Brain differences in political orientation

Status
Not open for further replies.
KarissaMann05 said:
Of course. :) I well aware, hence my mention, "I suppose they would prefer abortions to life-supporting machine things." I just talked to someone and he is not sure if he remembers that article, The Future of Babies: Artificial Wombs and Pregnant Grandmas | LiveScience, but he think it is, maybe.

Again, I never said life-supporting machines are only way to save them... I offer some interesting information.



Okay, now now. Nowhere in my posts here said she can't have one... She can have her abortion if she wants to, go ahead. I merely offered some thoughts and interesting information...

EDIT: I forget to say something. I know I said life-supporting machines, so I mean, artificial wombs. My bad.
Click to expand...

Artifificial wombs, at this point in time, are not available. No sense in discussing an alternative that can't even be found.
 
jillio said:
Artifificial wombs, at this point in time, are not available. No sense in discussing a treatment that can't even be found.
Click to expand...

While I like the idea, I'm afraid it's out of the question at this time.
 
jillio said:
So, how about the neuronal correlates associated with the religious experience. And that would be all religious experience, not limtited to simply one religion. A muslim brain, a Christian brain, and a Santa Ria brain all show the same activity during religious experience.
Click to expand...

Why would I bother to explain anything I gain from my church activities? Are you trying to troll me into a religious meltdown here?

I will soon be leaving for my Christmas dinner with my church. My Sunday used to be NFL and beer. I definitely enjoy them more now.
 
Reba said:
I never stated that there were no prostitutes in the Bible.
Click to expand...

You made a snide reference (less than subtle) about my wish to see things from a historical and cultural context. That was immediately subsequent to my saying that God sending a man to have sex with his brother's wife sounded a lot like pimping to me. You add it up.

Your attempts to be subtle so you can later come back and say "I didn't say that!" are nothing short of dishonest manipulation.
 
Reba said:
I haven't forgotten them. There were harlots in the Old and New Testaments. I never denied that. What is the point here?
Click to expand...

You are the one that made the point necessary. Don't try to play these silly little games. You are certainly more aware of the implications of your statements than that.
 
deafskeptic said:
While I like the idea, I'm afraid it's out of the question at this time.
Click to expand...

Right. It would be a wonderful alternative for babies born extremely prematurely because it would allow them to continue prenatal development in a protected environment as biology intended. But I really don't see how it would ever be applicable to a woman's right to choose.
 
jillio said:
Artifificial wombs, at this point in time, are not available. No sense in discussing an alternative that can't even be found.
Click to expand...

That is why they are doing some tests and work on it. Of course, it won't be available until they success. What do you think of that article after you read?
 
saywhatkid said:
We are the Bible Thumpers, current WWE tag team champions? :wave:
Click to expand...

I wanna be the Manager! I will get a white tux and white Stetson tomorrow. I already have a white eldo with Horns on the front and some Cigars.
 
saywhatkid said:
Why would I bother to explain anything I gain from my church activities? Are you trying to troll me into a religious meltdown here?

I will soon be leaving for my Christmas dinner with my church. My Sunday used to be NFL and beer. I definitely enjoy them more now.
Click to expand...

Nope. Are you trying to turn my thread about brain differences into a religious symposium per SWK and Reba?

Enjoy your Sunday anyway you choose. I don't think anyone has ever denied your right to.
 
jillio said:
Right. It would be a wonderful alternative for babies born extremely prematurely because it would allow them to continue prenatal development in a protected environment as biology intended. But I really don't see how it would ever be applicable to a woman's right to choose.
Click to expand...

I never say it is apply to those. I just think that's fantastic how it processes for prevent possible miscarriages. So families wouldn't have to suffer loss of child, you know?
 
jillio said:
It's self explanatory. Don't ask silly questions.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to be sure that you didn't have some other definition that I wasn't aware of.

I thought tag team meant two partners in a wrestling competition who take turns against the opponent. Since that definition didn't fit, I thought maybe it meant something else.

Either way, in order to tag team, there has to be a team and a plan. Since I haven't been communicating with anyone outside of this thread about this thread, that took me by surprise.

You certainly wouldn't be implying that people can't think for themselves and make their own posts without help?
 
Reba said:
I just wanted to be sure that you didn't have some other definition that I wasn't aware of.

I thought tag team meant two partners in a wrestling competition who take turns against the opponent. Since that definition didn't fit, I thought maybe it meant something else.

Either way, in order to tag team, there has to be a team and a plan. Since I haven't been communicating with anyone outside of this thread about this thread, that took me by surprise.

You certainly wouldn't be implying that people can't think for themselves and make their own posts without help?
Click to expand...

I think you're being a bit literal mined re tag team..
 
KarissaMann05 said:
That is why they are doing some tests and work on it. Of course, it won't be available until they success. What do you think of that article after you read?
Click to expand...

I think that, in the future, if the science proves to be valid, that it would be a wonde ful asset for treating infants born prematurely. It would allow their development to continue in a protected environment as biology intended. However, it does not completely replicate the environment of the womb.

That being said, this would not save all premature infants. Those born well before they have established viability would no doubt still die. They are dependent upon the mother's body for nutrition; their digestive system has not developed to the degree that they can digest food otherwise. They are still dependent upon the mother for their respiratory function; the brain hasn't developed to the degree that their autonomic nervous system will take over those functions. Their immmune system is not functioning: they will be at risk for all sorts of opportunistic infection and disease.
 
jillio said:
You made a snide reference (less than subtle) about my wish to see things from a historical and cultural context. That was immediately subsequent to my saying that God sending a man to have sex with his brother's wife sounded a lot like pimping to me. You add it up.
Click to expand...
If you knew anything about the culture of the Old Testament times, you would know that providing an heir for a deceased brother by marrying the widow was a common and expected practice. It had nothing to do with prostitution or pimping.

Another example of the kinsman's duty can be found in the book of Ruth. Carrying on the family name and inheritance was very important in those days.

You always make a big deal about not judging the actions of another culture based on our own culture. Yet, in this case, you threw that out the window.

Your attempts to be subtle so you can later come back and say "I didn't say that!" are nothing short of dishonest manipulation.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. I have never said that there were no prostitutes in the Bible. This is not a news flash.
 
jillio said:
You are the one that made the point necessary. Don't try to play these silly little games. You are certainly more aware of the implications of your statements than that.
Click to expand...
No implications at all; I was very clear and forthright.

BTW, bullying doesn't intimidate me, nor can I be goaded into breaking the rules. :)
 
TXgolfer said:
I wanna be the Manager! I will get a white tux and white Stetson tomorrow. I already have a white eldo with Horns on the front and some Cigars.
Click to expand...
Forget it. I don't look good in tights. ;)
 
jillio said:
I think that, in the future, if the science proves to be valid, that it would be a wonde ful asset for treating infants born prematurely. It would allow their development to continue in a protected environment as biology intended. However, it does not completely replicate the environment of the womb.

That being said, this would not save all premature infants. Those born well before they have established viability would no doubt still die. They are dependent upon the mother's body for nutrition; their digestive system has not developed to the degree that they can digest food otherwise. They are still dependent upon the mother for their respiratory function; the brain hasn't developed to the degree that their autonomic nervous system will take over those functions. Their immmune system is not functioning: they will be at risk for all sorts of opportunistic infection and disease.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I can understand that. It can't hurt to have some hope for families and their future.

At first glance, artificial wombs seem like the "perfect" solution, I agree. The baby lives and the mother doesn't have to share her body. That seems sounds cool. Mothers with pregnancy complications would take advantage of the artificial womb, but they make up a very small fraction of abortions. For most abortion-minded women, the pregnancy itself isn't the problem, they cite financial constraints, education, career, and poor relationships.

I think, that means that the majority of mothers would not want to raise the babies gestated in artificial wombs. The babies would instead be put up for adoption. If artificial wombs became available, some mothers would still prefer abortion or waiting until full term for adoption. Another issue arises when we think about how the technology would develop. In the early stages of experimentation, it definitely will not be safe for the babies. The only (possibly) ethical approach would be to work with babies who are already doomed to die... Also, that is, babies who are scheduled to be aborted or adopted if they decide.

Frankly, I think artificial wombs would first be tested on animals (there has already been at least one such test, I think?), and then on babies doomed to die (that is, when there are pregnancy complications). I think that the argument is going to be that the artificial wombs would be too expensive, thus it would be "discriminating against poor women" and would be "too much money to spend just to add one more person too the population". After all, at first it wouldn't be the kind of money you'd like to spend on a "potential human". But, I suppose that could save a fetus from being miscarried in her womb and suffer a loss.

Sorry, if I ramble! :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top