a woman could get an abortion as without undue state interference because she possesses liberties that the state cannot infringe upon without a compelling need.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on March 30, 2011, 07:36:05 PM
This will never happen, because generally the more opposed to abortion someone is, the more likely they also oppose measures like the morning after pill, availability of condoms, sex education in schools, or the very concept of family planning itself.
Long story short, most pro-lifers support anything that increases birth rates, and oppose anything that reduces them.
My reading is that most "pro-lifers" view pregnancy as a punishment for sex, and view abortion, along with birth control, as ways to cheat and have sex without the risk of punishment. Thus, they oppose both abortion and birth control, because they think the fear of pregnancy reduces the amount of "immoral sex" being engaged in.
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2011, 05:37:19 AM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on March 30, 2011, 07:36:05 PM
This will never happen, because generally the more opposed to abortion someone is, the more likely they also oppose measures like the morning after pill, availability of condoms, sex education in schools, or the very concept of family planning itself.
Long story short, most pro-lifers support anything that increases birth rates, and oppose anything that reduces them.
My reading is that most "pro-lifers" view pregnancy as a punishment for sex, and view abortion, along with birth control, as ways to cheat and have sex without the risk of punishment. Thus, they oppose both abortion and birth control, because they think the fear of pregnancy reduces the amount of "immoral sex" being engaged in.
:lol:
What a deliciously bizarre position.
Quote from: Slargos on March 31, 2011, 06:04:20 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2011, 05:37:19 AM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on March 30, 2011, 07:36:05 PM
This will never happen, because generally the more opposed to abortion someone is, the more likely they also oppose measures like the morning after pill, availability of condoms, sex education in schools, or the very concept of family planning itself.
Long story short, most pro-lifers support anything that increases birth rates, and oppose anything that reduces them.
My reading is that most "pro-lifers" view pregnancy as a punishment for sex, and view abortion, along with birth control, as ways to cheat and have sex without the risk of punishment. Thus, they oppose both abortion and birth control, because they think the fear of pregnancy reduces the amount of "immoral sex" being engaged in.
:lol:
What a deliciously bizarre position.
Welcome to the USA.
Quote from: Slargos on March 31, 2011, 06:04:20 AM
:lol:
What a deliciously bizarre position.
Indeed. But it also allows them to accept abortion in the cases of rape and incest, because then the sex wasn't voluntary and so doesn't need to be punished.
:huh: You don't punish people for sex, you punish people during sex.
Quote from: dps on March 31, 2011, 05:08:10 AM
Your both seem to be pre-supposing that the "root cause" of abortion and unwanted pregnancies in general is a lack of availblity and knowledge of birth control. It's not--the root cause is people just being irresponsible. I'm not saying that lack of knowledge of birth control in never an issue, but--let me put it this way: I've known lots of people who had unwanted pregnancies. None of them didn't know about or have birth control available. The vast majority just didn't care enough to use it. The 2 exceptions that I know about were using contraception and suffered contraceptive failure.
Having to use a condom or take your birth control pills every day does require a certain level of responsibility. What if it was something you only had to take once a year or something even simpler? I don't know I think some progress could be made to continue to improve contraception and continue to reduce unplanned pregnancies with an aim to eliminate abortions. At least if I felt strongly pro-life that would seem to be the most realistic and potentially fruitful avenue.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2011, 11:55:50 AM
Quote from: dps on March 31, 2011, 05:08:10 AM
Your both seem to be pre-supposing that the "root cause" of abortion and unwanted pregnancies in general is a lack of availblity and knowledge of birth control. It's not--the root cause is people just being irresponsible. I'm not saying that lack of knowledge of birth control in never an issue, but--let me put it this way: I've known lots of people who had unwanted pregnancies. None of them didn't know about or have birth control available. The vast majority just didn't care enough to use it. The 2 exceptions that I know about were using contraception and suffered contraceptive failure.
Having to use a condom or take your birth control pills every day does require a certain level of responsibility. What if it was something you only had to take once a year or something even simpler? I don't know I think some progress could be made to continue to improve contraception and continue to reduce unplanned pregnancies with an aim to eliminate abortions. At least if I felt strongly pro-life that would seem to be the most realistic and potentially fruitful avenue.
Co-60 held close to the bathing suit area.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2011, 11:55:50 AM
Having to use a condom or take your birth control pills every day does require a certain level of responsibility. What if it was something you only had to take once a year or something even simpler? I don't know I think some progress could be made to continue to improve contraception and continue to reduce unplanned pregnancies with an aim to eliminate abortions. At least if I felt strongly pro-life that would seem to be the most realistic and potentially fruitful avenue.
Agreed. Birth control would ideally be default circumstance, with the partners having to both take action to allow contraception to be possible. I, like you, am not convinced this is scientifically impossible, but agree that it is politically impossible in the US, due to the fact that sex, not pregnancy/abortion, is the issue in contention.
I wish more parents of potential politicians had chosen to get an abortion based on the knowledge that their children would be stupid.
Quote from: PDH on March 31, 2011, 12:28:14 PM
I wish more parents of potential Languish posters had chosen to get an abortion based on the knowledge that their children would be stupid.
fyp
Quote from: dps on March 31, 2011, 04:11:38 PM
Quote from: PDH on March 31, 2011, 12:28:14 PM
I wish more parents of potential Languish posters had chosen to get an abortion based on the knowledge that their children would be stupid.
fyp
Fortunately our stupidy only harms those masochistic enough to read Languish :P
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2011, 11:55:50 AM
Quote from: dps on March 31, 2011, 05:08:10 AM
Your both seem to be pre-supposing that the "root cause" of abortion and unwanted pregnancies in general is a lack of availblity and knowledge of birth control. It's not--the root cause is people just being irresponsible. I'm not saying that lack of knowledge of birth control in never an issue, but--let me put it this way: I've known lots of people who had unwanted pregnancies. None of them didn't know about or have birth control available. The vast majority just didn't care enough to use it. The 2 exceptions that I know about were using contraception and suffered contraceptive failure.
Having to use a condom or take your birth control pills every day does require a certain level of responsibility. What if it was something you only had to take once a year or something even simpler? I don't know I think some progress could be made to continue to improve contraception and continue to reduce unplanned pregnancies with an aim to eliminate abortions. At least if I felt strongly pro-life that would seem to be the most realistic and potentially fruitful avenue.
A hundred years from now when we're all born with inheritable neural implants made from nanites, women will be able to control their reproductive cycle with conscious thought. :yes:
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2011, 12:00:24 PM
Agreed. Birth control would ideally be default circumstance, with the partners having to both take action to allow contraception to be possible. I, like you, am not convinced this is scientifically impossible, but agree that it is politically impossible in the US, due to the fact that sex, not pregnancy/abortion, is the issue in contention.
I would imagine that perfect control over reproductive functions is quite a negative evolutionary trait. I would guess that quite a lot of population growth comes from unplanned (but not necessarily unwanted) pregnancies.
I'd guess physical evolution of humans is pretty much nonexistent at this point anyway.
Quote from: Maximus on March 31, 2011, 06:36:01 PM
I'd guess physical evolution of humans is pretty much nonexistent at this point anyway.
How can it be non-existant? If anything, humans now probably evolve at the fastest ever rate, just because our environment is changing at the fastest ever rate.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 31, 2011, 06:25:04 PM
A hundred years from now when we're all born with inheritable neural implants made from nanites women will be able to control their reproductive cycle with conscious thought. :yes:
:bleeding:
Quote from: DGuller on March 31, 2011, 06:40:16 PM
Quote from: Maximus on March 31, 2011, 06:36:01 PM
I'd guess physical evolution of humans is pretty much nonexistent at this point anyway.
How can it be non-existant? If anything, humans now probably evolve at the fastest ever rate, just because our environment is changing at the fastest ever rate.
Actually, our environment changes not at all, for the vast majority of the population. Clothing, fire, air conditioning, and the like have obviated the need to adapt to the physical environment, so birth control probably isn't an evolutionary disadvantage given the lack of evolution.
Quote from: Neil on March 31, 2011, 06:47:15 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 31, 2011, 06:25:04 PM
A hundred years from now when we're all born with inheritable neural implants made from nanites women will be able to control their reproductive cycle with conscious thought. :yes:
:bleeding:
Better be careful what you're thinking about ladies, or you might inadvertently thought-abort your baby!
Grumbler wins for using "obviate"
Human evolution has dramatically accelerated in the last 10,000 years.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evolution/selection/jones-evolution-stopping-2008.html
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evolution/selection/acceleration/accel_story_2007.html
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2011, 07:48:49 PM
Actually, our environment changes not at all, for the vast majority of the population. Clothing, fire, air conditioning, and the like have obviated the need to adapt to the physical environment, so birth control probably isn't an evolutionary disadvantage given the lack of evolution.
We've had extensive air conditioning for what, 50 or 60 years? Way too early to be discussing AC in this context.
Changes to human society & technology are happening at a faster rate now than ever before. These can affect the gene pool in various ways. Still, one would hardly expect to be able to see evolutionary change over a single lifetime. That doesn't mean it's stopped.
AC has allowed a significant population migration from the northern US to the south. Population transfers cause different populations to breed together that didn't before. This causes a change the likelyhood of certain genes being passed on. This is evolution.
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2011, 07:48:49 PM
Actually, our environment changes not at all, for the vast majority of the population. Clothing, fire, air conditioning, and the like have obviated the need to adapt to the physical environment, so birth control probably isn't an evolutionary disadvantage given the lack of evolution.
The removal of need to adapt to physical environment is precisely the driver for evolution. In an effect it is a change in environment as far as human are concerned. Once you can cope with same facet of physical environment with the help of technology, you don't have to be naturally adept at coping with it. Humans would still have fur if they didn't invent clothing.
QuoteHumans would still have fur if they didn't invent clothing.
Speaking of fur, look up 'Demi Moore Naked' in google with safe search off. :D
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 31, 2011, 08:24:37 PM
Changes to human society & technology are happening at a faster rate now than ever before. These can affect the gene pool in various ways. Still, one would hardly expect to be able to see evolutionary change over a single lifetime. That doesn't mean it's stopped.
Of course not. Regardless of how quickly the gene frequency changes, the pace of change is still far, far too slow for someone to reliably observe during one's lifetime. That doesn't mean that there is no change happening, or that those slow rates of change aren't variable.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 31, 2011, 08:35:57 PM
QuoteHumans would still have fur if they didn't invent clothing.
Speaking of fur, look up 'Demi Moore Naked' in google with safe search off. :D
I see a bad boob job. Am I supposed to see anything else? :unsure:
Quote from: DGuller on March 31, 2011, 08:41:06 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 31, 2011, 08:35:57 PM
QuoteHumans would still have fur if they didn't invent clothing.
Speaking of fur, look up 'Demi Moore Naked' in google with safe search off. :D
I see a bad boob job. Am I supposed to see anything else? :unsure:
There is one where she has a massive fur burger.
I can't give the link now, there are kids roaming around.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 31, 2011, 08:29:40 PM
AC has allowed a significant population migration from the northern US to the south.
The southern US has been pretty heavily populated for a very long time. I think you're crazy again.
Quote from: Neil on March 31, 2011, 08:44:33 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 31, 2011, 08:29:40 PM
AC has allowed a significant population migration from the northern US to the south.
The southern US has been pretty heavily populated for a very long time. I think you're crazy again.
Heh not like it is now. I think Tim is absolutely right but it goes even more for Arizona.
I think the right wingers should outlaw abortions for same sex couples, to really stick it up to the gays.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 31, 2011, 08:29:40 PM
AC has allowed a significant population migration from the northern US to the south. Population transfers cause different populations to breed together that didn't before. This causes a change the likelyhood of certain genes being passed on. This is evolution.
I think you are overestimating the genetic differences between people in the Northern and the Southern US. :lol:
People still largely marry within the same race. A descendant of Irish immigrants living in Chicago has a better chance of mixing different gene pools if he marries a descendant of German immigrants living in Chicago than a descendant of Irish immigrants living in Houston.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 31, 2011, 08:24:37 PM
We've had extensive air conditioning for what, 50 or 60 years? Way too early to be discussing AC in this context.
:huh: Are you saying that AC takes longer than 50 or 60 years to alter the environment in which it is installed? I disagree. My AC alters the environment in a matter of minutes.
QuoteChanges to human society & technology are happening at a faster rate now than ever before. These can affect the gene pool in various ways. Still, one would hardly expect to be able to see evolutionary change over a single lifetime. That doesn't mean it's stopped.
If one argues (as Timmay's link does) that 'evolution" is merely a changes in allele frequencies, then, yes, humans and all other species are evolving all the time, because allele frequencies are never constant. That kind of defeats the purpose of having the word 'evolution," though, since it is then meaningless.
If we mean by evolution the sequence of events involved in the physical development of a species, then we are not evolving, because the mechanisms for evolution have been halted. We are not talking about a lifetime. We are talking about Cro Magnon skeletons being indistinguishable from modern man's.
Quote from: DGuller on March 31, 2011, 08:33:36 PM
The removal of need to adapt to physical environment is precisely the driver for evolution.
Got a cite for this? It stands existing evolutionary history on its head, and I haven't run across the hypothesis that evolution occurs when environment does
not force adaptation. Must be new stuff, and I admit that I haven't been keeping up. It is pretty revolutionary if it is as absolute ("precise") as you make it.
Quote from: Neil on March 31, 2011, 08:44:33 PM
The southern US has been pretty heavily populated for a very long time. I think you're crazy again.
AC did have a significant impact on the development of Florida, though.
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 07:08:24 AM
AC did have a significant impact on the development of Florida, though.
No way a hot humid hell like central Texas is one of the fastest growing parts of the country without it. Don't forget Arizona either.
I think also the draining of wetlands and skeeter spraying helped. Not only is Florida hot and muggy as hell but it used to have malaria, yeller fever, etc. :)