FB is just killing the Anti-Conservative Meme's. Here's why.

 

 

Forward

I don't know why Religion is getting so involved in National, Provincial, Municipal and hell, even School Boards' makeup.

Lets let the Canadian Constitution guide our daily living.  Let the Canadian Supreme Court decide major issues. Let local Courts decide local issues (if legal "advice" is required, that is).  But until then, simply letting good business practices, good neighbourhood management and social connectivity help elevate Urban and Suburban area living conditions.

Lets let modern Ethics, Morals, and for the working folks, a good sense of Ethos, to guide  beliefs that are more in tune with one's Community, Nation and Ideology.  It is the balance between Caution and Passion.

There is so much more in the simple word "Ethos" than one may realize, and more and more, big business and even Military's are starting to insert Ethos" into their workplace management systems.  For good reason - it expounds upon Ethics and Morals, giving direction to make good decisions, and to live a comfortable socially healthy lifestyle, whatever kind it may be.

And that is why so many Liberals have issues with Conservative More's - because they are so restrictive, and come from what many believe is a work of fiction. 

Remember a famous Science Fiction Author who wrote a diatribe as a form of Therapy?

If not, then try reading L. Ron Hubbards, "revolutionary" thought experiment called Dianetics - which then evolved into today's Scientology , but it was originally thought by the Author to be more of a form of "Therapy".

Riiiiiight.  Any I play drums at 63 to ease the Tinnitus in my ears.

Discussion:

Look at what is happening in the Canadian Politics and News, and also on FaceBook, and suddenly I see a marked "agenda" to both sides - but which one is more advantageous to the average Canadian Citizen?

 I think a melange of both, a more "Centrist" view is the best, taking the strongest, self-supporting, factual, and most adopted agendas that strengthens Canada's commitment to itself, it's Citizens and it's women and children. 

Some folks may need to swallow some pride, but that is part of growing up and learning how to get along with others.  Unlike Communism, where back-stabbing everyone you know is looked upon fondly.

 

At top are two contrary images, the first being the "initial" post image that got the discussion thread running.  The second image is one I found further down in the discussion feed, that I believe was posted by someone who was just disgusted with the whole thing, threw that graphic on the Feed, and then went to bed. 

Good for them!  I wish I could do that.  But alas, I cannot.

 

So, here are two verbatim posts at opposition to each other, and I want to discuss each.
First one.

 

"Let's reframe this. All conservatives want is:

-People to look at data

-loyalty TO truth

-enough wealth to share liberally

-the ability to practice any religion freely without criticism.

-all people with voices, including the unborn.

-freedom with consequences

-knowledge and for a knowledgeable society.

- no pride, just hard work.

-self honour for the hard work we have done.

-order AND justice, including for the unborn and our children.

-no praise, again just hard work.

-power over our own lives."

 "All the liberals want is:

Communism

Including feelings in biology.

Created a false equality.

Brainwashing other people's children.

Avoiding the consequences of their action.

False freedom of speech.

False freedom.

Selective tolerance and respect."

So, let's look at some of the Conservatives most desirable "Traits" as listed above. Not all - just the interesting ones. I think you will get the drift.

"Justice including for the unborn and our children."

Hmmm, sounds like you are re-inventing the wheel - but want to put your own "spin" upon it.
This is a Biggie, as the Western World tries to grasp fundamental religions and their poorly informed masses.

You must recognize that there are plenty enough laws protecting children and fetus' Rights. IMHO, I think what has their collective noses out of joint is the abortion issue - and frankly, it is None. Of. Their. Business.
Period.

The Unborn do not require "voices". They already have the protection of Federal, Provincial and Municipal agencies, with an immense set of rules and scenario's that they already react to - at times, vigorously, and at others, at arms length. Additionally, and more importantly, they already have the "voice" of their mothers. Their Incubators, Their Life Support Systems.

Additionally, the "Unborn" are not Children - they are "pre-children", aka "a Fetus"

 
No different than a pond-worm that becomes a mosquito; a Caterpillar becoming a Butterfly.
One is simply not like the other.
Would you drive your car without a brake system? 
Cooling system?
Wheels?

Any of these prevent the car from being "alive", (or driveable), as would any incomplete growth of a fetus' organs or additional unnecessary growths and tumors that impact it's ability to live a viable life - if even for a few days outside of the womb.

So, should a man be able to tell a woman to keep an "nonviable" fetus in their bodies until birth?  Only some Dick-Head Power-hungry, misogynists would do that.  And there are a lot of them, apparently. Mostly in the Right-wing political area.

So do we then allow some legal-knob to decide if the baby can be put into a home with appropriate medical emergency life-support equipment?

Or the parents can be forced to spend atrocious amounts of money to support their critically ill child.  Before it has even finished achieving consciousness. And if it dies, as a doctor would be quick to point out was an obvious end for the child, will the parents then face legal issues that may further erode their lifestyle.  Perhaps a stint in the joint?  For not producing a viable fetus?

Oh dear! Now we've done it!

So, off onto a tangent from discussing the main points because I have a feeling that many do not really understand the "scientific" birthing process and how it related to a fetus becoming a baby child.

When DOES a Baby achieve Consciousness?  Well, simply put...

"Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation."

"Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration."

"Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. By this time, preterm infants can survive outside the womb under proper medical care. And as it is so much easier to observe and interact with a preterm baby than with a fetus of the same gestational age in the womb, the fetus is often considered to be like a preterm baby, like an unborn newborn."

"But this notion disregards the unique uterine environment: suspended in a warm and dark cave, connected to the placenta that pumps blood, nutrients and hormones into its growing body and brain, the fetus is asleep."

So, the fetus (baby is also safe to say, apparently), floats in it's mothers amniotic fluid, sleeping in one of two sleep-states - static dreaming, which is basically like an adult's dreamless sleep. The other is a sort of REM sleep, which usually indicate dreaming as well, but scientists and doctors ask "what would it dream of?", so basically a dreamless sleep as there is no reference for the mind to "dream" of.

After birth, dream content is informed by recent and more remote memories; the older the child/person is, the more detailed, and possibly coloured, the dreams capacity to imagine things visually and to visuospatial skills. (Eye-hand, muscle memory, etc)

"The dramatic events attending delivery by natural (vaginal) means cause the brain to abruptly wake up, however. The fetus is forced from its paradisic existence in the protected, aqueous and warm womb into a hostile, aerial and cold world that assaults its senses with utterly foreign sounds, smells and sights, a highly stressful event."

Well, I think we have a pretty reasonable, well thought out, strong and wildly popular agreement with Dr Lagercrantz,  seems to put the entire question to rest.

The Pain of Birth is described by Dr Lagercrantz as: "...a massive surge of norepinephrine - more powerful than during any skydive or exposed climb the fetus may undertake in it's adult life - as well as the release from anesthesia dn sedation that occurs when the fetus disconnects from the maternal placenta, arouses the baby so that it can deal with it's new circumstances."

"It draws its first breath, wakes up and begins to experience life"

What an amazing, and simple description of the beginning of "life" of a child.

So we all understand, Consciousness happens biologically, when the fetus/baby is born, becoming a living, mostly conscious, but hardly cognizant, child, still unable to focus it's eyes, control it's hands and legs, and even it's face.

Continual exposure to parent's faces, their emotions, facial movements, practice moving hands and legs that take years to master.  But this is a living child starting out on it's life in the new world as an individual, and not a part of another person. It's brain, like a new Hard Drive in a computer, starts taking in data, experiences, tastes, touches, feelings, visions and much more. Until that point, it was simply in a "storage" mode, with nothing happening, really.

Until it was born, it was not a living child, but an organism totally dependent upon it's mothers body to provide food, shelter and protection - not too unlike a tumor, right?  And a very not-particularly-bright tumor, as there is literally no information, no thoughts, no feelings and no consciousness or cognizance happening within the fetus' brain - not until the pain of birth cranks up the 'ol noggin to start taking in the "living experience", so as to grow, mature and eventually become an adult.

To call the fetus a "living child"  by a legal definition even when a fetus is still "part" of a mother's body, not unlike an organ such as a liver, kidney, spleen or whatever, is simply trying to legislate the colour of air. It cannot be done. Because....science.

An argument could then be stated that the mother could not hold a drivers license, drink alcohol or have sexual intercourse, because she is part "child" and not old enough to take part in that ordinary lifestyle, so neither can she. 

Of course, one could counter-argue that the "baby" is a separate individual, not yet subsumed under applicable laws, and is separate from the Mother, legally, without any connection to what the Mother is allowed, or not allowed to legally do.

Talk about word-salad, eh?

But they then will legislate the "child" as a separate entity from the mother when in actuality, factually, physically and biologically, the baby is not an entity, but a living mass of flesh, again, not unlike a tumor. 

Anti-abortion laws are currently crafted to support and insinuate that a blob of flesh, without thought, without working organs, inability to feed, clothe or even protect itself, as a "human child" with all the rights and laws applied to it. 

But if one were to  change the name of the subject from Child to a Fetus, or at a stretch, a baby, aggressively shows how such a definition is patently ridiculous in the face of facts supported by all relevant scientific disciplines.

Politics is not science.  It is mostly a "Art", under continual improvement as age and wisdom increases one's power to litigate or craft a law to control the masses.  It has no control over Science, because Science stands on it's own against deniers and ill informed. Such as Politicians.

My suggestion?
Stay out of Women's Reproductive Rights, and they will stay away from Mandatory "snips" for men when they hit Puberty. Ohhh, perhaps add Circumcision" to the mandatory snips too! After all, it is more hygienic.
Agreed?

Look truth to Data?
WTF does that mean? Data is just facts, whether or not it is made up or verified by scientific means. And that still does not make it a "truth" - Scientific Facts are constantly amended or upgraded as more information is discovered about these "Facts" - so trying to put a label of "Truth" upon facts is just another way to distract folks from the "real" facts and the "facts" those folks put together hap-haphazardly, often poor "somewhat truthful?" fact sources, because it fits your agenda.

Freedom with Consequences.
Sounds like a Military Meme. "You are free to do what you want, but no one may leave their sleeping bag for the next 24 hours, or you will face a court-martial!".

After 23 years serving in this country's Army, I absolutely disagree with this. Consequences makes it sound like every little error, every little dalliance, little over-speed in one's car, every little driving error, every little child-raising error, every little tax payment error, every little burnt out light bulb, banking error or any other big Corp. error will result in legal "consequences".

People are not soldiers, that is -> to be faithful, intelligent, skilled, honest, hard working, team orientated and fit all at the same time, all the time. Not everyone is built to do that 24/7, and trying to enforce this will result in autocratic-style police forces.

Some people just want to Paint. Or dance. Or carve pocket knife handles. Or play the Piano (insert ANY musical instrument including Drums, because, well, I play both). Or play online games.

Who are you/we to tell them what, when and how to work, to produce an income.

What does that sound like to you, eh? Just list any Communist, Autocratic or pure Socialist country and they will easily slide into this definition.

Practice any Religion without consequences?
You mean ANY? Or ANY religion that is a Christian Religion, and all the other ones can go pay taxes, as far as Fundamental and Far Right Christian's are concerned. This I gotta see...

No Pride - just hard work?
Again, WTF? Being Proud of one's work product is actually blessed in the Christian Bible. Being rude and in one's face about it is a Dick Move. Like some Christian telling you that you need to "take our God into your Heart".
Stuff it.
For those of you who happen to have memorized The Bible, may I suggest the following passage for you about "Pride" and what it means.

Galatians 6:4 suggests that taking pride in one's own accomplishments can be healthy and fulfilling.

But also remember that in the Bible, ultimately the concept of pride teaches us to approach our achievements with humility and gratitude towards God. We are reminded that genuine fulfillment is found in aligning ourselves with God's will rather than elevating ourselves above Him - a lesson continually pushed through Scripture.

So, Pride is fine, as long as you are a devout Christian. That's basically what it says. Any other form of pride is patently in opposition with the Bible's teachings. In all other Prideful references, they refer to "too much pride". So how much is too much?
What is allowed?

Is it when only a Christian man can proud of their work?
 
Pride is what keep high-quality work being produced by every working blue-collar - and yes, some white-collar - workers. They know that they are good at what they do, perhaps even World Class Quality of workmanship. If Businesses did not acknowledge the abilities of their workers, how long do you think they will stay "unrecognized" at that particular company. Justifiable Pride is what ensures countries make world class products - from the floor worker right up to the CEO. Pride is what makes Capitalism go round, in case you forgot what the Western World uses as it's Economic Engine.

Without Pride in Work, all you have left is "serfdom", where workers show up at their job, put in a mediocre effort to take home a probably mediocre paycheque, with all the money and profits being funneled to the reigning government.

When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?