Building Better Bones

“It is a bone-deep change you are going into, my beloved," counsels Grandmother Growth. "You must open to your very marrow for this transformation. No cell is to remain untouched. You are to open more than you ever dreamed you could open, more than you have opened in birth or in passion. You open now to the breath of mortality as it plays the bone flute of your being. What can you do but dance to the haunting melody, develop a passion for an elegant posture and a long stride?

 

"Ah, yes," Grandmother Growth smiles rather wantonly. "It would do you well to develop a taste for dark greens tarted with vinegar and mated with garlic. These things will build strong flexible bones to support you as you become Crone."

 

Did you know that your bones are always changing? Every day of your life, some bone cells die and some new bone cells are created. From birth until your early 30s, you can easily make lots of bone cells. So long as your diet supplies the necessary nutrients, you not only replace bone cells that die, you have extras left over to lengthen and strengthen your bones.

 

Past the age of 35, new bone cells are more difficult to make. Sometimes there is a shortfall: more bone cells die than you can replace. In the orthodox view, this is the beginning of osteoporosis, the disease of low bone mass. By the age of forty, many American women have begun to lose bone mass; by the age of fifty, most are told they must take hormones or drugs to prevent further loss and avoid osteoporosis, hip fracture, and death. 

 

Women who exercise regularly and eat calcium-rich foods enter their menopausal years with better bone mass than women who sit a lot and consume calcium-leaching foods (including soy "milk," tofu, coffee, soda pop, alcohol, white flour products, processed meats, nutritional yeast, and bran). But no matter how good your lifestyle choices, bone mass usually decreases during the menopausal years. 

 

For unknown reasons, menopausal bones slow down production of new cells and seem to ignore the presence of calcium. This "bone-pause" is generally short-lived, occurring off and on for five to seven years. I noticed it in scattered episodes of falling hair, breaking fingernails, and the same "growing pains" I experienced during puberty.

 

I did not see it in a bone scan, because I didn't have one. 

 

The idea behind bone scans is a good one: find women who are at risk of broken bones, alert them to the danger, and help them engage in preventative strategies. There's only one problem: bone scans don't find women who are at risk of broken bones, they find women who have low bone density. 

 

I would like to help you let go of the idea that osteoporosis is important. In the Wise Woman Tradition, we focus on the patient, not the problem. In the Wise Woman tradition, there are no diseases and no cures for diseases. When we focus on a disease, like osteoporosis, we cannot see the whole woman. The more we focus on one disease, even its prevention, the less likely we are to nourish wholeness and health. 

 

Focusing on osteoporosis, defining it as a disease, using drugs to counter it, we lose sight of the fact that postmenopausal bone mass is a better indicator of breast cancer risk than broken bone risk. The twenty-five percent of postmenopausal women with the highest bone mass are two-and-a-half to four times more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer than those with the lowest bone mass. And that hormones which maintain bone mass also adversely affect breast cancer risk. Women who take estrogen replacement (often given to prevent osteoporosis), even for as little as five years, increase their risk of breast cancer by twenty percent; if they take hormone replacement, the risk increases by forty percent.

 

Focusing on bone mass, we lose sight of the fact that a strong correlation between bone density and bone breakage has not been established, according to Susan Brown, director of the Osteoporosis Information Clearing House, and many others. We lose sight of the fact that women who faithfully take estrogen or hormone replacement still experience bone changes and suffer spinal crush fractures.

 

Bone-pause passes and the bones do rebuild themselves, especially when supported by nourishing herbs, which are exceptional sources of bone-building minerals and better at preventing bone breaks than supplements. The minerals in green plants seem to be ideal for keeping bones healthy. Dr. Campbell, Professor of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University, has done extensive research in rural China where the lowest known fracture rates for midlife and older women were found. He says, "The closer people get to a diet based on plant foods and leafy vegetables, the lower the rates of many diseases, including osteoporosis." Women who consume lots of calcium-rich plants and exercise moderately build strong flexible bones. Women who rely on hormones build bones that are massive, but rigid.

 

Hormone replacement regimes do not increase bone cell creation; they slow (or suppress) bone cell killers (osteoclasts). There is a rebound effect; bone loss jumps when the hormones are stopped. Women who take hormones for five years or more are as much as four times more likely to break a bone in the year after they stop than a woman of the same age who never took hormones. Women who build better bones with green allies and exercise nourish the bone cell creator cells (osteoblasts).

 

Hormone or estrogen replacement, taken as menopause begins and continued for the rest of your life, is said to reduce post-menopausal fracture rates by 40-60 percent. Frequent walks (you don't even need to sweat) and a diet high in calcium-rich green allies (at least 1500 mg daily) have been shown to reduce post-menopausal fractures by 50 percent. The first is expensive and dangerous. The second, inexpensive and health promoting. It's easy to see why more than eighty percent of American women just "say no" to hormones. It is never too late to build better bones, and it is never too soon. Your best insurance for a fracture-free, strong-boned cronehood is to build better bones before menopause. The more exercise and calcium-rich green allies you get in your younger years, the less you'll have to worry about as you age.

 

"A woman has lost half of all the spongy bone (spine, wrist) she'll ever lose by the age of 50, but very little of the dense (hip, hand, forearm) bone. Attention to bone formation at every stage of life is vital; there is no time when you are too old to create healthy new bone." - American MD

 

Calcium

 

"Osteoporosis is much less common in countries that consume the least calcium. That is an undisputed fact." - T. C. Campbell, PhD. Nutritional Biochemistry

 

Step 1: Collect Information

 

Calcium is, without a doubt, the most important mineral in your body. In fact, calcium makes up more than half of the total mineral content of your body. Calcium is crucial to the regular beating of your heart, your metabolism, the functioning of your muscles, the flow of impulses along your nerves, the regulation of your cellular membranes, the strength of your bones, the health of your teeth and gums, and your vital blood-clotting mechanisms. Calcium is so critical to your life that you have a gland (the parathyroid) that does little else than monitor blood levels of calcium and secrete hormones to ensure optimum levels of calcium at all times.

 

When you consume more calcium than you use, you are in a positive calcium balance: extra usable calcium is stored in the bones and you gain bone mass (insoluble or unusable calcium may be excreted, or stored in soft tissue, or deposited in the joints). When you consume less calcium than you use, you are in a negative calcium balance: the parathyroid produces a hormone that releases calcium stores from the bones, and you lose bone mass.

 

To ensure a positive calcium balance and create strong, flexible bones for your menopausal journey, take care to:

 

• Eat three or more calcium-rich foods daily.

• Avoid calcium antagonists. 

• Use synergistic foods to magnify the effectiveness of calcium. 

• Avoid calcium supplements.

 

Step 2: Engage the Energy

 

The homeopathic tissue salt Silica is said to improve bone health.

 

What does it mean to you to support yourself? To be supported? To stand on your own? To have a backbone in your life?

 

Step 3: Nourish & Tonify

 

What do we need to make strong flexible bones? Like all tissues, bones need protein. They need minerals (not just calcium, but also potassium, manganese, magnesium, silica, iron, zinc, selenium, boron, phosphorus, sulphur, chromium, and dozens of others). And in order to use those minerals, high-quality fats, including oil-soluble vitamin D.

 

Many menopausal women I meet believe that protein is bad for their bones. Not so. Researchers at Utah State University, looking at the diets of 32,000 postmenopausal women, found that women who ate the least protein were the most likely to fracture a hip; and that eating extra protein sped the healing of hip fractures. 

 

Acids created by protein digestion are buffered by calcium. Traditional diets combine calcium- and protein-rich foods (e.g. seaweed with tofu, tortillas made from corn ground on limestone with beans, and melted cheese on a hamburger). Herbs such as seaweed, stinging nettle, oat straw, red clover, dandelion, and comfrey leaf are rich in protein and provide plenty of calcium too. Foods such as tahini, sardines, canned salmon, yogurt, cheese, oatmeal, and goats' milk offer us protein, generous amounts of calcium, and the healthy fats our bones need. If you crave more protein during menopause, follow that craving.

 

CAUTION: Unfermented soy (e.g., tofu) is especially detrimental to bone health being protein-rich, naturally deficient in calcium, and a calcium antagonist to boot.

 

Bones need lots of minerals not just calcium, which is brittle and inflexible. (Think of chalk, calcium carbonate, and how easily it breaks.) Avoid calcium supplements. Focus on getting generous amounts of calcium from herbs and foods and you will automatically get the multitude of minerals you need for flexible bones.

 

Because minerals are bulky, and do not compact, we must consume generous amounts to make a difference in our health. Taking mineral-rich herbs in capsule or tincture form won't do much for your bones. (One cup of nettle tincture contains the same amount of calcium - 300 mg - as one cup of nettle infusion. Many women drink two or more cups of infusion a day; no one consumes a cup of tincture a day!) Neither will eating raw foods. I frequently come across the idea that cooking robs food of nutrition. Nothing could be further from the truth. Cooking maximizes the minerals available to your bones. Kale cooked for an hour delivers far more calcium than lightly steamed kale. Minerals are rock-like, and to extract them, we need heat, time, and generous quantities of plant material. 

 

Green sources of calcium are the best. Nourishing herbs and garden weeds are far richer in minerals than ordinary greens, which are already exceptional sources of nutrients. 

 

But calcium from green sources alone is not enough. We need calcium from white sources as well. Add a quart of yogurt a week to your diet if you want really healthy bones. Because the milk has been changed by Lactobacillus organisms, its calcium, other minerals, proteins, and sugars (no lactose) are more easily digested. This carries over, enhancing calcium and mineral absorption from other foods, too. (I have known several vegans who increased their very low bone density by as much as 6 percent in one year by eating yogurt.) Organic raw milk cheeses are another superb white source.

 

Horsetail herb (Equisetum arvense) works like a charm for those premenopausal women who have periodontal bone loss or difficulty with fracture healing. Taken as tea, once or twice a day, young spring-gathered horsetail dramatically strengthens bones and promotes rapid mending of breaks.

CAUTION: Mature horsetail contains substances which may irritate the kidneys.

 

Step 4: Stimulate/Sedate

 

Beware of calcium antagonists. Certain foods interfere with calcium utilization. For better bones avoid consistent use of:

 

• Greens rich in oxalic acid, including chard (silver beet), beet greens, spinach, rhubarb.

• Unfermented soy products, including tofu, soy beverages, soy burgers.

• Phosphorus-rich foods, including carbonated drinks, white flour products, and many processed foods. (Teenagers who drink sodas instead of milk are four times more likely to break a bone.)

• Foods that produce acids requiring a calcium buffer when excreted in the urine, including coffee, white sugar, tobacco, alcohol, nutritional yeast, salt.

• Fluoride in water or toothpaste.

• Fibre pills, bran taken alone, bulk-producing laxatives.

• Steroid medications, including corticosteroids such as prednisone and asthma inhalers. (Daily use reduces spinal bone mass by as much as ten percent a year.)

• Restricted calorie diets. Women who weigh the least have the greatest loss of bone during menopause and "neither calcium supplements, vitamin D supplements, nor oestrogen" slow the loss. Among 236 premenopausal women, all of whom consumed similar amounts of calcium, those who lost weight by reducing calories lost twice as much bone mass as women who maintained their weight.

 

Although chocolate contains oxalic acid, the levels are so low as to have only a negligible effect on calcium metabolism. An ounce/3000 mg of chocolate binds 15-20 mg of calcium; an ounce of cooked spinach, 100-125 mg calcium. Bittersweet (dark) chocolate is a source of iron. Recent research has found chocolate to be very heart healthy. As with any stimulant, daily use is not advised. Chocolate is an important and helpful ally for women. Guilt about eating it and belief that it is damaging to your health interferes with your ability to hear and respond to your body wisdom. If you want to eat chocolate - do it; and get the best. But if you're doing it every day - eat more weeds.

 

Excess phosphorus accelerates bone loss and demineralization. Phosphorus compounds are second only to salt as food additives. They are found in carbonated beverages, soda pop; white flour products, especially if "enriched" (bagels, cookies, cakes, donuts, pasta, bread); preserved meats (bacon, ham, sausage, lunch meat, and hot dogs); supermarket breakfast cereals; canned fruit; processed potato products such as frozen fries and instant mashed potatoes; processed cheeses; instant soups and puddings.

 

To avoid phosphorus overload and improve calcium absorption:

 

• Drink spring water and herbal infusions; avoid soda pop and carbonated water.

• Eat only whole grain breads, noodles, cookies, and crackers.

• Buy only unpreserved meats, cheeses, potatoes.

• Avoid buying foods with ingredients; they are highly processed.

 

Excess salt leaches calcium. Women eating 3900 mg of sodium a day excrete 30 percent more calcium than those eating 1600 mg. The main sources of dietary sodium are processed and canned foods. Seaweed is an excellent calcium-rich source of salt. Sea salt may be used freely as it contains trace amounts of calcium. Salt is critical for health; do not eliminate it from your diet.

 

Increase hydrochloric acid production (in your stomach) and you'll make better use of the calcium you consume. Lower stomach acid (with antacids, for example) and you will receive little bone benefit from the calcium you ingest. Some ways to acidify:

 

• Drink lemon juice in water with or after your meal.

• Take 10-25 drops dandelion root tincture in a little water before you eat.

• Use calcium-rich herbal vinegars in your salad dressing; put some on cooked greens and beans, too.

 

Step 5a: Use Supplements

 

I really wish you wouldn't use calcium supplements. They expose you to dangers and don't prevent fractures. A study in Australia that followed 10,000 white women over the age of 65 for six and a half years found "Use of calcium supplements was associated with increased risk of hip and vertebral fracture; use of Tums antacid tablets was associated with increased risk of fractures of the proximal humerus."

 

If you insist on supplements, go for calcium-fortified orange juice or crumbly tablets of calcium citrate. Chewable calcium gluconate, calcium lactate, and calcium carbonate are acceptable sources. Dolomite, bone meal, and oyster shell are best avoided as they usually contain lead and other undesirable minerals.

 

For better bones, take 500 mg magnesium (not citrate) with your calcium. Better yet, wash your calcium pill down with a glass of herbal infusion; that will provide not only magnesium but lots of other bone-strengthening minerals, too.

 

Calcium supplements are more effective in divided doses. Two doses of 250 mg, taken morning and night, actually provide more usable calcium than a 1000 mg tablet.

 

Step 5b: Use Drugs

 

Even if you take hormone therapy (ERT or HRT) you must get adequate calcium to maintain bone mass, according to researchers at Columbia University. That's 1200-1500 mg a day (a cup of plain yogurt, two cups of nettle infusion, a splash of mineral-rich vinegar, plus three figs is about that). As you increase your intake of calcium-rich foods/herbs, gradually cut back on your hormone dose if you wish.

 

Step 6: Break & Enter

 

Bone density tests are frequently used to push women into taking hormones or drugs. If your bone density is low, use the remedies in this section and schedule another test (for at least six months later) before agreeing to such therapies.

 

Susun Weed

PO Box 64

Woodstock, NY 12498

Fax: 1-845-246-8081

Bipolar Imbalances And Hormones

Working as a nurse in the emergency room you meet a beautiful variety of people. Among those for whom I feel a special sympathy are those with bipolar. They can of course be quite the characters: some hear voices, some live on the streets, some have an extraordinary sense of humour, some love to sing and entertain, and much more. One thing bipolar patients have in common is that they take heavy medications, particularly antidepressants that have many side effects. To whatever question you ask these patients, the answer will often be, ‘Well, I have bipolar.’ As if this one sad fact is sufficient explanation for all possible questions.

 

But the word ‘bipolar’, of course, does not explain everything, and this is particularly true for women having problems with hormonal changes. For example, one woman had a hysterectomy because of severe bleeding, then had to go on hormone replacement therapy. After a couple of months she completely ‘lost it’. She became convinced that she had to move far, far away and take up missionary work - to the alarm of her concerned family. Bingo. She was put on antidepressants and given the convenient label of ‘bipolar.’ Well - she took her antidepressant cross-country with her and ended up living on the streets with the homeless. Rescued finally, by some good friends, she was brought back home, where she if now off most medication, trying to stay as sane as possible, and still saddled with the heavy label of ‘bipolar.’

 

Many women in and around menopause go haywire, but is that necessarily bipolar? I often wonder at how strongly hormones can affect mental health, as is often the case with women after childbirth, with the so-called ‘baby blues’. Often due to the hormone progesterone easy to fix with natural progesterone cream. Likewise, women - and men in their own hormonal midlife crisis - often get depressed. But should this really be any surprise? After all, so many things are changing at this point - it’s like adolescence all over again, but in reverse! New sensations and a new view of life, letting go of the old ways and struggling with the new, There can be a lot of confusion with many challenging questions demanding to be lived. Unfortunately, many take the easy road and simply dodge the whole thing. They accept being depressed and can even console themselves with the mantra, ‘After all, I’m bipolar.’

 

One solution might simply be to use common sense. Bipolar or not, it’s essential to take in enough essential amino acids and different forms of protein. Many people’s protein intake is limited and unvarying: just red meat, chicken and eggs. If you read Dr. Eric Braverman’s book ‘The Edge Effect’, you’ll see that we need protein from many sources, including meat, poultry, nuts, eggs, fish, dairy, beans, and vegetables.

 

This approach is helpful for all of us, but especially for those with bipolar - whether it’s the real thing or not. Dark chocolate can be helpful too, offering some of the same benefits as such antidepressants as Prozac and Paxil, but with no side effects. Just as healthy foods are vital for growing children, they are crucial for anybody going through big changes or having a difficult time. So be sure to eat well and exercise, and study Dr. Braverman’s ‘The Edge Effect’. Give yourself what your brain needs to function well and create harmony in your being. Don’t worry so much about your bipolar - or the bipolar label. Apply your thoughts to the constructive self-healing that is possible.

 

Common sense is not so common. Good luck with finding what works for you!

 

Warmly, Pieternel

Best Genes

Most females in most species want 3 things.

 

Women want the best genes.

 

What are the best genes?

 

Well. It’s kind of complicated.

 

We can intuitively define best genes as genes that give us better potential to succeed.

 

While it’s true, it’s also true that all of us have huge potential to succeed. All of us are under achievers.

 

But let’s postpone the discussion for latter. Genes do matter. Different genes do give different capability. Some traits, among species, are so important it become common nowadays.

 

While your success on anything, including getting laid, depends on your choices rather than your genes, your genes still decide how you best achieve success.

 

Say Mary and Jane lived in the past. Say they were females Cheetah. Mary picks Bob the Slow. Jane picks John the Fastest.

 

Mary’s son will of course be slow. Slow Cheetah’s died. So Mary’s went extinct. Jane’s son will be fast. Fast Cheetah survives. So Jane’s genes proliferate.

 

After a while, all females Cheetah’s will be like Jane. Got it?

 

The same way works if Mary and Jane were human. If Mary pick Bob the poor and Jane pick John the rich. Mary’s son will not be good at making money. Jane’s son will be.

 

So Mary’s son will have few descendants. Jane’s son will have plenty. After a while, all women will be materialistic like Jane. That while, has come a thousands of years ago.

 

So, considering that factor alone, a male that want to mate with many females do not need to worry about how to attract females. Women want the best genes and will automagically pick males with the most potential to survive. That’s just one factor though.

 

Peacock’s elaborate tails do not help his survival. If anything, it reduces it by making the peacocks’ easier target for predators. But peahens like peacocks with long tails. Why?

 

That’s where the second factor is. That’s the factor of advertising. In advertising, appearance is sometimes more important than real quality. Hence, it is often worthy to sacrifice some real quality for better appearances of it.

 

After all, some genetic traits like beauty, has no other use besides signalling good genes.

Back Hair Laser Removal

Are you a victim of back hair? Does your wife or girlfriend cringe when you take off your shirt? There may be help for you with laser back hair removal.

 

Laser hair removal is a trend that is sweeping the country. With improvements in laser technology, these procedures are safer and less expensive than ever, and the results are long-lasting. Most treatments use a very low level laser that is targets the affected area. The energy of the laser enters the pigment in the hair and causes the shaft to heat up, killing the hair. The follicle is also rendered ineffective, stunting new hair growth. Although the hair follicle deactivated, the surrounding skin is unharmed by the procedure. 

 

Of course, this treatment has many applications for men and women, but one of the most popular is back hair laser removal. Previously, men had to undergo painful waxing, smelly depilatory chemicals or shaving their backs to eliminate the hair that so many women find distasteful. 

 

Of course, the type and amount of hair will determine how much your procedure costs. Darker or olive skinned patients will require more treatments than natural blondes, and hair thickness and density varies widely. Different lasers are even used to treat different skin colour groups, so be sure to ask if your treatment centre can handle your needs. Prices typically start at about $200-225, but back hair laser removal can run much higher, due to the larger area being treated. You should also expect to return for several treatments, as hair is removed in certain parts of the growth cycle only.

 

Although it may seem initially expensive, back hair removal using laser treatments is actually cost effective in the long run. Typically the hair does not regrow, and most centres offer touch ups for the few that do, as part of the package. If your back hair is an embarrassing problem, invest in yourself and try hair laser removal for your back!

Baby Wants - But Maybe Doesn’t Need - New Shoes! (Or ‘The Psychology Of New Shoes’)

No woman in her right mind would turn down a chance to go shopping for new shoes. Whether she has 1 pair or a 100, the lure of shopping for shoes is over powering. There just is no question about it, shoes are FUN! That is not to even mention the infinite outfit combinations we have even more FUN putting together as a result of new shoes! Shoes must both look right and feel right for the occasion. Therefore, options are needed and the more you have, the absolute better.

 

Styles change and so do women’s tastes. Whether high heels or platforms, square, rounded or pointed toes, flip flops or athletic, the lure of shopping for shoes is irresistible. There are just so many kinds of shoes all serving different purposes. Hours are spent in shoe departments all over the world shopping for shoes. From $5 flip flops to $500 designer name shoes there are so many things to consider. One thing is generally certain: If a woman REALLY likes a pair of shoes, whether she needs them or not, she will most likely buy them, regardless of price.

 

I know a couple and the wife has hundreds of pairs of shoes. The husband has but two pair, one black and one brown. BORING and oh, so WAY not enough options. What about style? And does he have dress shoes or are these two pair of the athletic variety or what? That, of course, does not include his golf shoes. Most men have at least two of those if they are like my Father and Brother, both avid golfers.  Any way, he said ‘That’s all I need and I always have plenty of money to go golfing every weekend.’  She said ‘You take the golfing (and your boring shoes) and I will take all the therapeutic effects of the shopping. It also is such good exercise, both mentally and physically!’

 

Being practical about buying shoes is so out dated.. The more shoes, the more choices. Life is good if it is all about choices, not about being practical. Practicality was for my mother, and the days of practical shopping are gone forever. Now plastic rules (along with beautiful shoes) and somehow the credit card bill will get paid. I mean if we only live once, we should certainly be spending like it. Life is way too short to not have the cutest and best shoes possible.  We can find other ways to be thrifty but please do not be so when it comes to shoes. The days of the ‘have mores’ are here to rule and the days of the ‘have nots’ (shoes, that is) are long gone forever.

 

Another couple I know try to go shopping together (BIG mistake). Inevitably and much to her husband’s dismay and irritation, the wife ends up in the shoe department trying on shoes, one pair after another. A beautiful thing to see, right? She finds a pair she likes and says to her husband ‘I want these shoes!’ Her husband replies ‘Do you need them?’ She says ‘No, but they will go great with my pink dress that I bought six months ago and have never worn because I have never had just the perfect shoes to go with it. Besides, I did put back several pair that I also liked very much, but not quite as much as these. They are so ‘choice’, ‘sweet’ and absolutely the ‘most divine’ shoes I have, to date, ever seen!!!’  The husband gives in, all the while thinking about the bills that are coming due.

 

Let a woman give you husbands a few tips about shopping:

It’s a losing battle.

1. Don’t go shopping with your wife - It ruins her shopping trip. Would you want us to go golfing with you? I didn’t think so. It would ruin your day.
2. When your wife goes shopping - Expect a marathon and don’t expect her home before the stores close. Should she arrive home early, it will be a pleasant surprise. If she doesn’t--Fix your own dinner!
3. Never call her on her cell phone and ask ‘Where are you?’ or ‘When are you going be home?’ Big ‘NO NO’ and grave interruption to her ‘therapy’. She does not want to be in touch with reality while shopping. Trust me on this one.

 

Girls: Enjoy a most pleasant shopping experience! Happy shopping! 

Husbands: Heed my warnings and all will be well! And happy golfing or whatever other pastime compensates for your serious lack of options!

 

Sponsored Article

Baby Boom Icon Sally Field Takes On Osteoporosis

If you're nearing 60, you have some pretty good company. Actress Sally Field, the seemingly ageless icon of a Baby Boom generation that starts turning 60 this year, has revealed that she has osteoporosis and is leading a public action campaign to inspire women to fight the fragile bone disease. 

 

Surprised by her recent diagnosis of osteoporosis, Field chose to go public with her personal health and is launching Rally With Sally For Bone HealthSM, sponsored by Roche and GlaxoSmithKline. The campaign encourages women with osteoporosis to protect themselves against fractures so they can remain active and reduce their risk of a debilitating injury.

 

Osteoporosis is a condition in which bones become weaker, more brittle and susceptible to fractures. One in two women over age 50 will suffer an osteoporosis-related fracture in her lifetime, which can result in significant pain and loss of height and may possibly cause some women to lose their ability to dress themselves, stand up and even walk. It can also lead to possible institutionalization and even death. 

 

"My generation has pushed for so much change to improve the lives of women, and today the biggest hurdle many of us face is our health," said the two-time Academy Award winner who has fought for women and workers' rights both on and off screen. "We've never been willing to sit back and take it-and that includes osteoporosis, too. I'm asking women to take action by talking to their doctors and joining me at www.BoneHealth.com." 

 

"Today, women in their 50s and 60s are leading more active lives than past generations, and it's essential for them to take care of their bones to continue their energetic lifestyles," said Dr. Robin Dore, a rheumatologist and associate professor of medicine at UCLA. 

 

After being diagnosed with osteoporosis in early 2005, Field attempted lifestyle changes, including calcium and vitamin D, to slow the progression of her disease but supplements alone were insufficient. Her doctor then recommended that she begin taking medicine and prescribed Boniva^TM (ibandronate sodium), a once-monthly tablet for postmenopausal osteoporosis. 

 

Although 44 million Americans are affected by or at risk for osteoporosis, it often goes undiagnosed until a fracture occurs. 

 

A major new campaign is under way to help protect women maintain their bone health.

 

Important Safety Information: Boniva is a prescription medicine for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. You should not take Boniva if you have low blood calcium, cannot sit or stand for at least 60 minutes, have severe kidney disease or are allergic to Boniva. Stop taking Boniva and tell your doctor if you experience difficult or painful swallowing, chest pain, or severe or continuing heartburn, as these may be signs of serious upper digestive problems. Follow the once-monthly Boniva 150 mg dosing instructions carefully to lower the chances of these events occurring. Side effects are generally mild or moderate and may include diarrhoea, pain in the arms or legs or upset stomach. If you develop severe bone, joint, and or muscle pain, contact your healthcare provider. Your doctor may also recommend a calcium and vitamin D supplement.

All About Tanning Bed Lotions, Tanning Bed Lamps And Other Tanning Bed Products

There are several types of tanning beds and tanning bed products available in the market which can offer you that healthy golden glowing skin.

 

Tanning Bed Lotions

 

Using tanning bed lotions are one of easiest and convenient ways for sunless tanning. Tanning bed lotions helps you to get the perfect shade of bronze to your skin. But the real trick to effective and healthy sunless tanning is to finding out the best tanning bed lotions which can give you that healthy golden glowing skin. While selecting tanning bed lotions you need to be careful to select tanning bed lotions which contain moisturizers, cocoa butter or aloe vera. This is important as tanning bed lotions which lacks these ingredients can result in drying out of the skin.

 

Tanning bed lotions can be applied on a consistent basis to keep your skin healthy as you tan. For those people who used to burn easily can apply a thicker coat of tanning bed lotions for the initial few visits in the salon. By using more tanning lotion, one can reduce the effects of burning or peeling.

 

As the skin type and pigment level of one person differs from the other, it is always a good option to first try out various indoor tanning bed lotions to find the one which best suits one’s skin. Tanning bed lotions can be purchased from beauty salons or other stores.

 

Tanning Bed Lamps

 

Tanning bed lamps are designed in similar manner to general lighting low-pressure florescent lamps. The major difference between the two types is the phosphor used. The phosphor used in a tanning bed lamp allows UVA and UVB rays to be emitted at controlled levels.

 

The latest tanning bed lamps available in the stores are great at delivering a golden bronze tan for your skin. The lamps are designed so as to work quickly as well. Tanning bed lamps also helps to reduce your exposure to the harmful UV rays.

 

There are several types of tanning beds and tanning bed products available in the market. Many of them are designed to be used in home while several others are designed for commercial and tanning parlours. Before purchasing tanning bed lotions, tanning bed lamps, or any other tanning bed products, it is advisable to shop around and compare the latest models available in the stores. This is very important as the technology used in tanning bed products is constantly changing; so it is the responsibility of the customers to keep up with the technology and changing tanning bed products to achieve the best possible results.

Advertising Your Genes

Customers pick the best product. Women pick the best genes. Well, not quite.

 

Every soy sauces claim to be number one.

 

Who knows which one is?

 

Consumers do not pick which one is best. Consumers pick which one looks best.

 

Well, you see, like anyone in the world, women do not pick the best genes. Women pick the best looking genes.

 

How do they know?

 

All products, including sperms, require advertising. That advertising can actually hurt gene pool, or even life survival. However, if the advertising can improve women’s impressions on the males, some males will do it.

 

Let’s examine the peacocks elaborate tail. Those tails actually hurt survival.

 

Those tails attract parasites and predators.

 

Peacock’s with shorter tails will not attract predators and hence live longer.

 

However, the fact that most peacocks have long tail is a proof that at least in the past, peacocks with longer tail have survived better in the gene pool.

 

We know that it happens because peahens are attracted to peacocks with long tail. The reason why the tails are attractive is surprisingly because the tails hurt gene pool survival.

 

A living peacock with longer tail must have strong capability to fight parasites and run from predators.

 

Hence, a built in pattern recognition algorithm in all peahen’s mind will correctly conclude that any living peacocks with long tails must have better genes than peacocks with shorter tails.

 

It’s the same reason why human males spend a lot of money for car, donations, big mansions, and bling bling’s. All those actually hurt gene pool survival. The money used to buy sport cars cannot be used to buy food or health care.

 

Moreover, a male that show of wealth will often be killed with other males with less to display in their effort to get rid more desirable competitors.

 

Such killing explains genocide done against capitalists, Jews, and other successfully contributing minorities all over the world.

 

However, women know that any men that can afford such things must be rich. So women pick such males, and males buy those things.

 

Advertising of survival capability don’t just end there.

Abortion and the Right to Life

Abortion and the Social Contract

 

See the Appendix - Arguments from the Right to Life

 

The issue of abortion is emotionally loaded and this often makes for poor, not thoroughly thought out arguments. The questions: "Is abortion immoral" and "Is abortion a murder" are often confused. The pregnancy (and the resulting foetus) are discussed in terms normally reserved to natural catastrophes (force majeure). At times, the embryo is compared to cancer, a thief, or an invader: after all, they are both growths, clusters of cells. The difference, of course, is that no one contracts cancer willingly (except, to some extent, smokers - but, then they gamble, not contract).

 

When a woman engages in voluntary sex, does not use contraceptives and gets pregnant - one can say that she signed a contract with her foetus. A contract entails the demonstrated existence of a reasonably (and reasonable) free will. If the fulfilment of the obligations in a contract between individuals could be life-threatening - it is fair and safe to assume that no rational free will was involved. No reasonable person would sign or enter such a contract with another person (though most people would sign such contracts with society).

 

Judith Jarvis Thomson argued convincingly ("A Defence of Abortion") that pregnancies that are the result of forced sex (rape being a special case) or which are life threatening should or could, morally, be terminated. Using the transactional language: the contract was not entered to willingly or reasonably and, therefore, is null and void. Any actions which are intended to terminate it and to annul its consequences should be legally and morally permissible.

 

The same goes for a contract which was entered into against the express will of one of the parties and despite all the reasonable measures that the unwilling party adopted to prevent it.  If a mother uses contraceptives in a manner intended to prevent pregnancy, it is as good as saying: "I do not want to sign this contract, I am doing my reasonable best not to sign it, if it is signed - it is contrary to my express will". There is little legal (or moral) doubt that such a contract should be voided.

 

Much more serious problems arise when we study the other party to these implicit agreements: the embryo. To start with, it lacks consciousness (in the sense that is needed for signing an enforceable and valid contract). Can a contract be valid even if one of the "signatories" lacks this sine qua non trait? In the absence of consciousness, there is little point in talking about free will (or rights which depend on sentience). So, is the contract not a contract at all? Does it not reflect the intentions of the parties?

 

The answer is in the negative. The contract between a mother and her foetus is derived from the larger Social Contract. Society - through its apparatuses - stands for the embryo the same way that it represents minors, the mentally retarded, and the insane. Society steps in - and has the recognized right and moral obligation to do so - whenever the powers of the parties to a contract (implicit or explicit) are not balanced. It protects small citizens from big monopolies, the physically weak from the thug, the tiny opposition from the mighty administration, the barely surviving radio station from the claws of the devouring state mechanism. It also has the right and obligation to intervene, intercede and represent the unconscious: this is why euthanasia is absolutely forbidden without the consent of the dying person. There is not much difference between the embryo and the comatose.

 

A typical contract states the rights of the parties. It assumes the existence of parties which are "moral personhoods" or "morally significant persons" - in other words, persons who are holders of rights and can demand from us to respect these rights. Contracts explicitly elaborate some of these rights and leaves others unmentioned because of the presumed existence of the Social Contract. The typical contract assumes that there is a social contract which applies to the parties to the contract and which is universally known and, therefore, implicitly incorporated in every contract. Thus, an explicit contract can deal with the property rights of a certain person, while neglecting to mention that person's rights to life, to free speech, to the enjoyment the fruits of his lawful property and, in general to a happy life.

 

There is little debate that the Mother is a morally significant person and that she is a rights-holder. All born humans are and, more so, all adults above a certain age. But what about the unborn foetus?

 

One approach is that the embryo has no rights until certain conditions are met and only upon their fulfilment is he transformed into a morally significant person ("moral agent"). Opinions differ as to what are the conditions. Rationality, or a morally meaningful and valued life are some of the oft cited criteria. The fallaciousness of this argument is easy to demonstrate: children are irrational - is this a licence to commit infanticide?

 

A second approach says that a person has the right to life because it desires it.

 

But then what about chronic depressives who wish to die - do we have the right to terminate their miserable lives?  The good part of life (and, therefore, the differential and meaningful test) is in the experience itself - not in the desire to experience.

 

Another variant says that a person has the right to life because once his life is terminated - his experiences cease. So, how should we judge the right to life of someone who constantly endures bad experiences (and, as a result, harbors a death wish)? Should he better be "terminated"?

 

Having reviewed the above arguments and counter-arguments, Don Marquis goes on (in "Why Abortion is Immoral", 1989) to offer a sharper and more comprehensive criterion: terminating a life is morally wrong because a person has a future filled with value and meaning, similar to ours.

 

But the whole debate is unnecessary. There is no conflict between the rights of the mother and those of her foetus because there is never a conflict between parties to an agreement. By signing an agreement, the mother gave up some of her rights and limited the others. This is normal practice in contracts: they represent compromises, the optimization (and not the maximization)  of the parties' rights and wishes. The rights of the foetus are an inseparable part of the contract which the mother signed voluntarily and reasonably. They are derived from the mother's behaviour. Getting willingly pregnant (or assuming the risk of getting pregnant by not using contraceptives reasonably) - is the behaviour which validates and ratifies a contract between her and the foetus. Many contracts are by behaviour, rather than by a signed piece of paper. Numerous contracts are verbal or behavioural. These contracts, though implicit, are as binding as any of their written, more explicit, brethren. Legally (and morally) the situation is crystal clear: the mother signed some of her rights away in this contract. Even if she regrets it - she cannot claim her rights back by annulling the contract unilaterally. No contract can be annulled this way - the consent of both parties is required. Many times we realize that we have entered a bad contract, but there is nothing much that we can do about it. These are the rules of the game.

 

Thus the two remaining questions: (a) can this specific contract (pregnancy) be annulled and, if so (b) in which circumstances - can be easily settled using modern contract law. Yes, a contract can be annulled and voided if signed under duress, involuntarily, by incompetent persons (e.g., the insane), or if one of the parties made a reasonable and full scale attempt to prevent its signature, thus expressing its clear will not to sign the contract. It is also terminated or voided if it would be unreasonable to expect one of the parties to see it through. Rape, contraception failure, life threatening situations are all such cases.

 

This could be argued against by saying that, in the case of economic hardship, f or instance, the damage to the mother's future is certain. True, her value- filled, meaningful future is granted - but so is the detrimental effect that the fetus will have on it, once born. This certainty cannot be balanced by the UNCERTAIN value-filled future life of the embryo. Always, preferring an uncertain good to a certain evil is morally wrong.  But surely this is a quantitative matter - not a qualitative one. Certain, limited aspects of the rest of the mother's life will be adversely effected (and can be ameliorated by society's helping hand and intervention) if she does have the baby. The decision not to have it is both qualitatively and qualitatively different. It is to deprive the unborn of all the aspects of all his future life - in which he might well have experienced happiness, values, and meaning.

 

The questions whether the foetus is a Being or a growth of cells, conscious in any manner, or utterly unconscious, able to value his life and to want them - are all but irrelevant. He has the potential to lead a happy, meaningful, value-filled life, similar to ours, very much as a one minute old baby does. The contract between him and his mother is a service provision contract. She provides him with goods and services that he requires in order to materialize his potential. It sounds very much like many other human contracts. And this contract continue well after pregnancy has ended and birth given.

 

Consider education: children do not appreciate its importance or value its potential - still, it is enforced upon them because we, who are capable of those feats, want them to have the tools that they will need in order to develop their potential. In this and many other respects, the human pregnancy continues well into the fourth year of life (physiologically it continues in to the second year of life - see "Born Alien"). Should the location of the pregnancy (in uterus, in vivo) determine its future? If a mother has the right to abort at will, why should the mother be denied her right to terminate the " pregnancy" AFTER the foetus emerges and the pregnancy continues OUTSIDE her womb? Even after birth, the woman's body is the main source of food to the baby and, in any case, she has to endure physical hardship to raise the child. Why not extend the woman's ownership of her body and right to it further in time and space to the post-natal period?

 

Contracts to provide goods and services (always at a personal cost to the provider) are the commonest of contracts. We open a business. We sell a software application, we publish a book - we engage in helping others to materialize their potential. We should always do so willingly and reasonably - otherwise the contracts that we sign will be null and void. But to deny anyone his capacity to materialize his potential and the goods and services that he needs to do so - after a valid contract was entered into - is immoral. To refuse to provide a service or to condition it provision (Mother: " I will provide the goods and services that I agreed to provide to this foetus under this contract only if and when I benefit from such provision") is a violation of the contract and should be penalized. Admittedly, at times we have a right to choose to do the immoral (because it has not been codified as illegal) - but that does not turn it into  moral.

 

Still, not every immoral act involving the termination of life can be classified as murder. Phenomenology is deceiving: the acts look the same (cessation of life functions, the prevention of a future). But murder is the intentional termination of the life of a human who possesses, at the moment of death, a consciousness (and, in most cases, a free will, especially the will not to die). Abortion is the intentional termination of a life which has the potential to develop into a person with consciousness and free will. Philosophically, no identity can be established between potential and actuality. The destruction of paints and cloth is not tantamount (not to say identical) to the destruction of a painting by Van Gogh, made up of these very elements. Paints and cloth are converted to a painting through the intermediary and agency of the Painter. A cluster of cells a human makes only through the agency of Nature. Surely, the destruction of the painting materials constitutes an offence against the Painter. In the same way, the destruction of the foetus constitutes an offence against Nature. But there is no denying that in both cases, no finished product was eliminated. Naturally, this becomes less and less so (the severity of the terminating act increases) as the process of creation advances.

 

Classifying an abortion as murder poses numerous and insurmountable philosophical problems.

 

No one disputes the now common view that the main crime committed in aborting a pregnancy - is a crime against potentialities. If so, what is the philosophical difference between aborting a foetus and destroying a sperm and an egg? These two contain all the information ( = all the potential) and their destruction is philosophically no less grave than the destruction of a foetus. The destruction of an egg and a sperm is even more serious philosophically: the creation of a foetus limits the set of all potentials embedded in the genetic material to the one foetus created. The egg and sperm can be compared to the famous wave function (state vector) in quantum mechanics - the represent millions of potential final states ( = millions of potential embryos and lives). The foetus is the collapse of the wave function: it represents a much more limited set of potentials. If killing an embryo is murder because of the elimination of potentials - how should we consider the intentional elimination of many more potentials through masturbation and contraception?

 

The argument that it is difficult to say which sperm cell will impregnate the egg is not serious. Biologically, it does not matter - they all carry the same genetic content. Moreover, would this counter-argument still hold if, in future, we were be able to identify the chosen one and eliminate only it? In many religions (Catholicism) contraception is murder. In Judaism, masturbation is "the corruption of the seed" and such a serious offence that it is punishable by the strongest religious penalty: eternal ex-communication ("Karet").

 

If abortion is indeed murder how should we resolve the following moral dilemmas and questions (some of them patently absurd):

 

Is a natural abortion the equivalent of manslaughter (through negligence)?

 

Do habits like smoking, drug addiction, vegetarianism - infringe upon the right to life of the embryo? Do they constitute a violation of the contract?

 

Reductio ad absurdum: if, in the far future, research will unequivocally prove that listening to a certain kind of music or entertaining certain thoughts seriously hampers the embryonic development - should we apply censorship to the Mother?

 

Should force majeure clauses be introduced to the Mother-Embryo pregnancy contract? Will they give the mother the right to cancel the contract? Will the embryo have a right to terminate the contract? Should the asymmetry persist: the Mother will have no right to terminate - but the embryo will, or vice versa?

 

Being a rights holder, can the embryo (=the State) litigate against his Mother or Third Parties (the doctor that aborted him, someone who hit his mother and brought about a natural abortion) even after he died?

 

Should anyone who knows about an abortion be considered an accomplice to murder?

 

If abortion is murder - why punish it so mildly? Why is there a debate regarding this question? "Thou shalt not kill" is a natural law, it appears in virtually every legal system. It is easily and immediately identifiable. The fact that abortion does not "enjoy" the same legal and moral treatment says a lot.

 

Appendix - Arguments from the Right to Life

 

I. The Right to Life

 

It is a fundamental principle of most moral theories that all human beings have a right to life. The existence of a right implies obligations or duties of third parties towards the right-holder. One has a right AGAINST other people. The fact that one possesses a certain right - prescribes to others certain obligatory behaviours and proscribes certain acts or omissions. This Janus-like nature of rights and duties as two sides of the same ethical coin - creates great confusion. People often and easily confuse rights and their attendant duties or obligations with the morally decent, or even with the morally permissible. What one MUST do as a result of another's right - should never be confused with one SHOULD or OUGHT to do morally (in the absence of a right).

 

The right to life has eight distinct strains:

 

IA. The right to be brought to life

 

IB. The right to be born

 

IC. The right to have one's life maintained

 

ID. The right not to be killed

 

IE. The right to have one's life saved

 

IF. The right to save one's life (erroneously limited to the right to self-defence)

 

IG. The Right to terminate one's life

 

IH. The right to have one's life terminated

 

IA. The Right to be Brought to Life

 

Only living people have rights. There is a debate whether an egg is a living person - but there can be no doubt that it exists. Its rights - whatever they are - derive from the fact that it exists and that it has the potential to develop life. The right to be brought to life (the right to become or to be) pertains to a yet non-alive entity and, therefore, is null and void. Had this right existed, it would have implied an obligation or duty to give life to the unborn and the not yet conceived. No such duty or obligation exist.

 

IB. The Right to be Born

 

The right to be born crystallizes at the moment of voluntary and intentional fertilization. If a woman knowingly engages in sexual intercourse for the explicit and express purpose of having a child - then the resulting fertilized egg has a right to mature and be born. Furthermore, the born child has all the rights a child has against his parents: food, shelter, emotional nourishment, education, and so on.

 

It is debatable whether such rights of the foetus and, later, of the child, exist if the fertilization was either involuntary (rape) or unintentional ("accidental" pregnancies). It would seem that the foetus has a right to be kept alive outside the mother's womb, if possible. But it is not clear whether it has a right to go on using the mother's body, or resources, or to burden her in any way in order to sustain its own life (see IC below).

 

IC. The Right to have One's Life Maintained

 

Does one have the right to maintain one's life and prolong them at other people's expense? Does one have the right to use other people's bodies, their property, their time, their resources and to deprive them of pleasure, comfort, material possessions, income, or any other thing?

 

The answer is yes and no.

 

No one has a right to sustain his or her life, maintain, or prolong them at another INDIVIDUAL's expense (no matter how minimal and insignificant the sacrifice required is). Still, if a contract has been signed - implicitly or explicitly - between the parties, then such a right may crystallize in the contract and create corresponding duties and obligations, moral, as well as legal.

 

Example:

 

No foetus has a right to sustain its life, maintain, or prolong them at his mother's expense (no matter how minimal and insignificant the sacrifice required of her is). Still, if she signed a contract with the foetus - by knowingly and willingly and intentionally conceiving it - such a right has crystallized and has created corresponding duties and obligations of the mother towards her foetus.

 

On the other hand, everyone has a right to sustain his or her life, maintain, or prolong them at SOCIETY's expense (no matter how major and significant the resources required are). Still, if a contract has been signed - implicitly or explicitly - between the parties, then the abrogation of such a right may crystallize in the contract and create corresponding duties and obligations, moral, as well as legal.

 

Example:

 

Everyone has a right to sustain his or her life, maintain, or prolong them at society's expense. Public hospitals, state pension schemes, and police forces may be required to fulfil society's obligations - but fulfil them it must, no matter how major and significant the resources are. Still, if a person volunteered to join the army and a contract has been signed between the parties, then this right has been thus abrogated and the individual assumed certain duties and obligations, including the duty or obligation to give up his or her life to society.

 

ID. The Right not to be Killed

 

Every person has the right not to be killed unjustly. What constitutes "just killing" is a matter for an ethical calculus in the framework of a social contract.

 

But does A's right not to be killed include the right against third parties that they refrain from enforcing the rights of other people against A? Does A's right not to be killed preclude the righting of wrongs committed by A against others - even if the righting of such wrongs means the killing of A?

 

Not so. There is a moral obligation to right wrongs (to restore the rights of other people). If A maintains or prolongs his life ONLY by violating the rights of others and these other people object to it - then A must be killed if that is the only way to right the wrong and re-assert their rights.

 

IE. The Right to have One's Life Saved

 

There is no such right as there is no corresponding moral obligation or duty to save a life. This "right" is a demonstration of the aforementioned muddle between the morally commendable, desirable and decent ("ought", "should") and the morally obligatory, the result of other people's rights ("must").

 

In some countries, the obligation to save life is legally codified. But while the law of the land may create a LEGAL right and corresponding LEGAL obligations - it does not always or necessarily create a moral or an ethical right and corresponding moral duties and obligations.

 

IF. The Right to Save One's Own Life

 

The right to self-defence is a subset of the more general and all-pervasive right to save one's own life. One has the right to take certain actions or avoid taking certain actions in order to save his or her own life.

 

It is generally accepted that one has the right to kill a pursuer who knowingly and intentionally intends to take one's life. It is debatable, though, whether one has the right to kill an innocent person who unknowingly and unintentionally threatens to take one's life.

 

IG. The Right to Terminate One's Life

 

See "The Murder of Oneself".

 

IH. The Right to Have One's Life Terminated

 

The right to euthanasia, to have one's life terminated at will, is restricted by numerous social, ethical, and legal rules, principles, and considerations. In a nutshell - in many countries in the West one is thought to has a right to have one's life terminated with the help of third parties if one is going to die shortly anyway and if one is going to be tormented and humiliated by great and debilitating agony for the rest of one's remaining life if not helped to die. Of course, for one's wish to be helped to die to be accommodated, one has to be in sound mind and to will one's death knowingly, intentionally, and forcefully.

 

II. Issues in the Calculus of Rights

 

IIA. The Hierarchy of Rights

 

All human cultures have hierarchies of rights. These hierarchies reflect cultural mores and lores and there cannot, therefore, be a universal, or eternal hierarchy.

 

In Western moral systems, the Right to Life supersedes all other rights (including the right to one's body, to comfort, to the avoidance of pain, to property, etc.).

 

Yet, this hierarchical arrangement does not help us to resolve cases in which there is a clash of EQUAL rights (for instance, the conflicting rights to life of two people). One way to decide among equally potent claims is randomly (by flipping a coin, or casting dice). Alternatively, we could add and subtract rights in a somewhat macabre arithmetic. If a mother's life is endangered by the continued existence of a foetus and assuming both of them have a right to life we can decide to kill the foetus by adding to the mother's right to life her right to her own body and thus outweighing the foetus' right to life.

 

IIB. The Difference between Killing and Letting Die

 

There is an assumed difference between killing (taking life) and letting die (not saving a life). This is supported by IE above. While there is a right not to be killed - there is no right to have one's own life saved. Thus, while there is an obligation not to kill - there is no obligation to save a life.

 

IIC. Killing the Innocent

 

Often the continued existence of an innocent person (IP) threatens to take the life of a victim (V). By "innocent" we mean "not guilty" - not responsible for killing V, not intending to kill V, and not knowing that V will be killed due to IP's actions or continued existence.

 

It is simple to decide to kill IP to save V if IP is going to die anyway shortly, and the remaining life of V, if saved, will be much longer than the remaining life of IP, if not killed. All other variants require a calculus of hierarchically weighted rights. (See "Abortion and the Sanctity of Human Life" by Baruch A. Brody).

 

One form of calculus is the utilitarian theory. It calls for the maximization of utility (life, happiness, pleasure). In other words, the life, happiness, or pleasure of the many outweigh the life, happiness, or pleasure of the few. It is morally permissible to kill IP if the lives of two or more people will be saved as a result and there is no other way to save their lives. Despite strong philosophical objections to some of the premises of utilitarian theory - I agree with its practical prescriptions.

 

In this context - the dilemma of killing the innocent - one can also call upon the right to self-defence. Does V have a right to kill IP regardless of any moral calculus of rights? Probably not. One is rarely justified in taking another's life to save one's own. But such behaviour cannot be condemned. Here we have the flip side of the confusion - understandable and perhaps inevitable behaviour (self-defence) is mistaken for a MORAL RIGHT. That most V's would kill IP and that we would all sympathize with V and understand its behaviour does not mean that V had a RIGHT to kill IP. V may have had a right to kill IP - but this right is not automatic, nor is it all-encompassing.