/sci/ - Science & Math

... and?

>>4418850
I agree with them. Of course, whether I'm comfortable with that, or whether I'd be willing to publicly announce it, is a completely different matter.

Silly pro-life fags.

It's only logical. What's amazing is that it took so long for someone to say it outloud.

>implying anyone is morally relevant

>>4418875
Also, I wonder how long it will take for the experts to come to the realization that this could also apply to retards.

>>4418850
Ok. Sound study is sound.

I think we should continue studies even further, on older kids and even adults. The large majority of american fundementalist christians are "morally irrelavent" as well. They have no "right to life", "critical thinking skills", or even "sentience". They should all be aborted ASAP.

>>4418882
It could also apply to anyone at all, not just the relatively slow

Hence eugenics

Hence the NSDAP and WWII

Hence the cold war

Hence we don't do this shit any more.

>>4418882
and how long for non-retard?

>>4418885
It would be possible, through finding the least useful member of society, terminating them, the re-evaluating and repeating, to use that logic to get down to one member of the human race.

I agree that babies and fetus' are inherently the same, but I think that killing either is morally wrong since by definition life starts at conception.

This is sooo progressive! <3

>>4418885

>>4418897
>by definition life starts at conception

HAHAHAH
LMFAO

>>4418896
And it would be Richard Dawkins.

how do you know of any consciousness beyond your own?

>>4418914
So a fetus is not alive? Then why the need to kill it?

>>4418917
Richard Feynman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgGFThlEeGE&feature=related

here is an indiscutable proof of this phenomenon.

>>4418926
The foetus is alive, but so are the cells that go into making the zygote that develops into the foetus. Life starts in the adult's genitals.

>>4418850
awww yeah

>>4418897
Your comments indicate you should be post-term aborted. It is inhumane to allow someone like you to live.

>>4418875
Infanticide isn't a new idea by a long shot. There are always people arguing for it, and in some societies (ancient Greece comes to mind), they had their way.

>>4418933
Yep, but a single cell is not going to develop into a human being. A fetus, on the other hand, is just a person in a very early stage of development. Huge difference.

>>4418953
Yes it is. That cell is alive, it possesses the same genetic information as the human being it comes from, and half of that of the child. The difference in complexity between a gamete and a zygote is far smaller than that between a foetus and an adult human.

A single cell is going to develop into a foetus. A foetus is going to develop into a human being. Ergo a single cell is going to develop into a human being.

>>4418953
>but a single cell is not going to develop into a human being

But it does. Life starts with a single cell, YOU FUCKING RETARD. Were you asleep in biology class? WTF?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote

>beings that aren't sentient yet are sacred and cannot be touched
>someone says otherwise
>ironically this results in death threats

Fucking hypocrites.

>>4418975

Starts with two actually. Retard.

>>4418975
Be less mad, the single cells the posters above are referring to are gametes, not zygotes

>>4418970
>and half of that of the child
Exactly. So you're basically contradicting yourself and confirming my previous point. :/
Stop living in denial, dude. It's not healthy.

>>4418989
It posesses the full genetic information of an adult human.

It does not posess the full genetic information of the child, though it does posess enough to form a child, if you wanted to.

>>4418985

Spermatozoa and ovum aren't human somatic cells. They're haploid cells that combine to make a single diploid cell, which then divides from there.

Sperm and eggs are not human cells. They're half a human cell each.

>everyone's getting mad
i like

>>4418970

The cells on my face are alive too and, with the right prodding, could become people. Going by your logic, I commit a virtual genocide every time I scratch my nose.

>>4418995

It has half the genetic information of the adult, chromosomal pairs aren't identical.

>>4419001
Congratulations on failing the basic task of following a thread of conversation.

>>4418995
Um, no. That's why you need 2. You contradict yourself with every new post... is this a joke?

I think the right approach to the "can I kill animals/babies/retarded people" question has to depend on where they are on some scale of self-awareness. On the low end, you would be allowed to kill it for pretty much any justification. As self-awareness increases, you have to be able to demonstrate that the creature's life would be full of suffering if allowed to continue, so that the creature would probably want death if it understood the issues. If it's intelligent enough to make the decision itself, it should be allowed to do so.

Of course, sharp cut-offs like "you can't kill it after it's been pushed out a vagina" are convenient because they allow for consistent enforcement of the law, even if a graduated response is the best answer in principle.

>/sci/
>doesn't understand reproduction

Somehow, I'm not shocked.

>killing animals is fine
>fetuses arent different from animals in that they dont attribute vaue to their own existance... we can kill them too!
>it's true of babies too
>aaah either I have to stop eating meat or allow people to kill their babies to be morally sane

vegetarian master race here, enjoy thinking killing children is right.

If it's okay to kill Fetus', it's okay to kill babies. What's next, it's okay to kill inferior races? Yeah, good job, I bet you think Hitler was doing a good job too huh?

>>4419037
face it, not being vegetarian is the same morally as racial cleansing and baby slaughter and cannibalism all rolled in to one.

>>4419047
>killing helpless plants

>>4419052
but plants don't have a nervous system. that's where the line should be, not killing things with a nervous system.

>>4419037
No that's not next, and you know it.
The ethicists took as a decisive property, the question whether a living being values it's own life. Since newborn babies are clearly not self-aware, their value is most certainly not the same as a human. Just like the value of a dog is less than that of a human.
There are no races of people that don't value their own life. According to the doctrine used by the proposers, it's therefore morally wrong to kill off other races.

Tl;dr your argument is retarded, and you know it.

>>4419057
Plants don't need a nervous system, they transmit pain through hormones. And why is a nervous system so special, anyway?

>>4419057
Right, let's allow starving mangy dogs to fill the city streets because putting them down is clearly immoral.

I think a judge should have to approve their decision if they have a good reason (like the kid turns out to be retarded or have a rare uncurable disease) it can be humanely put down.

But we shouldn't just go around killing babies just for the hell of it. And if adoption is an option that should be chosen over death.

I actually have to agree. To the best of my knowledge, newborn infants are not significantly self-aware. They can't pass the mirror test until they are about two years old, for example.

>>4419076
It is immoral, it would just be an inconvenient change for you so you don't like it.

>>4419086
How many cats do you have in your house, and are you feeding them all?

>>4419092
Zero and yes.

>>4419079
I don't see why the possibility of adoption should factor into it. If the decision is made to euthanize the child, it should be based on the interests of the child, not the interests of the parents.

>>4419093
You're not feeding the kittens who you refused to adopt and are being put down because of your refusal.

i believe you should be able to abort your kids until they are 18 years old. they are still not really people, and you can already tell what kind of people they will become. The world would be so much better

>>4419097

Good point, I was just thinking in terms of "these parents are too poor to afford its medical expenses, but these parents are millionaires and can pay for treatments and ensure it lives a good life"

>>4419101
You haven't foiled every murderer ever, and people are dead now because of it. Your logic is wrong. Those kittens are not my responsibility, and I am not the one murdering them, or causing them to be murdered. If I found one and killed it then I would be in the wrong, or if I told someone to kill it so I could eat it I would be in the wrong.
Eating meat is immoral, babymurderer cannibal.

>>4419064
>Since newborn babies are clearly not self-aware, their value is most certainly not the same as a human.

retard or troll, -1/10, i ain't even mad

also since we're being arbitrary, i hereby propose that, with regards to anyone named Alberto Giubilini or Francesca Minerva and who recently published an article on abortion it is not possible to justify the attribution of a right to life for them.

>>4419111
If I could prevent a murder and stood by doing nothing, I would be in the wrong. You are capable of preventing what you compare to murder, but you refuse to do anything about it.

>>4419124
I'm not though, my landlord doesn't allow me to have pets. Check and mate.

Humans are worth more than other animals

personhood is gained though ratianality (i think therefore i am) just as kant said therefore since they are not rational they are not people

>>4419128
I forgot you were a serf and not allowed to move.

>>4419128
So you value arbitrary comfort (staying where you are) over the lives of numerous animals (which you could adopt if you moved).

That says all we need to know about you, my armchair activist friend

>>4419124
Also you are the one comparing murder to not helping someone/thing. Why haven't you taken in many homeless hobos who will die in the cold outside one day. That is exactly the same as your kitten analogy, just with a fully adult human. It simply doesn't apply.

>>4419134
robots are rational

>>4419144
yeah well thats true so you could have robot people definitely i think if they are rational they should be treated just like human people due to the fact that they have the same mental capasity

>>4419144
exactement.

catalysis of ozone in the stratosphere is rational, for sufficiently wide definitions of rational. Descartes said cogito ergo sum, not Kant, and it means that the only known truth is that you exist. Not the same thing at all.

>>4419139
No, the analogous question would be whether you should take in hobos if the government was rounding them up and euthanizing them, assuming you believed the government was in the wrong.

>>4419170
But whats the difference morally? If you think that homeless cats should be put down, then you think that homeless people should be put down. You are a horrible person.

>>4419186
No, because cats aren't people.

>>4419198
but it'd be right to kill homeless babies?

>>4419203
Maybe if there was an overpopulation problem.

>>4418850

Well yes, this is true because the human brain generally does not gain sentience before 10-12 months of age.

Morally I would object, unless there is something very wrong with the child and it has zero change of having any kind of life. We kill vegetables every day, this isn't really different.

>>4419222
>We kill vegetables every day, this isn't really different.

no we don't

>>4418875

>implying logic is the sole arbiter of human behavior

Morality is just a social construct so people don't fuck each other over. It isn't an inherent instinct, it has to be learned, which means newborns have no morality themselves and should therefore not be awarded the benefits of a concept they have no knowledge of.

>>4418850 killing babies

I'm ok with this

Disgusting shit-storm when the dailyfail gets word of this study.

>>4418850

If I had a downy baby it would die in its sleep in a horrible pillow choking accident.

>Leftism

>>4419386
You don't have to do that. Typically, Downy babies are detected via ultrasound while in the womb. So you can nix them early.

Killing a late-term foetus is no different from killing a newborn. Killing a newborn is no different from killing a month old baby. Killing a month old baby is no different from &c.

This is the same as an infinitude of other "problems" that arise from the distinctions that we make. For instance, if you add 1 mm to the height of a person who is not tall, getting a tall person?

The solution in this case is to realize that foetuses and babies may deserve *some* level of moral consideration, just not the absolute classification of person-hood. The natural consequence would be that as they develop more toward person-hood, the other interests at stake, motivating their destruction, must become increasingly more powerful to weigh against the inherent "partial" right to life that the foetus or baby possesses.

>>4419377
>>4419377

>>4419501
>people deciding what life is worth living

>>4419515
>implying you don't
>implying anyone doesn't
>implying it is possible not to

>>4419515
>straw-man

The only alternatives to the logic in my post are amorality, treating fertilized eggs as people or that at some magical instant a foetus goes from being unworthy of any moral consideration to a full-fledged person. Choosing birth as that instant doesn't help. Is it O.K. to chop the head off a baby as soon as that part emerges from the birth canal? What about reaching into the vagina just a little bit? The whole line of thinking is nonsensical and the sort of questions that need to be answered will be absurd as long as one insists on such a special instant rather than a gradual development of moral consideration with increasing maturity.

>has argued
Ethicists argue every point of view; it doesn't mean it is their chosen, first, primary, or sole answer to a question.

It doesn't make any sense without the assumptions they used, anyway: obviously, the question of whether a fetus is the same as a person (and an infant the same as a person) is far more significant than this argument.

>>4418882
It is specifically stated in the article, so not very long?

>>4419123
You are very much mad; you responded with vitriol and hyperbole against what was presented as a logical argument.

>>4419489

Prenatal downies are only 65% detectable. The pillow is required a large portion of the time.

want me to tell you how i know all of you are virgins with no significant social contact?

>>4419587
Please spare us the irrelevant amateur psychoanalysis.

>>4419596
ok
but i'd like to hear your thoughts on this subject if you ever manage to become a father

>>4418885
>Ok. Sound study is sound.
Not a 'study' -- an opinion paper.
And it isn't 'sound' -- it's consistent only with the points it makes; (as reported) it ignores several arguments.

For instance:
it ignores that this may be the case for all people, which questions the validity of making any statement at all
it fails to justify 'potential person'
it ignores variation of the ability of an infant to survive from a very young age
it ignores the difference in dependence (on the mother) between a fetus and an infant
and it ignores sentimentality and other relevant emotions as conditions.

>>4418897
>by definition life starts at conception.
Entirely incorrect:
the beginning of the possibility of offspring begins at conception -- it is far less clear (and much of the point) when it becomes a LIFE.

Some would say it simply cannot be a life if it cannot live on its own; that is certainly true of a fetus.
this article takes that one further step, suggesting early infants still cannot live on their own (and have no concept or psychological status or behaviors that could be defined as separate).

>>4418953
>A fetus, on the other hand, is just a person in a very early stage of development.
Nope; you've gone from non=person to person as though it is definite.
It is far from definite at what point you have 'person' rather than 'something that could grow into a person.'

And that is the whole point; separation and dependence of a being.

>>4419587
>can't challenge argument
>resort to ad hominem

>>4419583
>Prenatal downies are only 65% detectable.

No.

If abortion is considered murder then so is men cumming (out side of procreation) and women menstruating as both are potential children

>>4419632
Slippery-slope fallacy

Question.

Would the authors of the article in question actually be okay with killing newborn children? Or is this a sneaky satirical anti-abortion argument?

> click image
> look at watermark

OP is a fag

>>4419515
>no, that poster was not 'deciding' what life is worth living;
he was saying (or should have been) that until we are clear where 'life' starts, (which no one is!) we cannot apply that as a metric.

Neither can you: if it isn't life at all, no one is deciding to end life.

Did you not know many cellular activities begin and end in your body that have the potential to become a separate organ? But you wouldn't define your natural cellular activity to be homicidal; it's unavoidable.
Many cancers are that kind of event; no one would argue the cancers have to survive.

>>4419501
>Killing a late-term foetus is no different from killing a newborn. Killing a newborn is no different from killing a month old baby. Killing a month old baby is no different from &c.
All the rest of your post made logical sense; why was this presumptive junk at the beginning?
The whole point is that we disagree on the definitions needed, as you said right after -- so all such statements mean nothing more than one person's perspective.

>>4419626
>>4418975
>>4418970
>Getting trolled
>2012

>>4419031
I will thanks


sage for abortionwars

Unfortunately, the debate about abortion becomes retarded when biology is brought into this.

While it isn't considered a fully developed human being, a zygote is a living. Its a fucking scientific fact that it is an organism as long as the cell is defined as the smallest unit of life, it is a living developmental stage human.

Now, does it have legal rights? What is its value?

Those are jobs for lawyers. Not scientists.

Also remember that you should not warp scientific evidence in any way/shape/form in order to fit your personal beliefs:

I.E. defining a zygote as a parasite because you don't want to feel bad. Call it what it is, a zygote, don't misuse scientific definitions to make it seem "better" for you.

Seriously, if you want to abort, go for it, no one is stopping you, it is your legal right.

...just don't fuck with science to relieve your conscious as you shouldn't be having problems anyways..

>>4419647
Ethical papers of this type make statements with clear, logical connections so that readers can see perspective.
I'd put down money that people from the same group have written papers arguing the opposite side, too.

It's a good thing: it helps people to figure out what the other perspective is about. As I think two people saw ITT; the argument isn't about making killing legal, it's about realizing where you believe the beginning of a life happens.

>>4419671
>what every CNN fan does not want to hear

>>4419659
Sorry if it wasn't clear, but the rest of my post was an argument against the portion you quoted, so I don't support that statement at all. I was saying that statement would be justified *if* we insisted on a binary classification of persons who deserve moral consideration and "non-persons" who do not, with some point of transition between the two exclusive categories.

>>4419671
>Unfortunately, the debate about abortion becomes retarded when biology is brought into this.
How do you not bring biology into a 'when is it a valid separate life' argument?

>While it isn't considered a fully developed human being, a zygote is a living. Its a fucking scientific fact
>that it is an organism as long as the cell is defined as the smallest unit of life, it is a living
>developmental stage human.
But we aren't trying to define 'living organism' -- that kind of definition seeks to distinguish only the basic definitions of life, in a very distinct context.
We are trying to define when a _person's_ life starts. For many, that is when it functions separately (that's after it is born).
In the article, they are using a more extreme definition; when it has the ability to function separately and also awarenss of that separation.

>Now, does it have legal rights? What is its value?
>Those are jobs for lawyers. Not scientists.
Philosophers; NEVER lawyers. And never the question of 'value.'

>in order to fit your personal beliefs:

>because you don't want to feel bad.
>to make it seem "better" for you.
>to relieve your conscience

Your statement assumes the other perspective isn't valid, and amounts to an excuse for convenience; that's dismissive, illogical, and morally wrong itself.

>>4419690
That makes much more sense; I couldn't see why you'd write the first part and then the second with the same brain.

I had a brain like that once; stripped its transmission, had to get it replaced. Still doesn't shift like it should...

>>4419673
The "beginning of life" issue is a side-show. Furthermore, it has a well-defined answer: the "life" of a human organism begins with the fusion of the gametes. That doesn't mean a blastocyst has rights, but it is unquestionably alive, just as a dust mite is also unquestionably alive.

Whatever your ultimate stance on the issue, denying life to embryos and foetuses is an abuse of language and definitions to avoid the inevitable implication that abortion involves killing.

>>4419704
The "beginning of life" issue is a side-show. Furthermore, it has a well-defined answer: the "life" of a human organism begins with the fusion of the gametes.
That doesn't make any sense;
you are writing about the 'beginning' of the cellular clump that has it's own DNA,
not about the definition of the word 'human life.'
What I mean is, you've confused defining one thing and decided it defines both.

>That doesn't mean a blastocyst has rights, but it is unquestionably alive, just as a dust mite is also unquestionably alive.
That is confusing a whole separate definition: the difference of life v. non-life.
We're talking about something MUCH more specific here: the beginning of a distinct human life separate from other human lives.

Would you agree that the fetus cannot survive separately?

>Whatever your ultimate stance on the issue, denying life to embryos and foetuses is an abuse of language and definitions to avoid the inevitable implication that abortion involves killing.
No, the distinction I have just given is the place where people disagree: you are trying to roll it all together so that nothing but your perspective can be an answer.

Please keep in mind the definition I just gave still permits your perspective, and it is still just as valid; it just makes clear what people disagree about.

Parents should never be forced to care for a mentally handicapped child if they don't want to. Does that justify killing the child? The way Greeks did it was better: put the child out in the country, and let it fend for itself. You aren't killing it - just refusing to support it, which is completely morally acceptable.

Better solution: genetic testing of fetuses, and genetic modification of sperm and embryos to avoid all these problems and optimize the genetic makeup of the child. I find it hard to believe, but apparently some nutjobs even have a problem with this.

>>4418850
i agree with the statement there is no relevant difference between them.

however i do not support abortion either.

Leftists and homosexuals are not self aware. We need to remove the penalties on killing them.

the way i see it, abortion is okay until the foetus reaches a state of around 70-80% development.
abortions are not relatively time constrained decisions, and its highly unlikely a woman would not realise she is pregnant 2-3 months after conception, so the excuse of late abortion is out the window.
for me, the argument over abortion is purely political and bred in ignorance. women should have the damn right until the foetus becomes near-fully developed.
would a woman want to bear the child of a rapist? a few might but the rest dont.
Add into this the population problem (and it is a problem), abortion should be legal. /rant
i totally disagree with that article, what next? killing children that have no potential? adults that have not been deemed "fit for society"?
the sheer lack of an ethical and moral compass in these people is absurd.

>>4419746
you're just killing it via starvation that way. better off just killing it as painlessly as possible.

>>4419748
>i agree with the statement there is no relevant difference between them.

>however i do not support abortion either.

And that response makes complete sense, too:
the article argues about that difference, but it doesn't seem to express why the definition of life must be after independence & separation & psychological distinctiveness altogether.

>>4419763
The impact of abortion on population growth is minuscule.

>>4419777
>The impact of abortion on population growth is minuscule.
No; the _current_ value may be considered so, but the potential effect could easily be very significant.

>>4419763
>the sheer lack of an ethical and moral compass in these people is absurd.
Then you missed the point:
They argued that under those concepts, it is specifically and justifiably ethical.
The difference is that you differed with their assumptions (which is, of course, perfectly valid).

I am uncomfortable with that idea, but without resorting to a slippery slope argument it's difficult to find any real objections to it.

>>4419383 Dailyfail

Lol

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2108433/Doctors-right-kill-unwanted-disabled-babies-birth-re
al-person-claims-Oxford-academic.html

I'm ok with this. I'd love to be able to kill babies.
Pretty sure most normal people would be deeply offended by this though. Sounds more like something you'd see posted on the onion

>>4418850
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
OP is a Poe?

Ancient greeks were like this. Especially the spartans, IIRC. Babies don't count until the father accepts them.

Killing babies before they develop self-awareness is no worse than putting down animals. It was a lot more common during the middle ages, nowadays sweeping moralism would prevent it.

Ok. Here's the jist of it. It is moral to give rights to thinks that have minds. It is immoral to deny someone rights in favor of some thing which has no mind.

A single cell has no brain, and thus it has no mind. Ergo, it is immoral to deny use of the daily pill, the day after pill, condom and spermicide use, and so on.

The counterargument is that we should grant rights based on criteria other than having a mind, which is bullshit.

>pro life people think life starts at conception
>pro choice think it starts later

>both use shitty arguments and dumbshit reasoning to promote their ideas that don't even make sense to them

Seriously, it's like saying fetuses are more aesthetically pleasing than sex cells. It's true but who gives a shit.

MFW I aggre with OP's statement

>not sure whether happyfrog or sadfrog

The comments in this thread make me weep for the future of man.

So depressing. I hope some of you don't procreate.

The dualism smell is strong in this thread, with all these mention of "life", like this was the metric.
Well, maybe it is the metric in anglo countries, but in France it's pain the big factor.

fucking liberals

when you devalue the most innocent life, you devalue your own

Babies aren't sentient, there's nothing unethical about destroying them.
We kill plants every minute.

>>4420859

plants arent humans

we're killing ourselves

>>4420865
I have no problem with culling the herd.
We kill our fellow, sentient, humans daily.
Why is there such an outcry if someone wants to dispose of some unthinking meat?

>>4420875

and that was my point to begin with

if you're all right killing babies, then the rest of human life is at least equally devalued;

let the war begin

People argue about babies a lot. Saying it's unfair to deny them the choice.
What about young men and women drafted to die in glorified warfare? They can think for themselves but have no choice either.

>>4420903
It's not a crime when the government does it. Case in point: death penalty vs murder.

>>4420907
But according to some pro-life people it's a crime against your race to deny someone a chance at life. That's what military drafting does.

killing something non-sentient and completely without the ability to feel pain, or for that matter anything else, isn't murder or wrong and that's that.
>>4418891
Eugenics is a sound idea, based on real science, and does work. You don't have to go all Hitler though.

>>4420882
baby != fetus

ITT: everyone's getting mad


I couldn't care less. Let them kill half of humanity for all I care, babies, infirm, j00z, spics, I don't give a shit.

>umad.jpg

But what if some infants show problems developing speech in the first years of life?

Einstein was obviously autistic with schizophrenic traits, which was the recipe for his physics-oriented mental simulation abilities.

>>4420919
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

We have been identifying people by their genetic for decades. Obviously a person is created when a unique genetic code is created.

>>4420937
So dark and edgy xD

>>4421020
>retroactively diagnosing long-dead people with developmental/mental disorders
>science

>>4421030
>In the recollections of the family recorded by Einstein’s younger sister, Maja, in 1924, Albert appears as a calm, dreamy, slow, but self-assured and determined child. Another three decades later, Einstein himself told his biographer, Carl Seelig, that “my parents were worried because I started to talk comparatively late, and they consulted a doctor because of it.”

Looked serious enough to see a doctor even in that time, when there wasn't much focus on autism.

>The reputed handicap of [Einstein's] late talking became part of the family legend and is confirmed by Maja. The same family legend, though, reports that, at the age of 2 ½ years, when his newborn sister (a Mädle) was shown to the boy, Albert, obviously expecting a toy to play with, could already verbalize his disappointment: “But where are its wheels (Rädle)?”
He looks at a baby and is wondering where are its wheels... Not autism at all.

>As a matter of fact, the boy was, and remained, a reluctant talker for quite some years, and, until the age of about seven, used to repeat his sentences to himself softly, a habit which contributed to the impression he might be somewhat dull.

>He never felt comfortable with the obligation to deliver addresses and speeches and to mingle with people.
>[...] [He] considered himself a lone wolf

>His temporary states of absent-mindedness and forgetfulness were amusedly looked at as the flip-side of his concentration on problems with which he was preoccupied. No one would have insinuated that forgetting his keys or not remembering the names of persons with whom he had little connection, constituted symptoms of a disease.

>>4421057
6/10 for effort

>>4421057
So.. you made a diagnosis, looked for evidence to support it, and disregarded all other evidence.
On top of which, some of your evidence doesn't even support your theory entirely.

3/10. Would not grade.

>>4421058
>>4421072
You are butthurt because Einstein was autistic (and possibly schizophrenic too).

I disagree...but I'm no expert in the field of bioethics.

Killing babies is ethical if you are a woman.

Is there anything women aren't allowed to do.

Lets see they can

rape kids
kill babies
kill spouses

and get off with it or have severely shortened sentences

>>4421120
They can't be priests.

Oh, wait! Protestant women can. Fucking heretics.

>>4421078
sauce?

or did you pull that out of your ass to make you feel like you're like him?

>>4421120
WTF are you on about

>>4421120
Sounds about right.
If a woman doesn't want kids she can abort and be called liberated and pro-choice.
If a man doesn't want kids and leaves he's called a deadbeat, a horrible person and a failure.

>>4421120
I could have been raped by a woman as a kid? Damn it, I seriously missed out.

There is no telling if the people making this argument are pro life trollers or pro choice. They are simply pointing out that the main difference between abortion and spartanizing babies is that in the latter case you see the baby while it is alive.

However, in the second case the baby has experienced something other than the womb, so I must disagree.

>>4421149
and what would that change. Babies are just as dependent on the mother as they would be in the womb.

>>4421127
Those things can be found mostly in this book (the stuff his sister and the rest of the family witnessed):
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/4525.html

Here's also an opinion from a researcher in the field of autism:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3676-einstein-and-newton-showed-signs-of-autism.html

>did you pull that out of your ass to make you feel like you're like him?
No, I haven't implied any bit I am like him or that I have any similar interest in physics. I can't imagine I could look at a kid and say: Where are its wheels? That's pretty fucking obvious.