Buy Xanax Without Prescription Best Prices Guaranteed

Would you choose to give a child a disability? The question seems preposterous, but as Slate pointed out, a recent academic paper reports that parents at three percent of U.S. fertility clinics did just that.

Are you planning on having a child? Worried about your family's history of cystic fibrosis, or hoping to protect the next generation from Tay-Sachs or spina bifuda? It is now possible to do genetic testing for a number of diseases well before birth. Genetic screening of embryos at fertility clinics is becoming popular – since the clinics create a number of embryos and only implant one, it is relatively easy to test and select the healthiest of the lot.

But as Slate bluntly points out, not all parents are looking to prevent their children from suffering a debilitating disease. Many parents simply want to balance their families, adding a girl if they already have boys. But in a more shocking twist, deaf parents are asking to have deaf children, and the blind may be purposefully giving birth to the blind.

My immediate reaction is that this just seems wrong. How is imposing a lifelong limitation on someone else, even your own child, before birth any different from imposing it afterward? Surely it's illegal and immoral for a deaf dad to jam an ice pick in his son's cochlea.

But the more I've thought about it, the more I wonder about why the parents are making these requests. Are they just really, really committed to the notion that there is a deaf culture? That doesn't seem likely.

I can think of two lines of thought that might lead down this path. One is that two deaf parents might worry that they would not be able to properly assist in the speech development of a hearing child. Many deaf people can speak well without being able to hear themselves, but it might be more difficult to teach a child. I don't have any case studies or evidence on this point, but it's a possibility.

For the second line of thought, I try to put myself in their shoes, at least through analogy. I always did well at math in school, but I'm no genius. There are otherwise normal human beings all over the world who are geniuses – people who have a deep, intuitive understanding of math, or music, or chess that I will never have. If tomorrow scientists isolated the math-genius gene, and a clinic offered me the chance to chose the math-genius positive embryo, would I? In this case, my wife and would be the “disabled� ones, lacking this sublime understanding of math-if we chose instead to have a “normal� child, would we be doing the same thing these deaf parents are?

It is not a perfect analogy (as my wife pointed out when I posed the question to her). For one thing, being a math genius is not the usual baseline case, and in that way it is similar to blindness or deafness. But is this majority rule enough to make a moral judgment?

I'm not going to go down the slippery slope of employing a “slippery slope� argument, but it is interesting to consider the gray areas – for example, some diseases shorten lifespan and induce so much suffering that nearly everyone will agree it is good that they can be avoided. But what about genes that only statistically increase the risk of a disease? Is it good to avoid a gene that increases breast cancer risk by 80%, but a bad idea to screen for a gene that represents a 7% increase in heart disease?

I'm usually a staunch supporter of the “crippling children is wrong� camp, but the more I think about this the more I wonder – where will we draw the lines, and how will we make these moral decisions, as the technology improves and becomes less expensive and more common place?

So far we have talked about world population, smoking and death rate, how Greenland has no discernable population and how balconies are not meant for smoke breaks. So, moving on, today we will talk about the sin tax. The definition of sin tax, according to investorwords.com:

A tax levied on products considered vices.

Wikipedia, on the other hand, says the following:

Sin tax is a euphemism for a tax specifically levied on certain generally socially-proscribed goods - usually alcohol and tobacco. Sin taxes are often enacted for special projects - American cities and counties have used them to pay for stadiums - when increasing income or property taxes would be politically unviable.

Either way, what we discover here is that there is a negative connotation to sin taxes. And there should be. Sin taxes can be applied to anything. Every state taxes things that "may potentially hurt people." Basically I have learned thought my intensive research for this article that sin taxes were created by the purtians to help control sin using fines and prohibitions. Sin taxes can tax just about anything: tabacco, alcohol, pop, food, gentlemen's clubs, entertainment such as movies and sports, and pornography. It's a travesty folks, I know. Either way, the whole point of applying a sin tax is to raise revenue quickly in a manner that people can't really complain about. I don't think that any politician is going to be reelected if his/her campaign statement is "I oppose a sin tax on pornography!" versus the politician who's statement is "Let's tax the hell out of pornography!" I think that the first politician will lose just because the people who would support him are too lazy to vote. It's a sad, sad world. Oh, and all of the uptight Americans who wear granny panties and can't mind their own business. If you don't like it, don't do it. Don't try to tell me what I can do. I am an American. I should have that choice! But, wait, we are off topic. So, anyway. About smoking. Yeah. And the sin taxes. What good can sin taxes do? In Oklahoma City the sex industry is being taxed and the proceeds are going to "support domestic violence and sexual abuse programs with a portion set aside to help self-employed Oklahomans buy health insurance" and that "the tax's proceeds to domestic violence and sexual abuse programs would actually result in a net decrease in state spending on such programs by 100-thousand dollars a year". So, where is this extra money each year going that they are saving? To the schools perhaps? Probably not. Anyway, it's not so easy to find out where this money is going. Most programs are set up to allocate the money back in to a program that would stop it from making money, such as the one we saw above in Oklahoma City. Others fund things that would make the public happy, very similar to bribing a small child, such as stadiums or other entertainment. For example, the new Browns Stadium in Cleveland, OH. See, in this way, even though a sin tax is never a welcome thing, especially to those who are being taxed, politicians try to sweeten the deal with a nice little reward. Honestly, I always thought that the money was being returned to the public school systems, but if it is, I have found no evidence. I wonder if people even realize what a sin tax is or why it is there. My assumption is: NO. Because the public is ignorant and they like it like that. Take a look at the following poll: Now, where was the choice for "let's not sin tax anything". And now they are bringing fast food into it. If America is being sin taxed on it's foundations, what is next? Sin taxing drinking water and taking a poo? But, I do want to help you understand about the website that is taking these polls. To sum it up, here is this week's poll: "Should the families of the children killed by accidental overdose accept Methodist Hospital's offer of restitution? Yes or No" So that's the kind of crap stand that they run. On your right, an idea to tax entertainment in general. Are you having a good time in your own home on that awesome wii you just bought? Not without a 10% tax hike you aren't. The good people of Reno, you should just lie. They are going to keep taxing you if you say it's okay. "Well, yeah, sure, I don't mind payin' an extra 10% to go and see naked mud wrasslin. As long as it's not for homos, that is." Silly, silly Renoians. Oh, and apparently the Scots have no idea of what a sin tax is or they wouldn't think the best idea is to tax necessities: Ah, hell, let's just let the government add a sin tax to everything we buy, maybe then we will get a pretty red fire truck and a new marina just like in Sim City! I am not saying that a government can run off of no tax money. I am just saying that labeling something a sin tax and charging twice as much for it is wrong. And that the public doesn't care enough to fight back for things that they enjoy; that is wrong. I mean, yeah, you get a pretty stadium or a nice program that trys to stop kids from doing drugs, but are you willing to continue to be taxed on all of your entertainment and, if you're Scottish, your food and essentials?

[youtube]igC4bPDp6cU[/youtube] Yet again Japan is beating America with its innovations. Its latest one is called Hard Gay. Japan has finally harnessed the raw energy of a gay man wearing leather and is using it to turn its economy around. From this clip you can see how Hard Gay uses the power from his leather clad pelvic thrusts to turn around a failing ramen shop. Just think how many businesses we could save in this country if we would stop persecuting homosexuals and use them for good, like Hard Gay. Who doesn't love Hard Gay?  As you can see, even the children love him and get in on the act. In the end isn't there a little Hard Gay inside all of us, and if there isn't I'm sure Hard Gay could fix that!

So far we have learned that China is going to lose 1/3 of it's men in a couple of years due to smoking, that the US is not as chartruse as we would like it to be and that no one lives in Greenland. So in installation #2 of why smoking is good I am going to show you a little movie. Please dim the lights and enjoy why smoking is good pt2. [googlevideo]-5330941790223116453[/googlevideo]

Some people make a point of learning a new word each day. This web site does not teach you a new word each day, but time to time we will point out a fun new word that would make a good addition to your vocabulary.

Today's word is Foley. Foley has exactly two possible meanings, which you should never mix up. I repeat, do not mix up the two meanings of Foley.

The first meaning is sound effects, for a film. When films are shot, it is often difficult or impossible to clearly record sounds and dialog, and often a director will want to add additional sound to emphasize something, to create a mood, or to foreshadow something sinister. This is where Foley comes in. Monty Python's Holy Grail illustrates Foley by banging coconuts together instead of using real horses. If you didn't really pick up the joke before, but just giggled because of the word 'coconuts,' that's okay, it works on many levels.

The second meaning of Foley is a type of urinary catheter. This Foley is inserted through the urethra in order to drain the bladder. A Foley is not a truck; it is a series of tubes. Patients may be catheterized because of chronic urinary tract infection, prostate problems, or during surgery and long periods of recovery.

Do not underestimate how embarrassing it would be to confuse the two meanings of Foley. If you are a nurse in a hospital, and you are told to hook a patient up with a Foley, do not search for a metal sheet that sounds like thunder when shaken. This will only torment the patient, who is already having a hard time peeing and feels like the whole world knows about it.

If you find yourself on a film set in Hollywood and the director asks you to provide Foley for a scene, do not insert a tube into his urethra. What is wrong with you? Why would you even consider doing that? I don't even want to know what you thought the official duties of the Foley artist were when you signed up for this job.