See what I mean, @Aleph(0)?

And it just rolls right off.

 

 

But, science redux:

http://www.express.co.uk/life-style...good-for-you-eat-up-says-new-dietary-research

And here's another case where I thought the science was settled.

This is nowhere near the first study to show this, but it's always good to see reinforcement.

The success of the Adkins diet a few years back (a fad which seems to recur about once a generation) brought out all the "nutritionists" moaning about how cholesterol and triglycerides were sure to skyrocket. The exact opposite happened and blood pressures fell to boot.

Despite the science and the anecdotal feedback about how wrong they were, you'll find that most nutritional experts are still out there touting low fat diets with polyunsaturated oils (shown to cause arterial plaque). I don't think this will change until they retired and are replaced.

 

More science...

Perhaps postpartum abortion should be legal up to 3 years?

Beware the eugenicists.

 

More science...

Perhaps postpartum abortion should be legal up to 3 years?

Beware the eugenicists.

Already a well-documented theory...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

 

Already a well-documented theory...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

I'm aware of that. This is different.

 

Why stop at three years?

 

Why stop at three years?

What is the cost/benefit justification of going longer?

 

Why stop at three years?

Because after that, the death penalty comes into play.

 

Perhaps postpartum abortion should be legal up to 3 years?

There's more support for that than you might imagine.

Just one:
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

 

There's more support for that than you might imagine.

Just one:
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.

Barbarians.

 

There's more support for that than you might imagine.

Just one:
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

That's actually an old idea. Peter Singer proposed it in the late 70's. Personally, I find it horrifying ...

 

Such arguments are defensible when your only measures are economics and the "greater good". In other words, a psychopath has no problem making such a decision. Most of us have a primitive region in our brain that tells us murder is bad and we don't kill for purely economic reasons or convenience.

 

That's actually an old idea.

Yup, and it (eugenics) is even attractive in some respects, once you abandon empathy and morality.

 

Yup, and it (eugenics) is even attractive in some respects, once you abandon empathy and morality.

It all sounds solid and good... until you're the one who's in need of the empathy and the morality of others... like you've just said, a psychopath would have no problem... until the psychopath is the one with the problem...

 

It all sounds solid and good... until you're the one who's in need of the empathy and the morality of others... like you've just said, a psychopath would have no problem... until the psychopath is the one with the problem...

I think he knows

"Such arguments are defensible when your only measures are economics and the "greater good". In other words, a psychopath has no problem making such a decision. Most of us have a primitive region in our brain that tells us murder is bad and we don't kill for purely economic reasons or convenience."

 

"Such arguments are defensible when your only measures are economics and the "greater good". "

I found it interesting that you didn't write "economics" and the "greater good". Like one is less likely to kill a living being.

 

Such arguments are defensible when your only measures are economics and the "greater good". In other words, a psychopath has no problem making such a decision. Most of us have a primitive region in our brain that tells us murder is bad and we don't kill for purely economic reasons or convenience.

Unfortunately, psychopaths are likely overrepresented in positions of power...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorl...ween-psychopathy-and-leadership/#4efc30cb2740

 

Such arguments are defensible when your only measures are economics and the "greater good". In other words, a psychopath has no problem making such a decision. Most of us have a primitive region in our brain that tells us murder is bad and we don't kill for purely economic reasons or convenience.

Do not misunderstand me but however while once living things are still considered food your last 9 words become false. While meat, fish etc is still in demand the blood is on all of those who make it a market.

 

There's more support for that than you might imagine.

Just one:
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

People like this need to find a better cause - I hear syphilis is making a comeback.

People are already selectively aborting girls. I assume next will be selecting for eye and hair color?

With the latest news of making a baby from 3 people's genes, we really should not be worried about the jobs disappearing... I really think the matrix scenario is more and more likely - sex is no longer needed to reproduce. Technology is being made to power electronics feom our skin. The only thing missing is an artificial womb and we are out!

p.s. The difference between an unborn fetus and a newborn infant is very clear - an unborn fetus poses multiple risks to its mother.