A Broken Heart Really Does Hurt, Scientists Claim

Death Metal writes "Psychologists at the University of California, Los Angeles say the human body has a gene that connects physical pain sensitivity with social pain sensitivity. The findings back the common theory that rejection 'hurts' by showing that a gene regulating the body's most potent painkillers — mu-opioids — is involved in socially painful experiences too."

Comments

The âz of my angst / the 0 of your compassion

[RSKennan]

The meanness in this thread hurts my feelings. I think that it hurts a lot of other Slashdotter's feelings too, which is why they aren't posting. And that makes me sad. OH LOARDY WHY DOES IT HURT SO BAD????

Re:Painkillers?

[thetoadwarrior]

That's gay.

It's not like he said find the dirtiest skankiest piece of pussy in the area and fuck it and meaningless sex is a lot healthier than curing your problems with pills. Pill poppers don't get more respect than people that have one night stands so you have it a bit backwards.

Re:They've discovered the Emo Gene!

[R2.0]

"I'm pro-choice on the grounds that people should be aloud to control their own lives and make decisions about what they want to put their bodies through - what this represents though is termination of lives NOT on the basis of ones own body or ability to raise a child, but based upon non-life threatening genetic predispositions in our children. This line of thinking is dangerous,..."

Yes, because it erodes the moral basis for abortion itself - "choice". The vast majority of abortions are not performed because of physical danger to the woman, or disgust at the parasitic growth inside their bodies, or a philosophical objection to their bodies being used to increase the population. They are performed for convenience (although the level of inconvenience in pregnancy shouldn't be underestimate), fear ("My Mom's going to KILL meeee!"), or economics (powerful, but mitigable). And these decisions are wholly unbalanced, because legally a fetus has no standing, no rights. And, within pro choice thought, while fetuses might possibly have some moral value, it is far overwhelmed by the moral value of a woman having absolute freedom.

But your proposal goes against that. You are stating, in effect, that fetus's DO have moral value, in that women should not be allowed to abort them based on "non-life threatening genetic predispositions". But why should that have any value? If a woman wants a girl because she just can't picture herself raising a boy, she can abort a male fetus with the full legal and moral support of the pro-choice philosophy. Sure, individuals may have some misgivings, but they are obligated to accept the woman's choice as the highest authority.

Abortion is a nightmare politically and legally, but a deeper philosophical analysis shows up a lot more difficulties with the pro-choice position vs. the pro-life position.