|
In any case Abortion should be discouraged because it causes breast cancer.
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
open24hours posted:I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Because it's been through many revisions it can't be arbitrary? The aggregate result of millennia of human discourse isn't arbitrary, is what I'm saying. I understand if you disagree, there are lots of theories on the historical dialectic, and mine is a fairly optimistic one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:In any case Abortion should be discouraged because it causes breast cancer. Huh?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:Hey Amethyst, I get what you're trying to say but let me ask you this - and hell, anyone else who's trying to say you need to draw the line somewhere other than birth. If there are cases where fetuses will suffer as a result of where we place the line then that should be taken into account as a part of the argument and ideally, it is exactly the kind of thing that should be minimised or eliminated in drawing that line. Of course that is unlikely to happen, the law is the blunt ugly instrument that churns at the ragged edges of our lives, however the body politic is a huge messy schizophrenic cacophany that demands to be pleased, somehow. My personal opinion is in line with yours. But I'm not willing to completely discount the other 40% of the body politic's sincerely held beliefs, either. That, to me, is far more arbitrary than a process of ongoing, shifting compromises over the long term.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
I think he meant to call you a cancerous boob.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:I think he meant to call you a cancerous boob. Nice
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Huh? Senator Eric "I'm not a nazi, but they have done some good work" Abetz drew a link between breast cancer and abortion in one of his brilliant speeches.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:Senator Eric "I'm not a nazi, but they have done some good work" Abetz drew a link between breast cancer and abortion in one of his brilliant speeches. Oh yeah lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:Hey Amethyst, I get what you're trying to say but let me ask you this - and hell, anyone else who's trying to say you need to draw the line somewhere other than birth. (Answering because you addressed this not only to Amethyst). I'm not sure I get your reasoning. Say I believe that after 34 weeks, a foetus has achieved enough life viability that it has now crossed a line into being a baby (I don't, it's way more complicated than this, but for argument's sake). Then I think that after that point, it can't be automatically OK for a woman to terminate that pregnancy on a whim (again, for the sake of the annoying people, I don't believe there are many women at all who terminate on a whim). This isn't about 1-60 days of "life" this is about a whole life that is prevented if abortion is allowed in that circumstance. I think that past that point, there should be different considerations than before that point. For example, if someone gets pregnant due to having unprotected sex and not wanting a baby at that stage in their life, I think it's totally fine to have an abortion for that reason at 8 weeks for example, and really not a good enough reason to have one at 38 weeks. This isn't about the 30 weeks in between, it's about the future life of the person who will be born, and the 8 week old foetus just isn't a person no matter what it's potential is, in my eyes it's as much a person as a mole on your shoulder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Abortions should be incentivised. Theres too many people as it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:If there are cases where fetuses will suffer as a result of where we place the line then that should be taken into account as a part of the argument and ideally, it is exactly the kind of thing that should be minimised or eliminated in drawing that line. Of course that is unlikely to happen, the law is the blunt ugly instrument that churns at the ragged edges of our lives, however the body politic is a huge messy schizophrenic cacophany that demands to be pleased, somehow. I can understand where that 40% ideas are coming from, and it should be a well-intentioned place, but it drives me up the wall that I can't think of any other issue affecting actual adults that ever inspires this much navel-gazing handwringing and moral agonizing. Anyone who gets this genuinely worried about possibly doing that slightly wrong to a being that can barely even tell it exists, if it even can at all, they wouldn't be able to bear to exist in this world themselves if they brought even a fraction of that concern and empathy to what we do and legislate for full grown-rear end adults every day. In the meantime, they're happy to disregard the indisputable suffering of someone like that woman in the article who knows she will not be able to handle giving birth to another child.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Laserface posted:Abortions should be incentivised. Theres too many people as it is. I know this is a joke but populations manage themselves over time far better than any government regulation could ever hope to. Compare the (considerable) demographic crisis in india compared to the (far more considerable) demographic crisis in china.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:I can understand where that 40% ideas are coming from, and it should be a well-intentioned place, but it drives me up the wall that I can't think of any other issue affecting actual adults that ever inspires this much navel-gazing handwringing and moral agonizing. Anyone who gets this genuinely worried about possibly doing that slightly wrong to a being that can barely even tell it exists, if it even can at all, they wouldn't be able to bear to exist in this world themselves if they brought even a fraction of that concern and empathy to what we do and legislate for full grown-rear end adults every day. In the meantime, they're happy to disregard the indisputable suffering of someone like that woman in the article who knows she will not be able to handle giving birth to another child. It certainly is frustrating but I think making the effort to understand their genuine moral outrage is better for all of us in the long term than reducing them to a cartoon. I don't think it's fair to characterize it as "navel gazing handwringing", for instance. The equivalent rhetoric from the other side is "shrill selfishness".
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:I'm not sure I get your reasoning. Say I believe that after 34 weeks, a foetus has achieved enough life viability that it has now crossed a line into being a baby (I don't, it's way more complicated than this, but for argument's sake). Then I think that after that point, it can't be automatically OK for a woman to terminate that pregnancy on a whim (again, for the sake of the annoying people, I don't believe there are many women at all who terminate on a whim). This isn't about 1-60 days of "life" this is about a whole life that is prevented if abortion is allowed in that circumstance. I think that past that point, there should be different considerations than before that point. But what really is the difference between the 8 weeks and 38 weeks fetus if it's not about the 30 weeks in between? Why else does it become no longer okay? The woman in your hypothetical scenario hasn't had her intentions for abortion change one bit. The future life of that person is just as 100% prevented at 8 weeks as it would be at 38 weeks. The only difference here is that at 38 weeks, you now believe it is more of a person than a mole. It has had enough of those "1-60 days of life" now, that you consider it a person now who doesn't deserve to die.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
Victim of alleged paedophile ring claims she was abused at parties attended by political elite 34 minutes ago AAPThe Daily Telegraph Abuse survivors demand pedophile action THE victim of an alleged child sex trafficking network claims she was prostituted at dozens of paedophile parties, which were attended by political elite at Canberra’s Parliament House. Speaking to the media outside the Royal Commission in Sydney today, Fiona Barnett, from northern NSW, also claims she witnessed “hundreds of crimes” — including murder, rape, abduction and torture — at the hands of the so-called elite paedophile ring 40 years ago. The network, which Ms Barnett maintains still operates today, included high-ranking politicians, and police and judiciary members. Fiona Barnett speaks to the media in Sydney. Source: News Corp Australia Ms Barnett, 45, said she had reported the allegations to multiple health professionals, NSW Police in 2008 and the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2013. “My experiences were horrific beyond words ... but the way I’ve been treated for reporting the crimes I witnessed and experienced has been far worse than my original abuse experiences,” she said. Ms Barnett described the alleged operation as a “very well-coordinated international paedophile ring”, and said there was a strict hierarchy. “I was only saved for the VIP paedophiles,” she said. “It’s a hierarchy, what I witnessed was the very top of the hierarchy.” Ms Barnett said she “lives in absolute fear” and only decided to speak out because she “has nothing left to lose”. She maintains the network is still in operation, and urged Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to make it a priority to “make the kids safe”. Child sex abuse advocacy group, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests Australia (SNAP), says it has heard from several other alleged victims who say they have witnessed similar offences of rape, torture and murder perpetrated by the most senior people in Australia. “We’re not talking about an isolated incident and an isolated survivor. It’s a pattern, it’s widespread and it’s continuing today,” SNAP leader Nicky Davis said. She claimed many survivors had spoken and given evidence to police and the abuse royal commission but were mostly ignored. The group has urged the federal government to launch an investigation into the elite paedophile network. Ms Barnett said she was “five turning six” at the time of the alleged incidents at Parliament House. The allegations come after Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan told a parliamentary inquiry he had a list of 28 prominent paedophiles, which allegedly included a former prime minister and members of the judiciary. Speaking under the protection of parliamentary privilege in a Senate estimates hearing on Tuesday, Senator Heffernan claimed the list was uncovered during the Wood Royal Commission into the NSW Police Force. Senator Heffernan didn’t name any names but called on Attorney-General George Brandis to expand the child abuse royal commission so that it includes the legal fraternity. However, Attorney-General George Brandis said just because someone’s name appeared on a list didn’t make them guilty. He advised Senator Heffernan to go to the current abuse royal commission, which would decide if the information was something it could inquire into. “We should respect any decision of the royal commission about the ambit and scope of its terms of reference,” he said.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:But what really is the difference between the 8 weeks and 38 weeks fetus if it's not about the 30 weeks in between? Why else does it become no longer okay? The woman in your hypothetical scenario hasn't had her intentions for abortion change one bit. The future life of that person is just as 100% prevented at 8 weeks as it would be at 38 weeks. The only difference here is that at 38 weeks, you now believe it is more of a person than a mole. It has had enough of those "1-60 days of life" now, that you consider it a person now who doesn't deserve to die. The 30 weeks isn't the difference, it enables the difference to be created. At 8 weeks, it is a potential life, at 38 weeks it is (almost) a life. Making the potential for life be the important factor means you can't even use contraception.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:It certainly is frustrating but I think making the effort to understand their genuine moral outrage is better for all of us in the long term than reducing them to a cartoon. I don't think it's fair to characterize it as "navel gazing handwringing", for instance. The equivalent rhetoric from the other side is "shrill selfishness". It's a really weird place for me lately since I had my own kid, actually. I definitely wanted this kid and would have been heartbroken if anything happened to her as early as one day. I have become a lot like the stereotypical emotional "think of the children!!!" stereotype, feeling so much more sad at any article about something bad happening to a child. I look at her all happy and healthy and feel sad that there's other kids out there who deserve just as much to be as happy as her, but aren't getting it, even if their parents want and love them just as much. I wonder more than ever how could anyone accept treating an innocent kid so badly in detention? Or that it's fine for them to grow up without good healthcare or a financially stable household? Especially any politician who has a kid themselves. I care a lot about the future lives of these kids I've never even met, once they're out of the womb and brought into this unfair existence. So you'd think I should be on the same page with people wanting to prevent harm to even unborn kids. Except no. Even people who do want kids can still be lovely parents. So I don't think anyone who doesn't want their kid should ever have to have it. I think parenting should not be encouraged at all, so people don't just stumble into it thinking it's expected of them for them to be normal humans. And all too often, the same people on the religious spectrum of caring about stopping abortion throw all that empathy out the window when it comes to an adult suffering, or even a poor or minority child suffering. It makes me wonder if it's not really empathy after all. Like only a non-existent being is truly pure enough for them to deign to care about. So if someone wants me to have more empathy for that fetus but rolls their eyes and gives excuses when you bring up Nauru, their beliefs can get stuffed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:It's a really weird place for me lately since I had my own kid, actually. I definitely wanted this kid and would have been heartbroken if anything happened to her as early as one day. I have become a lot like the stereotypical emotional "think of the children!!!" stereotype, feeling so much more sad at any article about something bad happening to a child. I look at her all happy and healthy and feel sad that there's other kids out there who deserve just as much to be as happy as her, but aren't getting it, even if their parents want and love them just as much. I wonder more than ever how could anyone accept treating an innocent kid so badly in detention? Or that it's fine for them to grow up without good healthcare or a financially stable household? Especially any politician who has a kid themselves. I care a lot about the future lives of these kids I've never even met, once they're out of the womb and brought into this unfair existence. So you'd think I should be on the same page with people wanting to prevent harm to even unborn kids. This is a good post, and I agree with almost everything you wrote, and I can especially identify with how my view of the world changed once my little girl was born. I agree that no one should have to raise a child they don't want to, but of course no one would say it's OK to kill a child because you don't want them anymore. I just think that reasoning extends a bit earlier than the actual birth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
licence tests for parenting imho ...to be more serious, I do think factors such as the potential home life of the child seem beyond birth are commonly less stressed than ideas of when exactly they become a functioning human being in the womb, at least in the arguments I've read, and it's difficult to reconcile the two ideas together.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:The 30 weeks isn't the difference, it enables the difference to be created. At 8 weeks, it is a potential life, at 38 weeks it is (almost) a life. Making the potential for life be the important factor means you can't even use contraception. Yeah, that's kind of what I'm trying to get at here. Mourning the loss of a potential life gets clearly absurd when you consider that some eggs don't even stick to the uterine lining. But maybe that doesn't count cause that one never had any potential. Let's take a very healthy woman at the height of fertility, who would have an effortless pregnancy with no health issues whatsoever. Without the intervention of abortion, assume this fetus would definitely develop and be born as a completely healthy baby. So that biological potential is there even from the moment of conception. But most people wouldn't have any issue with a very early abortion that cuts off this potential. If this healthy woman definitely does not want to have a baby yet though, that potential of whether the baby will actually be born starts at zero, and remains at zero even if there was some drama that meant she couldn't arrange an abortion until she hit 38 weeks. Or maybe she started out wanting the baby, but then some traumatic unexpected event happened that convinced her she no longer wanted it. Like say, domestic violence, or developing suicidal thoughts, or something similarly dramatic. If this same event had happened a bit earlier, you wouldn't have the same objection then that you do now. The woman's intentions are the same. The biological status of the developing fetus is not the same. I don't see what other factor it is you're relying on to say now it is no longer okay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:But what really is the difference between the 8 weeks and 38 weeks fetus if it's not about the 30 weeks in between? Why else does it become no longer okay? The woman in your hypothetical scenario hasn't had her intentions for abortion change one bit. The future life of that person is just as 100% prevented at 8 weeks as it would be at 38 weeks. The only difference here is that at 38 weeks, you now believe it is more of a person than a mole. It has had enough of those "1-60 days of life" now, that you consider it a person now who doesn't deserve to die. Future potential is only one measure though! Another valid measure could be capacity for the fetus to feel pain - a fetus aborted at 38 weeks would probably suffer almost as much as a baby killed shortly after birth, while anything aborted at 8 weeks would have about as much capacity for sensation as a mosquito. A fetus in between these two points moves along the capacity for pain spectrum from mosquito-like to baby-like. None of this suggests that a legislative response is required or even desirable! But the opinion of a good number of people in here that aborting anything that hasn't been born is fine is, as I said earlier, an extreme ethical position, and what's disturbing to me is that a number of people here don't even acknowledge that it's extreme.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
There are adults without the ability to feel pain and it's not OK to kill them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:Yeah, that's kind of what I'm trying to get at here. Mourning the loss of a potential life gets clearly absurd when you consider that some eggs don't even stick to the uterine lining. But maybe that doesn't count cause that one never had any potential. Let's take a very healthy woman at the height of fertility, who would have an effortless pregnancy with no health issues whatsoever. Without the intervention of abortion, assume this fetus would definitely develop and be born as a completely healthy baby. So that biological potential is there even from the moment of conception. But most people wouldn't have any issue with a very early abortion that cuts off this potential. Honestly, I don't really know. You're right, if you absolutely know for sure that the 8 week old foetus will develop into the 38 week old unborn baby than they are morally equivalent. But even though it doesn't make sense, I do feel differently about it. An 8 week old baby is very different in an ultrasound to a 34 week old, so maybe it's an emotional part that isn't logical but they are very different. Also, my objection isn't absolute. If the woman's life is at stake, I'm OK with an abortion at any stage, and there are many other circumstances where it would feel OK to me at late stages too, though 38 weeks is really really difficult for me. I don't know how to answer this question, but I'm also unwilling to treat it as if it's already answered, if that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Tirade posted:Future potential is only one measure though! Another valid measure could be capacity for the fetus to feel pain - a fetus aborted at 38 weeks would probably suffer almost as much as a baby killed shortly after birth, while anything aborted at 8 weeks would have about as much capacity for sensation as a mosquito. A fetus in between these two points moves along the capacity for pain spectrum from mosquito-like to baby-like. That part about capacity to feel pain is a good point. It's a lot more quantifiable too than a lot of the more philosophical or religious arguments that could be thrown around. I'd find a lot of merit in a position that said it's okay to abort late but only if the procedure prevents the fetus from feeling pain. That shows a more realistic level of concern for things that are actually happening (avoiding pain in the fetus while also wanting to allow for avoiding a horrible future life for both mother and child), versus hypothetical concern for the horror of stopping a potential human life even when it can't yet feel pain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
Whether the foetus feels pain is a distraction and secondary concern in the same way that animal welfare only becomes an issue if you've already decided that's morally permissible to consume animal products.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
eat babies imo
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:Honestly, I don't really know. You're right, if you absolutely know for sure that the 8 week old foetus will develop into the 38 week old unborn baby than they are morally equivalent. But even though it doesn't make sense, I do feel differently about it. An 8 week old baby is very different in an ultrasound to a 34 week old, so maybe it's an emotional part that isn't logical but they are very different. Also, my objection isn't absolute. If the woman's life is at stake, I'm OK with an abortion at any stage, and there are many other circumstances where it would feel OK to me at late stages too, though 38 weeks is really really difficult for me. Yeah, it does. I can totally understand feeling like it's already a baby even when it hasn't been born yet. I just thought it was frustrating seeing so much effort going back and forth over trying to define this acceptable range when it's so murky, and hardly anyone who's ever argued about it is even going to have anywhere near the scientific knowledge required to make the kind of judgement they're actually trying to make. So I think the mother's intention is a more important factor. If you really want a kid, you might feel very hurt and disappointed by a miscarriage even if it's far too early for the fetus to have even felt anything, regardless of where that point might be. I like Tirade's point though about the potential for pain, since that's a point that's entirely fair to make even if you think it's still an overall better choice for the woman to be allowed to abort.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
It's not a scientific problem. No amount of scientific knowledge is going to help you to decide where to draw the line unless you already know, conceptually, where you want to draw it but don't know where that is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
open24hours posted:It's not a scientific problem. No amount of scientific knowledge is going to help you to decide where to draw the line unless you already know, conceptually, where you want to draw it but don't know where that is. Nonsense. There are perfectly valid ideas about the way neural complexity relates to sentience which may have an impact on this debate moving forward. Just because we are in philosophical territory now doesn't mean we always will be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:That part about capacity to feel pain is a good point. It's a lot more quantifiable too than a lot of the more philosophical or religious arguments that could be thrown around. I'd find a lot of merit in a position that said it's okay to abort late but only if the procedure prevents the fetus from feeling pain. That shows a more realistic level of concern for things that are actually happening (avoiding pain in the fetus while also wanting to allow for avoiding a horrible future life for both mother and child), versus hypothetical concern for the horror of stopping a potential human life even when it can't yet feel pain. It's wrong. There's no proof that a fetus can feel pain at all. Tirade posted:Future potential is only one measure though! Another valid measure could be capacity for the fetus to feel pain - a fetus aborted at 38 weeks would probably suffer almost as much as a baby killed shortly after birth, while anything aborted at 8 weeks would have about as much capacity for sensation as a mosquito. A fetus in between these two points moves along the capacity for pain spectrum from mosquito-like to baby-like. Like, I don't even care but you're straight up wrong. You also sound hella whiny, "why wont those people admit they're so extreme!!!" Get over it. E: don't care to discuss when abortion is and is no ok with you, I mean SMILLENNIALSMILLEN fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Oct 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Nonsense. There are perfectly valid ideas about the way neural complexity relates to sentience which may have an impact on this debate moving forward. Just because we are in philosophical territory now doesn't mean we always will be. How do you propose we turn this into a technical problem? Do you think if we look hard enough we will discover the point at which a non-human becomes a human?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
I don't think there's any case for a 38 week abortion when a caesarian or vaginal delivery would be perfectly normal at that stage
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
open24hours posted:How do you propose we turn this into a technical problem? Do you think if we look hard enough we will discover the point at which a non-human becomes a human? I think as the discourse continues we will make legislative steps toward the truth, provided the terms of that discourse are kept rational. That includes not viewing the other side as moustache twirling villains.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
New born babies categorically do feel pain, and it's unreasonable to think that a week or two before they were born they didn't feel any. True story, up to around the late 70s, doctors thought very young babies didn't feel pain (like up to a couple of months old) and when they needed surgery they used to only be paralysed but not anaesthetised. Then they did some research about it. Can you imagine being a surgeon who found out, while still being an active surgeon, that he'd been doing heart surgery on babies and they could feel everything?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
Elite paedophile network is a euphemism for Tory party/Catholic church or is it the other way round
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
katlington posted:It's wrong. There's no proof that a fetus can feel pain at all. I'd imagine that a very late-stage one could be capable of it? That's more the point I was looking for with the mention of a scientific issue. The point a non-human becomes a human is vague philosophical talk, but any point before they even have functioning nerve endings, for instance, is clearly safe when it comes to worrying about whatever suffering they could possibly experience.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:I think as the discourse continues we will make legislative steps toward the truth, provided the terms of that discourse are kept rational. That includes not viewing the other side as moustache twirling villains. I wish I had as much faith in our institutions. Seems equally likely we'll decide that even birth control is impermissible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
open24hours posted:I wish I had as much faith in our institutions. Seems equally likely we'll decide that even birth control is impermissible. There are plenty of rational reasons to be optimistic. Look at how much better the situation is now compared to 50 years ago. Abortion was flat out illegal in NSW until 1971
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:New born babies categorically do feel pain, and it's unreasonable to think that a week or two before they were born they didn't feel any. Up until the very moment of birth the brain is pretty much turned off. This isn't exactly esoteric knowledge. Bifauxnen posted:I'd imagine that a very late-stage one could be capable of it? That's more the point I was looking for with the mention of a scientific issue. The point a non-human becomes a human is vague philosophical talk, but any point before they even have functioning nerve endings, for instance, is clearly safe when it comes to worrying about whatever suffering they could possibly experience. Same reply as above. There is a lot of interesting research about brains and chemicals out there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
katlington posted:Up until the very moment of birth the brain is pretty much turned off. This isn't exactly esoteric knowledge. Citation please
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 06:54
|
|