Double K

I know that. But being "technically" a relative doesnt make it incestuous, is my point.

Isn't the point of sharing the breast milk that it makes anyone you share it with technically a relative?

Regardless, unless it somehow makes you a direct descendant / blood relative, its not considered incest.

http://marriage.about.com/od/marriagelaws/g/incest.htm

In the United States, every state prohibits you from marrying any of your ancestors or descendants including your brother, your sister, your half-brother, your half-sister, your aunt, your uncle, your niece, your nephew, your mother, your father, your grandmother, your grandfather, your great-grandmother, your great-grandfather, your child, your grandchild, or your great-grandchild.

Some states have additional prohibitions concerning marrying your adoptive brother, your adoptive sister, your step-mother, your step-father, your former step-mother, your former step-father, your mother-in-law, your father-in-law, your former mother-in-law, your former father-in-law, your adoptive mother, your adoptive father, your former adoptive mother, your former adoptive father, your step-child, your former step-child, your adoptive child, your former adoptive child, your daughter-in-law, your son-in-law, your former daughter-in-law, your former son-in-law, or your cousins.

So technically since I have partaken of my wifes breast milk when I have sex with her now it's incest.

That would only be the case if you married your sister, mother or close cousin.

Anything after 2nd cousin is considered (legally) acceptable.

Here is a perfect example of why this shouldn't be introduced.

This is a bit of a mash up of a few cases, but the main story I remember seeing on local news, and at the end of it the baton wielding officer is seen taking a mobile phone from a bystander rather forcfully, and deleting the video and throwing the phone on the ground. He didnt realise it had also been captured elsewhere.

Edit: Actually at around 3mins 30sec you see the officer take the phone and arrest the bystander

Sorry wasn't trying to take it off topic, however I don't think it is entirely off topic, the OP was "can gene mutation be predicted?"

I agree that who owns a patent right to a gene is off topic, but the point was to lead to the things which can be tested for.

As to how they are done exactly that's outside my realm of knowledge, so I've just pointed down that path.

No one said it was.

 

I was questioning why they feel a need for a fatwah to create a situation where a man would be guilty of incest on a technicality rather than stick with the greater commandment not to mess with someone else's wife.

Ok I think you've mixed up the terms incest with adultery then, hence the confusion.

There is currently an effective testing proceedure out there, but it's around $3500 US per test, and is patented and not easily available.

http://7pmproject.com.au/2952.htm

American firm Myriad Genetics owns the patent to two mutated genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer.

It grants Genetic Technologies Limited exclusive license in Australia to test for breast cancer.

But a cancer advocacy group is challenging that monopoly, arguing genes are discovered, not invented, and therefore should not be patentable.

It follows the success of a similar case in the United States.

"There's a philosophical and ethical issue about commercialising the human body and its genetic material," lawyer Rebecca Gilsenan told the ABC.

"Gene patents can have the effect that they stifle research, they can stifle the development of treatments that researchers might otherwise develop and they can impede access to diagnostic testing for that gene mutation."

And there is a list of their products and what they have the capability to test for here:

http://www.myriad.com/products/

How about if we use a numerological set to break down god?

G = 7 (th letter of the alphabet)

O = 15 (th) 1+5=6

D = 4 (th)

7+6+4 = 17 = 1+7 = 8

GOD = 8

Q.E.D.

Or...

GOD =

Well that's horrible about your friend, I hate to think anyone innocent anywhere in the world ends up in a situation where they end up being a pawn in a game they aren't even playing.

That's what gets me really, more than anything, is the "collateral damage" not really who is to blame.

There have been many many cases of journalists being in war zones for alot of television and even radio media. The real break throughs happened in vietnam when there was a shift from reporting only the government approved story and actually reporting the facts. I would like to think that we still see this today even though I'm sure remaining objective in an emotionally distressing environment must be tough, I'm sure it's not impossible as it's been done before, and (unedited) video cant lie.

I think the "she was asking for it" defence has been tried before and not worked with rape cases.

There is such a thing as "aggravated assault" but saying that they were "asking for it" doesn't forgive the fact that Israel took the bait and "gave it".

At the point they were at sea they could easily have stopped the progressof the flotilla and waited for a neutral party to board and inspect the ships. They had options and chose the swift pre-emptive strike. If Israel should know anything, it should know the rest of the world wont accept "pre-emptive" strikes at the moment as we are still caught in the throws of a war based on exactly that.

And yet you don't SOUND like you're skeptical about the other side *despite* their own history. I find that weird.

I'm basing current judgement on "reliable" non-partisan news reports.

I completely disregard any evidence brought forward by either party.

I don't think Al-Jazeera is non-partisan and I dont think Israel is.

SMH reporters I believe and consider that Australia and Israel have fairly close ties and no reason what so ever to report biasedly on this issue.

Also these are seasoned war correspondants...not just activist appointed camera holders.

Just to follow up regarding the Aussie that got shot in the leg

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_536705.html

'I've just been left there to lay down on the ground and just bleed, and I can't believe it,' he told national broadcaster ABC from his hospital bed in Istanbul. 'Many of the soldiers that came up, picked up my passport because it was a different colour, looked at it, chucked it on the ground next to me and said, 'Ah, you're Australian'.'

Mr Luqman, 20, said that after the raid the Israelis made him 'climb all the stairs on my own without any assistance, and I passed out like three or four times just getting up the stairs on my own.'

Nine activists died during the Israeli naval operation against the flotilla, which was attempting to break a blockade on Gaza. Mr Luqman, whose nursing student wife was with him at the time and gave him immediate medical attention, said he was not intending to fight the Israelis and had been trying to seek cover when he was hit.

'I was just trying to get into the cabin and (was) just shot, like most of the other people who were just shot for nothing,'

I'll ask again: Are you saying that *all* blame is in Israel's side? I just want to be clear on your position here. Seems to me you find absolutely no blame at all on the flotilla side; am I right?

I'm not "pro" either side, I am pro-truth and that's all.

I am truly skeptical of Israeli accounts given several points; their past history, their past history of distorting the truth to suit their agenda, and their well documented military aggression.

Having said that, I have zero reason to support Hammas, or any other side seen as "against" israel. I just find it hard to swallow that Israel did everything by the book when many accounts point to other than.

Also this is an isreali military issue combat knife, which looks terribly similar to the one pictured. It's more than possible this knife was disarmed from the soldier once he was subdued. By the way it is held in the image it's certainly non-threatening as though he has taken it from someone.

A viable alternative would be to have someone else (non-Israeli UN peacekeepers) enforce the boardings, this way if there are anti-semetic interests on board they are less likely to attack unless Israel boards. Secondly it wont cause an international incident if there is a stuff up, as it wont look like it's come from a party acting solely in their own interest and with far too much aggression.

As far as I could tell from the journalists report they were on the upper decks, but were later forced below decks, searched and had items confiscated. There is also a report from an Australian that was shot that he did not get medical attention, I will find a link to that asap.

I think most parachute enthusiasts would agree they would rather hit earth or trees than water.

Water is very unforgiving, if hit at velocity it's worse than hitting concrete.

Also there are several military techniques that apply this, take a look at

HALO (not the game) and also SAS.

HALO perform high altitude drops but deploy chutes at around 4000feet.

SAS will disengage from their chute while still in the air and freefall into the water

This episode shows his technique unfortunately it cuts off just before he detaches...you should be able to find it with a little searching.

No, the journalists clearly stated (before even joining the flotilla) that they were there as journalists to document the passage. They were non-participants. I might add that the "investigation" will be carried out by the state of Israel, so it's hardly going to be conclusive either.

Also traditionally, (nurture or nature) dictated that women were generally more "right brain/emotional" than men who are considered more "left brain/logic" than women.

I did, but where's the relevance? We were discussing an Islamic man who drinks breast milk from a woman being considered technically a family member, and would therefore be committing incest (technically) instead of adultery if he had sex with that woman.

 

Again, I don't see the need for another rule to keep Islamic men from sleeping with married women, especially one that involves them suckling from them. And it must be the milk itself that holds the family magic rather than feeding from the breast, since some authorities are saying it's OK to just drink it expressed into a glass.

Technically it would only be incestuous if the woman was a sibling, or direct family descendant, and technically it's only incestuous if it's sexual in nature, and I was trying to point out that feeding as an infant directly from your mother is not incestuous, as it's not a sexual act, nor is it even slightly sexual in nature.

I'm not saying I don't think the law is bizarre (to me it is strange), however it's certainly not promoting anything incestuous.

Maybe they're having goat/cow shortages over there? & Is breast milk considered halaal?

There are confirmed eye wittness on the side of the IDF that claims the exact opposite. Either we find another objective source, or we decide to treat both sides as unreliable.

 

Incidentally, a Turkish representative to the Red Cross reported that the injured are receiving excellent care in Israeli hospitals. That might not say what was done onboard the ship, but since we seem to not be able to trust eitehr side's accounts, it can at least give us a hint of how Israel, in general, treats the wounded.

 

~moo

The SMH eye witnesses are well regarded journalists for one of Australia's highest regarded newspapers. They were there as non-participating media coverage. It doesn't get much more reliable. They are non-partisan where-as any middle east news source or the Israeli's are partisan.

Yeah before we go too far down the path of expanding on the formula, lets assertain how the numbers were assigned. You need to convince us that the numbers have a meaning in context of a phrase or action. I'm still not clear on how you arrived at everything being '1'

"For if there were any solid body in equipoise at the centre of the universe, there would be nothing to draw it to this extreme rather than to that, for they are all perfectly similar; and if a person were to go round the world in a circle, he would often, when standing at the antipodes of his former position, speak of the same point as above and below; for, as I was saying just now, to speak of the whole which is in the form of a globe as having one part above and another below is not like a sensible man."

Plato

Is this then the justification for assigning '1' to everything?

As everything referred to is diametrically opposed.

In some ways this would reinforce the buddhist principle of yin-yang.

The christian principle of heaven-hell.

& possibly many other religions which I am not familiar enough with to comment on.

He's talking about the policy in general, as compared to laws against killing disabled non-combatants. He probably didn't catch the meaning of "hors de combat" which means outside the fight. I'd agree that killing a disabled person normally wouldn't be kosher, but if they are going to die anyways from multiple bullet wounds and due to the fact some of them want to die and can still be lethal if alive (suicide bombers), it seems like a bit of a different story. In any case, let me play the bolding game:

Correct I was talking about the "confirm kill" policy in general, and also as enforced in this case.

Also there are confirmed eye witness reports from reliable sources (SMH Journalists) that medical aid to the wounded was not immediately rendered which is in contravention to the geneva convention.

With regard to hors de combat, the convention defines that as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hors_de_combat

Hors de Combat, literally meaning "outside the fight," is a French term used in diplomacy and international law to refer to soldiers who are incapable of performing their military function. Examples include a downed fighter pilot, as well as the sick, wounded, detained, or otherwise disabled.

A person is 'hors de combat' if:

(a) he is in the power of an adverse Party;

(b) he clearly expresses an intention to surrender; or

© he has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself;

provided that in any of these cases he abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.

This does not mean that you took no part in fighting, it means that you are now 'neutralised.'

I dont see how you define this as technical incest.

Did you or did you not breast feed from your mother when you were an infant?

And if the people on the flotilla would have laid down their arms peacefully instead of fighting, the situation would be different. As was in the other six ships.

I think once you're dead, you've pretty much laid down your arms.

A final shot between the eyes is (if the person is still alive) a summary execution, and at best, if they are already dead - desecration of a corpse ie. mutilation. Both acts are forbidden under the geneva convention and are considered a crime against humanity.

The IDF has a "confirm kill" policy where even after a person (who is considered a danger to the life of a soldier or other Israelis) is neutralised by several bullets, a final shot is fired into the head at close range to "confirm the kill". [/indent]

http://www.iccnow.org/documents/Canada.CrAgH.WcrEng.pdf

"crime against humanity" means murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, persecution or any other inhumane act or omission that is committed against any civilian population or any identifiable group and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes a crime against humanity according to customary international law or conventional international law or by virtue of its being criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following

provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

© outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

furthermore

Art. 32. The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.

Art. 38. With the exception of special measures authorized by the present Convention, in particularly by Article 27 and 41 thereof, the situation of protected persons shall continue to be regulated, in principle, by the provisions concerning aliens in time of peace. In any case, the following

rights shall be granted to them:

(1) they shall be enabled to receive the individual or collective relief that may be sent to them.

(2) they shall, if their state of health so requires, receive medical attention and hospital treatment to the same extent as the nationals of the State concerned.

(3) they shall be allowed to practise their religion and to receive spiritual assistance from ministers of their faith.

(4) if they reside in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war, they shall be authorized to move from that area to the same extent as the nationals of the State concerned.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.