Comments by "Scott Charney" (@scottcharney1091) on "FRONTLINE PBS | Official" channel.

Brennan Dawson died in 2013, at 51, of what seems to be smoking-related illness. She left behind her husband (who died of hypertension shortly after that), and three college-age kids. She didn't deny that smoking was harmful, and in fact she said when interviewing for her job with the Tobacco Institute that she didn't want to promote smoking per se, but she did a lot of obfuscation for a living. It's a sad story.
16
@Biology Discussions Exactly. I haven't watched much of this yet, but I was hoping to see somebody mention phage therapy.
6
There's no harm in not being born.
3
That, along with phage therapy. It may save the day, filling in for antibiotics.
2
No; abortion doesn't involve babies.
2
@belmum1689 Human zygotes/embryos/fetuses are human, and strictly biologically speaking, they're alive. They lack all of the characteristics that make killing wrong. There's no sentience, no will to live, no hopes/dreams, no preferences, no consciousness, and all the other things that are taken away from someone when they're killed. Plus, zygotes/embryos/fetuses are in a quasi-parasitic relationship with a host organism. There's no harm in not being born; abortion is quite different from murdering someone.
2
And phage therapy!
2
geezusispan There's that, plus, subsidized LARCs (Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptives, i.e. IUDs and implants) collapse the abortion rate. That's what the "One Key Question" approach is all about. Whenever a woman gives birth, has an abortion, etc., the medical staff ask if she wants to get pregnant in the next year. If not, they ask what contraception she's using, and then guide her to the best methods. Religious conservatives are hostile to this (see what they're doing to Title X!) because they have hang-ups about sex.
2
Unfortunately, it can be very difficult to get sterilized, as so many doctors are paternalistic and condescending: "You're too young/you don't have any/enough children/what if you meet a billionaire who wants kids/what if one of your kids dies and you want another..." blah blah blah.
2
@Wesley Heartland disseminating
2
It means a lot.
2
That "reversal" stuff is dodgy.
2
They haven't sprung off.
2
Embryo, sometimes fetus. They aren't babies.
2
It can. Look up "Delirium Tremens."
2
@sheridansplace1607 Should *have
1
*you're
1
@belmum1689 The process eventually leading to childbirth. Zygotes become embryos, which then become fetuses. Only after pregnancy are babies involved.
1
Nonsense.
1
@belmum1689 Sure; that's why the issue is personhood, not life nor humanity as such.
1
@belmum1689 No, babies have that in a rudimentary way; plus, they aren't inextricably tied to a host organism.
1
@belmum1689 It's not the sole characteristic, but it's a prerequisite.
1
@belmum1689 It's not arbitrary, and you're conflating "human being" with "person." Also, all of the situations you mention are case-by-case.
1
@belmum1689 Persons have legal standing, relating to the characteristics I mentioned regarding what makes killing wrong.
1
@belmum1689 Persons possess the characteristics that make killing wrong. Nobody minds not being born.
1
@belmum1689 Embryos and fetuses can't think. That's the point. People of all races and sexes have personhood. Fertilized eggs don't.
1
@belmum1689 No, like I said, there's more to it than that.
1
A need, rather.
1
I'm not sure whom you mean by experts, but in any event, Brennan Dawson died in 2013, at 51, of what looks like smoking-related illness. She left her husband (who died not long after, due to hypertension) and three college-aged kids behind. She never claimed that smoking wasn't harmful, and indeed she said that she didn't want to promote smoking per se. It's a sad story.
1
Embryos aren't kids.
1
@loke5713 What on Earth... Political scientists and historians are practically unanimous that Nazism, a form of fascism, is on the very far right. That's not a point of controversy.
1
@loke5713 No, anarchists are leftist (and I should know). The political spectrum (x axis, left/right) is not based on "big government" or collectivism or anything like that, although the y axis (up and down) on the political compass does measure that. The terms come from the era after the French Revolution, when monarchists sat on the right side of the Assembly, with the more hardcore elements on the far right, while anti-monarchists (called Republicans) sat on the left. This is also when the term "libertarian" emerged, referring to a left-wing movement that opposed hierarchies in general. This continued into Karl Marx's day. At the First Workingmen's International, a rift emerged between the various tendencies (like those of Marx, Engels, etc.) who favored a Communist party and a "dictatorship of the proletariat" before eventually the state would supposedly wither away, and the tendencies that saw such a regime as just as bad as what they all opposed. This latter group, the Libertarian Socialists, included a lot of different tendencies who hated kings/queens/capitalists just as much as the State Socialists did, but didn't want to replace all of that with another authoritarian regime like the type they wanted to topple. The anarchists were the most hardcore, and they got kicked out first, creating a rift that has never healed. Again, I should know. The Left is the party of movement, the Right is the party of order (e.g. preserving existing hierarchies). In fact, the far-right includes those (reactionaries) who wish to restore old hierarchies in society, the "good old days" or "golden age" that they think has been lost. They want to "take their country back" and make it great again, if you know what I mean. Monarchists, fascists, theocrats (there is overlap sometimes) can all fall into this category. Again, this is not in dispute by serious scholars. There have been some fringe characters over the years who have suggested otherwise, but they are not taken seriously and are frankly considered to be cranks. Hell, look at how political activists describe themselves! Fascists and monarchists don't call themselves leftists (indeed they are mortal enemies), while anarchists do (some see anarchism as entirely separate, but that's another discussion).
1
@loke5713 You don't know what you're talking about. The things that I'm mentioning have been true for centuries, and scholars are not engaged in some conspiracy to redefine words. Neither are the people who fall on those different points on the spectrum. Ask the fascists if they're on the left! Every reliable source says this, and otherwise you're just making up definitions of words. Yes, making one's country great again often refers to that sort of thing, among others! The Nazis and their allies said themselves that they were going to crush the left in all of its forms (lumping even moderate liberals and social democrats in with the communists; does that sound familiar?). The fascists have always found most of their coalition partners on the right (historical & present fact), since after all they're happy to see someone crush the labor movement, feminists, etc. As for who is worse, I really don't know, speaking of per capita death toll, since after all there have been many more fascist regimes/movements besides the Axis powers! Consider Rios Montt and all of the other Guatemalan Hitlers the U.S. has supported. I don't know if it really matters. The point is, words have meanings. "Left" and "Right" have nothing to do with big/small government, and never have, from Day 1. Monarchists are the original Right, and there is nothing "small government" about them. That's true for right-of-center parties across the planet (yes, including the GOP), even if they have some rogue right-libertarian members. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
1
@loke5713 The principles are still valid. They haven't changed much. Incidentally, the Bolsheviks were not the leftmost element in Russia at that time; Lenin famously wrote a book called "Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder." His feelings towards anarchists were even harsher! For all of the reasons that I mentioned, fascism is one branch of the right. Others on the right have indeed opposed fascists, but not usually early enough. See the July Plot to kill Hitler (Operation/Plan Valkyrie), the many conservative, even monarchist groups among the resistance fighters in Europe and Asia (and Africa as well; Haile Selassie was a monarch!). Leftists, including the flavors who have a history of being killed by Marxist-Leninists, don't deny that MLs are also leftist. Fascists themselves call themselves rightists. The revisionism is ahistorical, and it doesn't describe the present very well either.
1
@0Latitude Embryos/fetuses aren't children. There's no harm in not being born.
1
@0Latitude It's not a lie, and I'm not murdering anybody.
1
@0Latitude I'll keep telling the world.
1
@0Latitude No, that embryos and fetuses aren't children, and that abortion is not murder.
1
@0Latitude That's your opinion, and it's a ridiculous one.
1
@0Latitude Sure, it's widely shared, but that's beside the point. It is a bit ridiculous when you really think about it- would you run into a burning building for a case of frozen embryos?
1
@0Latitude Indeed, that's not ridiculous. Would you do it for frozen embryos?
1
@0Latitude It's a question about actual value. You'd run in for a child, but what about a great many frozen embryos? Are they equivalent to children or not?
1
@0Latitude Not much. The question is about the frozen embryos. Also, I never referred to life or the absence thereof. Sure, embryos are alive. The deciding factor is personhood.
1
@0Latitude On the contrary, it seems that you lack both compassion and comprehension, and it's everyone's loss.
1
@0Latitude You lack compassion for people who need abortion care, and you lack comprehension of the issue at hand.
1
@0Latitude If someone is pregnant & does not wish to be, they may decide that they would like abortion care. You lack comprehension that the issue at hand is one of personhood, not life per se.
1
She died in 2013, at 51, of what seems to be smoking-related illness. She left behind her husband (who died of hypertension shortly after that), and three college-age kids. She didn't deny that smoking was harmful, and in fact she said when interviewing for her job with the Tobacco Institute that she didn't want to promote smoking per se, but she did a lot of obfuscation for a living. It's a sad story.
1