It’s Just Easier To Care About Dead Lions Than Dead People

[californiagrown]

I see your point, but, in this particular instance it's hard to ignore the engrained patriarchy of this particular topic. And to be honest with you, I would be much more receptive to a woman's voice on the matter than a man's.

Sure you can have an opinion on the Holocaust, but if you say that the Holocaust was bullshit, or that it was in some way deserved, someone will look at you and say, you're not Jewish, you don't understand.

Another example is my inability to really talk about the black experience, I'm not black, I don't fucking get it and quite frankly, my opinion on their life experience means shit to them. Like how a white man from Kansas, Texas, Tennessee, tries to tell me what I can and can't do, after consulting with a medical professional; yeah, I don't fucking care whether or not he thinks I should have access to abortion - and I would kindly appreciate him shutting his fucking mouth about it.

But its not just your body. You are allowed to do whatever to your body, but when you get and kill off the little human that lives inside of you is where the issue is.

At what point is the fetus go from being a parasitic growth to being a human life?

 

[deleted5]

And to be honest with you, I would be much more receptive to a woman's voice on the matter than a man's.

We probably agree on this topic, but I'm not going to respect you, or your opinion, or hold a conversation with you. If you're immediately going to discredit half the population's thought on the matter. Do you realize how sexist and ignorant that is?

If a couple has a miscarriage do you say. "Oh wow mother I feel so sorry for you, and I'm so sorry you had to go through that. Why the hell are you crying father? you shouldn't give a shit this has nothing to do with you."

In some cases, not all, the male has an invested interest in his kid as well. To say his opinion should never matter is a very stupid thing to say.

 

[the.hellion.]

There is a lot of ingrained patriarchy on the subject, but it doesn't necessarily follow that simply because I am a man my opinion does not count on the matter of abortion. And same goes for your other examples too. They all fall victim to the argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy in that their opinion is discounted or considered false due to the person holding the opinion, not the opinion itself.

When a smoker says "oh you shouldn't smoke" his statement isn't any less true because he is a smoker. There are thousands of examples of this and they all lead to a false conclusion.

People need to argue about the ideas and not get sidetracked concerning "who" is doing the talking. This is the entire basis for feminism/gender equality, racial equality, sexual equality, etc. If it is not true, then your opinions can someday be discounted simply because you are a woman and that is just not the way reason works.

Historically, my opinion didn't matter precisely because I was a woman - this isn't a future potentiality it was, and in a lot of ways still is, reality. The system is white male-dominated. Men have made the rules FOREVER so don't tell me that 'who' is doing the talking isn't important - we've never really been able to talk! Old white men have always done the talking and right now, I'm telling them that they need to shut up. If anything, I believe that this is akin to taking back anti-slavery laws - women finally got the ability to have control over their own bodies and access to whatever choices they need and now, a bunch of white dudes (for the most part) are trying to pull those rights back. How this isn't stepping back into the misogynistic patriarchal past is beyond me.

If a smoker says, don't smoke isn't his opinion more valid because he has the first hand experience of the detriments of smoking? Furthermore, if I stand there and say "racism doesn't exist anymore," the idea is instantly coloured (pun intended) by the colour of my skin, no? To say that 'who' is doing the talking doesn't matter isn't true. Maybe one day we'll get to a point where, race, sex, age, sexual orientation, religion doesn't matter but that's not where we're at now. Right now, women, the LGBTQ community, and people of all kinds of colours and creeds are still scratching and clawing their way toward equality. The society you envision where only the idea matters just doesn't exist yet. I'm down to make it a reality though. The first step would be to close the fucking discussion on abortion and reproductive rights. Also, getting paid the same as a man would be nice.

 

[deleted5]

At what point is the fetus go from being a parasitic growth to being a human life?

About 25 weeks after conception, because death is accepted as the brain no longer working. So at 25 weeks when the brain starts to grow and that's when life begins.

 

[californiagrown]

About 25 weeks after conception, because death is accepted as the brain no longer working. So at 25 weeks when the brain starts to grow and that's when life begins.

We keep brain dead patients alive in hospitals all the time... And we KNOW they won't get better. With a fetus we do know it "will get better".

Many believe life starts at conception, or when the heart is formed, of when limbs form, etc.

Point being the notion of life is so abstract that there will never be a definitive time.

 

[the.hellion.]

But its not just your body. You are allowed to do whatever to your body, but when you get and kill off the little human that lives inside of you is where the issue is.

At what point is the fetus go from being a parasitic growth to being a human life?

The idea that life starts at conception was a construct developed by the pro-life movement to demonize abortion. As early as 1115 in England, human personhood was described as a 'formed fetus', "a reasonable creature in rerum natura" (as formulated by Sir Edward Coke in his Institutes of the Lawes of England.)

I'm not going to get into a discussion on 'when life begins' with you because that's pure opinion. One person says now, another says then. The answer is completely dependent on your belief system and not fact, but if we want to use historic and legal precedent, as often is the basis for legal decisions, I think that the above works well for me.

We probably agree on this topic, but I'm not going to respect you, or your opinion, or hold a conversation with you. If you're immediately going to discredit half the population's thought on the matter. Do you realize how sexist and ignorant that is?

If a couple has a miscarriage do you say. "Oh wow mother I feel so sorry for you, and I'm so sorry you had to go through that. Why the hell are you crying father? you shouldn't give a shit this has nothing to do with you."

In some cases, not all, the male has an invested interest in his kid as well. To say his opinion should never matter is a very stupid thing to say.

I kind of feel like you're missing the point. I am fully aware of the emotional relationship that a man can have to an unborn child, but I'm talking about having OPTIONS - and if the options don't exist then it's a moot point. No matter what the girl or the guy want, they're having a fucking baby, and making decisions for a fully formed human being, instead of dealing with a microscopic zygote.

 

[californiagrown]

The idea that life starts at conception was a construct developed by the pro-life movement to demonize abortion. As early as 1115 in England, human personhood was described as a 'formed fetus', "a reasonable creature in rerum natura" (as formulated by Sir Edward Coke in his Institutes of the Lawes of England.)

I'm not going to get into a discussion on 'when life begins' with you because that's pure opinion. One person says now, another says then. The answer is completely dependent on your belief system and not fact, but if we want to use historic and legal precedent, as often is the basis for legal decisions, I think that the above works well for me.

.

I agree, and i think i said as much above. My point is that for the anti abortion folks, this isnt an issue about womens rights and their right to choose because it is not just about their health anymore- it is about killing off the life of another human being.

For the folks that think life starts later on, it is a womens health/womens rights issue. For the folks that think life starts early it is a human life/murder issue.

 

[onenerdykid]

Historically, my opinion didn't matter precisely because I was a woman - this isn't a future potentiality it was, and in a lot of ways still is, reality. The system is white male-dominated. Men have made the rules FOREVER so don't tell me that 'who' is doing the talking isn't important - we've never really been able to talk! Old white men have always done the talking and right now, I'm telling them that they need to shut up. If anything, I believe that this is akin to taking back anti-slavery laws - women finally got the ability to have control over their own bodies and access to whatever choices they need and now, a bunch of white dudes (for the most part) are trying to pull those rights back. How this isn't stepping back into the misogynistic patriarchal past is beyond me.

If a smoker says, don't smoke isn't his opinion more valid because he has the first hand experience of the detriments of smoking? Furthermore, if I stand there and say "racism doesn't exist anymore," the idea is instantly coloured (pun intended) by the colour of my skin, no? To say that 'who' is doing the talking doesn't matter isn't true. Maybe one day we'll get to a point where, race, sex, age, sexual orientation, religion doesn't matter but that's not where we're at now. Right now, women, the LGBTQ community, and people of all kinds of colours and creeds are still scratching and clawing their way toward equality. The society you envision where only the idea matters just doesn't exist yet. I'm down to make it a reality though. The first step would be to close the fucking discussion on abortion and reproductive rights. Also, getting paid the same as a man would be nice.

You are grossly misunderstanding what I am trying to say. If someone says to you "you are girl, you don't know what you are talking about" it is just as wrong as you saying "you are guy, you don't know what you are talking about". And it is just as wrong for you to not get paid what a guy does for the same job. And so on and so on.

Morality is about what OUGHT to be the case, not what IS the case. Just because it IS the case that all these bad things are happening, people OUGHT not to do them still.

You are trying to mix them together in your argument, and that is where your argument is slipping. When I say it doesn't matter "who" is doing the talking, that is correct since we are all rational beings, regardless of our sex, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc. My opinion is logically and morally correct regardless of who or what I am. This is the entire point of truth- it is objective and irrespective of who is saying it.

So if someone has a morally valid opinion, if you discredit it based solely on who is saying it rather than what the opinion actually is, then you are committing a logical fallacy and the conclusion from your argument does not follow. You can believe whatever you want, but what I said is true because the statement is true regardless that I am a white heterosexual male.

 

[deleted5]

We keep brain dead patients alive in hospitals all the time... And we KNOW they won't get better. With a fetus we do know it "will get better".

Many believe life starts at conception, or when the heart is formed, of when limbs form, etc.

Point being the notion of life is so abstract that there will never be a definitive time.

No you're wrong

If the patient is diagnosed as brain dead, he will be declared clinically and legally dead. If the patient is an organ donor, his other organs typically are maintained with a respirator until they can be collected. Where there is doubt about a patient's condition, he or she may be kept on life support pending a second opinion (typically under court order).

Otherwise, hospitals generally are not legally obligated to keep patients who are declared brain dead on life support. This is regulated at the state level, but most states follow similar protocol. New York law, for instance, allows for limited "reasonable accommodations" (such as the continuation of life support for a limited time) in the event of religious objections to the brain death standard.

 

[onenerdykid]

The idea that life starts at conception was a construct developed by the pro-life movement to demonize abortion. As early as 1115 in England, human personhood was described as a 'formed fetus', "a reasonable creature in rerum natura" (as formulated by Sir Edward Coke in his Institutes of the Lawes of England.)

I'm not going to get into a discussion on 'when life begins' with you because that's pure opinion. One person says now, another says then. The answer is completely dependent on your belief system and not fact, but if we want to use historic and legal precedent, as often is the basis for legal decisions, I think that the above works well for me.

I kind of feel like you're missing the point. I am fully aware of the emotional relationship that a man can have to an unborn child, but I'm talking about having OPTIONS - and if the options don't exist then it's a moot point. No matter what the girl or the guy want, they're having a fucking baby, and making decisions for a fully formed human being, instead of dealing with a microscopic zygote.

While I understand your point, there are plenty of philosophers that while yes they are male, they are also the people who realized these logical rules that exist and feminists use to defend their points. As they should, since they were made to apply to all rational beings, not just men and not just white men.

I am not defending Sir Coke here, just making it known that in the history of moral and ethical philosophy there is for sure room for a man to have a valid opinion on abortion because statements are valid irrespective of who says them.

That was my point in my last post, but apparently it didn't make it when I hit reply...

Anyway, what the whole point of my argument is is that if someone says something true, it's truth is not dependent on "who" has said it. It is valid based on logical truths and whoever understands that is then able to give an opinion on the matter.

 

[the.hellion.]

You are grossly misunderstanding what I am trying to say. We are all rational beings, regardless of our sex, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc. My opinion is logically and morally correct regardless of who or what I am. This is the entire point of truth- it is objective and irrespective of who is saying it.

So if someone has a morally valid opinion, if you discredit it based solely on who is saying it rather than what the opinion actually is, then you are committing a logical fallacy and the conclusion from your argument does not follow. You can believe whatever you want, but what I said is true because the statement is true regardless that I am a white heterosexual male.

We're having a normal conversation, here, I'm not grossly misunderstanding you. Your above statement only applies if the idea is morally valid and coming from a rational being. The moral validity of an opinion is so subjective that to hold that as a bar by which to set acceptance or rejection of the argument is already, I think, weakening the argument.

If opinions expressed should be accepted or rejected based on moral validity we have a problem. Who judges moral validity? Furthermore you're basing this on the fundamental premise that we are all approaching this as rational beings. The conversation on access to reproductive rights is awash in emotion, morality and religion - not rational thought. If rational thought were the basis of the discussion, it wouldn't be a discussion. History has repeatedly shown us that humanity is not fundamentally based on rationality.

Maybe I'm not getting it, I don't know. I kind of feel like we're having two different discussions.

 

[the.hellion.]

Anyway, what the whole point of my argument is is that if someone says something true, it's truth is not dependent on "who" has said it. It is valid based on logical truths and whoever understands that is then able to give an opinion on the matter.

THIS makes sense to me. But, I don't think my problem is with the white guys who say true things ......

 

[californiagrown]

No you're wrong

If the patient is diagnosed as brain dead, he will be declared clinically and legally dead. If the patient is an organ donor, his other organs typically are maintained with a respirator until they can be collected. Where there is doubt about a patient's condition, he or she may be kept on life support pending a second opinion (typically under court order).

Otherwise, hospitals generally are not legally obligated to keep patients who are declared brain dead on life support. This is regulated at the state level, but most states follow similar protocol. New York law, for instance, allows for limited "reasonable accommodations" (such as the continuation of life support for a limited time) in the event of religious objections to the brain death standard.

So they do keep brain dead patients alive with the knowledge they will not recover... albeit for a limited time.

We know that fetuses will gain brain function, yet are not allowed the chance to.

Again, point being that when life begins is opinion based. For now the legal standard is what, 24 months?

 

[HamFaceGirl]

Tl;dr

 

[the.hellion.]

So they do keep brain dead patients alive with the knowledge they will not recover... albeit for a limited time.

We know that fetuses will gain brain function, yet are not allowed the chance to.

Again, point being that when life begins is opinion based. For now the legal standard is what, 24 months?

DUDE ! I CAN ABORT MY KID WHEN IT'S TWO YEARS OLD ?!!?!?!? AWESOME.

Just kidding, I THINK that legally, you can abort up to 25 weeks, or when it would be viable to exist outside of the womb.

 

[deleted5]

So they do keep brain dead patients alive with the knowledge they will not recover... albeit for a limited time.

We know that fetuses will gain brain function, yet are not allowed the chance to.

Again, point being that when life begins is opinion based. For now the legal standard is what, 24 months?

In the state of new York for a family that has a religious reason, wow what a specific example. no Doctor or anyone in the scientific community will keep them alive. So sure if your religious, and you're against it, don't get an abortion. Everybody else just like the scientific community can keep doing what they've been doing. so glad we had this discussion.

 

[deleted5]

Also you keep saying the word recover like they're sick or not sick they don't exist yet.

 

[californiagrown]

In the state of new York for a family that has a religious reason, wow what a specific example. no Doctor or anyone in the scientific community will keep them alive. So sure if your religious, and you're against it, don't get an abortion. Everybody else just like the scientific community can keep doing what they've been doing. so glad we had this discussion.

in every state, and this issue constantly comes up with a court ordered injunction to stop doctors from pulling the plug.

When life begins and ends is opinion based, because the idea of life is so abstract. that is something everyone agrees upon.

 

[deleted5]

in every state, and this issue constantly comes up with a court ordered injunction to stop doctors from pulling the plug.

When life begins and ends is opinion based, because the idea of life is so abstract. that is something everyone agrees upon.

No there's the medical definition by doctors, and then there's your opinion, that nobody gives a shit about, because you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[californiagrown]

No there's the medical definition by doctors, and then there's your opinion, that nobody gives a shit about, because you don't know what you're talking about.

Its a medical opinion- they have them so they can have a standard of care. There is no proof of the moment life happens haha.

and you seem to care an awful lot about my opinions.

 

[onenerdykid]

We're having a normal conversation, here, I'm not grossly misunderstanding you. Your above statement only applies if the idea is morally valid and coming from a rational being. The moral validity of an opinion is so subjective that to hold that as a bar by which to set acceptance or rejection of the argument is already, I think, weakening the argument.

If opinions expressed should be accepted or rejected based on moral validity we have a problem. Who judges moral validity? Furthermore you're basing this on the fundamental premise that we are all approaching this as rational beings. The conversation on access to reproductive rights is awash in emotion, morality and religion - not rational thought. If rational thought were the basis of the discussion, it wouldn't be a discussion. History has repeatedly shown us that humanity is not fundamentally based on rationality.

Maybe I'm not getting it, I don't know. I kind of feel like we're having two different discussions.

THIS makes sense to me. But, I don't think my problem is with the white guys who say true things ......

Again discussion of morality deals with what ought to happen, rather than what does happen. Just because history has shown that people are horrible, it doesn't follow that we should be. People don't necessarily do the correct thing, but they form a moral "ought" in their mind before they act. Whether they do it or not is what we blame or praise.

What constitutes moral right/wrong isn't something that can be answered in the pages of a thread, but the vast majority of moral theory puts the onus to the individual to put their thoughts (opinions) into a logical framework. That logical framework must start from agreed upon definitions about the subject.

Take for example, this current discussion revolving around abortion. In order to properly discuss this we would have to define: human being, human rights, freedom, choice, and a few other things. If we don't do this, we just go round and round, which is what mostly happens

While this sounds easy, defining what it means to be "human" will not be easy and it will be the main thing that people against abortion and pro-choice will mainly not agree on.

As a devil's advocate here, many people who are anti-abortion are also super pro-women because their definition of what constitutes "human life" differs from someone who is pro-choice. They are not necessarily against women's rights at all, they just put general human rights above specific women's rights.

There are plenty of men and women who are anti-abortion and plenty of men and women who are pro-choice. Their opinions concerning moral right and wrong are judged right or wrong due to the validity of their arguments. The problem we have today is not in the middle of the argument somewhere, but at the beginning. As long as there is no clearly agreed upon definitions, there will be a stand-still in the argument and this is where a lot of impasses occur and why people think morality is a simple "matter of opinion, and it's all subjective".

 

[the.hellion.]

The definitions were created in the 12th century! So for centuries, we had perfectly suitable laws, which existed in extremely religious societies until the 1980s and 90s when religious zealots determined to change the definition. Those original laws even accounted for punishments for abortion, which were less severe than for murder itself. Furthermore, the desire to change the definition wasn't based on a new scientific understanding of conception but on an opinion based on a book that has no founding in fact.

To be honest, I'm not really interested in having an argument on morality; to me it's a bit fluffy and does a great job of obfuscating the facts of the matter concerning reproductive rights. My issue here is pretty specific and I get that you're trying to generalize it to explain how this became a conversation but I can't get behind it. Science, fact and truth have no bearing on the desire to roll back reproductive rights for women.

 

[onenerdykid]

The definitions were created in the 12th century! So for centuries, we had perfectly suitable laws, which existed in extremely religious societies until the 1980s and 90s when religious zealots determined to change the definition. Those original laws even accounted for punishments for abortion, which were less severe than for murder itself. Furthermore, the desire to change the definition wasn't based on a new scientific understanding of conception but on an opinion based on a book that has no founding in fact.

To be honest, I'm not really interested in having an argument on morality; to me it's a bit fluffy and does a great job of obfuscating the facts of the matter concerning reproductive rights. My issue here is pretty specific and I get that you're trying to generalize it to explain how this became a conversation but I can't get behind it. Science, fact and truth have no bearing on the desire to roll back reproductive rights for women.

Even back then, many people argued that we didn't have the right definitions and why they thought it was immoral back then. People in power made huge mistakes, and we say "huge mistake" because we know they used the wrong theories, facts, arguments when they did what they did.

My earlier discussion of "validity is independent of "who" is speaking" is an argument not based on science or fact, but on philosophic definitions. Equality as such as it roots hundreds and hundreds of years before science proved it with genetics (whether or not people acting accordingly is a different question and one which I addressed in the paragraph above).

Reproductive rights are 100% concerned with philosophy and ethics, not science. Science will tell when brain function starts or when pain can be felt, but it doesn't tell you if a being has "rights". Rights follow from the definition of "human being" and as such if you care about reproductive rights, you should care about philosophy and ethics (since they will precede the scientific truth on the matter) and they will only help you and strengthen your case. Science, in turn, will help you when trying to back your definitions up with the proper data.

 

[deleted5]

Its a medical opinion- they have them so they can have a standard of care. There is no proof of the moment life happens haha.

and you seem to care an awful lot about my opinions.

Calling Doctor and their medical stance opinions. No real need to respond in this thread anymore that pretty much sealed the deal.

 

[the.hellion.]

Even back then, many people argued that we didn't have the right definitions and why they thought it was immoral back then. People in power made huge mistakes, and we say "huge mistake" because we know they used the wrong theories, facts, arguments when they did what they did.

My earlier discussion of "validity is independent of "who" is speaking" is an argument not based on science or fact, but on philosophic definitions. Equality as such as it roots hundreds and hundreds of years before science proved it with genetics (whether or not people acting accordingly is a different question and one which I addressed in the paragraph above).

Reproductive rights are 100% concerned with philosophy and ethics, not science. Science will tell when brain function starts or when pain can be felt, but it doesn't tell you if a being has "rights". Rights follow from the definition of "human being" and as such if you care about reproductive rights, you should care about philosophy and ethics (since they will precede the scientific truth on the matter) and they will only help you and strengthen your case. Science, in turn, will help you when trying to back your definitions up with the proper data.

This is a straight copy/paste job from Wikipedia but

"Aristotle, in his treatise on government Politics (350 BCE), condemns infanticide as a means of population control. He preferred abortion in such cases, with the restriction[119] "[that it] must be practised on it before it has developed sensation and life; for the line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive."[120] In Christianity, Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) was the first Pope to declare that abortion is homicide regardless of the stage of pregnancy;[121] the Catholic Church had previously been divided on whether it believed that abortion was murder, and did not begin vigorously opposing abortion until the 19th century.[13] Islamic tradition has traditionally permitted abortion until a point in time when Muslims believe the soul enters the fetus,[13] considered by various theologians to be at conception, 40 days after conception, 120 days after conception, or quickening.[122] However, abortion is largely heavily restricted or forbidden in areas of high Islamic faith such as the Middle East and North Africa.[123]"

So, Aristotle; the son of Plato (the grandfather of ethics) down with abortion, though with restrictions, the same restrictions that are in place now. For population control (!! eugenics, anyone ?!) I mean at least now, my argument is for personal access to all health care options available, not to control an entire society.

The CATHOLIC CHURCH ITSELF couldn't decide on how bad abortion really was and only really made it an issue in the 1800s (the Victorian era of extreme social conservatism).

Even Muslims were cool with abortion !

I mean, this quick google/wiki history of abortion only serves to strengthen my point. People far more ethical, morally pure and intelligent than I have explored the ethical implications of this. We take their ideas on all kinds of other things, why is their work on abortion all completely discarded now?

 

[onenerdykid]

I mean, this quick google/wiki history of abortion only serves to strengthen my point. People far more ethical, morally pure and intelligent than I have explored the ethical implications of this. We take their ideas on all kinds of other things, why is their work on abortion all completely discarded now?

(side note: Aristotle was the student of Plato, not his son)

You are right, so why does it happen? This strengthens the argument that philosophy is the means by which we will arrive at an answer.

Just because lawmakers ignore (through simple ignorance or direct hate) certain truths about humanity, it doesn't change the moral accuracy of the issue. Throughout history lawmakers got things INCREDIBLY wrong that were nonetheless true. If anything this shows that lawmakers need to be more accurately schooled in philosophy rather than solely in law.

 

[the.hellion.]

(side note: Aristotle was the student of Plato, not his son)

You are right, so why does it happen? This strengthens the argument that philosophy is the means by which we will arrive at an answer.

Just because lawmakers ignore (through simple ignorance or direct hate) certain truths about humanity, it doesn't change the moral accuracy of the issue. Throughout history lawmakers got things INCREDIBLY wrong that were nonetheless true. If anything this shows that lawmakers need to be more accurately schooled in philosophy rather than solely in law.

I didn't mean it filially - Aristotle as the philosophical son of Plato, in that Plato shaped Aristotle's philosophy.

So, I agree that lawmakers need more philosophical, scientific and diverse education ... Can I have unfettered access to all reproductive health options now?

 

[Charlie_Kelly]

More talk about stupid lion, less about fetuses and abortion.

This is a classic NS thread thats for sure.

 

[californiagrown]

Calling Doctor and their medical stance opinions. No real need to respond in this thread anymore that pretty much sealed the deal.

Are you really that dense? Ever heard of a second opinion? Why there are their multiple treatments for the SAME injury/illness etc.

They had to agree upon 1 final hard date. For the love of God, pun intended, please find any proof or evidence of when life begins haha.

You have much to learn about this world young man.

 

[kirbstopper]

You have much to learn about this world young man.

So do you, I mean don't we all?

 

[californiagrown]

So do you, I mean don't we all?

Fact.

 

[Bombogenesis]

It's not that hard. A. This is a choice that you NEVER HAVE TO MAKE. B. It's about having OPTIONS. No one is forcing anyone to abort babies they don't want. It's about having every health care option available to everyone. Period. And sorry, if you have a dick, I don't care what you think about abortion.

The last sentence really made me cringe.

If I made a baby with someone and they decided they didn't want it with no regard for how I felt, I'd be devastated. What an injurious point of view you have there. Screams naive 18 year old, but I don't know you so I will refrain from making assumptions.

that comment was as sexist as any I've ever seen.

 

[the.hellion.]

The last sentence really made me cringe.

If I made a baby with someone and they decided they didn't want it with no regard for how I felt, I'd be devastated. What an injurious point of view you have there. Screams naive 18 year old, but I don't know you so I will refrain from making assumptions.

that comment was as sexist as any I've ever seen.

I just spent about 25 posts very clearly articulating a defense of this statement.

If you made a baby with someone, and they decided that they didn't want it with no regard for how you felt, and then got an abortion it would imply that abortion was a readily available option. My statement is in regards to whether or not that option exists. You, nor the lawmakers (who are predominantly white men) trying to repeal access to any reproductive health options can fully comprehend what not having that option would be like. Women, on the other hand, have had that experience. Even now that it's legal, if you go to some clinics you are harassed, libeled and verbally abused. C'mon man, think a little harder and read a little bit

 

[S.J.W]

To pretty much every guy who thinks he can tell a woman what to do with her body.

 

[Mr.Bishop]

Old white men have always done the talking and right now, I'm telling them that they need to shut up.

As someone who is about as typically white male as they come - and rapidly starting to creep into the 'Old' category...

I can confirm that the world makes your life a lot easier, your opinion matters more... and its horribly wrong.

I am not going to engage in this debate, however I will tell you that at least I will do my part in the world to attempt to dethrone my own power when I become a proper old white male.

I actually think that there is going to be enormous change in policies as the generation that started with people about my age (36) begin to shift into power. We're basically around the first children of most baby boomers, so there's a lot of us... and the boomers were still born in a time when women's rights were just starting to creep in, and racial segregation was still a thing in a lot of parts of the USA. I think they grew up through a place where they were still raised by parents that believed in this shit, but realized it was wrong.

Their kids (me) were raised (in many cases, certainly not all) with these things being completely unacceptable. I've never known the idea that blacks should be segregated or that a woman shouldn't have rights. That is crazy talk to me... but I don't have any power yet.

I think as you see my generation start to hit their 50s and 60s - we're really going to start hitting the massive sweeping changes to the system we need. Its already happening in waves right now, but the next people to step in are going to be ever-more in favor of equality straight across the board.

Granted, we're talking about 25 more years until we really get the bulk of change done... but hey at least we're moving in the right direction and there just might be a light at the end of that tunnel.

Finally - sorry on behalf of all old white males. I really know there are a lot of power-hungry insensitive dicks in that bunch. We've been really bad people for a really long time.

 

[the.hellion.]

For the record, I know that not all old, medium old, or young white men suck, I am fully aware of the diversity of opinion ... This isn't about them, this is about the people who don't understand how hurtful and frightening their anti-choice rhetoric is, and pointing out the fact that those ideals have historically tended to come from a very specific demographic. I know they won't hear me or care anyway, but I have an almost pathological inability to be quiet.

Thanks for the shout out Bish - I know there are a lot of kind, rational and empathetic men out there - I'm yelling at all the ones who aren't.

 

[deleted5]

Are you really that dense? Ever heard of a second opinion? Why there are their multiple treatments for the SAME injury/illness etc.

They had to agree upon 1 final hard date. For the love of God, pun intended, please find any proof or evidence of when life begins haha.

You have much to learn about this world young man.

A hundred percent of all human death happens when the blood supply is cut off to the brain. If a fetus grows inside a person doesn't develop a brain and then is born it won't be a person, it'll come out dead. At 25 weeks the brain is developed and it becomes a person. Before that it's just an empty lifeless sack of cells. The unknown part is exactly where at 25 weeks it's right around 25 weeks.

 

[ImNotARacist]

I'm not Jewish, so am I not allowed to have an opinion on the Holocaust?

I'm also not an elephant, so am I not allowed to have an opinion on the ivory trade?

Just because you are X or not-X, it doesn't devalue your opinion on the subject either way. If you have a good idea about any subject, you should be heard regardless of race, religion, sex, or age.

All rational beings have the capacity for moral thought and inquiry, and to say you won't listen to someone else's opinion simply because they specifically aren't able to have an abortion is simply a mistake.

Thanks Bud.

 

[californiagrown]

A hundred percent of all human death happens when the blood supply is cut off to the brain. If a fetus grows inside a person doesn't develop a brain and then is born it won't be a person, it'll come out dead. At 25 weeks the brain is developed and it becomes a person. Before that it's just an empty lifeless sack of cells. The unknown part is exactly where at 25 weeks it's right around 25 weeks.

A healthy fetus without a brain at 23 weeks will develop a brain and brain function.

Similarly if we knew a person would regain brain function after being brain dead, we would never " pull the plug" on them.

But developing some semblance of a brain is not how all doctors, and certainly not all people see the beginning of life. So it goes back to what popular opinion is on what constitutes human life.

 

[ImNotARacist]

A healthy fetus without a brain at 23 weeks will develop a brain and brain function.

Similarly if we knew a person would regain brain function after being brain dead, we would never " pull the plug" on them.

But developing some semblance of a brain is not how all doctors, and certainly not all people see the beginning of life. So it goes back to what popular opinion is on what constitutes human life.

Would you rather have the child born to a family not fit to raise it and have it suffer or just nip the bud and move one. I think its worse to have a child born to a mother that has considered abortion and is financialy unfit. An aborted fetus has no memories or emotions. Its worse to kill cecil the lion than to remove a bunch of stem cells from an unfit mother.

 

[californiagrown]

Would you rather have the child born to a family not fit to raise it and have it suffer or just nip the bud and move one. I think its worse to have a child born to a mother that has considered abortion and is financialy unfit. An aborted fetus has no memories or emotions. Its worse to kill cecil the lion than to remove a bunch of stem cells from an unfit mother.

I think abortions should be able to happen up until birth, personally. I think life starts when you enter this world as an independent entity.

My point is that there is not a definitive, science backed, objective answer to the question of when life begins.

IMO if the guy is found guilty, he should be punished based not upon the value of the lions life(which is nothing), but upon the value that lion had for the reserve and local economy. To me, the value of a lions intrinsic life, is the same as that of a cow, or pig, or lamb- and I certainly don't feel bad when the slaughterhouse kills those animals.

 

[ImNotARacist]

I think abortions should be able to happen up until birth, personally. I think life starts when you enter this world as an independent entity.

My point is that there is not a definitive, science backed, objective answer to the question of when life begins.

IMO if the guy is found guilty, he should be punished based not upon the value of the lions life(which is nothing), but upon the value that lion had for the reserve and local economy. To me, the value of a lions intrinsic life, is the same as that of a cow, or pig, or lamb- and I certainly don't feel bad when the slaughterhouse kills those animals.

Respect. I was at a livestock sale all morning.

 

[Sparta]

DUDE ! I CAN ABORT MY KID WHEN IT'S TWO YEARS OLD ?!!?!?!? AWESOME.

Just kidding, I THINK that legally, you can abort up to 25 weeks, or when it would be viable to exist outside of the womb.

Joking aside, when do human rights begin and why? What is it exactly that separates a few cells from a fully functioning human being? Because honestly a new born baby doesn't exactly have all functioning human characteristics yet. It doesnt have free will or self consciousness yet, but we protect it as if were. Why is that? Is it because it's going to be a human? If that were true then all of the biological steps prior to birth are similar.... It just seems you make a passionate case for your own rights but neglect or preserve the rights of something when it's convenient. If you can tell me when and why humans begin, I will better understand your position.

 

[Sparta]

If you can tell me when and why humans begin, I will better understand your position.

I meant to say " when and why human rights begin". Sorry, got cut off.

 

[the.hellion.]

Joking aside, when do human rights begin and why? What is it exactly that separates a few cells from a fully functioning human being? Because honestly a new born baby doesn't exactly have all functioning human characteristics yet. It doesnt have free will or self consciousness yet, but we protect it as if were. Why is that? Is it because it's going to be a human? If that were true then all of the biological steps prior to birth are similar.... It just seems you make a passionate case for your own rights but neglect or preserve the rights of something when it's convenient. If you can tell me when and why humans begin, I will better understand your position.

I have already articulated this position in previous posts, but I'll highlight it again for your benefit.

Abortion has been around for centuries; the classic case against abortion can trace it's roots back to the 1800s, a time of severe social conservatism (you couldn't even show table legs!). According to history and legal precedent, as early as 1115 in England, human personhood was described as a 'formed fetus', "a reasonable creature in rerum natura" (as formulated by Sir Edward Coke in his Institutes of the Lawes of England.) Further in this post are various other perceptions of personhood, as pulled from a cursory wikipedia search.

"Aristotle, in his treatise on government Politics (350 BCE), condemns infanticide as a means of population control. He preferred abortion in such cases, with the restriction[119] "[that it] must be practised on it before it has developed sensation and life; for the line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive."[120] In Christianity, Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) was the first Pope to declare that abortion is homicide regardless of the stage of pregnancy;[121] the Catholic Church had previously been divided on whether it believed that abortion was murder, and did not begin vigorously opposing abortion until the 19th century.[13] Islamic tradition has traditionally permitted abortion until a point in time when Muslims believe the soul enters the fetus,[13] considered by various theologians to be at conception, 40 days after conception, 120 days after conception, or quickening.[122] However, abortion is largely heavily restricted or forbidden in areas of high Islamic faith such as the Middle East and North Africa.[123]"

 

[californiagrown]

I have already articulated this position in previous posts, but I'll highlight it again for your benefit.

Abortion has been around for centuries; the classic case against abortion can trace it's roots back to the 1800s, a time of severe social conservatism (you couldn't even show table legs!). According to history and legal precedent, as early as 1115 in England, human personhood was described as a 'formed fetus', "a reasonable creature in rerum natura" (as formulated by Sir Edward Coke in his Institutes of the Lawes of England.) Further in this post are various other perceptions of personhood, as pulled from a cursory wikipedia search.

"Aristotle, in his treatise on government Politics (350 BCE), condemns infanticide as a means of population control. He preferred abortion in such cases, with the restriction[119] "[that it] must be practised on it before it has developed sensation and life; for the line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive."[120] In Christianity, Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) was the first Pope to declare that abortion is homicide regardless of the stage of pregnancy;[121] the Catholic Church had previously been divided on whether it believed that abortion was murder, and did not begin vigorously opposing abortion until the 19th century.[13] Islamic tradition has traditionally permitted abortion until a point in time when Muslims believe the soul enters the fetus,[13] considered by various theologians to be at conception, 40 days after conception, 120 days after conception, or quickening.[122] However, abortion is largely heavily restricted or forbidden in areas of high Islamic faith such as the Middle East and North Africa.[123]"

That doesnt clarify, at all, when you believe life to begin haha. If anything it muddies the waters.

What is your objective cuttoff point for an abortionable growth, and a non-abortionable living human?

 

[the.hellion.]

That doesnt clarify, at all, when you believe life to begin haha. If anything it muddies the waters.

What is your objective cuttoff point for an abortionable growth, and a non-abortionable living human?

I don't know, I can't say that I have a particular stance on when it's too late. I know when it would be too far for me, but I can't say that it would be the same for every woman. There are laws that legislate that time to what is moderately socially acceptable, but if that's what she wants, and there's a doctor willing to participate, I can't say that I'm in a position to judge.

 

[the.hellion.]

That doesnt clarify, at all, when you believe life to begin haha. If anything it muddies the waters.

What is your objective cuttoff point for an abortionable growth, and a non-abortionable living human?

As to when life begins, I think we're in the matrix.

 

[californiagrown]

I don't know, I can't say that I have a particular stance on when it's too late. I know when it would be too far for me, but I can't say that it would be the same for every woman. There are laws that legislate that time to what is moderately socially acceptable, but if that's what she wants, and there's a doctor willing to participate, I can't say that I'm in a position to judge.

It sounds like you think it should be the mothers choice up until the baby is born. In which case i assume you would also believe that life begins at birtht?

 

[ImNotARacist]

As to when life begins, I think we're in the matrix.

New blow for 'supersymmetry' physics theory

An artistic impression depicts the formation of a galaxy cluster in the early Universe, released on October 13, 2014

An artistic impression depicts the formation of a galaxy cluster in the early Universe, released on October 13, 2014

In a new blow for the futuristic "supersymmetry" theory of the universe's basic anatomy, experts reported fresh evidence Monday of subatomic activity consistent with the mainstream Standard Model of particle physics.

New data from ultra high-speed proton collisions at Europe's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) showed an exotic particle dubbed the "beauty quark" behaves as predicted by the Standard Model, said a paper in the journal Nature Physics.

Previous attempts at measuring the beauty quark's rare transformation into a so-called "up quark" had yielded conflicting results. That prompted scientists to propose an explanation beyond the Standard Model—possibly supersymmetry.

But the latest observations were "entirely consistent with the Standard Model and removes the need for this hypothesis" of an alternative theory, Guy Wilkinson, leader of LHC's "beauty experiment" told AFP.

"It would of course have been very exciting if we could show that there was something wrong with the Standard Model—I cannot deny that would have been sensational," he said.

The Standard Model is the mainstream theory of all the fundamental particles that make up matter, and the forces that govern them.

But the model has weaknesses: it doesn't explain dark matter or dark energy, which jointly make up 95 percent of the universe. Nor is it compatible with Einstein's theory of general relativity—the force of gravity as we know it does not seem to work at the subatomic quantum scale.

Supersymmetry, SUSY for short, is one of the alternatives proposed for explaining these inconsistencies, postulating the existence of a heavier "sibling" for every particle in the universe.

This may also explain dark matter and dark energy.

A scientist looks at a section of the European Organisation for Nuclear Research Large Hadron Collider, during maintenance works

A scientist looks at a section of the European Organisation for Nuclear Research Large Hadron Collider, during maintenance works in Meyrin, near Geneva on July 19, 2013

'Many-headed monster'

But no proof of supersymmetric twins has been found at the LHC, which has observed all the particles postulated by the Standard Model—including the long-sought Higgs boson, which confers mass to matter.

Supersymmetry predicts the existence of at least five types of Higgs boson, but only one, believed to be the Standard Model Higgs, has so far been found.

Wilkinson said it was "too soon" to write off supersymmetry.

"It is very difficult to kill supersymmetry: it is a many-headed monster," he said.

But "if nothing is seen in the next couple of years, supersymmetry would be in a much harder situation. The number of true believers would drop."

Quarks are the most basic particles, building blocks of protons and neutrons, which in turn are found in atoms.

There are six types of quarks—the most common are the "up" and "down" quarks, while the others are called "charm", "strange", "beauty" and "top."

The beauty quark, heavier than up and down quarks, can shift shape, and usually takes the form of a charm quark when it does.

Much more rarely, it morphs into an up quark. Wilkinson's team have now measured—for the first time—how often that happens.

"We are delighted because it is the sort of measurement nobody thought was possible at the LHC," he said. It had been thought that an even more powerful machine would be needed.

The revamped LHC, a facility of the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN), was restarted in April after a two-year revamp to boost its power from eight to 13, potentially 14, teraelectronvolts (TeV).

"If you expect Earth-shattering news from the new run, it's a bit early," CERN director-general Rolf Heuer told journalists in Vienna Monday at a conference of the European Physical Society.

"The main harvest will come in the years to come, so you have to stay tuned."

So far, the new run at 13 TeV has re-detected all the Standard Model particles except for the Higgs boson, but Heuer insisted: "We are sure that it is there."