J.C.MacSwell

In fairness to both sides though, that would require each side to take difficult and thoughtful moderate positions toward stacking congress, rather than relying on much easier hyperbole hoped to lead to opportunities to stack the SC and let them do the heavy lifting toward permanent progress. I kid of course...everyone keep their shirt on...😄 Back to serious mode...not sure I fully understand that but thanks. I'll have to look into that.

Do you feel the constitution would need to be ignored to overturn Roe vs Wade?

Thanks for both. If we want to protect the good parts of our way of life, and make progress on the rest, the last thing we need are white nationalists.

Not challenging the point you are making, but what backlash remains against the abolition of slavery? Also what is the FoD? (Googling it I got nothing that made sense to the context)

As per my link earlier the SCOTUS at least considers pain when ruling on executions, and I would think would again on any gaps left by any overturning of Roe vs Wade, or it's replacements in Law if congress ever produces anything. But I would suspect essence more so, whether possible or not to measure it even indirectly, or by reasonable assumptions in comparison of fetal development vs baby out of womb.

I would suspect that viability might be pretty close to the point where a majority of Americans would consider the fetus to have a right to life, as long as it did not significantly threaten the life of the mother. I'm not sure what religions would advocate based on that, assuming it matters beyond their influence on votes. I did bring up pain. Pain and loss of essence (with the reasoning that both affected fetuses further from the point of conception). Pain considerations seemed to be questioned more than essence, maybe as it is considered more tangible? Is the Law just about the other?

I certainly agree with that.

You're right of course Dim. It's certainly a lot easier if I don't, or refuse to, empathise with what I eat. But I do hope and like to assume it has been treated as "humanely" as practical.

To the degree we can reasonably expect a fetus has developed enough to feel pain, and to what degree, I think that would be one criterion in weighing the rights we might choose to allow it. If we still choose to abort it, surely that should still be considered as to how it is done.

So for context, what are you getting at? Can you empathize with a 9 month post conception fetus or just one that passes from the womb? Or neither? I can agree or disagree with the remainder of this: Depending on that and more context. I'm also unsure of what stricter controls need to be put in place and what their scientific basis might be, but... not directing at you in particular... .... I'm pretty sure assuming ill will of everyone with contrary opinions, even if those include many with poor motives, politically driven, or religiously driven...won't lead to answers. From MigL's link: "Alito writes that by raising the point he isn’t casting aspersions on anyone. “For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” he writes." The SCOTUS at least believe it deserves consideration for those being put to death: https://www.npr.org/2019/04/01/708729884/supreme-court-rules-against-death-row-inmate-who-appealed-execution

Are you aware of any for (insert minority of your choice here)? Yet I'm sure you believe they share your sense of what pain is. Do you not suspect late term fetuses would as well? (and that very early after conception they would not?)

I don't think we need much of a metaphysical argument to support scientifically that those 10,000+ abortions every year in North America are more likely to cause pain, and loss essence, to the fetuses than that of the 10,000 done earliest in pregnancy. Does it not make sense to have stricter controls as the fetus progresses in development?

This is an emotional issue. it comes right down to it, we're probably just another species on just another planet, but it doesn't take much of what drives religious conviction to have some degree of faith that we are more than that, at least to ourselves as a human species. We frown upon those who don't, or can't somehow bring themselves, to share that view and include all of mankind in it, the type of special we don't hold for other species. When does that "special" start in an individual? Is there a scientific answer? Surely science and logic can at least help with this emotional issue. What is the special "human" value of a fetus? Surely it can't depend only on the emotional attachment of those closest in relationship to it. Is every sperm sacred in terms of human value? Surely not. At least not special. Every egg? How about when the two are combined? Is it "special" at that point; conception? Special enough to override the rights of the mother at that point? But at some point "special" starts with full force, or starts and presumably grows from some point. Can anyone make a good argument that it starts at birth? Is a premature baby born 7 months after conception more "human" than a 9 months past conception fetus? Does it make one more human than the other depending on which one is wanted more? Which one has parents better equipped to nurture it, more rich or more poor? Which one's mother's doctor holds what views of life? Or are women's rights simply so important that they override any rights of a very human fetus, right up to that point?

Don't we all...

If you guys think you can bring up who's the most modest around here without mentioning me I humbly ask you to think again.

Okay thanks. That's not enough to convince me you are right, but enough for me to apologize for a couple of the comments to the degree they were personal. I apologize for that. I googled a couple of lines from that second abstract, and got only slightly more to look at. It's very recent and claims to be the first study of it's kind with actual testing of male vs female jockeys in a scientific manner. I would question the makeup of the 103 rider group of 66 male and 37 female riders, the design of the testing/experiments and how the data is reflected in the conclusions. Just 43 of them were past or present licensed professional jockeys with no indication of further breakdown, and makes no mention of the weights of the riders, or ages of the riders, fitness levels of the riders, though of course that could be included behind the paywall. Where much of the testing included various speeds, often at below racing speed, and effects on the horses physiology, it seems more like baseline testing to form a hypothesis than reach a conclusion. Is this one recent study, that claims to be the first of it's kind, the basis of your claim? Am I being overly skeptical?

I just clicked the links now. I did not see them when you first posted, did you add them afterward? The first, for me at least, contains only the title and abstract. No paper or data. The second not even a title available. So I can't comment on any data. I highly suspect something is lacking and quite possibly agenda driven, but despite that I can keep an open mind. Can you provide the papers and data? From the abstract I could read: Among other findings, the results indicated that the probability for female jockeys finishing a race in the money was not significantly different from male jockeys, ceteris paribus, yet female jockeys continue to receive fewer mounts after controlling for other relevant, observable factors. So how did they control ceteris paribus, all things otherwise equal? What assumptions were made? It seems to indicate no experiments were done, and the data massaged and analyzed. Again, what assumptions were they using? If everything was done reasonably well, in terms of scientific method they seem to have enough to support a hypotheses...not a conclusion. But no paper, and no data to ascertain that.

+1. Kind of harshly stated...but unfortunately accurate.

@CY Maybe, since you obviously won't cite anything suggesting the physical requirements of a jockey aren't demanding, you can brief us on how you might use scientific method to prove that power to weight ratio of a jockey is an insignificant or minor concern? Or perhaps you don't think it needs to be considered because you believe, or would like to believe, there is no difference between men and women in that regard? Or hasn't been proven? Biological women may not be all equal, but they deserve their own categories in sports, especially at elite levels. There is nothing progressive about depriving them of that. Remember the US women's soccer team demanding equal pay? They wouldn't be making a dime if the only category was "open". While there had been some requirement for trans women at elite levels to reduce testosterone to levels in the female range, this is not true at all for high school athletes (nor should it be) and even at elite levels the minimum targets are well above. There has been an attempt to strike a balance been fairness for competition and the health of trans athletes.

How can you make such a biased claim, not back it up, and then claim you depend on scientific method? Nice... If anyone doesn't assume a gender bias and instead see an obvious physical requirement they must be racist as well... Obviously I won't ask for a link or "references" for such crap.

All I can say in your defence is that I haven't noted any change... Let's give CY a chance to produce his analyses before jumping to any conclusions about how they will be perceived.

It would be exactly the same as the difference between the power to weight ratio of the 115lb man and the 115lb woman...but for some reason divided by 1000lbhorse. While your post may show some incite as to the importance of the power of the horse over that of the jockey, I don't think there is much of an effect to be considered when choosing a jockey for any given horse. I suppose there are relatively more females than males at 108lb than 118lb...and heavier horses can tend to allow for heavier jockeys, and lighter horses less so. But that 108-118lb still needs movement to the stride of the horse. At the top level there are more men with the power to do it than there are women, and that's likely not due to bias. It's due to biology, IMO (but we'll wait for CY's systemic analyses)

Although men are on average heavier they have a power to weight ratio advantage. There may be more lighter females than males; but it still requires exceptionally skilled females to overcome the power to weight required as a jockey at top level. Do you have a link? Any analysis ignoring the advantage of males power to weight ratio are obviously flawed from the start, and any that conclude that it should be made up for at top level due to more women being in the ideal size range are rather suspect. Like your ultamarathon example from months back, you seem to think the size advantage should hold at top level. It doesn't work that way.

It sounds like you are suggesting that the hiring search was in fact limited to black women, and did not just come down to that, as Swansont seems to suggest, at the point of the pre-announcement. (maybe Swansont can correct me if that's incorrect. I do know he also felt it was an announcement of a campaign promise intended to be kept, but IMO that just shifts the blame for him unnecessarily racializing it to an earlier date). I would like to think that being of an unrepresented or underrepresented minority should be considered a significant attribute in the process, enough to make choosing yet another white male unlikely. I don't see the need for full honesty beyond that to be frank. If in fact Biden knew of better candidates in his mind it would be rude beyond my objections here for him to have pointed that out, IMO. And if Biden had acted as both MigL and I have suggested and just nominated KJB as the best candidate, any objections left based on race would have stood out as pretty unacceptable. I don't know why there is not more agreement here in that regard. Remember that while 74% of Americans polled disagreed that it should be limited to black women, despite that a majority liked the choice.

Easier choice to make with the equivalent of a gun held to your head than, say, having to rely on the burden of having free will.