NASA abortion and abortion

[Nelhybel]

The problem is, American culture at the moment, especially on the center-right (which is also unthinkingly anti-government, except where it's theocratic, corporatist, and war-mongering), is very suspicious of science, even being anti-science.

Many segments of the science community vocally use science to assault Christianity, which is undoubtedly what causes Americans' "suspicion" of science.

When people use science to present arguments that science intellectuals don't agree with (eg: pertaining to creationism / evolution, whether global warming is man caused or not, etc.), those intellectuals tend to resort to attacks on Christianity, conservative culture, etc.

If you wish for the message of science to reach others, then be open to the message of God to reach you. The two can meet very effectively on common ground - they really can, and do in fact.

[sinewav]

If you wish for the message of science to reach others, then be open to the message of God to reach you. The two can meet very effectively on common ground - they really can, and do in fact.

Where? You mean when churches use technology created by god-hating scientists to evangelize and talk against the evils of science? Or when religious folk use modern medicine to cure their ails then say it's a miracle of god? Sounds like a lot of mutual respect there. Leave it to you to get offended by the slightest remark (a true one at that) and drive the conversation to proselytizing god and how much you are persecuted. gimmieagoddamnbreak.

also, inb4 evolution.

Now back to NASA... My greatest fear about the breaking up of NASA and the privatization of the Space Industry deals with the lack of cooperation between competing corporations. During the Cold War we still had some small degree of necessary cooperation with the USSR. Since it's collapse, the space-relationship between Russia has grown together nicely, along with the ESA and Japan and all the other countries -- even China who really, really wants to do it all by themselves (and Iran who we don't get along with, stupidly).

But as we've seen from the seemingly endless patent wars between software companies I fear that same danger lies in the private space race. Companies using non-compete contracts and every legal maneuver under the sun to beat down the competition. Budgetary decisions to sidestep quality in an effort to increase the bottom line. Insurance companies digging in and getting their fingers dirty (and not with moon dust). Let's just say I have a lot of worries. I think it would be a shame to see images returned from a private space company with their corporate logo watermarked on it -- and then have the company try to sue me for using that same image for non-commercial purposes. Talk about taking the magic and wonder out of the cosmos.

[Word]

When people use science to present arguments that science intellectuals don't agree with (eg: pertaining to creationism / evolution, whether global warming is man caused or not, etc.), those intellectuals tend to resort to attacks on Christianity, conservative culture, etc.

Moderate Christians believe in evolution (or our responsibility for the climate change) and think of creationism as a parable. Creationists aren't speaking for the entire Christianity. The US has a huge amount of Catholics but they all seem like dumb, fundamental radicals when you watch them on TV and know that your own community is the complete opposite (didn't the Pope just give a speech, saying that we should act reasonable to find truth..? I don't like our pope a lot, but he hasn't said anything scandalous yet. I think atheists are angry about the things he didn't say.)

Many segments of the science community vocally use science to assault Christianity, which is undoubtedly what causes Americans' "suspicion" of science.

1) 'American' is not a religion (yet)
2) Science shouldn't be anti-religious, and no 'normal' religion hates science
3) many scientists are American and/or Christian. The bible belt fanatics don't speak the entire nation, even if they see themselves as patriots (ignoring history). They also don't speak for all people with the same religion.

[syllabear]

But as we've seen from the seemingly endless patent wars between software companies I fear that same danger lies in the private space race. Companies using non-compete contracts and every legal maneuver under the sun to beat down the competition. Budgetary decisions to sidestep quality in an effort to increase the bottom line. Insurance companies digging in and getting their fingers dirty (and not with moon dust). Let's just say I have a lot of worries. I think it would be a shame to see images returned from a private space company with their corporate logo watermarked on it -- and then have the company try to sue me for using that same image for non-commercial purposes. Talk about taking the magic and wonder out of the cosmos.

Would you rather have some space-related pictures (and whatever you are after) or none at all?

Beardy Branson is not doing too bad a job at privatising the space hotel business

[Desolate]

Yes at Phyto, I had never heard of the space program being shut down until this article, they did decommission all the shuttles though much earlier.

[sinewav]

Would you rather have some space-related pictures (and whatever you are after) or none at all?

You don't get it. There is no reason to cut back on the USA's exploration of space. Imagine this: You regularly go to the grocery store and get food to sustain yourself. One day you go the the store and see they stopped selling food and became a gun shop. When you ask the owner why they turned the grocery store into a gun shop, he says "I just felt like guns were more important. Don't worry, there are a few little shops down the street that sell groceries." So you go to these other shops only to find that they have a very poor selection, in fact, none of them even sell fruit and vegetables or meat. So the only way you can get nutritious food it to drive to a far away town, and even then there are serious food shortages.

Now, if my metaphor confuses you think of it this way. The grocery store turned gun shop is the United States. The inadequate stores down the street are the private space companies. The stores out of town are the other space agencies like the ESA, etc. Maybe you think this is a bad analogy, but my point is I shouldn't be complacent with "some science instead of none" when there is absolutely no good reason to go without the science we are getting now.

Beardy Branson is not doing too bad a job at privatising the space hotel business

He's doing a terrible job. Virgin Galactic gave out it's first refund for space travel not too long ago because it's taking so long. Space Hotel? How about get someone into space first?

Reality check: John F. Kennedy declared men should go to the moon on May 25, 1961. We reached that goal on July 20, 1969. Eight years. In that same time frame, Virgin galactic is still mulling about on the ground.

inb4 moon conspiracy.

[INW]

This is what I was thinking of.
http://www.periscopepost.com/2011/07/na ... -frontier/

[Phytotron]

You regularly go to the grocery store and get food to sustain yourself. One day you go the the store and see they stopped selling food and became a gun shop. When you ask the owner why they turned the grocery store into a gun shop, he says "I just felt like guns were more important. Don't worry, there are a few little shops down the street that sell groceries." So you go to these other shops only to find that they have a very poor selection, in fact, none of them even sell fruit and vegetables[, just] meat. So the only way you can get nutritious food it to drive to a far away town, and even then there are serious food shortages.

Making that little edit, that paragraph pretty much describes your experience moving to Texas, doesn't it?

And you're right on. I completely neglected to address the privatisation aspect.

When people use science to present arguments that science intellectuals don't agree with (eg: pertaining to creationism / evolution, whether global warming is man caused or not, etc.), those intellectuals tend to resort to attacks on Christianity, conservative culture, etc.

Bullshit alert. There are no valid scientific "arguments" for creationism or against climate change (and by "arguments," I mean empirical evidence, because, after all, science deals with evidence, not philosophical arguments—the best argument doesn't "win;" the best evidence does). Any claim that is made against evolution or climate change can be, has been, and continues to be evaluated on the basis of the evidence, not cultural criticism or "attacks." So, fail there.

That said, the source of the arguments for creationism, and against evolution and climate change (for a firmament, I suppose) is all but exclusively activist, political (as opposed to personal, where it belongs) conservative Christianity. Therefore, once the "argument" has been assessed scientifically and dismissed, it only follows that where one would critique these beliefs and their incessant, belligerent use in attacking science and science education, of course that movement will be the subject of that critique. They're the source of it. Like, duh.

I can't even respond to the rest of that post. Really just too much embedded absurdity and ignorance to untangle. You clearly don't even understand what science is, what it covers, or how it works.

I think atheists are angry about the things [the Pope] didn't say.

Huh?

Science shouldn't be anti-religious

Science itself, by its very nature, is neither anti- nor pro-religious. That's like saying "mathematics shouldn't be anti-religious." Well, I suppose if you're someone who sees science as undermining your religious superstitions you may well think of it as "anti-religious" (hence so much irrational, vitriolic backlash) but that's another gross misunderstanding of the nature of science (hence the ignorance inherent to, underlying, and producing said backlash).

[Word]

I think atheists are angry about the things [the Pope] didn't say.

Huh?

For example, 'everyone should use condomes', 'abortions are awesome', 'god and creation is a lie' etc.

Science itself, by its very nature, is neither anti- nor pro-religious. That's like saying "mathematics shouldn't be anti-religious." Well, I suppose if you're someone who sees science as undermining your religious superstitions you may well think of it as "anti-religious" (hence so much irrational, vitriolic backlash) but that's another gross misunderstanding of the nature of science (hence the ignorance inherent to, underlying, and producing said backlash).

For a long time church was the best (and at times the only) employer of artists and scientists (see this list), and there were no tensions until scientists and artists probed into subjects that seemed to contradict the church's doctrine of that time (Galilei). From the church's point of view, science was suddenly anti-religious (although the inventions of new weapons could have been called anti-religious as well).
(I should have said 'shouldn't be viewed as anti-religious' to be more clear).

[sinewav]

For example, 'everyone should use preservatives', 'abortions are awesome', 'god and creation is a lie' etc.

LOL preservatives? Do you mean contraceptives? That may be a word you aren't used to using, and I suspect an item you aren't used to using either, haha.

Just to be clear, atheists don't think abortions are "awesome." We think abortions are horrible, horrible things that should be avoided whenever possible. But sometimes abortion really is the best option, and that option should be legal.

And I wouldn't expect the Pope to say creation is a lie. But it's no secret there are many atheist minters, priests, and clergy currently preaching to their congregations.

[Word]

Yeah, or just "condome"

(i didn't make that mistake for the first time...)

But sometimes abortion really is the best option, and that option should be legal.

That's why we have 'baby flaps' (I hate that word too) so other people can adopt these children. I just think it's cruel and egoist to kill someone innocent because you fear to lose your wealth, reputation or support when there's still a better option. Most people used to think that the life of the child ( = the youth, the future) is just as important as the mother's ( = the old, the past), maybe even more. So many mothers died (and some still die) after giving birth, but they are sure there's a reason for that. I just think children shouldn't be treated like a disease.

[Cody]

Yeah, or just "condome"

(i didn't make that mistake for the first time...)

But sometimes abortion really is the best option, and that option should be legal.

That's why we have 'baby flaps' (I hate that word too) so other people can adopt these children. I just think it's cruel and egoist to kill someone innocent because you fear to lose your wealth, reputation or support when there's still a better option. Most people used to think that the life of the child ( = the youth, the future) is just as important as the mother's ( = the old, the past), maybe even more. So many mothers died (and some still die) after giving birth, but they are sure there's a reason for that. I just think children shouldn't be treated like a disease.

Word are you a woman? No you're not. I'm pro choice. DO you realize how many kids are in foster care in the United states ALONE? You realize how much taxes it is to support over million kids MONTHLY or even YEARLY? Some don't even get adopted. I wounder what the long term emotional stress of those children face in the long haul. Also what about rape victims? Should they be punished for something they didn't do? You saying a rape victim should just deliver the child? What about other extreme cases that do happen, Where a dad rapes his daughter and she gets prego, you saying she should deliver her brother/son??? I THINK NOT. The woman has the clear right to do what with her body. Also im sick of people who think these women who get abortions(and exercise their rights) are so "evil & corrupt" Do you not think this woman this girl just made one of the hardest decisions in her life? Do you think she feels good about what she did? Also If you really wanna try to blame this all on the women, how about men? maybe ALL those anti-abortion chumps should get a vasectomy?? How about we turn the tables on them. since the only way a women can get pregnant is by sperm. I agree ending a life is Horrible. BUT its not black and white subject. I'd rather save a life then ruin two.

[apparition]

Back to the gyroscopes or gtfo.

[Z-Man]

Back to the gyroscopes or gtfo.

Nothing to add.

[Word]

@Cody: babies don't have a choice. If your father is a rapist, you're guilty by association. If you were the baby that was going to be aborted, do you really think you deserved it or care to help your mother who is willing to kill you, even if that won't help her? when you are alone, at least you are alive and can make something out of it, even if they need luck. And wow, you think it's OK to kill them just so you have to pay less taxes? And you think rape victims must kill their children to never see them again (and then often feel guilty and more ashamed than before) instead of giving them to other parents so they still have a chance to reconcile one day? OF COURSE they don't feel good. I never said these women were evil or corrupt and certainly didn't blame it on them.
And please, tell me how it ruined Steve Jobs' and his mother's lives.

If you don't want children, there are still condomes and pills and lots of other stuff (preservatives! ). There are even some natural methods that are approved by the church.