StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:09 PM) At the end of the day I think you're ignoring the huge distinction between abortion and miscarriages though. There's no need to debate the violation of a right of a 15 week old fetus because of a miscarriage. That's a natural, and almost common result during pregnancy for a lot of women. To say that the mother viewed that loss less when compared to a baby that dies shortly after birth is probably accurate. But that doesn't mean their feeling as to the fetus' "personhood" is any different. As I said earlier, how can someone be upset with loss when they have no role in causing it? That's completely different from abortion, where there is that role being played, and the violation of the fetus' right should rightly be called into question. Sure it does. A baby is going to be named, a funeral will likely be held. It is unquestionably a human being. A miscarried fetus, on the other hand, is not viewed as a dead human. There's no name, no death certificate, no funeral rites. Some people treat stillborns that way, but that's significantly later in development, when there's actually a functional brain. That doesn't mean miscarriages can't be traumatic; they often are if you've being trying to get pregnant and you're far enough along to realize it. This isn't about guilt or blame or responsibility or causes. It's simply pointing out that culturally we view a miscarried embryo or fetus and a still-born or a dead 1-day old baby as very different entities. Only when it comes to abortion does a fetus suddenly gain personhood and rights and domain over the mother's body.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 03:01 PM) That's just for smartphones. Apple currently has 5% of the total cellphone market share and 20% of the total cellphone profits. Here's a link to a google search on smartphone profits. This one is all over the place. Apple currently takes in 2/3 of Smartphone point of sale profits. This just supports the claim that Apple products are way over-priced! That also says operating profits from mobile phones, not just smartphones. But I don't know if smartphones have higher or lower margins. Apple does have significant market share with iOS, and since its concentrated on a single phone Apple is going to be profitable. Android, being spread out on dozens of different phones, isn't going to have a single dominant manufacturer.

Once the market coalesces around a technological standard for a given generation, it's usually game over for everyone else. On the other hand, the leader of one generation is usually not the leader of the next, and Apple is best when it is disruptive. edit think outside of the box, maximize core synergies!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 02:58 PM) But they're gaining that market share relative to Blackberries and Microsoft. They haven't put a dent in the iPhone. The Sox have been treading water around .500 all season, but they're still losing ground to the Tigers.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 12:51 PM) Oh, and one more important detail...Apple also dominates the profitability of smartphones...absolutely dominates. Which means that if that for some reason their market share became an actual weakness, they have the ability to do increase it through price cuts. Source for this? Is this smartphones only or all phones?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 12:48 PM) I'm not sure it's fair to say that they're "losing ground" unless things have changed in the last 8 months or so. Notice that trajectory for Google? Their market share is around 50% now.

A father can't have an abortion because he doesn't have a womb, not because anyone is restricting his rights to do so. Not giving men control over a woman's reproductive functions isn't sexist or unfair and comparing a father's child support to pregnancy evades the entire women's rights issue and makes it one of "responsibility."

You don't have a fetus, you never can and no one is attempting to restrict your rights to your own body and your ability to chose to have something keep growing inside of you. So no, you shouldn't have the right to control a woman's body.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 02:26 PM) But in my view I consistently consider a 9-11 week old fetus "alive" with rights, regardless of whether it dies from a miscarriage (natural and not by choice) or from an abortion (not natural and a choice). I can't very well not like something (which btw, many women DO have severe emotional reactions to miscarriages, at any time, especially with a planned pregnancy) that humans have no active role in causing. Which is fine, but you made your comparison of murder v natural death in response to my illustration of long-standing cultural views of life vs. non-life and when a fetus becomes a human and our reactions to their loss. It still doesn't work. eta most miscarriages aren't even known because they happen so early. Again, just illustrating that we've always held differing views of "personhood" based on the stage of development. I also hope you can see the philosophical differences between being pro-choice and anti-capital punishment now, as well.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 02:26 PM) It doesn't make sense to you because you don't see babies and parents as equals. Question-begging, a fetus is not a baby. It just plain doesn't make sense because you're comparing a situation where rights are restricted, rightly or wrongly, to one where they aren't. I could completely agree that a fetus is a person with rights and the comparison would still make no sense.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 02:25 PM) And the fetus is dead, and has what control of its body? So its rights are gone. My views here have totally changed since having kids. I can't imagine intentionally killing my kids, because of my irresponsibility. I used to buy into the whole "rights" thing. I can't do it anymore. Kids have changed me there, and I can't apologize for that. Lots and lots of assumptions there, that a fetus is a kid or was really alive and has rights and that an abortion is done because of irresponsibility. And you've gone and elevated children and fetuses above women in this very post, even going as far as to put their reproductive and bodily rights into scare quotes.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 02:22 PM) Again that is like saying tall people are anti-dwarf because they weren't born short. It is biological, not discriminatory. No, this doesn't make any sense, because we aren't restricting the rights of talls or dwarfs over their own bodies. Stating that men and women are, in fact, biologically different does not remove sexism from the discussion.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 02:19 PM) How does that elevate the fetus's status? Unless we are talking about a health situation the mother lives regardless. The fetus doesn't. At worst that makes their rights equal. The mother loses autonomy over their own body. Her desires regarding her own body are made secondary to am embryo or fetus.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 02:17 PM) So nature is sexist? Sorry, I don't buy that. Don't buy what? This line of objection doesn't even make sense. If only one sex bears the burden of restricted rights, it's pretty much inherently sexist.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 02:12 PM) Sure, but that's why i'm creating the hard line that once the being is "alive" it has rights. But your comparison still fails because we don't decide a fetus was "alive" and a human with rights because it was aborted and not "alive" and not a human with rights if it is miscarried, just as we don't change a person's status based on how they die.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 02:07 PM) I believe it is an extreme point of view because I don't think you can turn biology into an -ism. There are certain things that only men or women can do. It is a biological fact. It would be like saying passing a tall gene on to someone is anti-dwarf. You're going to have to explain that link. The argument is that it is sexist because it ignores women's rights to their own bodies and whether they are ready for and want childbirth. Focusing on the fetus and elevating its status above that of the mother necessarily restricts the mother's rights and it happens to only one gender. You can believe it's an extreme point of view if you wish, but it doesn't make sense.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 02:02 PM) Vandy, I agree that its sad regardless. But I just dont see why the govt should get involved until its alive. Its a personal decision, if it happened to you, youd obviously be allowed to keep your child. But if it happens to someone else, should they not have some sort of choice? I guess I dont see how the govt can tell a woman what to do in this situation, until its clear that there is actually something to save. The situation that keeps playing in my mind is that a girl wants an abortion. Shes completely healthy. The govt says no, she is forced to carry the child to term. On the table she hemorrhages and dies, the baby dies as well. Who did the govt protect? The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 02:02 PM) No, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the extreme turns it into an -ism. Usually what I have read revolves around "life". Which ignores the woman and focuses on the fetus, which is part of the sexist problem. It's not an extreme position, either, but a fundamental part of a lot of pro-choice movement. What do you think "women's rights" in the abortion discussion are about? eta this doesn't make everything about pro-life sexist or every pro-life person a sexist.

You haven't heard the "pro-life" arguments deconstructed on sexist lines before?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 01:46 PM) Because nothing dead has a heartbeat. That's how we measure death. And I dunno that sentience is very measurably that early, unless you're aware of a way it can be done. We can be sure that where you've seemingly set the line, very preliminary neural activity, there is no sentience because there's no nervous system or brain. This enforces a penalty on women that men never have to face and removes agency over their own bodies. You've assumed your conclusion by calling it a baby and assigning it rights. You've given women less control over themselves than men and children.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 01:37 PM) Because it's not being done by choice but other natural causes. The same reason we distinguish dying of old age versus dying from being murdered. You've missed the point and the comparison doesn't work. A woman's emotional reaction to a miscarriage at 3 weeks is likely "ugh, cramps" because they won't even be aware. We don't treat or view this as "human life" in any other circumstances. A woman's emotional reaction to a miscarriage at 4 months is going to be a lot more sorrowful than either 3 weeks or even 2 months. A stillborn in the 3rd trimester will be worse yet. Culturally or innately/biologically, we separate these into different categories. We don't view a smear of blood as a lost child and grieve over it as we would a dead infant. Conversely, if my father dies of a heartattack at 95 or is shot at 95, he was still a sentient human being and is now dead. The manner of his death doesn't change who or what he was, just as an abortion doesn't magically transform an embryo into a dead person while a natural miscarriage does not. We distinguish between murder and natural death in order to enact some form of justice, not to reclassify life itself.

To clarify a bit, that's 50% of fertilized human eggs. If life "begins at conception," that means over 50% of humans die within the first three weeks. We should be holding mass funerals pretty much all the time.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 01:33 PM) So is a baby in a nicu being kept alive artificially less deserving of protection than a baby in a womb? Not sure why artificial would play any role in that discussion. As for the term born, was being lazy and using it interchangeably with alive. Is using the pill abhorrent, or contraception, or masturbating? Each of them destroys potential life at different stages. Something like 50% of fertilized eggs simply don't implant. 15% of those that do still miscarry within the first few weeks. Some mammals simply reabsorb an embryo if food resources are too scarce. Biology doesn't seem to give a preference to an egg/sperm/embryo/fetus over a mother.

Why would "heartbeat" make you alive? Wouldn't sentience be a better measure? And, more importantly, this is still ignoring a woman's right over her own body and the biological processes occurring within.