Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 03:45pm PT
|
In 2008, researchers announced the discovery in human semen of hormones usually found in ovulating women. They theorized that follicle stimulating hormone, luteinising hormone, and estradiol may encourage ovulation in women exposed to semen. These hormones are not found in the semen of chimpanzees, suggesting this phenomenon may be a human male counter-strategy to concealed ovulation in human females. Other researchers are skeptical that the low levels of hormones found in semen could have any effect on ovulation.[11] One group of authors has theorized that concealed ovulation and menstruation were key factors in the development of symbolic culture in early human society.[12][13]
Holy crap, Ed. That is awesome.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 03:49pm PT
|
Mad bolster, are you familiar with Daniel Haneman? Coincidentally, I did in fact at one time find you mildly irritating, but that had less to do with intuition and more to do with bias. I am still quite cynical of libertarianism in politics but all that fades to insignificance when I can see you are most interested in a process of integrity, rather than a process of bludgeoning your opposition for the sole purpose of "winning" .
No, I'm not familiar with him.
I totally get your sometime sense of irritation; online personas often cannot effectively convey tone, and I can certainly be "relentless" at times. But I do thank you for over time seeing through some of that to the core integrity with which I try (often unsuccessfully) to think. The human condition is one of moving from confusion to confusion, but I do indeed care about intellectual honesty. Thank you for seeing that.
Ed, thanks for some more corroborating notes regarding my upthread assertion that upwards of 50% of pregnancies spontaneously and naturally end in miscarriage. That scientific fact really undercuts the empirical intuitions grounding the "potential" argument.
Regarding the idea that old, white guys are the ones that really have power over women's bodies and reproductive rights, and even that we doofuses aren't accomplishing anything in debate....
First of all, I take EXTREME exception to being called old! Dang it... I am NOT! Not yet, anyway. So there!
Now, with that off my chest (whew!) I would just say that the objectivity of evidence and rational discussion about evidence knows no gender, class, race, or station boundaries. If a puking drunk in a gutter can manage to articulate a rational position on this subject, her (or his) contributions to the debate have innate value. A sausage, or lack thereof, is irrelevant to the objective facts and the implications that can rationally be drawn from them.
"In a republican nation, whose citizens are to be led by reason and persuasion and not by force, the art of reasoning becomes of the first importance" (Thomas Jefferson).
"Civilized life depends upon the success of reason in social intercourse, the prevalence of logic over violence in interpersonal conflict" (Juliana Geran Pilon).
One male; one female; same point.
Judith Jarvis Thompson, btw, is female; and her contributions to this discussion should be must-read for anybody presuming to publicize their thinking on the subject.
Bookie... have you been there and done that? Bluey?
|
|
SC seagoat
Trad climber
Santa Cruz CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 03:58pm PT
|
First of all, I take EXTREME exception to being called old! Dang it... I am NOT! Not yet, anyway. So there
I take EXTREME exception to the insinuation that there is something wrong with being old. I AM. So there. Proud of it.
An old and wise woman...
Susan
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 04:18pm PT
|
you implied that if it was a love relationship, then I should have known, and if I didn't know, then it was about sex.
sorry about that, I didn't mean to make the equivalence between a "relationship" and the presumption of responsibilities, and certainly nothing about "love."
I'm just saying that the asymmetries in the consequences of taking a pregnancy to term and raising the child to adulthood are the basis of a set of deeper assessments than cannot be expressed in a Shakespearean sonnet... they are evolutionarily deep. There are modern examples of those asymmetries (such as the differential compensation rate of males and females in the workforce due to child bearing).
But had you been involved in the decision making, what would you have decided?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 04:38pm PT
|
Good statements ED.
Bottom line, science tells us that "spontaneous abortion" is not at all rare, it is actually common.
This is a fact. I think if we were all Christians we would scientifically try to rectify this problem..
But I'm not taking a stance of Christianity here, just that of a citizen. IME, Christians argument against abortion has NEVER been to regulate a women's choice. Not at all! It is with pure relevance to the preciousness of life. When a woman becomes aware of being pregnant, she has a 75% chance of giving birth to a human being. Since a women's womb is the only place a human comes from why should she be the only one with a voice to say wether it lives or not? Exaggerating but, what if all women were to say they didn't want to give birth. All mankind could cease. Around the world millions of abortions have taken place because science showed the fetus to be a girl. And in some society's they feel that females aren't as useful as a males. Jus pointing out others ideas.
Here in the USA, Christians have fallen into the slump of trying to implement their ideals into laws. If they were Christ followers they could understand this is dumb and a sin. We started this country because we wanted a seperation between the state and church. We don't want the state telling us what to do, do we? When the makes a law like permitting people to smoke if their 18 or over. We must abide by that law just as everyone else, even if we don't agree with it. It is up to the morally advantaged Christian to preach on the benefits of not smoking.
The problem I see with Laws allocating things like smoking. Is that the undereducated people see it as OK if they're not breaking the law. We all know smoking is harmful to us, it's the number two killer in the US. But it seems to me that if the Law says it OK, IT should be responsible when my 52yro cousin dies of lung cancer.
Winston Churchill said, " I don't know how to define pornography, but I know it when I see it."
I think many Christians make up their minds by what their conscious (spirit) tells them. No one has the right to be anyone's judge, especially without ALL the individual facts. Unless of course it pertains to your own children.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 04:41pm PT
|
I take EXTREME exception to the insinuation that there is something wrong with being old.
LOL... touche'!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 04:42pm PT
|
Here in the USA, Christians have fallen into the slump of trying to implement their ideals into laws. If they were Christ followers they could understand this is dumb and a sin.
And there it is.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 06:51pm PT
|
I thought I made it clear what a useless statement that is.
How about THIS useless (and comparable) "argument" of mine?
1) Everything in the universe is doubling in size each second.
2) If this sort of doubling is going on, then we simply MUST have laws in place to prevent the rich people from EVER doubling their wealth!
3) So, we MUST have laws in place to prevent the rich people from EVER doubling their wealth.
You argue using talk of souls like I argue using size-doubling.
You argue from vague claims about fetal "rights" like I argue from vague claims about the "rich."
Your attempt to move from such claims to assertions about public policy is like my attempt to move from such claims to assertions about public policy.
Your ongoing attempts to violate the actual rights of real people is akin to my argument's assertion that we must violate the actual rights of real people.
So, either explicate this "soul" and "baby" business, or admit that you have only vacuous claims to offer in "support" of your attempts to take over female reproductive rights.
This is a totally ridiculous assertion. You're comparing the creation of a baby to things magically doubling for no reason? Have you ever seen a baby being born?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 06:59pm PT
|
This is a totally ridiculous assertion. You're comparing the creation of a baby to things magically doubling for no reason? Have you ever seen a baby being born?
I actually have been present at the birth of my then-girlfriend's baby (not mine, btw). Quite intimately involved, as a matter of fact.
And you are, yet again, totally missing the point.
I am not comparing the "creation of a baby" to everything doubling in size. I am comparing your entirely unsubstantiated "soul" claims to everything doubling in size.
You are in no way explaining "souls," yet your entire perspective and "argumentation" depends upon them.
Thus far, your appeal to "souls" is exactly comparable to my "argument" about everything in the universe doubling in size each second.
So, I'll ask AGAIN: Please explicate this "soul" business!
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 07:16pm PT
|
MadBolter1, I cannot offer you evidence of a soul. It's not a tangible thing. So, you win the argument. Everything is soul-less, there is no God, and you're right about everything. Kill at will.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 07:40pm PT
|
Excellent cintune!
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 08:07pm PT
|
So, I'll ask AGAIN: Please explicate this "soul" business!
I can feel for where Bluery is com'in from. But I'd almost say his language ain't to scientific..
The term "Soul" deffinitely came from a religious root. It's not scientific. From the bibles perspective, God surely paints a picture of the Souls awaiting to inhabit a human body. So for Christians to believe In eternal life, we must also think we were alive before this life. Just can't remember. But lookin around, I can easily see and imagine that the Creator of the universe could remember EVERY word I'd ever said. Or the count of hairs on my head. Christians with this point of view posses an intimate relationship with The Creator. And theirs to say God created the universe through thought by Love (Intelligent Design). He Spoke It into Existence! Where Evolution predicts visa-versa. So science cant comprehend the "soul".
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 08:10pm PT
|
what are your thoughts on periods?
did you know that if you continue taking the "active" birth control pills without stopping, you pretty much eliminate your period?
there's usually 21 active pills in a package, and then 7 placebos. so you scrap the placebos, and just start a new pack and voilą, no period.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 08:12pm PT
|
men talking about women stuff, Anita?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 08:21pm PT
|
Kill at will
Blurry, are you to drunk to see what you said?
Isn't it better to know what ur Say'in?
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 08:21pm PT
|
what are your thoughts on periods?
I've experienced some second hand that were really exclamation points.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 08:32pm PT
|
did you know that if you continue taking the "active" birth control pills without stopping, you pretty much eliminate your period?
Isn't your "period time" the only time you can get pregnant? So why not refrain being active at that time, I wonder?
Why wouldn't you expect a "birth control" PILL to effect that timing?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 08:45pm PT
|
When a woman becomes aware of being pregnant, she has a 75% chance of giving birth to a human being. Since a women's womb is the only place a human comes from why should she be the only one with a voice to say wether it lives or not?
I find this rather confusing... the mother will invest 9 months in the gestation, and likely a decade or so in the raising of the child. It is a huge expenditure of her resources, resources which she may not have. Since she had the largest stake in the endeavor shouldn't she have a great deal to say about embarking on that endeavor? In an evolutionary sense reproductive behavior is well established, and includes the consideration, the assessment of that investment.
Exaggerating but, what if all women were to say they didn't want to give birth. All mankind could cease.
so what then of individual liberty? are you saying women must be compelled to give birth?
The other dilemma is even more thorny, what if humans (I prefer that over "mankind" which you observe would not exist without "womankind") would cease to exist if they didn't stop reproducing at the current rates?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!