klingeme

or Let's argue semantics now. The point is money is paid to nave the logo displayed the same way it is for all the other logos. That is the corilation I am trying to make.

But they are promoting a product....that product being the Army. If a group of UPT of PD employees......like a group of Army employees.....formed a team, would they be able to set up the UPT or PD Spider Tent? If not, then the Knights should not be able to "promote their product" without paying.......... Let me get this straight. In an attempt to justify your point, you decided to toss the Knights under the bus. Are you upset at your firm's decision NOT to become a sponsor of the USPA Nationals and now you are angry that companies may not "guerrilla market" their products at will all over the event, for free? Try doing that at any other sporting event and see just how quickly you get tossed. Your justification for hitting the Knights is that the Knights are there "promoting" a product and therefore should be charged to display the Army/Knights logo on a tent? First of all, NOTHING the Knights represent is for sale. Nothing they represent takes away from any vendor's potential customer. The only thing the Knights compete for is a medal, period. They are competitors and consumers at the meet. Do they hand out Unit stickers, absolutely. Do these stickers represent a product which is in any way competing for the dollars of anyone attending the event? Nope! YOUR company depends on the Knights "Owners" for a part of your income/profits. Singling them out does nothing to make your argument, in fact is is not close to being relevant. Relax though, your remarks attacking that group of professionals soldiers are not a violation of Political Correctness. They are, however, a display of pure thoughtlessness on so many levels! Fortunately, as professionals, I am sure the team will say nothing. Really, though, nice cheap shot! To those upset about no logos on a tent might look to the PGA. Golfers wear on their clothing all sorts of logos of companies which might compete with the name sponsors of the particular event. However, all non-event sponsor corporate tents are pure white, logo free. Perhaps it is time for our sport to at least attempt to step up and try to locate larger sponsors outside of our industry. Otherwise, the sponsorship pie is just not growing fast enough to support all the teams seeking support. Is that why Nascar doesn't charge the ARMY car or the National Guard car to race, but they charge the Amp car a very large fee......I always wondered why they do that. Thanks for the explaination. They ARE selling a product that they will be able to market for free at nationals. It may be fair, it may not be, but they will be marketing for free at nationals.

But they are promoting a product....that product being the Army. If a group of UPT of PD employees......like a group of Army employees.....formed a team, would they be able to set up the UPT or PD Spider Tent? If not, then the Knights should not be able to "promote their product" without paying.......... Now we all know this will not happen because it would be too un-PC, but if they can do it, why can't anyone else?

I don't think any of the USPA canopy piloting events require a pond......just a swoop course which can be setup with windblades (non-branded or a sponsor's logos) (edited to add) or some water noodles (end edit). The CPC does it all the time in the Southeast region.

Bill Booth is currently out of the office and I would like the response to come directly from him rather than me because he will be able to explain it much better. He will respond to your question on Monday when he gets back into the office. Mark Klingelhoefer United Parachute Technologies

You are correct here, however, these 'reactions' are in no way purposeful or intended. In fact, most Child Development theorists agree that newborns, up until 1 month of age rely solely upon survival reflexes. So, essentially, neither are 'reacting to their environments'. So both are equally alive Thanks for helping me prove my point.

As much as I'm pro mosquito, pro tree trunk, and pro cow. I kill mosquitos, live in a house made partly of wood, and love a good steak. I don't swat to kill, cut with a chain saw, or slaughter what will become a human child. edited to add To follow your train of thought: Although I have no problem with a "vaccine" (the pill) that prevents women from getting pregnant.

Typically, they are killed prior to preparation. In the event that they are eaten alive, babies don't usually survive being chewed up and swallowed. It's pretty unlikely that they would express discomfort once in the stomach or intestines. Good point. I'm making these posts between phone calls and Emails at work, so does my childish explaination (stomach) make my opinions less valid?

So what is your point? What exactly are you trying to prove? Something that is Alive is something that grows through metabolism and adapts through internal changes......An egg and sperm become one cell and then "grows through metabolism (the sum of the physical and chemical processes in an organism by which its material substance is produced, maintained, and destroyed, and by which energy is made available. ) " and a zygote does this, so I was defining my view of Pro-LIFE and using the dictionary to show what I meant as ou had done in a previous post with the definition of BABY. I'm pro life and pro baby,

It looks like you're mixing 'opinion' with instinct reaction - which cannot be considered 'choice'. If you're still insisting that a newborn express THEIR opinion, and not just instinct reaction, I would like to see proof. You also ignored the second part of the question - at which stage you consider a fetus being capable to make choices? It's quite obvious that a fertilized egg cannot make a choice, so when? The question is not only whether they could _explain_ their opinion, but whether they _have_ such opinion at all. I am saying that both should be allowed, and the mother should have a choice. A surrendered newborn could live without his biological mother, so if she wants to abandon him and not take care of him, it could be done, and some procedures must be followed. Unfortunately at this moment a fetus cannot live without his biological mother. Hopefully the medicine will advance, and at some point of time an aborted fetus could be transplanted into a womb of anti-choice female, who should be happy to carry it to the full term (and then likely to surrender it, as anti-choice crowd seems to have no problems with unwanted children). Quote And I'm saying in one instance you are humainily putting your child in a better enviornment, and in the other you are choosing to end their life.

Yup. But one of the other posters said that it's a baby as soon as conception happens, and conception happens before implantation. Wendy P. I said LIFE starts at conception. If I said that 1 cell multiplying to 2 cells to 4 cells to 8 cells..... is a baby, I misspoke, but based on the previous definitions that is a "LIVE" organism.

This is exactly what my intent was (and you put it far better than I probably could have.... thank you!) And I hope you understand my expaination and accept my appology.

If she took any offense to my over the top analogies, that is not at all what was intended. It was intended to be WAY over the top. I do not advocate killing of newborns and throwing them in dumpsters. I do not advocate killing foster children, and much to the contrary, I spent 2 of the hardest years of my life helping them out. However, I also do feel strongly about abortion and feel this is also the ending of a life. I appologize if my comment was taken wrong.

While we are throwing out definitions: life Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahyf] –noun 1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. 2. the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, esp. metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/life

My question to you was about fetuses, not about newborns. I asked two questions: how could you prove that a fetus really could have an opinion (and at which stage? could fertilized egg make a decision too?), and what is the proper way to get the fetus opinion? The reason I'm asking it is that you brought this issue yourself saying that 'fetus does not have a choice'. Therefore you need to prove that a) fetus could have a choice and b) it's possible to know beyond the reasonable doubt what the fetus choice is. I'm saying that before birth, they express their "opinion" a few days before birth, as a newborn can express their "opinion". What is the proper way to get a newborn's "opinion"? What is the difference? Is it possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a newborn does not want to be thrown in a dumpster? Is is possible to know if a 3rd trimester baby does not want it's arms and legs ripped off and vaccumed out of a womans body? You are correct, neither can express their opinion. Are you saying this makes abortion, and abandoning a newborn both ok?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm asking you a straight question: do you have any proof that a fetus in any stage (in any state, including just a fertilized egg, as you didn't seem to specify any restrictions) is as capable of making choices as a newborn? Somehow it's the parents who are making medical decisions (including life-threatening situations) for their babies quite after a while they were born. Why do we need that if even the unborn fetus - according to you - could make such decisions, and you allegedly know how to understand their opinion? I'm saying that they can make similar decisions as the newborn. They can express discomfort. Otherwise they would not move before birth.

Thank you for clarifying that. I commend both of you for helping with those that truly need help.... but the actions that you have done have worked to help children; children that have been abandoned, abused and are in need of someone to trust. It takes true grace to give them that. But... that discussion is not the same as discussing abortion beliefs. Then why did she bring it up?

Would you please provide any proof to support your statement that a fetus (in any state, including just a fertilized egg, as you didn't seem to specify any restrictions) is as capable of making choices as a newborn? Once you have it done, could you please explain the proper way to ask the opinion of the fetus - or you want us all just ask you instead of fetus? And a newborn will clearly discribe answer all the questions you have for them. Try harder to come up with an arguement. A 2 year old can not make the same decisions as a 10 year old either.

Have a good night everyone, and Go Penguins (Sorry, I'm a hockey fan) Would you please provide any proof to support your statement that a fetus in any stage (in any state, including just a fertilized egg, as you didn't seem to specify any restrictions) is as capable of making choices as a newborn? Once you have it done, could you please explain the proper way to ask the opinion of the fetus - or you want us all just ask you instead of fetus? Are you saying that babies do not "express discomfort" while in a womans stomach. They do not just lie there and not move. Some react to spicey food, some to sudden motion. they don't just "float there". I'm off to bed. If I have time tomorrow I'll check back in. edited to move my response below yours.

I appreciate your adoptions, and while it is not at the same level, I spent 2 years of my life looking after 12 DJJ kids 24 hours a day 5 (and sometimes 7) days a week at a wilderness facility. These were kids who's parents had abandoned them or didn't care enough about them to teach them how to be "decent human beings" so we spent between 9 months and 18 months teaching them how to be civilized. This was sleeping in a bug net in the middle of the everglades. So while I apperciate you saying you are "helping the problem" but my 2 years with 12 kids equals about 24 years looking after 1 foster kid. NOt trying to say you are not doing something, more so that I have also done my "trying to make the world a better place one kid at a time". I'm trying understand what you're saying here but it's NOT coming off how it should. It's rather confusing to read. Are you arguing against her beliefs or her acts? Or are you saying "ok, you help, but I do 'x'." This post really just makes you look rather ... rude (I guess would be the correct word) I might not always agree with perengrinerose about other things, but I'm having a VERY HARD TIME finding fault with her comments and even a harder time understanding if your post is an insult or a "me too." type statement. I guess I'm just trying to say: I think you might want to rephrase or rethink those comments. I take her comment as saying "I am doing my part by adopting children.....what have you done" and I've spent 2 years of my live trying (24 hours a day 5 and sometimes 7 days a week) to make them better because most of them came from "families" that really didn't care about them. I appreciate what she has done, but if she is implying I don't do my share to "help with the problem, I figure it as 24 months with 12 kids says that arguement does not fly with me. I've done my part too. Sorry if it came off as if I were saying something else.

Define a funeral. Funeral's are for the living, not the dead. If the parents feel a need (the same as if the child had died during the birth or within the first few days) to have a funeral, let them. If the dead is "unborn", 1 minute old, 2 years old, or 85 years old, dead people don't care about a funeral. only living people do. Are you saying a woman (and the father) that has a miscarrage does not have a right to greive however they see fit?

Do you have any proof that the unborn fetus is capable to have choices? That's very clever. They have about as much as a newborn. Should we kill them too?

So why not start killing foster kids? No, that wouldn't be right......kill them before they are offically "kids". Did you even read what I wrote??? Prevent the PREGNANCY... no preggers, no abortion, fostering, anything. Instead of focusing on the symptom of the problem (abortion), pro life groups should be focusing on the root problem (unwanted pregnancies and the situations that lead to such). Oh, by the way, I'm in the middle of adopting a 15 year old boy out of foster care. I practice my beliefs every day. When his adoption is final, we'll begin the adoption process of another teenager. As one leaves the nest, we'll adopt another, and so on. I firmly believe in practicing my ideals. And to top it all off, I'm agnostic. I appreciate your adoptions, and while it is not at the same level, I spent 2 years of my life looking after 12 DJJ kids 24 hours a day 5 (and sometimes 7) days a week at a wilderness facility. These were kids who's parents had abandoned them or didn't care enough about them to teach them how to be "decent human beings" so we spent between 9 months and 18 months teaching them how to be civilized. This was sleeping in a bug net in the middle of the everglades. So while I apperciate you saying you are "helping the problem" but my 2 years with 12 kids equals about 24 years looking after 1 foster kid. NOt trying to say you are not doing something, more so that I have also done my "trying to make the world a better place one kid at a time".

Of course a fetus is alive (so are bacteria). It's also human, given its DNA. Abortion really isn't a question of alive or not alive, human or not human. It's a question of whose rights trump whose, and at what point, if any, prior to birth, does a fetus have rights. Based on this arguement, and the fact that you believe women should have the right to abortions, do you think there is anything wrong with "abortion as birth control"? If it is just a medical procedure and not the "ending of a life" why don't "pro choice" people proudly claim "Pro Abortion" and support abortion as a valid form of birth control no matter how many times a woman wants to do it. Based on what you say, these is nothing wrong with a woman having 2 or 3 abortions a year. Is this how you feel? If not why is it ok to choose it once (or twice) in a womans life and not every month or two? Just trying to clear up where the "line" is with you. My line is at conception.

So a woman has all the say, and it's the womans job to have the kid, and the man's job to finacially support the 2 for 18 years or loose his child to a "medical Procedure" and he should have no say in the matter. OK, I think I understand your point of view. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. Men should have no rights after the initial intercourse when it come to if their child lives to see day one or not. Sounds fair to me.