been almost four years since The Manifestómetro began his career and nothing has changed. After several handfuls of protests after the press continues to figure that out the eyelet, taking with absolute reliability that give the organizers or the police, instead of taking stock of their own. If memory serves me, only The Country makes its calculations on the ground. Gossips say that Public ever given our figure (when we managed to take away the laziness of the hump and we emerged into the street every time we are older - some more than others, in any case - and it cost us more up the ass of the chair) and possibly do so again today, or at least I was yesterday talking a journalist who works there. No longer a recognition that's something. But I feel that is not what we wanted.
I'm not speaking for everyone that way this project, I am only a fifth of the shed, but I think the birth of the subject, everyone had in mind that, ultimately, by demonstrating that making a more or less reliable measure (with all the approaches you want, and with little technical - does anyone leaves a helicopter?) is easier and shorter to cover the press conference of any weight, newspapers end up doing all their own measurements. To measure an event, expecting that you arrive at the right time, it takes 20 minutes, no more, and be given time to measure twice to be sure. I came to think that eventually everyone will make an inventory data, which only takes a dozen photographs, and everyone could have estimates which did not differ among them more than what can be attributed to error. Then I woke up, it seems that we live in a world where ideology determines reality, and not vice versa.
paragraph ends here.
Finally, in the struggle for simplification, it has been that there are up there. Leveling una bellota con un roble , a poner argumentos cicateros en carteles y a pasearlos alegremente por las calles. La cosa no es sencilla :
The question of when a human life begins is a profoundly intricate one, with widespread implications, ranging from abortion rights to stem cell research and beyond. A key point in the debate rests on the way in which we choose to define the concepts of humanity, life, and human life. What does it mean to be alive? What does it mean to be human? Is a zygote or an embryo alive? Is a zygote or an embryo a human being? These are intricate philosophical questions that often incite intense debate, for their answers are used as evidence in the answers to questions about the moral status of a zygote, embryo or fetus.
The question of when human life begins has been pondered throughout history and in a multitude of cultural contexts. The "answer" is fluid, in that it has been changing throughout history, because any answer about when human life begins is deeply integrated with the beliefs, values and social constructs of the community or individual that drew the conclusion. Throughout history there have been several "answers" to the question of when human life begins, but the only consistency among the answers is that they are always changing as social contexts change, religious morals fluctuate, or new knowledge about the process of embryo development is obtained.
No es el propósito de este artículo be to discuss the arguments for and against, it is something to what has already been enough time, but I want to give a few strokes. The text that I linked above is a good overview of all the arguments that have been used throughout history, including these fables for camel drivers who are still accepted today. Reading it, however, the oft-repeated phrase that life begins at conception is not fully sustained. A doctor from the stands say that, as happened yesterday with the president of Physicians for Life is enough to put my hair like hooks. Consequently, I can paste another par de extractos:
Then
Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all. Scientists now choose to view fertilization as a process that occurs over a period of 12-24 hours. After sperm are released they must remain in the female reproductive tract for seven hours before they are capable of fertilizing the egg. Approximately ten hours are required for the sperm to travel up to the fallopian tube where they find the egg. The meeting of the egg and the sperm itself is not even an instantaneous process, but rather a complex biochemical interaction through which the sperm ultimately reaches the inner portion of the egg. Following fertilization, the chromosomes contained within the sperm and the chromosomes of the egg meet to form a diploid organism, now called a zygote, over a period of 24 hours. (Shannon and Wolter 1990). Thus, even if one were to argue that life begins at fertilization, fertilization is not a moment, but rather a continuous process lasting 12-24 hours, with an additional 24 hours required to complete the formation of a diploid individual.
The most popular argument against the idea that life begins at the moment of fertilization has been dubbed the "twinning argument." The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization. Even though the chances of twinning are not very great, as long as there is the potential for it to occur the zygote has not completed the process of individuation and is not an ontological individual.
Proponents of this view often propose the following hypothetical situation: Suppose that an egg is fertilized. At that moment a new life begins; the zygote gains a "soul," in the Catholic line of thought, or "personhood" in a secular line of thought. Then suppose that the zygote splits to form twins. Does the soul of the zygote split as well? No, this is impossible. Yet no one Would Argue That twins share the same "soul" or the same "personhood." Thus, supporters of this view Maintain That the quality of "soul" or "personhood" Must Be CONFERRE after There Is No Longer Any Potential for twinning. (Shannon and Wolter 1990)
is that 25% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion before the sixth week of gestation ( figure taken from the Wikipedia, I'm lazy , but backed by this article and that other ). do not know if this woman is simply in favor of a theocracy as a political system or really believe in God, but doing so should keep in mind that he is the greatest abortionist of all time, remove the embryo in the uterus or inscrutable ways. More than one of these poorly understood life in the trash will be over well absorbed by a pack: the technology of feminine hygiene does not respect the souls.
Another of the arguments, the psychological consequences of women who had abortions, is diluted more and more. I am forced to re-paste an excerpt of which I deleted the numbers that lead to the references to improve readability, if someone wants to access these articles are linked in the original:
Abortion and its psychological implications are highly controversial, politically charged issues. Increasingly, scientific research on psychological responses to abortion is being cited as a basis for making policy decisions about access to abortion. In such a climate, it is essential that health providers and policy-makers base their conclusions on reputable scientific research that is methodologically rigorous, conceptually sound and free from ideological bias.
[...]
These studies assessed the psychological reactions of women from 4 weeks to 2 years post abortion or delivery. All of these studies concluded that the emotional well-being of women who abort an unplanned pregnancy does not differ from that of women who carry a pregnancy to term. Reardon and colleagues cite none of these studies. Reardon and colleagues' conclusions also conflict with those reached by a panel of scientific experts convened by the American Psychological Association. On the basis of their review of all studies of psychological responses following abortion that met reasonable scientific criteria, this panel of experts concluded that first trimester abortion generally is "psychologically benign" for most women. The surgeon general of the United States reached a similar conclusion.
A su vez, la adopción tampoco está exenta de problemas . No puedo seguir enlazando artículos sin poner la nota cómica (si acaso lo fuera) con el famoso artículo The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime , co-authored Stephen Levitt, author of Freakonomics , which established a causal link between the legalization of abortion in several U.S. states in 1970 and falling rates crime in those states during the 90's. Neither this article is free of criticism, of course.
Ultimately, something that seems forgotten is that this law does not prescribe a compulsory abortion. Nobody is forced to abort, which remains a final decision of the pregnant woman who will decide if you want to carry that pregnancy to term or not. We need a law ensure that women who choose abortion may do so at acceptable sanitary conditions, and not in the bathroom of the house with a coat hanger.
the end, it seems a matter of rhetoric and the appropriate words. Has reached a time where, upon hearing free or brave , my brain automatically translates complex without or downright fascist . After twisting the language to extremes that have led me to read impose abortion on , it sounds like, I begin to think that much of yesterday's content, which translates into a child's drawing on the side of a bus belonging to these same people who say they are against childhood indoctrination:
(More pictures of the event in this Flickr set . This article was published simultaneously in The Manifestómetro and Penalties Agent Smith.)
0 comments:
Post a Comment