zapatos

I am pivoting to a defensive position because of your continued attack. If I wish to talk about the financial implications associated with a woman's decision regarding abortion I will do so, with your blessing or without. I don't see how you can judge the substance of my view to be lacking when you attempted to shut off discussion without exploring it at all. And don't start with the straw man arguments. I never claimed or implied that people were property or that women give up the rights to their own body. Since you find this area of discussion to be irrelevant, can you please just move on and leave me alone?

Why don't you participate in the parts of the conversation you wish, and ignore the rest. Then you won't feel obligated to play traffic cop.

I didn't realize this was your thread and that you were in charge of managing the flow of the discussion.

Tell it to the government, they are the ones who tied financial obligations to reproduction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support_in_the_United_States

Yeah, I didn't claim to actually have an answer. But... It doesn't have to be only about whether the abortion takes place. Perhaps there can be some legally mandated financial considerations. For example in an extreme situation let's say the man and women only ever knew each other for about 30 minutes, during which time the woman became pregnant. If the man does not want the pregnancy to come to term, perhaps his financial obligation can be reduced. Or perhaps the woman has to make a reasonable attempt to contact and talk to him prior to the birth or she risks reduced child support. There perhaps could be some guarantee of visitation for the father, or even a guarantee that he never be contacted again, once the child is born. Or maybe some agreement about how the child is to be raised (for example, in a religious environment). I am of course just throwing out ideas. I don't know if any are workable, but if I am the 'father', then I'd at least like the 'mother' to be encouraged to talk to me prior to any major decisions. I agree it won't, and shouldn't, be an equal decision. She just has too much invested to take that choice away from her.

It seems unreasonable to me to allow the man no input into the decision of whether or not to abort, as there can certainly be a significant impact on him (albeit probably less than that of the woman). For example the woman may choose to have the child then expect financial support for 18 or more years that the man then must contribute. The woman may also choose to have an abortion when the man is willing and able to provide 100% custodial care and financial support if the child is born. While I cannot come up with any scenario where I see the man having veto power over the woman's decision, it seems reasonable for the man to have some influence on a decision that could impact him for life.

Of course we are all just speculating, but I don't think people like being the worst, even if 'the worst' is not that bad. It is the knowledge that every social class is better than you and the feeling that you are not getting a fair shake. I personally find it discomforting to come in last place, even if competing at a high level. No one wants to graduate last in their medical class, even though that is a higher achievement than the bulk of the population manages. I think everyone in the pool of people you describe have someone to point to who is worse off.

I think you are correct. Only tangentially related, but that statement reminded me of what I found to be a very powerful quote from the movie "Mississippi Burning".

I found this philosopher's prescient warning interesting and rather spot-on. https://www.yahoo.com/news/philosopher-predicted-rise-of-trump-like-figure-in-98-book-215658929.html

Unless I'm misunderstanding Strange, you and he seems to be saying two different things. You are saying the age of the universe is known to a certain degree of accuracy, but that estimate can change over time. Strange seems to be saying we have absolutely no idea how old the universe is. We only know how long ago the BB began, which may or may not be the age of the universe.

I see the point you are making Strange about the (unknown) age of the universe, but if science is going to treat the age as an unknown, then they should stop saying things like this: https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

Well, yes. When you go to a physics class, do you ever talk to classmates about anything other than physics? Like what you did that weekend, or movies, or who won the election? And fact and debate. Not too dissimilar from discussions on "time" or QM. That's questionable. I suspect people will simply get their politics fix elsewhere. Okay, I'll give you that one.

Actually I don't see why you've suggested deleting the politics section. Can you please expound on the benefits you expect if we do?

As do we all.

So your answer is that it is ordered by time?

If I may jump into your discussion... When you say it is an ordered event, by what measure is it ordered? I know you don't mean it is ordered by height or weight. The only measure I can think of by which it might be ordered is "time".

Because it is not called 'zero o'clock', it is called 'twelve o'clock'.

I'm afraid you are going to have to accept the fact that you will never be able to touch anyone and that you will therefore never be able to achieve a complete emotional bond with the people you love (or scratch an itch for that matter). Perhaps you can take up knitting.

Not in any version of socialism I've ever heard of. Perhaps you are thinking of communism.

No, it is a physical transformation. Perhaps you should Google it. From the first sentence in Wikipedia (and in confirmation of my many years of Catholic schooling...). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

What is a "senatorial district"? You don't seem to understand the purpose of two senators for each state. it is NOT so that "cities don't...prevail" over 'small towns, farms, and rural areas'. You make is sound like there are 'senatorial districts' set up outside of urban areas to represent only rural areas. Senators represent states, not cities. Given this and your claim that a constitutional amendment requires "the OK of all the small population states", I don't think you have a thorough understanding of what exactly our Constitution says.

Why do processes in your FOR slow down (from the perspective of my FOR if you are moving with respect to me) while simultaneously not slowing from the perspective of someone in your same FOR?

In what way does the electoral college protect small population states? It may have 200 years ago, but times have changed. Virginia no longer bullies Rhode Island and the population is not concentrated in a couple of large states. A Constitutional Amendment would not require the OK of all the small population states. Only 3/4 of all states are required to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

You said "Well, do you expect me to clarify this for you?" The word "this" in your sentence is a pronoun. What does it represent? In other words, please repeat that sentence but instead of using the word "this", use the word that represents what you are suggesting I expect you to clarify for me.

What do you mean by "this"?