Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (212340)	1/10/2007 8:47:15 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

That's an interesting theory. I had all my children naturally, with no "drugs" (human made ones)- so your explanation fits my circumstances. I felt more in love with my babies than I had ever loved anything in my entire life, and for some reason I thought they were exquisitely beautiful- even though looking at the pictures now I have to tell you they were kind of red and wrinkled and their heads looked a little funny. The morning after delivery life had never looked so wonderful; food had never tasted so good; I'd never been so perfectly content. Hormones- God's little joke on people who don't think they take drugs :-)

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (212340)	1/10/2007 2:57:23 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Recently it was reported that it's not unheard of for bits of male mitochondrial DNA to hitch a ride on the female mitochondrial DNA. Which makes me wonder whether it's also not unheard of for bits of the mother's nuclear DNA to hitch a ride on the Y-chromosome, as well. Kind of messes up the neat parable of African mitochondrial DNA Eve and African Y-chromosome DNA Adam, but would explain some mutations.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (212340)	1/10/2007 3:04:03 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

One of the jobs I had when working my way through college 30 plus years ago was as a receptionist in an abortion clinic. This was right after abortion became legal in the US. At the time I was an anthropology major, and the clinic director was interested in the psychology of abortion, so we developed a questionnaire for patients to fill out. I didn't do anything with the research, as working at the clinic wasn't something I stuck with, but I've often thought about some of the things I observed. One observation which may be relevant to this debate is that, it seemed to me at the time, women don't get abortions because of rape or incest, not really. Usually the father was someone they loved. The unmarried ones get abortions because the father doesn't want to marry them. The married ones get abortions because they don't think they can take care of more children than they already have. Birth control is actually quite effective if you use it conscientiously. Women who don't want children use birth control, or get themselves to an abortion clinic quite early on, when their menstrual period is only a couple of weeks overdue. It's the ambivalent ones that cause all the angst. They want the baby, they don't want the baby, back and forth, until they're very far along and the baby is actually a baby, not an embryo. Just my observation, naturally a broad generalization, individuals will always vary. But, as backup support, back in the old days, an awful lot of babies were conceived out of wedlock, and the parents got married in a hurry, which suggests that men today are cads, and women are fools to let them get away with it. Except, of course, for the very dedicated spinsters whose eye is on another prize than babies and motherhood. For them, this debate is incomprehensible. Abortion is no more emotional to them than getting an oil change for the automobile.