Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

April 22 2018

ratzing
0374 b0a8 500
Reposted fromtojika4 tojika4 viaradziwil radziwil

April 18 2018

ratzing
How a bat works
Reposted fromstriker striker vialukan lukan
ratzing
7189 bb61 500
Reposted fromtfu tfu vialukan lukan

April 10 2018

ratzing
5752 2b2e 500
myjetpack.tumblr.com/
Reposted fromzuckerente zuckerente viatomash tomash

April 04 2018

ratzing
Reposted fromZircon Zircon viapankamien pankamien

March 30 2018

ratzing

March 27 2018

ratzing
8602 53b5 500
Reposted fromzciach zciach viaszczepan szczepan
ratzing
Water simulation
Reposted fromtgs tgs viapankamien pankamien

March 26 2018

ratzing
Reposted fromkelu kelu vialukan lukan

March 17 2018

ratzing
AND THEY RUN WHEN THE SUN COMES UP
Reposted fromkelu kelu viagket gket

January 20 2018

ratzing
>This is not taking "bodily autonomy","autonomy" or "entity" from unborn. That just means it's dependent on other organism, that would make it symbiosis or parasitic. It is not part of women body.

Placenta is conjoined with woman's body. It's co-created by fetus and mother. Why is it illogical to deny bodily autonomy on that basis? It's a societal construct, with no clear definitions and boundaries. Are my arguments illogical?

>Correct allegory wold be driving 20t truck, by misfortune there is ice on road and you know you will crash.

This is only when you grant fetus the same status as for a born baby. It's your assumption that it is, mine is different entirely, especially in case of early pregnancy.

>That is the most common reason - out comfort.

This isn't discomfort as in "It's a slight inconvenience". It is possible that pregnancy will take a toll on physical as well as psychological health of a woman.

>Is it realy?

It really is, I wasn't talking about maternal death, I was talking about "damage to the body". Pay attention to the topic.
ratzing
>Those are 2 completely different things. 

First of all, autoimmunity is entirely different thing, and I don't think it means what you think it means. It's a reaction of ones immune system against its own cells, like Hashimoto thyroid's disease. Developing child is not subject to autoimmunity if it's immune system is intact, although it is protected from mother's immune system by placenta blood barrier.

Second:

>By your definition 2 years child can be aborted or even 30 year old men if he is palatalized since he can't take care of himself.

I specifically stated that children before 21st week cannot live without mother's body, no matter the technology we use. That's my definition of bodily autonomy, you just missed it. So you being taken care of, or your life being held up artificially is one thing, your life being dependent on physiological processes of another body is another. Taking care of someone, or using machinery to sustain life, is something that you do outside your own body. A mother sustaining a child de facto IS the machinery providing for the developing child, and as technology is now, you need her necessarily. On that basis, I don't see how a child has any modicum of bodily autonomy.

>Only in today state of science. Also i don't care, this have nothing to do with the issue. 

This has everything to do with the issue. If we develop technology that will be able to sustain a fetus from week one, then I say that one week fetus has bodily autonomy. Since we do not, up to 21st week there is no bodily autonomy to speak of.

>Do we leave dead bodies on streets? 
That only proves that argument from "bodily autonomy" is a bad one.

We bury the dead, or cremate them, but by society standard neither is an infringement on respect towards the dead.

I agree that it is a bad argument though, since as I said, bodily autonomy of mother/child argument has entirely different basis than respect for the dead.

>Most common reason for abortion is unwanted pregnancy after (contraceptive) failure and on second pace is economic inability to support or care for a child.

First of all, that still doesn't mean that pregnancy is neutral for women body. The first reason exacerbates the problem - we have a woman that never wanted a baby, took precautions to not have the baby, but had a very bad luck.

And if you're gonna say "well then, do not have sex at all if you only want the pleasure of it!", then please don't. It's like saying to a person that had a car accident that they shouldn't get help now because they drove to an aquapark, and you don't ever NEED to drive to an aquapark.

>I'm not saying it is not stressful of women body but millions of years of evolution and average longer lifespan of women who (almost) all had a child proves it is rarely a problem in majority of cases.

Mate, women were dying in droves during childbirth before modern medicine. Evolution was very inefficient in regard of making it easy on women, it was medicine that reduced the risk enormously. And as I said, it's still influences the comfort of your life for 9 months, and you have to realize that we live in a day and age where comfort is something important to us.

>I never hear any women arguing she don't want to have kids because it's damaging to body.

Talk to more women then? It's a pretty common fear, and very reasonable one at that.
Reposted byBiesBerenice BiesBerenice

January 19 2018

ratzing
9830 00e1 500
Italian sign language.
Reposted fromsommteck sommteck viaalphabet alphabet
ratzing
0403 ae53
Reposted fromNaitlisz Naitlisz viazombiekrasko zombiekrasko

January 18 2018

ratzing
The argument ends on women, since there is no bodily autonomy of unborn to speak of. How autonomous you are if your whole existence hinges on being sustained by another person? And it's not just taking care, i.e. protecting or feeding, you're necessarily, physiologically dependent on your mother. That's in no way shape or form a sign of bodily autonomy.

You can argue that preterm babies are capable of autonomy since we can sustain them with care outside of mother, but earliest, miraculous preterm birth of a healthy child was at 21 weeks. It's hard to argue that unborn children have any kind of autonomy before that point.

As to corpses, they're dead by default, so their autonomy hinges entirely on respect for the deceased and their family. You can try to argue that same respect should be given to the fetus, but basing it on a treatment of a dead body is shooting yourself in a foot - because if the same respect we give to the dead should be given to the unborn, then if a child dies during pregnancy without miscarriage, woman apparently should carry it to the term and give birth to a dead baby, since it's the respect we give to the dead that gives the fetus its autonomy.

You can also base fetus bodily autonomy on different kind of respect, but then you also have to ignore respect for women bodily autonomy, and we're back at square one.

Also, stop acting as if pregnancy outside and carrying to the term outside of rape is a neutral thing. Even when everything is going okay in terms of child and labor itself, the process itself occasionally is damaging to a woman. So no, in many, many cases it's not similar to trolley problem.
Reposted byBiesBerenicepankamienfrywolitka

January 17 2018

ratzing
> but it lacks the required evidence or additional argument for why an unborn child should not have bodily autonomy, too. Personally I don't think it matters, but that's what the argument presented seems to be lacking.

Take a 3 month developing fetus out of a mothers body and see how much autonomy it has.

There is no technology out there, to my knowledge, that would allow for it's survival. So it's entirely dependent on mothers body, thus it has no autonomy to speak of.

January 16 2018

ratzing
Reposted fromFlau Flau viapankamien pankamien

January 15 2018

ratzing
Reposted fromkels kels

January 10 2018

ratzing
"The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of story."
-  Douglas Adams

Ya stupid cunts
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.fan.douglas-adams/595nPukE-Jo/koaAJ3tPBtEJ
Reposted frompankamien pankamien

December 26 2017

ratzing
dying
Reposted frommangoe mangoe viapankamien pankamien
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl