Dr Ben Carson has a great point

No he doesn't ... He's just a ****** bag !!

 

I’ll try and hit the high points from both your replies.

You sound like a pretty well rounded individual to me. I’ve known some people who were geniuses in one respect and morons in others as well. I don’t dispute Carson is out of his element at times. I’ve been familiar with his work for many years at some level but never took him seriously enough in the political realm to go deep into all his beliefs.

In the primaries he was an interesting player but not presidential material in my opinion. I’m just bothered by what appears to be bias against him by some only on the basis of his wearing his religion on his sleeve. You obviously aren’t in that category as you give reasoned argument instead of regurgitating sound bytes.

On zygotes, I have forgotten most of the details on embryonic development but retain the 30,000 ft view. I certainly wouldn’t say you’re wrong leaning towards the brain function determinate. Personally I lean more towards conception. The first reason is strictly my proclivity to err on the side of caution on ethical/moral issues.

The second reason may be hard to articulate but here goes. When I came out to milk cows after our last go round, I found one of my jersey cows had just had a beautiful heifer calf. It’s having it’s first meal as I type. In the realm of artificial insemination and embryo transfer, we consider our efforts to be successful at conception. After fertilization the odds of live offspring are very good. Especially with AI, less so with ET as you still have implantation to deal with.

My point is when we have fertilization/conception that zygote has economic value. With AI we consider the cow bred and look forward to and expect economic returns from that point on. We know with pretty good certainty what those returns may be because we now know the genetic potential of that “life”. It’s genotype is set in stone. It’s an individual with quantitative value.

With ET, after flushing, the embryo has economic value even outside of the donor or recipient cow. It has economic value in a pool of liquid nitrogen.

In my mind it’s logical to believe if an embryo or even a zygote has economic value in simple beasts, a human equivalent must have some value.

Yes, you can say sperm in a nitrogen tank has economic value as well and this is so. Perhaps to you it is the equivalent of a zygote or embryo but not to me.

I never got around to your alcohol question again. Yep I believe as you do that IF Jesus was for real ( I do) he drank alcohol. It’s indisputable as you a microbiologist well know, any drink, be it grain, fruit, or dairy based was fermented out of necessity. I’ve had “fundamentalists” tell me it was grape juice not wine in the examples you cited. Yes, impossible and absurd.

So no I don’t believe the Bible or God say alcohol is “wrong” or evil either. I do believe if you profess to believe the Bible getting wasted and potentially harming yourself or others is not acceptable behavior. Just my opinion.

Couple shop talk questions. First, is your understanding of dating ice caps and civilizations based on carbon 14 dating? I need to brush up on that subject.

Second, we use a 10W oil to lubricate our irrigation well shaft bearings. A lot seems to come back up with the water but some stays on the surface of the water in the casing. This has always bothered me. I’ve always wondered if there was a solution. Sounds right up your alley. Is there anything that would “eat” as you put it this residue without biologically contaminating the well?

Ps. The temp of our groundwater is 52 degrees F.

 

It is interesting that you brought up "value". Getting away from the moral argument and into the legal one. If there is a conflict between the rights of two individuals the court must weigh the value of each on the scales of Justice.

What we can say with certainty - in relation to the zygote - is that "Experts Disagree" = we don't know.

The value of the rights of the woman are high - this nation was founded on respect for individual liberty - that individual liberty is "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't. How then do we value the rights of the zygote - the rights of " We don't know" or "We don't know otherwise".

This is no contest - the woman wins by default. What troubles me is when we have SC Justices that do not understand the principles on which this nation was founded ... either that or - as happens in many cases - ignore them.

Irrigation wells are right up my alley. I am an expert in groundwater microbiology

1) you could put some fertilizer in the well which would stimulate the bacteria which would degrade the oil
2) this would definitely increase the rate of well fouling - which you don't want.
3) a few ppm of oil in the water will not harm the crops - in fact it will probably help by increasing the organic carbon loading. The soil bacterial will naturally degrade the oil- the light ends either evaporate or be degraded quickly - the shorter the carbon chain the more soluble. The middle stuff is less soluble and so harder to degrade but it will go over time - if you fertilize the soil this will increase the degradation potential. The really long chains are not soluble, are difficult to degrade but, are not a hazard. It is like having a piece of plastic on the ground - nothing to worry about.

4) you should be cleaning your irrigation wells. If the flow-rate decreases to 75-80% of original capacity you should consider a cleaning. If it gets much lower than this the well is too clogged (bacterial fouling) and it will be tough to bring back to original capacity.

Cleaning with just Chlorine (shock treatment) will not do much. What you want to do is use a penetrant or biodispersant in addition to the chlorine. You also want to circulate the water with heat. Heat, chemical and penetrant will clean the well. You then want to sparge the well (inject air). This will lift out all the sludge that you just dislodged. You will be amazed at the goop that comes out

This process is known as a BCHT = Blended Chemical Heat Treatment.

 

They do have the right to life if 5 unelected demigods on the supreme court say they do

And each moderate or liberal who steps down or dies while trump is president puts the court a step closer to that day

 

We need more conservative judges on the Supreme court to undo the damage that has been done by the Democrats.

 

Thats one of the reasons trump was elected instead of jeb bush or hillary

 

So, you wear dishonesty like a badge?

 

So since Republicans want the government to force women to give birth to children with horrific and life threatening birth defects, they of course also support the government providing those children with free healthcare, potentially for the rest of their lives, yes?

 

Liberals should be allowed one abortion of an unwanted child

And then surgically prevent them from getting pregnant again

 

Carson claimed they were built by the Biblical Joseph specifically for the purpose of storing grain.

 

Yes, they have a right to life. No one’s right to life allowes them to use another person’s body against that person’s will to sustain their life.

 

I would be diametrically opposed to basing abortion on value of fetus vs mother. My example was to show there is value, in contrast to those who ascribe to the viability or full term theory of personhood.

First, we can not judge the value of the fetus compared to the mother. It could have negative value to society or it could have twice the value of the mother to society. The mother may have zero value to society. The only way I’d come anywhere near this would be health of the mother issues. And the cases are comparatively rare. We know from history this is a bad road to take.

Second it’s my belief the non aggression principle must apply. If pregnancy were a disease caused by a virus or microorganism or caused by aliens you could invoke self defense. The fact is the lions share are willing active participants in activitiy known to cause pregnancy. Abortion is just the willingness to harm others for one’s own comfort or gain.

Anyway, you’ve been through this all before just wanted to clear up my position for casual observers. Thanks for pointing out how my example made my argument seem only legal or economic.

To wells:

If I put fertilizer down a well I’d pay a huge fine! . We can’t even spray within a certain distance of well heads depending on the chemical/fertilizer.

Yes, I’m not concerned with the oil on my crops. We routinely apply various types as surfactants.

I didn’t think about the “leftovers” being worse than the oil. Makes sense.

We’ll companies offer cleaning services. I’ve not seen it done. I have seen an intact well scoped and there is some nasty stuff down there. It is not common to have it affect flow. Typically if a flow test comes back “bad” it’s because of pump problems or fluctuations in groundwater levels.

I have a well pulled right now that was set in 1957. I am having a new pump designed and the column rebuilt. We talked about cleaning but they said it would be a waste of money as it was in good shape.

I guessed I’ve just always wished there was a way to make things better. Sounds like the cures are worse.

A few years ago a soy based drip oil came out. It ruined a bunch of wells by clogging oil tubes and bearing lube points. There were rumors of reformulation but it seems to be gone for good.

 

Except statistically Conservatives equally as likely to get abortions (even while hypocritically opposing them) and also most women who get an abortion go on to have children later.

 

I disagree

But if we limit women to one abortion or one welfare baby that others have to support that might be a workable compromise

 

Laws protecting life would apply to conservative women also

 

So if I need an organ or a blood transplant to save my life, you believe the government should be able to force another person against their will to give it to me?

 

Wait...do you think ONLY liberals get abortions? Do you have verifiable proof backing up your claim?

 

So why did you only call out Liberals in your post?

 

Creating human life is why liberals are on this earth now

That is God or Nature’s plan

So no I do not support the forced harvesting of organs as they do in progressive red china

 

Because it is liberals who are demanding the right of women ti kill their unborn children

 

So why force a woman to continue a pregnancy she does not want?

 

Again since you missed it

Laws protecting life that conservatives support and liberals are against would apply to everyone equally

 

Because they can't stand allowing women to have control over their own body.