Thursday Night Faux Bits n Pieces

Not as good as Kevin’s efforts, I’m sure, but since no one else is stepping to the plate….

Depressingly, two Australian professors and medical ethicists have written a paper arguing that newborn babies are not actual persons, are morally irrelevant, and have no moral right to life.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

After-birth abortion? I’m guessing the pro-choicers won’t be too happy with that nomenclature.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

The New York Times editorial board initiates it’s own war on biology in an editorial about an attempt in New Hampshire to repeal a law legalizing same-sex marriage:

Representative David Bates, the Republican who filed the repeal bill, argues that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, and he even included a sentence that says: “Children can only be conceived naturally through copulation by heterosexual couples.” This is breathtakingly dangerous foolishness.

Ah, the breathtakingly dangerous foolishness of how babies are made.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

How about a little March Madness primer:

Morning Report

Vital Statistics:

Last Change Percent
S&P Futures 1367.8 3.4 0.25%
Eurostoxx Index 2535.2 23.1 0.92%
Oil (WTI) 107.27 0.2 0.19%
LIBOR 0.4843 -0.003 -0.67%
US Dollar Index (DXY) 78.891 0.072 0.09%
10 Year Govt Bond Yield 2.04% 0.07%

Markets are slightly better after a mixed bag of economic reports this morning. Personal income and spending were lower than expected, while the jobless report was slightly better. Initial Jobless Claims definitely seem to have found a new level around 350k, which for all intents and purposes represents “normalcy.”

Bonds and mortgage backs sold off on the data, continuing the slide that began after The Bernank offered his testimony yesterday.

Today is the first Thursday of the month, and that means retailers are releasing their same-store sales numbers for February. Reports are still coming in, but WalMart, Target, and the Gap are all up smartly on their reports. The unusually warm weather in the Northeast may have played a part in the comps. Most retailers have a January fiscal year, so some are announcing their fiscal year earnings as well.

So a default is not a default? According to ISDA that is the case. Bought credit default swaps on Greek sovereign debt? No credit event for you!

Remember the days of 5% commissions and going to the library to research a stock? – why there has never been a better time to be an individual investor.

Chart:  Initial Jobless Claims over the years:

Cigarette Companies Breathe Easier on Package Warning Requirements

A Federal Judge blocked the FDA’s requirement that cigarette companies put graphic pictures of disease lungs, bodies on autopsy tables and other images on packs of cigarettes. He held that it violated the tobacco companies’ First Amendment Rights.

I like this quote from this NY Times article:

Paul G. Billings, vice president for national policy and advocacy at the American Lung Association. “This industry has been marketing its products to children for years in ways that have enticed them to use them — the Marlboro cowboy and Joe Camel — and what Congress said was fight back with all the same tools.”

That isn’t exactly a compelling First Amendment argument for upholding the FDA requirements, but I thought it was a good point. The real reason I like the quote is because the guy is the VP of advocacy at the American Lung Association. Is there an Anti-Lung Association? Who exactly is opposing the American Lung Association that they need a VP of policy and advocacy?

Here’s the opinion.