Monthly Archives: March 2017

The Multitude of Issues Surrounding Human Embryo Gene Editing – Healthline

Posted: March 5, 2017 at 3:47 pm

Should scientists be allowed to dive deep into an embryos DNA and dig out an inheritable disease?

Should parents be allowed to tweak an unborn childs genes to make their child tall or athletic or smart?

And what would be the consequences of all this on human evolution?

Those are some of the questions facing the medical community and society in general as limited experiments begin in the United States on human embryo gene editing.

An advisory group formed by the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine recommended last month that this kind of research should begin.

However, the panel said it should only be done in rare cases where there is no alternative to preventing a baby from acquiring a serious disease or disability.

Read more: Scientists finding gene editing with CRISPR hard to resist

Research on editing the genes of human embryos is already underway in China and Sweden.

Clinical trials using gene editing to treat noninheritable conditions are already set to start in the United States.

However, editing out inheritable ones like Huntington disease, cystic fibrosis, or Alzheimers disease from the genes of human embryos is a bigger undertaking, both scientifically and ethically.

Such editing could eliminate the risk of the disease for the embryos as well as eliminate these conditions for any offspring the embryos might produce as an adult.

But experts say that germline editing could cause unintended, permanent effects on human evolution.

It also could open up the ability to edit embryos for enhanced physical or mental characteristics, creating so-called designer babies.

In the past year, new, cheaper technologies particularly the adoption of the more precise gene editing tool CRISPR-Cas9 have made it more likely researchers will actually succeed at editing human embryos.

That makes the debate over these concerns no longer hypothetical.

The technology could save millions of lives.

Or it could lead to an ever-growing divide between those who can afford to pay for enhanced medical treatments and those who cant.

Read more: CRISPR gene technology gets approval for cancer treatment

Lets say you and your partner both have cystic fibrosis with the same mutations.

But you want to have a child who doesnt have the disease.

Genetic editing could be the answer.

Such embryonic manipulation would involve a small number of couples with specific conditions and preferences and lack of alternatives.

But, as University of Manchester Bioethicist John Harris told National Geographic, if suffering and death can be averted by this research the decision to delay such research should not be made lightly. Just as justice delayed is justice denied, so, too, therapy delayed is therapy denied. That denial costs human lives, day after day.

For most couples, there would be other options available, points out Marcy Darnovsky, PhD, director of the Center for Genetics and Society in California.

Some might be able to use an egg or sperm donor or screen embryos with preimplantation genetic diagnosis in a fertility clinic.

There is also the question of what this research will mean not just for our health but for our perceptions of society.

If we can do away with a disease like cystic fibrosis, for instance, how will that affect how we view and treat those who still have it?

What will we be saying about who is healthy and who isnt?

Its a way of setting a bar about what kinds of people should be born, Darnovsky told Healthline. There are concerns about stigmatizing conditions and reducing the social supports of people who do live with those conditions.

Read more: Gene editing could be used to battle mosquito-borne diseases

All these implications are years or even decades away.

The research that will happen in the near term is more about improving the technology, not modifying embryos intended to be gestated and born.

That germline editing, in fact, is not allowed because of a prohibition on using federal funds to review research in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include a heritable genetic modification.

In addition, the advisory panels report states that the technology is not ready for human trials.

But it also said using it to edit the precursors of humans embryos, eggs, sperm could soon be a realistic possibility that deserves serious consideration.

For now, someone who is interested in one day benefiting from embryo editing should undergo carrier testing to see if and how much they are at risk of passing on a heritable disease.

Go through your [doctor], not one of those companies where you send off your spit in a vial, said Darnovsky.

She said physicians have the time, training, and resources to make sure youre fully informed about any conditions or decisions youll have to make.

In addition, they can also keep you updated on new technologies and ethical quandaries as they emerge.

Read more here:
The Multitude of Issues Surrounding Human Embryo Gene Editing - Healthline

Posted in Gene Medicine | Comments Off on The Multitude of Issues Surrounding Human Embryo Gene Editing – Healthline

Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher – Wikipedia

Posted: at 3:46 pm

Politically Incorrect is an American late-night, half-hour political talk show hosted by Bill Maher that aired from 1993 to 2002. It premiered on Comedy Central in 1993, moved to ABC in January 1997, and was canceled in 2002.

The show first originated from New York City, but soon moved to Los Angeles to make it easier to get "stars" as guests. The New York episodes were shot at the CBS Broadcast Center and the Los Angeles episodes at CBS Television City, where it remained even after its move to ABC.

The first episode featured comedian Jerry Seinfeld, Howard Stern co-host Robin Quivers, Republican Party strategist Ed Rollins, and comedian Larry Miller. Frequent guests included Dave Matthews, Arianna Huffington, Michael McKean, Ann Coulter, Carrot Top, and Christine O'Donnell.[1]

The show began with a brief topical monologue from Maher. Then Maher introduces the guests individually, promoting their current projects. Four guests appear, usually a mix of individuals from show business, popular culture, pundits, political consultants, and occasionally regular people in the news, discussing topics in the news selected by Maher. Maher described the program as "The McLaughlin Group on acid."[2]

On rare occasions, Maher would interview a single guest. The show was pioneering in mixing political figures and entertainers. Maher tried to air all points of view, especially controversial ones. Guests could be both aggravating and insightful, with the conversation similar to a cocktail party with quick-witted guests.[2]

The show's writers included Al Franken, Arianna Huffington, Kevin Bleyer, Scott Carter, and Chris Kelly.

The show won a 2000 Emmy Award for "Outstanding Technical Direction, Camerawork, Video for a Series." In addition, it was nominated for seventeen other awards, including: "Outstanding Variety"; "Outstanding Music or Comedy Series" (every year from 1995 to 2002); and "Outstanding Performance in a Variety or Music Program" in 1997. The show also won two CableACE Awards in 1995 and 1996 for Talk Show Series and was nominated for a third in 1997. It was also nominated for two Writers Guild of America awards for best Comedy/Variety series in 2001 and 2002.[3]

Barbara Olson, a frequent guest, was traveling to a taping of Politically Incorrect aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon during the September 11 attacks of 2001. To honor Olson, Maher left a panel chair empty for a week afterwards.

In the aftermath of the attacks, U.S. President George W. Bush said that the terrorists responsible were cowards. In a Politically Incorrect episode on September 17, 2001, Maher's guest Dinesh D'Souza disputed Bush's label, saying the terrorists were warriors.[4] Maher agreed, and replied: "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, [it's] not cowardly."[4]

Despite similar comments having been made in other media, advertisers withdrew their support and some ABC affiliates stopped airing the show temporarily.[4] White House press secretary Ari Fleischer denounced Maher, warning that "people have to watch what they say and watch what they do."[5] Maher apologized, and explained that he had been criticizing U.S. military policy, not American soldiers.[6]

The show was canceled the following June, which Maher and many others saw as a result of the controversy, although ABC denied that the controversy was a factor and said the program was canceled due to declining ratings.[7][8][9] Maher said that the show struggled for advertisers in its final months.[10] There were subsequently comments in various media on the irony that a show called Politically Incorrect was canceled because its host had made a supposedly politically incorrect comment.[11][12]

The show was replaced on ABC by Jimmy Kimmel Live! in 2003.

Maher now hosts an hour-long program on HBO called Real Time with Bill Maher, which follows a similar format, and continues to tape at CBS Television City.

Maher released a book in 1997, Does Anybody Have a Problem with That? The Best of Politically Incorrect, which featured questions asked on the show, comments Maher made and guest answers. In 2003 an audiobook POLITICAL INCORRECTIONS: The Best Opening Monologues from Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher was released, which featured opening monologues from the show accompanied by explanations of the current affairs that were being discussed in the media at that time.

More here:
Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher - Wikipedia

Posted in Politically Incorrect | Comments Off on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher – Wikipedia

Community Common | Politically Incorrect – Community Common

Posted: at 3:46 pm

Spinnati

I stand amazed as I watch the nightly news as I see people everywhere that seem to be in such a hurry to scream prejudice and racism these days. It is a daily dose of the worlds newest and most effective tool as those oppressed play the victim card in todays society. They seem to be looking for confrontation at every turn. It seems as if it is a never ending occurrence. It is happening in all kinds of situations. In fact I heard a story about a customer asking a clerk, In what aisle can I find the Polish sausage? The clerk asked, Are you Polish? The woman, who was clearly offended, replied Yes I am. But let me ask you something. If I had asked for Italian sausage, would you ask me if I was Italian? Or if I had asked for German Bratwurst, would you ask me if I was German? Or if I asked for a kosher hot dog would you ask me if I was Jewish? Or if I had asked for a Taco, would you ask if I was Mexican? Or if I asked for some Irish whiskey, would you ask if I was Irish? The clerk rolled his eyes and shook his head and said, No, I probably wouldnt. The woman was clearly upset and said, Well then, because I asked for Polish sausage, why did you ask me if I was Polish? The clerk trying to hold back a grin replied, Because lady youre in Home Depot!

Now folks that story is funny but in todays world it is not politically correct and I would be ostracized for using it. You see today everything is off the table and not politically correct or racist except when someone is attacking Christians, Jesus Christ, or those who hold firmly to the faith that was once delivered. Today it is a national pastime to speak evil of Jesus or the Christian faith. Those that stand for morals and higher standards of conduct are the newest whipping boy for those who seek to take this country into further moral decline.

The world and America would be better if it understood that there is power and true life in the name of Jesus! What happened to the lame man at the temple when Peter told him to arise in the name of Jesus? The man stood up! And not only that, the Scripture says he began to leap and dance and praise God. Later in the temple, Peter testified about the man saying, Look at this man, he stands before you whole and strong in the power of the name of Jesus.

Listen America, in the name of Jesus your bondage can be broken and you can be set free. In the name of Jesus drug addiction can be defeated! In the name of Jesus families can be healed. In the name of Jesus, those who were once broken and downtrodden will be able to stand up and testify of the grace of Christ Jesus in their lives! Now I come to you; yes you! Is the power of Jesus Christ at work in your life today? It can be. Take a leap of faith and live for him! And do it all in the name of Jesus!

.

Visit link:
Community Common | Politically Incorrect - Community Common

Posted in Politically Incorrect | Comments Off on Community Common | Politically Incorrect – Community Common

Could Twitter’s New Abuse Crackdown Lead to Censorship? – Voice of America

Posted: at 3:46 pm

Twitter introduced new safety measures this week meant to crack down on online harassment and protect people from viewing offensive material, but some free-speech advocates are concerned the changes could lead to censorship of unpopular ideas.

The social media company announced Wednesday that it would start hiding potentially menacing tweets, even if the tweets or accounts in question hadn't been reported as abusive.

"We're working to identify accounts as they're engaging in abusive behavior, even if this behavior hasn't been reported to us," the company said in a statement announcing the changes. "Then, we're taking action by limiting certain account functionality for a set amount of time, such as allowing only their followers to see their Tweets."

The so-called stealth bans could be placed on accounts, the company's statement said, if a Twitter user sent unsolicited messages to another user who was not following the sender.

Twitter said it would "act on accounts" only when it was confident abuse had taken place, based on the algorithms it uses to identify illicit posts.

This new automated stealth ban capability became a cause of consternation for Suzanne Nossel, executive director of the free-speech advocacy group PEN America, because she said it could easily become a solution "where there is really no problem that needs to be solved."

FILE - A Twitter app on an iPhone screen is shown.

'Mistaken' moves?

"To take action when there hasn't been a complaint raises the concern of whether there will be mistaken blocking of accounts or suspending of accounts," she said. "That raises a risk."

Twitter has been under pressure to address abusive speech and trolling on its platform in recent months after celebrities and others complained of sustained, coordinated abuse campaigns.

Actress Leslie Jones notably swore off the social media service for a brief time last year after she was targeted by online trolls and harassed with racism and death threats. The incident led to a personal meeting between Jones and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, and several months later the company began introducing new tools to address online abuse.

Twitter expanded its "mute" feature to allow users to block specific words or phrases from showing up in their notifications. It expanded users' ability to report hateful conduct. And it retrained its support teams on dealing with online abuse.

These types of changes that allow users to have more control over what content they see and whom they interact with are positive steps, Esha Bhandari, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told VOA.

FILE - Twitter's Jack Dorsey is interviewed on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, Nov. 19, 2015. The chief executive apologized Thursday, Nov. 17, 2016, after the service let through an ad promoting a white supremacist group.

Control for users

The ACLU encourages companies to focus less on a top-down approach to censorship and more "on tools that allow users to control their experience on the platform," she said.

"Attempts to put the thumb on the scale on the censorship side are prone to error and prone to human biases," Bhandari said.

Newer tools introduced by Twitter, though, give the company a far greater role in controlling what content gets seen.

In February, Twitter began pre-emptively hiding what it called "potentially abusive or low-quality tweets" from conversations on the website. The tweets will still be visible to users, but only to "those who seek them out."

"Our team has also been working on identifying and collapsing potentially abusive and low-quality replies so the most relevant conversations are brought forward," Twitter said in a February statement.

VOA contacted Twitter multiple times for clarification on guidelines used to identify "low-quality" tweets but received no response.

Twitter also introduced a "safe search" feature in February that automatically removes tweets that contain "potentially sensitive content" from search results. A request for clarification on how this content is identified was not returned.

Being a non-government entity, Twitter has no real obligation to preserve free speech on its website. But Twitter has billed itself as a platform for free expression, and on the Twitter rules page, it says it believes in "speaking truth to power."

FILE - The Twitter symbol appears above a trading post on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, July 27, 2016. Twitter, long criticized as a hotbed for online harassment, has been expanding ways to curb the amount of abuse users see.

Global town square

This is a role both PEN America and the ACLU take seriously. Both Nossel and Bhandari referred to the website as a sort of global town square, where everyone's voice has equal weight.

"As a practical matter, decisions made by Twitter have a huge impact on the messages that we receive, and I hope that Twitter and other companies take those responsibilities seriously," Bhandari said.

Nossel noted that Twitter has a financial incentive to be cautious on issues involving the balance between allowing free expression and stopping abuse.

"The power and influence of their platform depends on the free flow of ideas, so I think there are commercial reasons why they would not want to limit [free speech]," she said. "And I think for their users, they do have a kind of softer, implicit contract that they are going to be a platform in which you can express things freely."

Bhandari said it's important to find that balance, because if Twitter "allows a heckler's veto to take over," it will have a chilling effect on speech that's similar to pre-emptively hiding content.

"One of the really important parts of that has to be transparency," she said.

See the rest here:
Could Twitter's New Abuse Crackdown Lead to Censorship? - Voice of America

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on Could Twitter’s New Abuse Crackdown Lead to Censorship? – Voice of America

Censorship, in all its forms, is damaging – Wicked Local Topsfield – Wicked Local Topsfield

Posted: at 3:46 pm

Censorship, whether at a broader or more personal scale, ultimately leaves society with more harm done than good.

Everyone would agree that censoring society from potential evils protects and benefits the people in the long run, wouldnt they? Of course, they wouldnt. Censorship, whether at a broader or more personal scale, ultimately leaves society with more harm done than good.

Though I may not be proud of it, I have experienced censorship firsthand. Witnessing an innocent little boy being bullied by my friend in our local library didnt seem to trigger my preteen brain to spring into action. Not realizing the full severity of the situation, I decided to censor my words and actions in order to not lose my friend. Though I grew to learn that my decision was incorrect, I negatively impacted society by letting a bullying situation go untouched. I could have easily stopped this incident, if not for my personal censorship.

American author Charles Bukowski told how censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and from others. Their fear is only their inability to face what is real, and I can't vent any anger against them. I only feel this appalling sadness. Somewhere, in their upbringing, they were shielded against the total facts of our existence (Bukowski, Charles Bukowski on Censorship).

Essentially, hes describing the simple principle of how censoring is only us pushing away reality, and it is unhealthy for us to do so. Chinas censorship of critical health information validates Bukowskis beliefs that censorship is used by those who want to intentionally withhold facts from others. In 2012, the World Health Organization estimated that about 4,000 people died each day in China due to severe air pollution, a devastating7 million each year (Jolley, End the censorship). Chinese citizens reacting to this created Under the Dome, a documentary created to grow awareness of this increasing health issue. However, the film, as well as posts regarding it, were deleted from the public eye. The Chinese government was trying to protect their image by not having society understand this issue, though it truly hurt China as a whole in the long run, considering this problem continued to worsen at the expense of human life. Meanwhile, President Xi announced that he was fully involved in cleaning this polluted air and expected all his people to be as well (Jolley, End the censorship). However, that idea of society helping out is unattainable considering how people arent even allowed to discuss it openly. This unnecessary censorship put not only China but also bordering nations at risk, considering how air doesnt remain within borders.

Another excellent example of censorship harming society revolves around global warming. It's well known in the media how burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon dioxide adds to the gradual worsening of the climate, though its barely known how arctic ice sheets containing tons of methane are melting extremely fast in some locations (Redmond, The Top 10 Stories The Mainstream Media Didnt Want You To Hear About In 2015). As methane enters the atmosphere as ice melts, it damages the environment much more than carbon dioxide would. American Journalist Dahr Jamail stated that a 2013 study, published in Nature, reported that a 50-giganton burp of methane is highly possible at any time, and that would be the equivalent of at least 1,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide...since 1850, humans have released a total of approximately 1,475 gigatons in carbon dioxide (Redmond, The Top 10 Stories The Mainstream Media Didnt Want You To Hear About In 2015). He also spoke about how a massive, sudden change in methane levels could, in turn, lead to temperature increases of four to six degrees Celsius in just one or two decades - a rapid rate of climate change to which human agriculture, and ecosystems more generally, could not readily adapt (Redmond, The Top 10 Stories The Mainstream Media Didnt Want You To Hear About In 2015). Since this isnt talked about in the news, the majority of society is unaware of how terrifying this situation is and that it is happening right now. The media believe that they are helping by keeping the people in the dark about this horrible issue, though it only leaves us without the knowledge to stop it.

Taking away books from the public is another form of censorship that is incredibly hurtful toward society. Judy Blume, an American writer, notes how tragic the idea is that there are some books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship. As always, young readers will be the real losers (Blume, Judy Blume Talks About Censorship) When books are taken away from society, this unexplainable connection we have to books is cut, as well as the possible knowledge that it could provide us.

There are multiple forms of censorship that are damaging to society and individual life. Whether it be a countrys government withholding critical health information, or swallowing your words when witnessing an act of bullying, censorship is detrimental toward people on both sides of the act. Overall, if you ever find yourself in a situation where you feel the need to censor your voice or opinion out of fear that you may harm others, remember that your censorship will only do more damage to both sides in the end.

Katie O'Brien

Tyler Lane

Middleton

Read the original:
Censorship, in all its forms, is damaging - Wicked Local Topsfield - Wicked Local Topsfield

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on Censorship, in all its forms, is damaging – Wicked Local Topsfield – Wicked Local Topsfield

Officials say it’s time for the Great Firewall of China to ease up on censorship – BetaNews

Posted: at 3:45 pm

The Great Firewall of China is famed for the restrictions it places on what Chinese citizens can access online. If a site provides access to news from the west, conflicts with state propaganda, or criticizes China or its ruling Communist party in any way, it is blocked. But some officials are now suggesting that it's time things changed.

The impetus is not a sudden softening of the political agenda, but a suggestion from the leading advisory body the Chinese Peoples Political Consultative Conference that censorship is damaging China's progress in terms of the economy and science.

Vice-chairman of the body, Luo Fuhe, has taken the unusual -- and potentially dangerous -- step of speaking out against the internet restrictions put in place by the Chinese government. With the government not only blocking access to key websites (including making it near-impossible to circumvent restrictions), but also actively monitoring what citizens are posting online and engaging in barely-concealed state propaganda, Luo says that researchers in China have a difficult time accessing the sites they need.

As reported by the Guardian, as well as censoring sites completely, the Great Firewall of China also makes using the internet prohibitively slow:

From within China, attempting to visit to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization or a lot of foreign university website is very slow. Opening each page takes at least 10-20 seconds and some foreign university sites need more than half an hour to open.

Although China has taken steps to block the use of VPNs that could be used to get around restrictions, Luo says: "Some researches rely on software to climb over the firewall to complete their own research tasks. This is not normal."

Proponents of free speech might laud Luo's stand against the government, but there are issues. Firstly has not proposed that anything other than scientific websites be allowed to make their way through the Great Firewall. Secondly, he is doing nothing to question what the Chinese government is doing controlling general internet usage so powerfully.

Image credit: BeeBright / Shutterstock

Read the original here:
Officials say it's time for the Great Firewall of China to ease up on censorship - BetaNews

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on Officials say it’s time for the Great Firewall of China to ease up on censorship – BetaNews

Eloi – Wikipedia

Posted: at 3:44 pm

The Eloi are one of the fictional two post-human races in H. G. Wells' 1895 novel The Time Machine.

By the year AD 802,701, humanity has evolved into two separate species: the Eloi and the Morlocks, whereof the Eloi live a banal life of ease on the surface of the earth, while the Morlocks live underground, tending machinery and providing food, clothing, and inventory for the Eloi. The narration suggests that the separation of species may have been the result of a widening split between different social classes. Having solved all problems that required strength, intelligence, or virtue, the Eloi have slowly become dissolute and naive: they are described as smaller than modern humans, with shoulder-length curly hair, pointed chins, large eyes, small ears, small mouths with bright red thin lips, and sub-human intelligence. They do not perform much work, except to feed, play, and mate; and when Weena falls into a river, none of the other Eloi helps her (she is rescued instead by the Time Traveler). Periodically, the Morlocks capture individual Eloi for food; and because this typically happens on moonless nights, the Eloi are terrified of darkness.

A portion of the book written for the New Review version, later published as a separate short story, reveals that a visit by the Time Traveller to the even more distant future results in his encountering rabbit-like hopping herbivores, apparently the descendants of the Eloi. They are described as being plantigrade, with longer hind legs and tailless, being covered with straight greyish hair that "thickened about the head into a Skye terrier's mane", having human-like hands (described as fore feet) and having a roundish head with a projecting forehead and forward-looking eyes that were obscured by lank hair.

In the 1960 film version of the book, the Eloi are depicted as identical to modern humans but small, blond, and blue-eyed. The Morlocks use an air raid siren to lure them into their caves. One of the Eloi is motivated to beat a Morlock to death when it attacks the Time Traveller.

In the 2002 movie adaptation of The Time Machine, the Eloi are depicted as identical to modern humans, with a hunter-gatherer lifestyle and appear to be an ethnic amalgamation of various indigenous races but maintain the English language as an intellectual exercise.

In Dan Simmons' Ilium novel, "Eloi" is a nickname for the lazy, uneducated, and uncultured descendants of the human race after the post-humans have left Earth. The name is a reference to Wells' Eloi.

Old-style humans and post-humans rule in Simmons' novel, with the Eloi being kept in "zoos" in restricted areas on Earth. The Eloi are technically adept but don't understand the technology; they regress and unlearn millennia of culture, thought and reason, until they are satisfied with the pleasure of merely existing.

https://eloi.co

More here:
Eloi - Wikipedia

Posted in Post Human | Comments Off on Eloi – Wikipedia

A pregnancy involves the lives of two human beings | Pittsburgh … – Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Posted: at 3:44 pm

Theresa Brown (Abortion and a Womans Centrality, Feb. 26 Forum) uses an ectopic pregnancy to justify any abortion after five months of pregnancy, as if this were a typical reason given for all abortions. It isnt. This would be the equivalent of expelling a thousand high schoolers when one student is caught smoking in the bathroom.

Moreover, she never gives any sources when she states that pro-lifers would want the mother to die to save the child. This is just a false talking point that pro-abortion advocates have been spewing for years in the attempt to paint pro-lifers as against women. In reality, pro-lifers believe in loving the woman and the child, saving the womans life when threatened. Moreover, that does include free prenatal care, expert medical care for both mother and child, and everything from diapers to day care from over 3,200 pregnancy resource centers in America, 22 right here in our area (1.800.712.HELP).

Yes, pregnancy is, in Ms. Browns own words, a mother-child dyad. Its a mother and a child. Only a rigid pro-abortion supporter would deny that two human beings are involved in a pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancies are rare and deserve medical treatment. Killing a preborn child should be just as rare.

E.A. SVIRBEL Whitehall

More:
A pregnancy involves the lives of two human beings | Pittsburgh ... - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Posted in Post Human | Comments Off on A pregnancy involves the lives of two human beings | Pittsburgh … – Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

When people clamored for the ultimate ‘cure-all’ human flesh – New York Post

Posted: at 3:44 pm

In Europe in the 17th century, epileptics drank human blood as a treatment. So popular was this practice, writes Bill Schutt in his new book that public executions routinely found epileptics standing close by, cup in hand, ready to quaff their share of the red stuff.

The topic of cannibalism is one of endless fascination. Just last month, the show Santa Clarita Diet, starring Drew Barrymore as a flesh-hungry American mom, premiered on Netflix. Meanwhile, Cannibal Cop Gilberto Valle returned to the news after admitting his upcoming memoir, Raw Deal, will reveal he still logs onto cannibal-fantasy websites.

But historically, Valles obsession isnt as unusual as you think. As zoologist Schutt writes, the phenomenon occurs in every class of vertebrates, from fish to mammals, as well as in many types of invertebrates. And animals are just like us: Cannibalism has pervaded the human species for centuries, especially (and surprisingly) as a medicinal cure-all.

More than 2,000 years of Chinese historical accounts contain detailed descriptions of the preparation and use of body parts as curatives, Schutt writes. By the end of the Ching Dynasty (1644-1912) ... Chinese medical treatments included the consumption of gall bladder, bones, hair, toes and fingernails, heart and liver.

But the Chinese were hardly alone. From kings to commoners, Europeans routinely consumed human blood, bones, skin, guts and body parts. They did it without guilt, though it often entailed a healthy dose of gore. They did it for hundreds of years.

Patients didnt just drink human blood directly from the source. They also consumed it as a powder or mixed into an elixir with other ingredients, Schutt writes. English physicians were still prescribing it as late as the mid-18th century.

Medical cannibalism became so popular that public executions rose dramatically in the 17th century, with body parts often cut from prisoners while they were still breathing. Over the centuries and throughout societies, sources of human food varied, from criminals to prisoners of war to ones own living relatives. Around the 1500s, Chinese soldiers would seize women and children off the street in order to cook and eat them. Other societies merely helped themselves to parts of their unburied dead.

One bizarre, misguided offshoot of the use of human tissue as medicine was the turn toward pulverized mummies, which were either consumed or applied topically, as an antidote to ailments including epilepsy, hemorrhaging and upset stomachs in 17th century Europe.

But mummy supply was limited, leading to a market for bootlegged mummies from Egypt that were often of such poor quality that they arrived with a rancid odor.

Over the centuries and throughout societies, sources of human food varied, from criminals to prisoners of war to ones own living relative

Today, the consumption of human tissue still happens with the eating of placenta, purportedly to ward off a new mothers postpartum depression and increase breast-milk production. A trend in mid-20th century Poland and 1960s and 70s America, the practice has made a comeback here of late with mothers, including actress Alicia Silverstone, eating their own placenta in the form of pills. (I got to the point that my husband said, Did you have your happy pills today? And I was really sad when they were gone. It really helped me, Silverstone has said.)

According to Schutt, who ate placenta for his research and found it firm but tender with a taste resembling that of organ meat, there are no proven benefits from the consumption of placenta and there may even be ill effects. Studies have shown that a placenta can retain some of the toxic substances and pathogens it had filtered, he writes.

Placenta tasting aside, its fair to say that the tradition of cannibalism as a cure-all has pretty much disappeared from 21st century human society. So what changed?

The rise of Enlightenment attitudes toward science author Richard Sugg says in Schutts book. Plus, he adds, theres one more obvious reason: Disgust.

Go here to see the original:
When people clamored for the ultimate 'cure-all' human flesh - New York Post

Posted in Post Human | Comments Off on When people clamored for the ultimate ‘cure-all’ human flesh – New York Post

How to be human: how to be comfortably aromantic – The Verge

Posted: at 3:44 pm

Leah Reich was one of the first internet advice columnists. Her column "Ask Leah" ran on IGN, where she gave advice to gamers for two and a half years. During the day, Leah is Slacks user researcher, but her views here do not represent her employer. How to be Human runs every other Sunday. You can write to her at askleah@theverge.com and read more How to be Human here.

Dear Leah,

I was never the best at writing a good beginning for an email, and this sentence only serves to demonstrate the need for asking this particular first question: What's the line between self-confidence and having pride in one's self and achievements, and hubris and arrogance? How can I talk grandly of myself (which seems to be the de facto way of demonstrating self-confidence) without feeling guilty? I especially feel guilty about betraying my own belief that my life and achievements are things I primarily do for me, not to brag about or share constantly with others.

My second question is: How do I get romantically invested or interested in others? I'm around that age where almost everybody is a self-proclaimed expert in relationships, and I fail to be interested in having a relationship (with either gender, and being in a county where queer relationships are legally punishable doesn't help with the whole experimentation part). I mean my crushes were far and between, but it's been so long that I've been romantically interested in someone that I'm starting to wonder if relationships for men (especially those who are seemingly aromantic as myself) are simply about exploiting the other party for leisure, company and "fun" (which sounds rather disappointing considering how grandly everyone seems to think of "love," not to mention quite demeaning and dehumanizing of women)?

Last but not least: How to build empathy? Whether it's in oneself or others, what makes people make the effort to care about others and strive to understand them?

PS: As you might have realized not all these questions have that "one" answer, and to be honest I'm not looking for a perfect answer, just a nudge in the right direction would help, and I really can't think of anyone better on the internet to do so than you.

Sagittaire.

Hey Sagittaire,

What a great letter! I love these questions, and as you probably know, I think about each one of them rather a lot on my own. But three questions are a lot for one column, especially three different questions like this. Heres what Im going to do.

First, Ill start with some news: My column is ending this month. The Verge has decided to bring it to a close, so the next column will be my last one. Ive been thinking about how Id like to end it, and I cant think of a better way than with your last question. Ill answer your first question then, too. This means you get two columns, Sag!

Lets talk about your second question. I dont know how old you are because honestly that age where almost everybody is a self proclaimed expert in relationships could be anywhere from 15 to 105 but Im going to assume youre in your very early 20s. Maybe in your late teens? Its hard to tell, but regardless of how old you are, and despite what you may think about your own knowledge level on the subject, you already have some good insights into human behavior around relationships. Its just a matter of interpreting those insights.

Ive written before about being single and the pressures to find a relationship, and Ive also written about the ways social norms have such an impact on how we feel and behave and on how we think we should feel and behave. A lot of the bluster you hear about relationships from those self-proclaimed experts is probably as much about that pressure and those norms as it is about any actual expertise. Just as youre trying to sort out how you feel, and whether you want a relationship at all with anyone, so too are some of those people trying to do the same thing.

Its uncomfortable to feel like the only one whos inexperienced. Its easier to act like you know everything

For some people, their posturing around relationships is a way to pretend like they want what everyone else does or a way to act like they have the same set of experiences. Its very rare for someone to sit down and be honest and vulnerable like youre doing here, especially with peers and especially when those peers are other young men. So anyone with limited experience which is most of the people you know when youre younger ends up assuming that everyone else knows more, has done more, understands more. And because its uncomfortable to feel like the only one whos inexperienced or nave, its easier to act like you know everything. Its also easier to act like you want same things as everyone else, like a big intense huge love affair or a lot of no-strings-attached flings.

But you know what, Sag? Not everyone wants the same stuff. Not all women want a massive fairytale wedding, and not all men want to punch each other in the locker room as they joke about how many chicks theyre banging. Human experience and desire is so much more varied than that. Social norms and the way we talk about who we are and what we want have all changed a lot in recent years, but we are still a long way from really undoing many of the expectations and rules that have guided our behaviors for a long time. You know this better than many you live in a place where you cant even experiment and better understand your own sexuality because you fear legal repercussions.

Desires and experiences ebb and flow over the course of our lives

This is my way of saying that you cant use everyone else as a way to measure what you should want or how you should feel. I know thats much easier said than done. I myself struggle every single day with this I use my perceptions of what other people are doing, their successes, and where they are in their lives as a way to judge myself and highlight my own failures and shortcomings. But thats a terrible way to live, partly because I have no idea if my interpretation of who or what they are is real. After all, maybe theyre putting on a brave front just like I am. More importantly, though, what they do and how they do it has absolutely nothing to do with how I live my own life and what I want or accomplish. Should I want children just because other people do? Should I feel bad that other people are married but Im not? Should I feel like a failure for not having achieved particular markers of success? Nope!

Just because other people want to be in relationships or at least act like they do doesnt mean you have to. Maybe youre not someone whos really geared toward romantic relationships. Maybe you dont have the same kinds of sexual desires, or maybe you dont have much (or any) sexual desire at all. Maybe you only very, very occasionally find yourself drawn to someone in a romantic or sexual way. Maybe youre not ready. Maybe you havent met anyone who excites you. Maybe casual flings dont appeal to you. Maybe youre gay. Maybe casual flings would appeal to you if they were with men, and not women.

Desires and experiences ebb and flow over the course of our lives. This is another thing we dont talk a lot about. Lots of people go through periods during which they dont have any interest in sex or romance (or both). Sometimes they want to focus on work or on friendships or on themselves, or sometimes they just dont... feel anything? Bodies and brains shift and change, and we all find ourselves faced with new experiences and possibilities from time to time that make us question whatever it was we thought we wanted or desired.

Its absolutely possible to have fun (not just fun) and enjoy someones company (or have sex with them, or both) without having a serious relationship. Its not for everyone, though. Plenty of people of all genders and sexual orientations dont enjoy casual sex, or sex with someone theyre not emotionally invested in.

Just because other people want to be in relationships or at least act like they do doesnt mean you have to

You are right that a lot of what you hear about this topic is dehumanizing and demeaning toward women. (This is a longer, separate conversation, but its one I hope you do make space for and a topic you learn about.) But I dont think that all men only want relationships that demean women. The many social, cultural, and religious expectations and pressures around masculinity, femininity, marriage, and more make it very hard for people to talk about how they really feel and to pursue what they want. Its very difficult for women. But its also difficult for men! Men are told things like its not manly to talk about your feelings or to say you dont like casual hookups and instead long for an epic romance. Or things like good women dont love sex, so you can treat the ones who do badly. We all hear things like this. Theres a lot we need to rewire in ourselves and in our cultural norms. So I commend you for writing this letter, because I think if more people not just guys but all of us! could be more open like you are here, wed be a lot better off.

My advice to you is this: Dont force yourself to get interested or invested in romantic relationships. Try very hard to not compare yourself to everyone else or to measure yourself by what theyre doing. They might not even be doing what they say they are, or they might not want to be doing it. Instead, keep doing things that interest you and pursuing the types of relationships that fulfill you friends, community, volunteer work, spiritual practice, and so on. Thats going to make you feel much happier and more confident in who you are, and I think that will better allow you to understand yourself and what it is you want. Who knows, maybe along the way youll meet someone and find yourself with a new crush, one you want to pursue. Or maybe youll find that you simply are in fact aromantic or asexual. Any of this is okay. Its more than okay! Its who you are.

Ill see you back here next week for one last column.

Lx

Read the original here:
How to be human: how to be comfortably aromantic - The Verge

Posted in Post Human | Comments Off on How to be human: how to be comfortably aromantic – The Verge