It depends. If it's an interesting problem I have to work on, but I can't right away, I think about it as I'm going about my day. Driving, cooking dinner, rotting in a meeting. Then by the time I get to finally do it, it's close to a fully-formed solution.
If it's a problem that I have to address right now, it's more like prototyping the first idea that comes to mind and then debugging and refining and being more critical.
I would imagine it happens a lot more than hospital visits would let on. Being nudged into the curb - or getting spooked by a too-close car and hitting it yourself - would likely result in just scrapes and bruises, especially if you're wearing a helmet. But it's terrifying.
I'm no interior designer, but I think it's fun to let decor mutate slowly instead of "redoing the living room". If I see a chair I like, what do I need to change for it to fit in with what I have? I don't know if it's cheaper in the long run, but it does keep things more interesting imo.
Actually a great behavioral line of questioning - how clearly the the candidate can explain what happened, how they describe whatever part they played or mistakes they made...
Agreed with the other user - if you can get livecast + tipping going that'll be your hook. Hosts will then have a specific reason to plug your platform. Best of luck, very promising!
I don't doubt you, since you saw this first-hand and didn't hear it from your friend's cousin's dog. But what purpose could a sign like that serve for tellers?
It wasnt for the tellers, it was literally for the banking customers.
It was the statement of revenue the credit union had - the overdraft section was a single line on the document... I am uncertain as to why they posted it, aside from a "transperency" for the credit union members...
I understand you have strong feelings about whether you wanted an abortion, and that's totally understandable and I'm glad you are happy with the choice you made. But that's not at odds whatsoever with referring to yourself as "pro-choice". (Most folks that get abortions already have kids, so it's not like everyone has to pick "abortion" or "no abortion" for life.) I had an abortion back in the aughts, and never once regretted it, but that doesn't mean I think it was the right choice for you or anyone else that decided to continue their pregnancy. I'm glad we had the choice.
I believe the society ought to be involved in the decision to intentionally kill a person, whether we are talking about capital punishment, euthanasia, homicide, or abortion. This is the social contract we live on: the state takes the role of defending the defenseless.
Note that I am not saying that abortion should be illegal or unavailable. We still put serial killers to death, pull the plug with advance directives, allow for self defense, and we ought too allow abortions when the fetus hasn’t cross the threshold into being a human being (which is when?!?) or in carved out exemptions like rape, incest, life of the mother, etc. As far as I’m aware this is a rather centrist position.
The point of my story of my lived experience is that it made me realize the mainstream “pro-life” position is not trying to attack the autonomy of the woman (which is a straw man caricature of their view) but to be the defender of the baby, of which they feel needs but is lacking equal protection under the law.
That didn’t make me pro-life, and I don’t think I said I was. I said it is complicated and nuanced, and I can see the arguments made in good faith on both sides. It is easy to attack a straw man. It is much harder to reconcile with the steel-manned belief of the other side and not walk away without some certainty shaken. I still feel women deserve to have a right to an abortion when needed, but it is also not an unconditional right: society is allowed some say in determining rules and guidelines, just like other medical practices which affect the life of another are regulated. This isn’t a defiance of your bodily autonomy as a woman; it’s recognition that the child growing inside you is (after some point) a distinct human being with its own right to bodily autonomy. “Your right to swing your fist ends at my face” and all that.
I (100% pro-choice) think they just get bored with hammering on the bodily autonomy aspect, so they start making posts about what the bible "really" says about abortion and other weak, as you say, arguments. I really think they get tired of saying the same thing over and over, even though it's important. I know I do.
Perhaps "ignoring" means refusing to entertain it even for the sake of argument.
Bodily autonomy is probably a weak argument, because it assumes that the fetus isn't a living human being deserving of the same protections against slaughter that you and I enjoy.
If it is, bodily autonomy doesn't justify murder.
If it's not, then protecting it from abortion is absurd.
In neither case though, is bodily autonomy a compelling argument.
Disagree. You can turn up the personhood all the way and still, in a scenario where a child was dying and needed a kidney and their parent was the only available match, the parent could not be legally forced to donate it. Why? They own their body and can't be forced to put themselves through bodily harm to help someone else.
You seem to be saying that "personhood" should be the deciding factor of abortion rights, but "personhood" is never going to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Bodily autonomy can and should be.
I’m not sure the kidney analogy holds. Kidney donation refusal seems like an act of omission; whereas the active steps to abort a fetus are acts of commission. These are too distinct in ethical discussions.
Bodily autonomy is usually clear in most instances, but it might be overridden by personhood, so it doesn’t help resolve the debate to everybody’s satisfaction.
Great job. Now take it the other extreme: is it okay to kill a baby that had already been born, but was still attached by the umbilical cord? It’s still, technically, part of the mother’s body at that point.
So there’s someone to free at all? Then there is an issue of personhood here that you’re ignoring when it is inconvenient. Maybe for you bodily autonomy is more important than the personhood of a developing baby. But that IS a moral determination, a choice of your value system, and it is entirely reasonable for others to disagree on moral terms, making this hardly a clear cut issue.
Ok, I agree there, folks will always be at odds re:personhood and the morality of terminating a pregnancy. That's why I don't even bother with "it's a clump of cells" anymore regardless of my beliefs - it's a moot point in the face of our own rights over our own bodies. Codifying one "person"s rights as more important than another is wrong. Using the law to force anyone to suffer bodily harm for the sake of anyone else, even in a case of life or death, is wrong.
My thing with the hypothetical kid needing a kidney wasn't that a parent refusing to donate would be a good person, it was that by principle of law it would be immoral to force them to do it. That was taking the "pro-life" perspective all the way to "it's a whole-ass person" and showing that the concept of bodily autonomy still protects the parent, even if you don't agree with what they do. I don't mind if you think I'm a monster for getting an abortion, I just want to ensure that that choice is there for those who want or need it.
I get that it's a really intense issue for a lot of people, but all I wish is that folks didn't feel like whether someone else carries their pregnancy to term is a criticism of what they've done or want to do. It's truly not. I know for myself I have a list a mile long of reasons I would never carry or raise a child; some are personal and some aren't, but I am still happy when my loved ones welcome a new member into their family.
If it's a problem that I have to address right now, it's more like prototyping the first idea that comes to mind and then debugging and refining and being more critical.