Your video, Childbirth vs Getting Kicked in the Balls, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Community, childbirth, Britta, Gillian Jacobs' to 'WRONG EMBED this is a horror trailer, Community, childbirth, Britta, Gillian Jacobs' - edited by chilaxe

>> ^hpqp:

^upvote^ for a new euphemism for vagina: "the situation".

Now whenever I hear them talk about "the situation room", I am going to openly laugh. The thought of Wolf Blitzer wondering into a room full of vaginas is enough to cause asphyxiation by laughter.

@bcglorf

The question of abortion is not about when life begins, it's about weighing the costs and benefits of pursuing a pregnancy, taking into account both the woman and the embryo/foetus/future human being. In order to do this, of course, one must take into account the not only physical health factors, but also the effect each life will have on the other. A woman's life is forever changed by childbirth; often the responsibility for caring and raising said child falls entirely on her shoulders; she may not have the (economic/emotional) resources to care for it, causing there to be two victims. How much does a ball of cells, or an embryo, with no memories, no personality, no identity, ... how much does that weigh against the irretrievable changes its continued existence would make to the woman? Why are some forms of life valued over others? Why do we feel no remorse removing a tumor - a living organism - from a person/animal? It's a question of checks and balances.

And please don't talk about the "potential" human being that an embryo or foetus is. That argument applies for every permutation of fapped sperm and period-flushed eggs that are lost every day. The point @Jinx makes about the debate is completely valid: we can argue (with the help of scientific evidence) the details about the moment when an embryo/foetus becomes capable of suffering/cognition (my opinion is that it's at the moment when the brain is capable of treating and storing sensory input), but the "pro-life" crowd are not up for rational debate, nor are they particularly pro-life. Instead, they will disregard the (quality of the) life of the woman as well as those of the future child simply because of their superstitious beliefs. They are also usually the same ignorant people who will fight against sexual education and the use of contraception for the same reasons and, more generally, against the autonomy of women and their rights over their own bodies (since their belief systems usually stem from the patriarchal desert monotheisms).

>> ^gorillaman:

It is a god damn racket. Having a child is a personal choice, a stupid and irresponsible one in most cases, and nobody owes you a three month holiday, especially with pay, for doing it.




yep, thats the definition of FREEDOM right there
you are free to have a kid, just don't expect to keep your job or be able to support yourself

China gives 4 months after childbirth for maternity leave
I guess this Communist country gives their people more FREEDOM in the decision of when and if to have children... the government should stay out of that decision... wait a sec!?!

and yes, maternity leave is SOCIALISM
but isn't it funny how COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM/CAPITALISM all have different and sometimes opposing intersections with the word (propaganda) FREEDOM?

citizens of the United States, GENERALLY, are moronic when it comes to the word FREEDOM... because they've been sold a version of it, and will defend it to the death mind you, that is really more FREEDOM for the corporations... once it wasn't this way... but the current generation of Americans are a long fall from the GREATEST GENERATION

some comedian said, no one has a better understanding of the American Dream... than an Indian, a Chinese, or a Mexican... and sadly, that is true

@bcglorf

After the point you consider a fetus a human being with full rights, you have the same degree of moral obligation to defend that human's right to life as with any other person.

Right, I agree--I suppose you'd be morally obligated to try to end abortion if that was the conclusion you came to. But I guess what I'm saying is, if you're going to make that judgment and you're going to take it to the next level and try to interfere in other peoples' lives and force them bear children they don't want and care for them for the next 18 years, then the burden of proof is on you to show that your judgment is indeed the correct one. And I think that's the problem pro-lifers are facing--the scientific evidence so far actually seems against that view.

But even if you could prove your judgment (i.e. a fetus is a human being with full rights) to the satisfaction of most people, it raises another problem--a fetus would only have the same rights as another human, not more rights. It could be argued that to force a mother to carry an unwanted child is tantamount to slavery. Basically the state would be forcing her to put her health at risk (complications due to pregnancy and childbirth are not uncommon, even with modern health care--just ask my wife who spent a large part of her first pregnancy hospitalized), stop working for a time, spend an inordinate amount of money on health care and other costs caring for the unwanted baby....

Essentially, you haven't solved the problem, you've only traded one moral dilemma for another because now the fetus has MORE rights than the mother. No other human being could be said to possess the right to take away another individual's personal freedom or so infringe upon their life.

In an ideal world, of course, there would be no complications due to pregnancy, all women would be fully compensated while on maternity leave, and all unwanted children would be placed with loving families that would care deeply for them and raise them as their own. But we clearly don't live in an ideal world.

That's why I believe that all we can do is choose the least immoral path. To me, that path is clear--keep abortions legal. Do everything in your power to make them a means of last resort and hopefully someday they won't be needed anymore.

You are free to believe differently. But if you are going to take the next step and try to force those beliefs on other people, then that's something else entirely. Until you solve the problems I mentioned above (proving a fetus is a human being as opposed to just believing it, compensating mothers who are forced to carry to term, making sure unwanted children will not be abused or neglected, etc.) you can't abolish abortion and claim to be taking the moral high-ground.

God told them not to partake of the fruit or they would die. They knew it was wrong to disobey God and they knew the consequence would be death. They chose instead to believe satan over God, because they lusted after His power instead of trusting Him. They deserved their punishment.

Everyone knows right from wrong because everyone has a God given conscience that knows right from wrong. Murder isn't arbitrarily bad, it's absolutely bad, and everyone knows that. It's the same with stealing or any other sin.

>> ^SDGundamX:
There are two problems with that particular part of your quote. The first is that the God of the Bible seems to deal out unbelievably harsh punishments for the supposed sins that are committed. Oh, you ate a forbidden apple? Well now I'm going to cast you out into a world where you'll have to suffer the pains of hunger, death and childbirth! Nevermind that a snake talked Eve into taking the apple or that Eve tricked Adam into eating it. Nevermind that I never explained what was so bad about eating the fruit. All sins (and let's be clear, by "sin" we are really saying not doing what I told you to do) must be punished! Mercilessly! Regardless of the circumstances!
That isn't love--that's megalomaniac and tyrannic authoritarianism.
The second problem I have with that statement is that it's just such an archaic worldview--that people won't do bad things because they fear the impassive, unyielding punishment they will receive if they are caught. Maybe 4000 years ago, in a world where the strongest grabbed power and arbitrarily made the rules for all the others, that kind of worldview made sense but not anymore. Most people living in a modern society like the U.S. or Japan don't steal. That's not because the law or some deity says we can't--it's because we have enough reasoning abilities to work out how it would feel if someone stole from us, what kind of effect it would have on society if everyone stole from everyone else, and so forth.
Those people who don't figure these things out for themselves and decide to steal do need to learn there are consequences for their actions (by being arrested and sent to jail) but the punishment often has very little effect on changing their future behavior. Why? Because punishment alone is not very effective at changing people's behavior. Instead of learning to not engage in that behavior, people learn how to get better at not getting caught in the first place.
Reasoning with people(something the God of the Bible very rarely seems to do) and rewarding positive behaviors, in addition to holding people accountable for their actions, has been shown to be a great way to get people to change. One of the tragedies of our modern world is that the criminal justice system, much like the Biblical God apparently, is much more concerned with meting out punishment than in actually trying to reform people.
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not that God wants to punish you, it's that no sin will go unpunished.

There are two problems with that particular part of your quote. The first is that the God of the Bible seems to deal out unbelievably harsh punishments for the supposed sins that are committed. Oh, you ate a forbidden apple? Well now I'm going to cast you out into a world where you'll have to suffer the pains of hunger, death and childbirth! Nevermind that a snake talked Eve into taking the apple or that Eve tricked Adam into eating it. Nevermind that I never explained what was so bad about eating the fruit. All sins (and let's be clear, by "sin" we are really saying not doing what I told you to do) must be punished! Mercilessly! Regardless of the circumstances!

That isn't love--that's megalomaniac and tyrannic authoritarianism.

The second problem I have with that statement is that it's just such an archaic worldview--that people won't do bad things because they fear the impassive, unyielding punishment they will receive if they are caught. Maybe 4000 years ago, in a world where the strongest grabbed power and arbitrarily made the rules for all the others, that kind of worldview made sense but not anymore. Most people living in a modern society like the U.S. or Japan don't steal. That's not because the law or some deity says we can't--it's because we have enough reasoning abilities to work out how it would feel if someone stole from us, what kind of effect it would have on society if everyone stole from everyone else, and so forth.

Those people who don't figure these things out for themselves and decide to steal do need to learn there are consequences for their actions (by being arrested and sent to jail) but the punishment often has very little effect on changing their future behavior. Why? Because punishment alone is not very effective at changing people's behavior. Instead of learning to not engage in that behavior, people learn how to get better at not getting caught in the first place.

Reasoning with people(something the God of the Bible very rarely seems to do) and rewarding positive behaviors, in addition to holding people accountable for their actions, has been shown to be a great way to get people to change. One of the tragedies of our modern world is that the criminal justice system, much like the Biblical God apparently, is much more concerned with meting out punishment than in actually trying to reform people.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's not that God wants to punish you, it's that no sin will go unpunished.

Ugh... and women think childbirth is painful.

Part 2 starting 30 minutes in..

Evolution now.. "The strong eating the weak"

Sigh.. Heres an idea, could any priest out there, just once , just for fun, just TRY to understand evolution and other scientific concepts before bringing them up? Ok thanks. Not gonna happen in this video, obviously.

Yes nature is red in tooth and claw, and fantastically wasteful and seemingly indifferent to most suffering, which should tell us something about its creator? But there is a spectrum, and a very interesting one too. It turns out that, in most cases, evolution favors some form of cooperation. For instance: very few species actually eat and kills members of their own species. Thats your first clue to human rights right there: You are human. If you were a lion, you'd effectively have "lion rights" Now , lions dont have language or a complex social structure, yet they nearly always behave as if lions had a privileged place in the universe, is it really so strange that we as humans have more advanced forms of rights? I dont think so, especially when you look at the life of our close cousins.

Yet, the inter-species interaction is nearly universally marked by total indifference to suffering, and I for one cant think of a better argument against a just and loving god. Not only has he apparently made it so that survival in many cases actively requires one species to eat another, but often the process involves insane, pointless cruelty. One would almost think there just wasnt anybody there who even cared..

Keller here pointlessly paints himself into a corner, where no one thing can explain human rights alone. (except god, apparantly)

And he's right, but he's careful not to admit that there may be more than one cause for our sense of "human rights". If it was purely genetic, for instance ie: innate morality, it would feel to us, for all intends and purposes, like it was god-given. Among other things, it would be the same for centuries at the time, and across all cultures and geographical borders, right? But thats not what we see, is it? In fact, if you study history and/or different cultures, we see that the modern human rights movement (the UN declaration, the US constitution etc) is a relatively new and special concept, theres no inherent racism, no in-group mentality, no requirement to obey a certain authority.. A purely genetic origin couldnt explain this, but neither does the "god-given" option.

But we know that we are, after all, genetic, so genetics cant be rejected entirely. Besides as I mentioned previously, we see hints of morality all the time in the animal world, there's no equivalent to the UN declaration among chimps, but they clearly care for their young, they dont generally mindlessly murder each other, they grieve their dead.. etc.

So morality might one part genetic, and one part cultural, is that so unlikely? No that actually fits pretty well with the available evidence.

It is not a bigger leap in the dark to reach this conclusion, because it makes much more sense. Not only does it provide a plausible origin for our modern idea of human rights, but just as importantly, it explains why we didnt really think of them earlier and why we've often seen so senseless disregard for them throughout history and still in some parts of the world today. The Taliban for instance, as Sam Harris points out, have manage to create the best place on earth to watch women and infants die in childbirth. And in order to comply with what they perceive as god-given law, they burn down schools and pour battery acid in the faces of little girls who are trying to learn how to read.

Human rights are not god-given, they are, like god, man-made.

So..at this point Keller feels its more probable that god exists, and he goes from there. Well, I'm thinking its probable hes been talking shit, and god is still just as likely to exist as santa , or FSM or Chutlhu or whatever.

I should note that I am pro-vaccine and hope no one misunderstood my position on the matter.

@Gwiz--a lot of diseases simply evolve, and a lot can and do last years without a host, or they live within an unknowing host. Also, there will always be hosts available because there is a certain impossibility with vaccinating everyone in the world. 7 billion is a great a number…

@Geesus Freak--I agree with everything you said. When I speak of nature's wrath, I am speaking of the impossibility of overcoming nature in many circumstances.

And well researched, you got me on the eradication of smallpox. Smallpox, thankfully, seems to be one of those diseases that, while highly contagious without vaccines, was pretty much dead without active hosts. So we can be grateful that smallpox's severe limitations and the vaccine killed it off. I will also add that we eradicated rinderpest too (A cattle disease.)

(Although undocumented cases of smallpox may exist, I have to agree with you, since the proof does not support my old position--it is possible that two diseases have been eradicated.)

However, I am not impressed that we got rid of one infectious disease that targets humans out of the current number of available maladies. Nor are we certain that smallpox will never again be a future problem.

But I digress. As far as childbirth and mortality... That is one part of nature that can be controlled easily. I wouldn't classify that as a wrath of nature. Hurricanes, floods (Some of which man tried to prevent and caused more of...like a plastic bag clogging a storm drain...) Diseases, stupidity, etc...All those are nature's way of saying, "Die. No just kidding. Seriously, just die

This is *happy too.

Childbirth is interesting. I have never felt so useless and joyous at the same time.

I must first say that my comments are not intended to Troll or invoke an "emotional" debate. (not that I was accused).

In no way do I deny stereotypes don't exist.
I also don't think statistics tell the whole story.

Things that can skew statistics:
1). Women almost always get the kids in a breakup - something men have had to fight for years and almost always loose. This leads to (plus) 1 woman doing domestic work and (minus) 1 men doing domestic work. (a factor of 2)
According to U.S. Census Bureau in November, 2009
* Approximately 84% of custodial parents are mothers, and
* 16% of custodial parents are fathers
So this means more women than men (by a large margin) can lay claim to domestic chores in the home over men. Not factoring in how many of those men fought for the right of custody that was never granted to them.

This same report states that 34.2% of custodial mothers have never been married while 20.9% of custodial fathers have never married. Why they were not married needs further study here but many young mothers never inform or notify the fathers or just never put the father's name on the birth certificate so the father has limited legal rights to the child.

2). There is often a job sharing practice in the home. One member (ofter the woman) stays inside and cleans the house while the other (often the man), does other chores such as yard work, car maintenance, household maintenance ect. These things makes it look like the women do all the chores while the men just "hang out" when actually they can balance out. Sometimes the roles can be reversed to the stereotypical roles - In my house, I do the dishes and the cooking while my wife takes out the garbage. A friend of stays away from his wife's power-tools and lets her do the yardwork while he takes care of the kids and their education needs.

3). Men are groomed to be (from a young age) that working is the only option. Period. Women have always been raised knowing there is an option of staying home or going to work (just find the right man). So that means a percentage grows up already deciding they will stay home. As such, they never pursue a proper education to to enable themselves to start "Climbing the ladder" from day one.

4). About 13 percent of women suffer from depression after childbirth often making work outside he home or at full capacity not possible. This depression can be caused due to "changes in brain chemistry" during pregnancy and "hormonal factors unique to women". "women are at greater risk of depression at certain times in their lives, such as puberty, during and after pregnancy, and during perimenopause." Levels of thyroid hormones may also drop after giving birth." As well, the common treatments for depression often cause an increases drop in ambition as the drugs used often remove both highs and lows.

I must make note here that this is not an opinion or a jab at woman - it's a fact and I have great respect for anyone trying to cope with depression, anxiety or related mood disorders.
Womanshealth.gov
Postpartum Support International

---
I'm just trying to illustrate how nothing is as cut and dry as, "the women have to do all the work at home and work full time while never getting paid what they are worth - while the men never do anything, goof off all the time and get paid more... " I'm at work and can't write any more at the moment but I may be back

The setting might not be opimal, but childbirth in water is not an unnecessary risk in of itself.

KP: You're missing out. Lost has definitely burrowed its way into my shortlist of favourite shows. It has its flaws, sure, but it did so many things so well. You should check out the DVDs (or Hulu it, or however you non-region-blocked Americans watch TV these days).

NetRunner: I don't know, I think the show kind of did answer those questions, in a really roundabout way. The island is... well, we've seen what the island is over six seasons. It's a lot of things. I guess it all boils down to that light, and its importance. As for why the light matters, we didn't really get anything but a vague explanation about it being somehow linked to the survival of humanity... but I kind of like that they left that one vague. I think over-explaining can be just as infuriating as under-explaining, because if the explanation turns out to be disappointing, then it'll really ruin your perception of the show.

That's not to say that I'm a complete Lost apologist -- there are certainly some specific answers that I wished they had answered, along with a few of the broader ones that everyone seems to be bringing up (ie. why were the others so sinister for the first couple of seasons, what was the deal with the whole childbirth thing, etc.). But for the most part I was pretty happy with the way things were wrapped up, and I think there's something kind of neat about the fact that people are going to be debating and interpreting what everything on Lost meant for years to come. Certainly, it's much more interesting than if they had just tied everything up in a nice little package.