Not that I already wasn't, but I am especially grateful that I am coming up on almost one year of being sterilized, as a young Ohio woman lol. Happy Snipping, you beautiful fucking Kings and Queens!
First off, I have no problem with IVF. It’s a medical treatment and I’m not going to judge people for how they start a family.
That being said, I cannot stand the hypocrisy of people who get IVF treatments and are also staunchly pro-life. Like this girl I went to high school with that is still a Facebook friend of mine for some reason. She posts all the time about how horrible abortion is and we have to fight to protect the unborn and blah blah blah. I think we’re all in the same page here; abortion is an unfortunate necessity, but one that every woman should have a choice in.
The thing about IVF is that there are usually embyros that go unused. They end up shelved for years and eventually destroyed. Fertilized embryos, aka the exact same thing an abortion destroys. I guess abortions are never acceptable because it’s never ok to ‘murder a baby’ unless that baby is a leftover casualty from your need to have a biological spawn. You don’t get to draw a hard line in the sand like that and then adjust it to fit perfectly around what works best for you.
It’s so fucking hypocritical.
That is a lot of what this is about
From right-wing channels (PragerU, Ben Shapiro, etc.) I have often heard them saying about anything that they are moral because they are Christian. Besides that there are Christian Socialists (including me) how is it moral that people literally drown in debt over decent education or can't get good medical treatment because the "market decided that".
>Tl;dr: The difference between "the silent treatment" and going "no contact" is that the silent treatment is a sword which is used to hurt and punish others for failing to meet the pwBPD's infinite needs, and "no contact" is the shield that we place between ourselves and someone who feels entitled to harm us.
I'm posting this because at the time of my father's passing a month ago, I had not spoken to or acknowledged any attempt to communicate made by my nfather for at least six months.
When his health went from "Oh, another bout of ischemia weakness, to he's back on hospice, to he's completely unconscious due to pain med's." I didn't honestly expect for him to pass, because I'd spent two of the last three years in and out of the hospital with him, where he survived strokes, hip fractures, pulmonary embolisms and a few other things. He then had a 15 month run of perfect health, but apparently got tired of the prison style lockdown in place at his facility due to Covid-19.
I, personally am fine with my choice of going and staying "no contact", even though he died while I was maintaining it. I also feel that I'm morally in the clear because there is a distinct difference between "the silent treatment" and "no contact". I did take my son to visit him after it was clear that granddad wasn't waking up again, and would not have visited otherwise; but my father did a good job of being a grandfather even if he was a shitty human being otherwise.
The last time I spoke with my father was to take care of a random bit of business in late October. Due to his vascular dementia, he needed help with many things, and I did my best to respond by forwarding his requests to other caregivers which had less of an emotional charge to personally servicing him. I was dealing with an impending heart surgery, and at that moment decided I was done with interacting with him - I intentionally made sure he didn't know about it because he had a history of preying on the vulnerable.
I'm bringing it up in this forum, because my mother was the type to use "the silent treatment" in a pointed way while I was growing up. It was her primary weapon of expressing her displeasure with whomever she was angry with in the house.
So much so, that it was the last interaction I ever had with her prior to her death in my early teens 20 years ago; I was leaving the house at a time she didn't approve of as a college freshman to go play "Magic the Gathering" with the other nerds and I even
... keep reading on reddit ➡
(not sure if this is the correct sub for this, happy to be corrected)
This question has been heavily debated across the EU, UN and most world governments have their own policies which allow these practices which, depending on the country, are usually focused on a few specific things:
-Abortion
-Contraception
-IVF
-Euthanasia
Most countries allow these conscientious objections and refusals to treat, with varying levels of responsibility for the person.
But looking through the scientific literature, there is very little support for the policy, and many cases where policies have been abused by the extremes of society to influence the care that others receive. There are even those who call for it to be reffered to as “Dishonourable disobedience”
If anyone has any specific cases when they were aware of a conscientious objection occurring, that would be fascinating as well.
The AMA Code of Ethics specifically refers to this in clause 3.d: > "[Doctors should] recognise your right to refuse to carry out services which you consider to be professionally unethical, against your moral convictions, imposed on you for either administrative reasons or for financial gain or which you consider are not in the best interest of the patient."
By today's standards, Columbus is considered a cruel monster. But do we have any writings by witnesses of his behavior condemning his actions? Do we have evidence of anyone of his time viewing him negatively for what he did?
So, in "Elementary Dear Data", we're introduced to the notion that a holodeck character can acquire sentience. Moriarty takes over the ship, but harms no one, merely wishing to not be deleted, or to be turned off into a death-like sleep. Moriarty is talked down by Captain Picard, and hands control of the ship back to him.
Picard gives Moriarty his word that he'll work on his case.
Years later though, Moriarty is still there, dormant in the holodeck's memory buffer, with not a bit of progress made. He makes another bid for freedom from an artificial reality. Captain Picard again deceives him, and traps him in an illusory reality after promising him real, true freedom.
What Picard did was unethical, and against the ideals of equality among sentient beings.
Moriarty was self aware, and under Federation law, should have been entitled to rights.
This is also a major problem in the Season 2 episode, "Measure of a Man", where despite the fact that Data is obviously sentient, they hold a trial where he is treated as Star Fleet property, with a possible outcome of the trial being him dissected by an incompetent scientist who would not treat him as a sentient being.
If they can treat the Horta as a sentient being, and allow it rights, why can't they allow the same freedom to synthetics like Moriarty or Data?
Who's to say that holodeck characters don't achieve sentience more often than we think they do, only to not realize the artificial nature of their reality in time to do something about it?
If Moriarty had not learned of how to use the Arch, they'd have destroyed him, just as they destroy other holodeck characters when their programs are shut down. His actions were self-defense.
