Well, really the idea of making abortion illegal is itself laughable. You have to ask: why? The answer is either, "Because it's a person and thus murder," or "Because it gets my panties in a titter." In the latter case, you're a moron and go away. In the former case, the only thing we can really do is ask why murder is illegal, which is a much bigger assault of logic--and of course we can answer that one easily: security. A society where murder isn't illegal breaks down, forms groups and gangs for tribal protection, and then overthrows whatever governance it has and replaces it with one that promises to prevent or punish murder so everyone can feel safer. We seek safety, and murder is wrong because it threatens our safety--or more correctly, because a society where murder isn't illegal breaks down.
So there you have it. We can justify murder being illegal. We can't justify abortion being illegal because it's neither harmful nor threatening to anyone (well, not to anyone who's been born already). Abortion must thus be murder or else there's no justification for it to be illegal. Thus the fetus must be life, and have rights, or abortion must be legal. Anything else is patently ridiculous.
Yes but that's not really the point. The point is we've got an argument over harm done to the fetus, plain and simple. Some people want to turn this into an issue of "a woman's right to make decisions about her body," but that right doesn't exist in the face of human life with human rights. The entire argument is whether or not the thing growing inside the woman's uterus has a right to life or not; you cannot say it's a human with rights to live -but- the woman should be allowed to kill it at her leisure for it being inconvenient to her. If that were the case, why can't we just execute toddlers for being annoying and expensive?
This is why one side complains about "killing babies" all the damn time: a baby is--rather importantly--generally recognized as a human life. Once we as a culture recognize a fertilized egg as a human life in the same way, abortion is indisputably murder. From the other end, it's laughable to call a blastocyst a person (even if it's "human life"--technically it is), thus it may not be appropriate to bestow a clump of 37 stem cells all the rights of a fully grown human being stuffing its face with bacon.
I'm always terrified and it's always worse than I expect. When the needle penetrates the skin there's a large pop like the sound of an electrical circuit arcing and crackling, and the whole area (like, entire upper arm, etc) explodes in pain like I've been hit with a taser.
There's also the theory that the body is very good at dealing with fat... if you don't have carbs. More importantly, if the fat is primarily energy and not excess. Carbohydrates supply an immense amount of energy--carb-heavy foods are dense. Think about how much fat is in meat (hint: it's in the meat) versus rice (hint: rice is starch with a little protein and some micrograms of vitamins) or wheat (same deal, 12% protein is HIGH for wheat). We eat potatoes and bread and rice and such things, massive energy intake, easy to break down, never mind the straight sugar (HFCS etc...) that we guzzle down... and then blame fat for heart problems. Why would your body convert fat to energy when it's cheaper energy-wise to break down fat into lipoproteins and reassemble it for storage, versus turning it to energy or using carbs/proteins to build fat from raw materials?
There's the other less important argument that sedentary lifestyle is really the bottom line. Your diet may have an impact--but if you're a manual laborer, the energy usage may negate the impact entirely. Trust me, bicycle racers don't have diet distributions; they have food energy intake. You need protein, vitamins, and energy. If you're Usain Bolt training every god damn day to run faster than any other human in existence, that's as far as it goes: your body burns everything you stick in it. If you just do construction for a living, or bicycle for leisure or transportation (5 miles from work? Bike!), your diet probably matters less than if you wake up, drive to work, sit at a desk all day, drive home, and then sit on the couch eating a TV dinner. Just sayin'.
The problem may be sedentary lifestyle; but beyond that, a more balanced diet helps for a less active lifestyle. Of course that all matters on how active you are: extremely active, get energy; mid-level active, the balance shifts; very sedentary, your diet needs much less energy input and will be sensitive to how much energy you can derive from various inputs and how storage factors in, and is very dependent on your own base metabolism. In the end, we don't understand what 'balanced' means, and we've gotten this idea that fat is bad and should be minimized and so food energy should come from carbs (meat contains fat, it's recommended to eat more grain for energy)--which is not balanced.
Interesting. So in addition to the 100% chance that I won't allow some doctor to penetrate me with a sharp, pointy object, there's also a 5%-20% chance that penetration won't result in anything more than having it in me for a few seconds before it squirts out a couple ccs of juice and he pulls it out--which more affects the rest of the population, sans the people that aren't opposed to the penetration but don't want strange people squirting fluids inside of them.
I know, they all say it's just a little prick, but it hurt so much the first time I never let anyone stick another one in me again.
Despite the success of childhood immunizations, a lot of people believe that the chocolate rations are really smaller and not bigger. There are a lot of real-world examples of statistics claiming a change in one direction (decrease in crime, increase in overall public health, etc) when it's really the opposite. There are far more real-world examples of things being stated as such as a mantra (for example: fat causes heart disease; most of your calories should come from carbohydrates), without actually being true or at least without good solid evidence (there's strong evidence that modern high-carb diets basically evolved because growing wheat/rice is cheap, and that high carb intake causes a hell of a lot more than just heart problems).
Most people of course believe the mantra. Everyone says vaccinations have increased public health. We have seen a real increase in public health. We accept that vaccination is a big part of that. Many people--journalists included--think that their beliefs shouldn't be challenged. That vaccinations are 'good' is obvious, it's obvious that they've improved public health, and yet there's controversy... because these people must be loonies, can't they see that vaccinations are good? Their very success should prevent such controversy because we all know of their effectiveness.
Also I don't get why unvaccinated students are putting other students at risk. Wouldn't vaccinated students be risk-free? This article reads to me like "Teenagers foregoing condom use putting teenagers who don't have sex at risk"...
No court will convict you of killing someone if you can't prevent it--failure as a caretaker because you weren't able to heal someone's fatal disease that they contracted despite all efforts doesn't equate to murder; nor does watching someone drown when you can't swim, even though you basically stood by and rendered no aid (mind you, refusing to render aid when you CAN might get you some kind of charge; the courts would have a hell of a time with it though). In the more extreme examples, if you had to... say... shut down a bypass on a large hydro dam because it was about to break and flood a village, but someone was trapped in the maintenance chamber and would drown directly because you shut the bypass off, no court could really convict you of murder for directly and intentionally taking action that killed an innocent man--what are you going to do, drown an entire town?
I think we'd have trouble pursuing miscarriage as murder even if we decided all abortion is murder. It's a thing that just happens, it's impossible to prevent; pretending people can stop it would be a miscarriage of justice.
We would have difficulty with convicting people for not dying to have a stillborn child, too. Seriously if the mother survives to labor... cesarian section works. It's non-ideal, but it works. If that's not an option, it's because the mother probably won't survive the pregnancy (rather than the birth)--which kind of kills the child too. At this point we have the insane position of someone being guilty of murdering something that was going to die anyway, but would have killed them too. This is abandoning someone that can't be saved rather than getting yourself killed for symbolic heroism--nobody's going to give a woman a congressional medal of honor.
gnome shell has this right. It takes you out to view the desktop (preserving the context of working with applications), and then you start typing a program name and it shows you applications you can run (still preserving the context of working with applications, but following the context of your thought process).
At some point you have to ascribe something to being a person rather than a clump of cells. The fact that the brain can physically support the cognitive functions of a "person" doesn't mean it's actually doing anything. Further, at some point the brain is developing and can partially support such functions, somebody mentioned the neocortex can recognize pain before the brain can ponder the existence or lack thereof of gods and the ramifications. In any case, the exact point at which the damn thing becomes a "person" is largely imaginary magic.
No, it's a menu. It extends down a rectangular area with a list of options to choose from, some of which open dialogs (some of which are substantial and thus become the whole screen).
1. It's on her for trespassing. She was no longer welcome and was not allowed in his home. That he didn't lock his door isn't an invitation for criminal breaking and entering.
2. I suspect had there been no risk of anything (STDs, pregnancy, etc) that he would have likely not fucking cared, or maybe just rode it out and enjoyed it, and tossed her after she'd finished exhausting herself. Not to justify women just jumping men like that "because they like it anyway," but just to put into perspective: men are a lot less likely to have a problem with the cock riding. This is just a guess in this situation; but the fact that his explanation is that he avoided psycho-babies and child support is pretty telling about where his priorities were, and it doesn't sound much like the horrors of having his dick stuffed in some vagina.
A woman would be more concerned with, you know, being raped. All the other stuff comes after.
The interface he's describing is moronic. He obviously hasn't used Android 4.1. My menu isn't on a separate screen; I tap a vertical elipsis (three dots going up and down, : with an extra dot, whatever) and the menu pops up.
I smile a lot more when I'm under stress. I worry and get nervous and have problems when the stress is light; but when it passes a point, I just shake my head and let it go.
There are two kinds of problems you shouldn't worry about: those you can fix and those you can't. I worry about the ones I can fix because... well, when it gets hard, I CAN fix them, but I can fail and that's my fault. When it passes the point of credibility, when the problem is ridiculous and cannot be taken at face value for something you're expected to solve, I don't feel any real responsibility.
Honestly, a position like that? I could take it. It would bother me, but I'd be fine when I got out of it. I've hit things that made me scream, that kept yanking my attention for days, but it fades out. But let's be straight: at a point I'm just going to get up and walk away, and tell the boss I'll be back Monday, and if he threatens to fire me then lol whatever. Seriously potentially losing my job would normally bother me; but when my job is piling stress on me like that, and it's actually reasonable for me to need a break for reasons of mental health, I really don't care. There's a problem in front of me, this is the solution, and if you don't like it then fuck you. See you next week or I'll see HR at your company (yeah even as a contractor, HR wouldn't like hearing this) with a report about the details of my job and my sudden week-long vacation. Not that it'll get my job back or anything; it'll just amuse me, and something might come down the line back at the angry manager.
You can work until you break, or you can work until you're about to break and then shove all that shit aside and go ride motorcycles for the rest of the day. If the job is breaking you, you should really just go hop on the Kawasaki and race down the highway. You can tell the cop ticketing you that you just needed a good ride to clear your head after spending six weeks straight looking through kiddy porn and pictures of horses fucking guys' asses for 8 hours a day.
I don't see anything here? Group sex seems fine. Teenagers are awesome, but we don't let 18 and 19 year olds into bars--alcohol is not for them. Public restrooms are kind of dirty, though I've been at mid-to-low class establishments that have a strict policy of keeping the restrooms pristine even when at max capacity (they will SUMMON the janitor, the bathroom is attended and if someone makes a mess the janitor is called immediately)... the attendant will also call security if you bang in the bathroom. What's fucked up porn? Some of that lesbian stuff is pretty nasty, who puts their face THERE?
If it's a legitimate rape I think it would bother me a lot, not enough to cause psychological damage but enough to get a strong rise out of my sense of right and wrong. But small children don't usually get pregnant, so I think legitimate rape is rare in these situations.
I dunno I could sift through a mass of shit for a job. I mean I avoided goatse forever and a few other things that eventually got put in front of me, and then I screamed--that was new, getting legit directed to tubgirl was like something being slammed through my skull, it took a good 15 seconds to shake off the initial impact--but it doesn't have a lasting effect. For the most part I just move on to the next thing.
Worked at a web host that hosted most of this stuff, we passed it around as a joke to coworkers. Sort of hazing ritual, not really. Not really pleasant but not terrible.
Then again I am auto-stable. Emotional and mental stability is notably poor, but I internally break everything down and try to understand it. My social life is terrible because I'm very, very bad at being social; but I also scan back through everything and cite out mistakes, even years later. I look back at minor body language, tones of voice, exact wordings that stand out, and recognize things I should have seen that I didn't. I replay my own thoughts and feelings and figure out what errors were there and where they went into a run-away state and I don't react as severely in the future. It's definitely a process, but I like to think I get better instead of worse as I'm exposed to more and more shit.
I had a coworker that raised a child into his 20s and is continuing to care for him in such a state that the child cannot even bathe itself as an adult. He holds the utmost care for his broken offspring, favoring it more than the others. Why, I'll never know.
Humans are prone to see patterns where they don't exist and to ascribe things to being alive. Cars have faces. My mom thinks her dog can count to 10 because it can bark 10 times and barks 4 times at 4pm when it's time to eat... apparently the dog also has an internal chronometer, or can read clocks.
Being a parent makes you clinically insane. The entire world becomes a fantasy where everything is either horribly evil and deadly or perfect and beautiful. How we got here is a mystery to me; back in the day we had teachers beat our kids and we were grateful for them keeping the little shits in line, these days they shout at or suspend or fail our kids and we go to school and threaten to sue for daring to criticize our precious little snowflake. The government must have put something in the water.
In any case off your nut or not, you're not going to have a baby and then look at YOUR CHILD like a lump of abstract matter. You're going to ascribe symptoms of life to it and see it as some kind of precious individual, even while its brain twitches its muscles in an attempt to learn how all the controls work and it screams simply because it requires food energy and other maintenance to continue living. The damn thing doesn't even WANT to live; it's just a normal instinct. Psychologists say small children don't understand death until nearly or over a decade into their lives--and even many (if not most) adults don't actually understand the concept of death (think about anyone religious: you think the afterlife is just a fairytale? It's either A) real; or B) an artifact of the human mind not being able to understand the concept of termination of life, and so assuming that life just continues in another way after death).
I've seen other peoples' one-day-old babies and my superior objectivity (read: it's not my kid, so I have no emotional investment into it) supports my conclusions. Your subjectivity (attachment to the life of your own child--most parents would murder another parent's child brutally and without consideration if it would terminate an immediate but unrelated danger to their own child) taints your view, and your proposal is to restrict the debate to people whose emotions dictate irrational and potentially untrue points of view rooted solely in imaginary concepts.
Shrug. You're obviously biased. This whole sanctity of life thing is silly. Who believes in that crap? -People- -who- -are- -alive-. Only living beings actually give a shit! Anyone who isn't alive doesn't really care. It's completely self-serving and totally biased.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, really the idea of making abortion illegal is itself laughable. You have to ask: why? The answer is either, "Because it's a person and thus murder," or "Because it gets my panties in a titter." In the latter case, you're a moron and go away. In the former case, the only thing we can really do is ask why murder is illegal, which is a much bigger assault of logic--and of course we can answer that one easily: security. A society where murder isn't illegal breaks down, forms groups and gangs for tribal protection, and then overthrows whatever governance it has and replaces it with one that promises to prevent or punish murder so everyone can feel safer. We seek safety, and murder is wrong because it threatens our safety--or more correctly, because a society where murder isn't illegal breaks down.
So there you have it. We can justify murder being illegal. We can't justify abortion being illegal because it's neither harmful nor threatening to anyone (well, not to anyone who's been born already). Abortion must thus be murder or else there's no justification for it to be illegal. Thus the fetus must be life, and have rights, or abortion must be legal. Anything else is patently ridiculous.
Yes but that's not really the point. The point is we've got an argument over harm done to the fetus, plain and simple. Some people want to turn this into an issue of "a woman's right to make decisions about her body," but that right doesn't exist in the face of human life with human rights. The entire argument is whether or not the thing growing inside the woman's uterus has a right to life or not; you cannot say it's a human with rights to live -but- the woman should be allowed to kill it at her leisure for it being inconvenient to her. If that were the case, why can't we just execute toddlers for being annoying and expensive?
This is why one side complains about "killing babies" all the damn time: a baby is--rather importantly--generally recognized as a human life. Once we as a culture recognize a fertilized egg as a human life in the same way, abortion is indisputably murder. From the other end, it's laughable to call a blastocyst a person (even if it's "human life"--technically it is), thus it may not be appropriate to bestow a clump of 37 stem cells all the rights of a fully grown human being stuffing its face with bacon.
I'm always terrified and it's always worse than I expect. When the needle penetrates the skin there's a large pop like the sound of an electrical circuit arcing and crackling, and the whole area (like, entire upper arm, etc) explodes in pain like I've been hit with a taser.
Does this bullet-proof vest attach via spikes inserted into my arm?
Actually they made a nurse do it.
There's also the theory that the body is very good at dealing with fat ... if you don't have carbs. More importantly, if the fat is primarily energy and not excess. Carbohydrates supply an immense amount of energy--carb-heavy foods are dense. Think about how much fat is in meat (hint: it's in the meat) versus rice (hint: rice is starch with a little protein and some micrograms of vitamins) or wheat (same deal, 12% protein is HIGH for wheat). We eat potatoes and bread and rice and such things, massive energy intake, easy to break down, never mind the straight sugar (HFCS etc...) that we guzzle down ... and then blame fat for heart problems. Why would your body convert fat to energy when it's cheaper energy-wise to break down fat into lipoproteins and reassemble it for storage, versus turning it to energy or using carbs/proteins to build fat from raw materials?
There's the other less important argument that sedentary lifestyle is really the bottom line. Your diet may have an impact--but if you're a manual laborer, the energy usage may negate the impact entirely. Trust me, bicycle racers don't have diet distributions; they have food energy intake. You need protein, vitamins, and energy. If you're Usain Bolt training every god damn day to run faster than any other human in existence, that's as far as it goes: your body burns everything you stick in it. If you just do construction for a living, or bicycle for leisure or transportation (5 miles from work? Bike!), your diet probably matters less than if you wake up, drive to work, sit at a desk all day, drive home, and then sit on the couch eating a TV dinner. Just sayin'.
The problem may be sedentary lifestyle; but beyond that, a more balanced diet helps for a less active lifestyle. Of course that all matters on how active you are: extremely active, get energy; mid-level active, the balance shifts; very sedentary, your diet needs much less energy input and will be sensitive to how much energy you can derive from various inputs and how storage factors in, and is very dependent on your own base metabolism. In the end, we don't understand what 'balanced' means, and we've gotten this idea that fat is bad and should be minimized and so food energy should come from carbs (meat contains fat, it's recommended to eat more grain for energy)--which is not balanced.
Interesting. So in addition to the 100% chance that I won't allow some doctor to penetrate me with a sharp, pointy object, there's also a 5%-20% chance that penetration won't result in anything more than having it in me for a few seconds before it squirts out a couple ccs of juice and he pulls it out--which more affects the rest of the population, sans the people that aren't opposed to the penetration but don't want strange people squirting fluids inside of them.
I know, they all say it's just a little prick, but it hurt so much the first time I never let anyone stick another one in me again.
Despite the success of childhood immunizations, a lot of people believe that the chocolate rations are really smaller and not bigger. There are a lot of real-world examples of statistics claiming a change in one direction (decrease in crime, increase in overall public health, etc) when it's really the opposite. There are far more real-world examples of things being stated as such as a mantra (for example: fat causes heart disease; most of your calories should come from carbohydrates), without actually being true or at least without good solid evidence (there's strong evidence that modern high-carb diets basically evolved because growing wheat/rice is cheap, and that high carb intake causes a hell of a lot more than just heart problems).
Most people of course believe the mantra. Everyone says vaccinations have increased public health. We have seen a real increase in public health. We accept that vaccination is a big part of that. Many people--journalists included--think that their beliefs shouldn't be challenged. That vaccinations are 'good' is obvious, it's obvious that they've improved public health, and yet there's controversy... because these people must be loonies, can't they see that vaccinations are good? Their very success should prevent such controversy because we all know of their effectiveness.
Also I don't get why unvaccinated students are putting other students at risk. Wouldn't vaccinated students be risk-free? This article reads to me like "Teenagers foregoing condom use putting teenagers who don't have sex at risk" ...
No court will convict you of killing someone if you can't prevent it--failure as a caretaker because you weren't able to heal someone's fatal disease that they contracted despite all efforts doesn't equate to murder; nor does watching someone drown when you can't swim, even though you basically stood by and rendered no aid (mind you, refusing to render aid when you CAN might get you some kind of charge; the courts would have a hell of a time with it though). In the more extreme examples, if you had to ... say ... shut down a bypass on a large hydro dam because it was about to break and flood a village, but someone was trapped in the maintenance chamber and would drown directly because you shut the bypass off, no court could really convict you of murder for directly and intentionally taking action that killed an innocent man--what are you going to do, drown an entire town?
I think we'd have trouble pursuing miscarriage as murder even if we decided all abortion is murder. It's a thing that just happens, it's impossible to prevent; pretending people can stop it would be a miscarriage of justice.
We would have difficulty with convicting people for not dying to have a stillborn child, too. Seriously if the mother survives to labor ... cesarian section works. It's non-ideal, but it works. If that's not an option, it's because the mother probably won't survive the pregnancy (rather than the birth)--which kind of kills the child too. At this point we have the insane position of someone being guilty of murdering something that was going to die anyway, but would have killed them too. This is abandoning someone that can't be saved rather than getting yourself killed for symbolic heroism--nobody's going to give a woman a congressional medal of honor.
gnome shell has this right. It takes you out to view the desktop (preserving the context of working with applications), and then you start typing a program name and it shows you applications you can run (still preserving the context of working with applications, but following the context of your thought process).
At some point you have to ascribe something to being a person rather than a clump of cells. The fact that the brain can physically support the cognitive functions of a "person" doesn't mean it's actually doing anything. Further, at some point the brain is developing and can partially support such functions, somebody mentioned the neocortex can recognize pain before the brain can ponder the existence or lack thereof of gods and the ramifications. In any case, the exact point at which the damn thing becomes a "person" is largely imaginary magic.
Live a little.
No, it's a menu. It extends down a rectangular area with a list of options to choose from, some of which open dialogs (some of which are substantial and thus become the whole screen).
Well yeah, but I'm saying:
1. It's on her for trespassing. She was no longer welcome and was not allowed in his home. That he didn't lock his door isn't an invitation for criminal breaking and entering.
2. I suspect had there been no risk of anything (STDs, pregnancy, etc) that he would have likely not fucking cared, or maybe just rode it out and enjoyed it, and tossed her after she'd finished exhausting herself. Not to justify women just jumping men like that "because they like it anyway," but just to put into perspective: men are a lot less likely to have a problem with the cock riding. This is just a guess in this situation; but the fact that his explanation is that he avoided psycho-babies and child support is pretty telling about where his priorities were, and it doesn't sound much like the horrors of having his dick stuffed in some vagina.
A woman would be more concerned with, you know, being raped. All the other stuff comes after.
Yes of course, we should move on to Windows 1.0 with single-window interface.
The interface he's describing is moronic. He obviously hasn't used Android 4.1. My menu isn't on a separate screen; I tap a vertical elipsis (three dots going up and down, : with an extra dot, whatever) and the menu pops up.
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/304625_10152044611840111_145418651_n.jpg
I smile a lot more when I'm under stress. I worry and get nervous and have problems when the stress is light; but when it passes a point, I just shake my head and let it go.
There are two kinds of problems you shouldn't worry about: those you can fix and those you can't. I worry about the ones I can fix because... well, when it gets hard, I CAN fix them, but I can fail and that's my fault. When it passes the point of credibility, when the problem is ridiculous and cannot be taken at face value for something you're expected to solve, I don't feel any real responsibility.
Honestly, a position like that? I could take it. It would bother me, but I'd be fine when I got out of it. I've hit things that made me scream, that kept yanking my attention for days, but it fades out. But let's be straight: at a point I'm just going to get up and walk away, and tell the boss I'll be back Monday, and if he threatens to fire me then lol whatever. Seriously potentially losing my job would normally bother me; but when my job is piling stress on me like that, and it's actually reasonable for me to need a break for reasons of mental health, I really don't care. There's a problem in front of me, this is the solution, and if you don't like it then fuck you. See you next week or I'll see HR at your company (yeah even as a contractor, HR wouldn't like hearing this) with a report about the details of my job and my sudden week-long vacation. Not that it'll get my job back or anything; it'll just amuse me, and something might come down the line back at the angry manager.
You can work until you break, or you can work until you're about to break and then shove all that shit aside and go ride motorcycles for the rest of the day. If the job is breaking you, you should really just go hop on the Kawasaki and race down the highway. You can tell the cop ticketing you that you just needed a good ride to clear your head after spending six weeks straight looking through kiddy porn and pictures of horses fucking guys' asses for 8 hours a day.
I don't see anything here? Group sex seems fine. Teenagers are awesome, but we don't let 18 and 19 year olds into bars--alcohol is not for them. Public restrooms are kind of dirty, though I've been at mid-to-low class establishments that have a strict policy of keeping the restrooms pristine even when at max capacity (they will SUMMON the janitor, the bathroom is attended and if someone makes a mess the janitor is called immediately)... the attendant will also call security if you bang in the bathroom. What's fucked up porn? Some of that lesbian stuff is pretty nasty, who puts their face THERE?
I got that backwards, didn't I?
If it's a legitimate rape I think it would bother me a lot, not enough to cause psychological damage but enough to get a strong rise out of my sense of right and wrong. But small children don't usually get pregnant, so I think legitimate rape is rare in these situations.
I dunno I could sift through a mass of shit for a job. I mean I avoided goatse forever and a few other things that eventually got put in front of me, and then I screamed--that was new, getting legit directed to tubgirl was like something being slammed through my skull, it took a good 15 seconds to shake off the initial impact--but it doesn't have a lasting effect. For the most part I just move on to the next thing.
Worked at a web host that hosted most of this stuff, we passed it around as a joke to coworkers. Sort of hazing ritual, not really. Not really pleasant but not terrible.
Then again I am auto-stable. Emotional and mental stability is notably poor, but I internally break everything down and try to understand it. My social life is terrible because I'm very, very bad at being social; but I also scan back through everything and cite out mistakes, even years later. I look back at minor body language, tones of voice, exact wordings that stand out, and recognize things I should have seen that I didn't. I replay my own thoughts and feelings and figure out what errors were there and where they went into a run-away state and I don't react as severely in the future. It's definitely a process, but I like to think I get better instead of worse as I'm exposed to more and more shit.
I had a coworker that raised a child into his 20s and is continuing to care for him in such a state that the child cannot even bathe itself as an adult. He holds the utmost care for his broken offspring, favoring it more than the others. Why, I'll never know.
Humans are prone to see patterns where they don't exist and to ascribe things to being alive. Cars have faces. My mom thinks her dog can count to 10 because it can bark 10 times and barks 4 times at 4pm when it's time to eat... apparently the dog also has an internal chronometer, or can read clocks.
Being a parent makes you clinically insane. The entire world becomes a fantasy where everything is either horribly evil and deadly or perfect and beautiful. How we got here is a mystery to me; back in the day we had teachers beat our kids and we were grateful for them keeping the little shits in line, these days they shout at or suspend or fail our kids and we go to school and threaten to sue for daring to criticize our precious little snowflake. The government must have put something in the water.
In any case off your nut or not, you're not going to have a baby and then look at YOUR CHILD like a lump of abstract matter. You're going to ascribe symptoms of life to it and see it as some kind of precious individual, even while its brain twitches its muscles in an attempt to learn how all the controls work and it screams simply because it requires food energy and other maintenance to continue living. The damn thing doesn't even WANT to live; it's just a normal instinct. Psychologists say small children don't understand death until nearly or over a decade into their lives--and even many (if not most) adults don't actually understand the concept of death (think about anyone religious: you think the afterlife is just a fairytale? It's either A) real; or B) an artifact of the human mind not being able to understand the concept of termination of life, and so assuming that life just continues in another way after death).
I've seen other peoples' one-day-old babies and my superior objectivity (read: it's not my kid, so I have no emotional investment into it) supports my conclusions. Your subjectivity (attachment to the life of your own child--most parents would murder another parent's child brutally and without consideration if it would terminate an immediate but unrelated danger to their own child) taints your view, and your proposal is to restrict the debate to people whose emotions dictate irrational and potentially untrue points of view rooted solely in imaginary concepts.
Shrug. You're obviously biased. This whole sanctity of life thing is silly. Who believes in that crap? -People- -who- -are- -alive-. Only living beings actually give a shit! Anyone who isn't alive doesn't really care. It's completely self-serving and totally biased.