text:
Your Body, Your Choice: Fight for Your Somatic Rights
"My body, my choice." We hear that slogan constantly, but what the hell do those four words mean?
Many of us have one or two political issues surrounding our bodies that get us fired up. Many of you reading this right now probably have some hot-button issue on your mind. Maybe it's abortion, or recreational drug usage, or marriage rights, or surrogate pregnancy, or assisted suicide, or sex work, or voluntary amputation, or gender reassignment surgery.
For each of these issues, there are four words that define our belief about our rights, "My body, my choice." How you react to those words determine which side of any of those debates you are on. That's just the thing, though – there aren't a bunch of little debates, there is just one big debate being argued on multiple fronts. All of these issues find their home in my field of philosophy: bioethics. And within the bioethics community, there is a small contingency that supports a person's right to choose what to do with their body in every single one of those examples. Transhumanists make up part of that contingency.
If you are pro-choice on abortion or think that gender reassignment surgery is an option everyone should have, you agree with transhumanism on at least one issue. Many current political arguments are skirmishes and turf battles in what is a movement toward what one might call somatic rights. In some cases the law is clear, as it is with marriage rights or drug usage, and the arguments are over whether or not to remove, amend, or change the law. Other cases are so ambiguous that the law is struggling to define itself, as with surrogate pregnancy and voluntary amputation. And sooner or later (I've given up on guessing time-frames), instead of merely arguing over what we're allowed to do with the body we're born with, there will be debates about our rights to choose what kind of body we have. By looking at the futuristic ideas of genetic engineering and robotic prosthetic technology, we can understand how transhumanism maximizes the "my body, my choice" mantra.
We have a lot of laws about what you can't do with your body. On the other hand, think about how many different things can be defended with "It's my body, I'll do what I want!" Why do we say that? The answer seems painfully obvious: because we're the only ones who know what it's like to have our body and it's probably the only thing we really, truly own. No one can take your body without also taking your life – which as it turns out, is a great way to put your money where your mouth is when you're a philosopher. Like any good philosopher, however, my job is to examine the painfully obvious. In part, because if it's all so damn obvious, then why does every lawmaker, religious leader, and jerk with a megaphone think they have a right to tell you or me what to do with our bodies? Is it just jealousy?
Let's say we live in the future and I have the option to get a robot body and genetically modify my brain to make myself smarter, kinder, and happier. My guess is many people would be very upset if I was traipsing around with a glorious, glistening body made of heretofore unheard of alloys with a genetically tricked-out brain. I would be a magnificent testament to science and engineering. I would be happier, healthier, and smarter. So what possible justification would the paternalists of the world have for telling me I can't upgrade my physical body?
There are three responses:
- Response One: "Your life is just too important for me to let you ruin it, let me set some ground rules to make sure you don't make a decision you'll regret later." The paternalist rule-makers paint themselves as bearing the burden of responsibility for our lives. We don't know what is good for us, but they do.
- Response Two: "What about the children?" Somewhere, out there, is a person with a permanent scowl on his or her face, of whom children are frightened, who has already figured out how my robot body will hurt the children. I imagine it will involve something like "sets a bad impression."
- Response Three: "It breaks with tradition and is immoral." Understand here that tradition and morality are not ethics. I differentiate morals and ethics in the following way. "Thou shall not kill" is a moral rule. "The biological mother should carry and raise the child, anything else is strange and wrong" is tradition. "Banning marriage between consenting adults of the same-sex is unethical because it infringes upon the life, liberty, and happiness of those individuals based on sexual preference" is ethics. See that "because?" Only in ethics do you have a logical reason following the normative claim. Morality and tradition rely upon the authority of some figure (imagined or not) or history (accurate or not).
In each case, the actual right to your body is deferred to some third party, either the paternalists, the hypothetical children, or unreasoned authority. Transhumanists and like-minded bioethicists recognize that somatic rights are individual rights. That means that, unless they harm someone else directly, you should be able to do as you please. I find it amazing that for all of our amendments protecting freedom of religion, and assembly, and the press, we lack an amendment protecting freedom of bodily self-determination.
A rough and ready version of what freedom of bodily self-determination might look like has three key principles:
- "My body, my choice" means that if what you do only affects your body, you should have the right to do it. Period, full stop.
That includes allowing someone to do something to your body. So:
- If you want to have something done to your body (e.g. surgery to modify your body or to allow a person to pay you to do something with your body), then you should have the right to do that.
- If you don't want something to happen to your body (e.g. for your body to become pregnant or for it to be kept working at all costs (both in terms of money and dignity)), then you should have that right as well.
Because you have the right to do something, you are also responsible for the results of that decision. For example, if you choose to do drugs, you are culpable for decisions you make while under the influence of those drugs. If you choose to modify your body and, later regret the decision, the fault is no one's but your own. These simple concepts have a huge impact on not only current laws around issues like abortion, sex assignment surgery in infants, and assisted suicide, but possible future ones surrounding technologies like genetic enhancement, anti-aging medicine, cognitive enhancing drugs, designer babies, voluntary prosthetic augmentation, and cybernetics. As technology advances, we will have more and more ways to choose what to do with our bodies.
As the politics of the body continue to generate controversy, it is important those on the side of choice and freedom of bodily-determination recognize where their allies are. Transhumanists and liberal bioethicists, yes, but also feminists, marriage rights proponents, sex worker advocates, those who would end the drug war, libertarians, and the LGBT community. These groups are fast coming to the conclusion that it is important we cherish our basic biological freedoms and protect our somatic rights.
That means arguing for pro-choice body issues now, in the present. And for those out there who find themselves pro-choice on some issues (e.g. gay marriage and abortion) but anti-choice on others (assisted suicide and genetic engineering), you'd best reevaluate why you have conflicting stances. You shouldn't. If you disagree with me, I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.
Follow Kyle on his personal blog, Pop Bioethics, and on facebook and twitter.
Image by ginger gal via buzzfeed.
Comments (46)
Great article overall, but IMO abortion doesn't necessarily belong in this list. All of the others clearly only affect your own body, but there is definitely more gray area in abortion.
I have a LOT of friends who are going to love this article. Beautiful, simple arguement. Thank you!
I think it's possible to be pro-choice on the other issues if you truly believe that a fetus is a separate human deserving of rights.
We all agree that it should be illegal for parents to deny medical care to children based on religious beliefs. We believe it's right despite that it is a "pro-life" choice rather than "pro-choice" because it is best for a child.
You have forgotten a fourth type of response, and in my mind a very important one. Let's call it the "arms race" argument. It goes like this: if you acquire a robot body that is smart, faster, and more attractive, then you can out-compete me in many avenues of life (jobs, sports, mates, etc). That doesn't seem fair too me. Not to be out-competed, I myself have to upgrade my body in ways I didn't really want. And now you are no longer better than me in all these ways, and perhaps you will seek a further upgrade. Continue like this for a while, and like an arms race, we both end up with expensive, bloated robo-bodies and none of the extra respect and admiration we were actually seeking (since everyone else has robo-bodies as well).
In economic terms, those effects on me are a negative externality (technophiles like you are out-competing me for jobs, etc), and so your "agreement with yourself" actually involves me as well. That's why I get a say in what you do with your body.
Now, I'm not saying this type of argument should always carry the day, but it is certainly a category of argument to be recognized.
I agree with Matt above. You totally ignore the issue of the unborn child's rights in your discussion. That's really what's at the heart of the abortion debate; what rights, if any, does a fetus or embryo have? From an utterly pro-life prospective, abortion is wrong because it murders an innocent child. The somantic rights of the woman aren't really what's in dispute. If you don't want to get pregnant but choose to engage in heterosexual intercourse, both the man and woman are obligated to responsibily use contraception, therfore rendering the entire dilemma of abortion moot. It is my hope that more effective and convienient contraception in the future will greatly reduce the number of abortions.
I'm against sucide because a person's death is an event which has a profound negative impact on those around them. It's not just themselves who will be affected, and they have no right to put their loved ones through such an ordeal.
As for GM, if it was germline then you could make the argument that it's not just your own body that is affected. As I mentioned in my last comment, I expect Transhumans to oppress and terrorize baseline Humans, causing fear and loathing. Would it be irrational for ordinary Humans to want to limit somantic rights if Transhumans were a clear existential threat to them. I shouldn't have the right to carry a fully loaded AK-47 with me everywhere because it makes me a threat to others. Why should intergrating an AK-47 into my body give me that right? If your body is a lethal weapon, it should be treated as such.
This is why we need easy access to birth control. No fetus able to survive on its own, no problem. IF we dont' have that, then the anti-choice people have no right to complain and it really *is* all about their desire to control and force their beliefs on everyone.
and if it's "my" body, does anyone have the right to kill me, even in capital punishment? Seems another problem for the usual "pro-life, pro-execution" crowd.
The problem is, if you're a person who thinks that a fetus is a seperate human being deserving of full rights under the law, your arguement is void. Fetuses can't have full rights under the law because noone has the right to use or occupy my body against my will, including a fetus. Full stop.
If you don't own your own body then 'ownership' can have no meaning at all.
I'm concerned about this one, not because I differ from you regarding any of the actual proposals under consideration–I don't–but because I think you're disregarding the more extreme consequences of somatic rights as a general principle.
For example, consider suicide. As far as I can see, your reading of somatic rights would not merely protect assisted suicide in the cases currently under consideration. It would permit suicide for any reason, under any circumstances. I'd be concerned about that. Evidence, as well personal experience, suggests that at a minimum, those who attempt suicide are often better off when it fails–indeed, there are many alive today who are fortunate that their suicide attempts did not succeed. Part of the reason that suicides are liable to fail is because the suicidal are 1) provided medical care to directly contravene a voluntary decision and 2) in more extreme cases, temporarily detained such that they cannot commit suicide. I support both 1 & 2; such policies have saved the lives of people I know.
But my support for both such practices means that I can't endorse the broad, simple reading of your fundamental principle of somatic rights. I need some more nuance regarding what desires and actions are considered permissible and which are not, in order to reconcile my approval of the theory and its current political applications and my rejection of the general permission for suicide it seems to entail.
I also think you're wrong to include gay marriage. Sodomy as a right is a physical act and falls within your umbrella; marriage is a social construct and no amount of somatic liberty creates or protects it. Now, the recognition of somatic liberty entails a certain humility in the face of human difference that, I think, is conducive to a pro-SSM position, but it's not entailed in your principles.
@Matt: I think etymology is actually a good starting point here. "Abortion" refers to the termination of a process, in this case, the process of pregnancy. Pregnancy is a process that occurs to the body of the person with the uterus; the embryo/zygote/fetus is clearly not pregnant. The right to an abortion is therefore simply the right to terminate a pregnancy. It does not comment on what happens to the fetus. One could imagine a regime where (if it were technically possible) abortion was an inviolable right, and no embryo, zygote, or fetus were ever terminated. It's only the technical demands of the E/Z/F and our own technology's insufficiency that mean that abortion has come to signify its death. Abortion, therefore, is fairly easy to justify on bodily autonomy grounds alone.
That said, Kyle, I think that the use of the word "only" your core principle needs to be further explicated. If, for example, I have enough voluntary amputations, I could render myself unable to work, and a burden on the community. A voluntary amputation may only *directly* affect my body, but surely it indirectly affects everyone, eventually. Do you mean to employ the broad "only directly" construction for somatic rights, or is there some room in your principles for the recognition of indirect consequences?
Jen, does a child have a right to occupy a parent's home? Can a parent deny care as long as the neglect occurs on the patent's property?
The real question on the abortion issue is not whether or not you have a right to control your body, it is when does life begin. You are absolutely correct; we should be pro-choice on body issues. We do NOT, however, have the right to deny someone else the right to life.
While options differ on when life begins, I hold to the belief it starts once there is brain activity, as we consider death the opposite. That is later then most on the pro-life side like, and earlier than most of the pro-choice people like.
Mark: Your questions are irrelevant. Being pregnant is nothing like having a child in your home. If your home burns down you can always buy a new one. If parents die & leave their children behind, someone else can take care of those children. A fetus' entire life is dependant on the life support system it has, which is the woman's body. It's not an autonomous being. If she doesn't want to be pregnant she doesn't have to stay pregnant. And as for the 'well then she shouldn't have had sex!' angle, also irrelevant. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Abortion is an option because birth control fails, rape and incest happen, some people NEVER ever want to have kids and some women can't carry a pregnancy to term even if they want too. Also, fetal defects and abnormalities guarantee that at least some fetuses will die in the womb and the miscarriage will be incomplete or not start on it's own. It's not about babies, it's about women, full autonomous persons, being able to decide for themselves when/if/how many kids they have.
Where this becomes hazy in my simple mind is body alteration on not-yet-mature humans. At what point can a child make these decisions about their bodies? Should a parent be able to give consent on a child's gender reassignment, let alone turn them into a cyborg before puberty? (this goes a bit beyond a parent having an infant's ears pierced) My knee jerk is that children should at least be required go through puberty as "baseline humans" unless their life is in danger, or if it might compromise their ability to experience adulthood as the neurologically "correct" gender.
Noone would be able to do anything to a child like body alteration without the child's consent. Like we pass laws on when we can drive a car, we could easily legislate how young/old a child must be before they can do something like get cyborg eyes.
Hi Kyle,
this is a great essay! I agree with your points entirely, however, being a student of sociology, I wanted to comment on the social aspects of somatic rights.
The changing acceptance of and legal status of somatic rights could have an immense impact on human society. Let's say the technology for self-augmentation crossed a critical point so that it became affordable to millions of people to use Procedure X to expand their lifespan by ten years. But let's say Procedure X can only be done at the prepubescent stage and decreases fertility by Y%.
Individuals who exercise their somatic rights to have Procedure X performed on them are taking a risk. Their decision could have long-term life consequences. As a firm believer in individual rights, I affirm their freedom to choose in this hypothetical case. But as someone who studies humans as socially embedded creatures, I see the need for social safety nets that advise, counsel, and support people who want to undergo Procedure X. Too much emphasis on individual rights, too much self-determination without regard for the larger social context self is embedded in, is just as dangerous as the violation of individual rights in the name of third parties or social groups. Just because a person has the right to make that decision, it doesn't mean they should make that decision uninformed, or lightly, and I think it is our responsibility to each other to make sure that doesn't happen in the case of somatic rights.
Just my two cents. Again, thank you for the thought provoking essay!
Anyone who claims 'my body, my choice' is forgetting about the living human body inside them when pregnant. It's not their body or kidney/organ removed&dismembered by abortion.
I am not as much concerned about amputees,but sex operations are a bit unethical and go against biology. You may not 'feel like a man or woman' but your genitals &physical traits are distinct in telling the difference between male and female. Surrogacy or any other life saving or selfless use of your body to help another is something I have nothing against, such as organ donation, surrogacy and pregnancy.
It's when people use their choice to cause harm to themselves or others ie:suicide or abortion that we as a civil society should step in and enforce laws that protect life. While sex changes don't necessarily harm anyone it could cause health risks, mental risks to individuals and other issues in society. We ban drug use because while it harms the user it also can harm others in society by increasing crime,driving hazards&lead people to make poor decisions that affects others.
Therefore, rights to your body and choices end when those choices affect the life of another individual by causing death or harm. The governments job is to protect innocent life from harm,death,abuse, attack;just as a parents job is to protect their child from conception from harm,death, abuse, attack and abortion kills;therefore should be banned in order to protect innocent human beings.
At Erl:
There's a big difference between the people who commit suicide in order to get attention or because they dispair, and those who have truly nothing but pain in in this life. Either way you slice it, I think a large amount of counseling is important.
You do realize that a key aspect of marriage is authorizing someone other than yourself to control the disposition of your body should you become incapable of doing so. Should I suffer some grievous injury that puts me under for weeks or fall into a coma that lasts years or die, I would want to make damn sure that someone I trust has control over my while I'm out. The only person I trust aside from myself is my partner, and there are many hospitals which would deny him the power to choose for me (even though we are technically married).
How would the concept of somatic rights be applied to conjoined twins? If one twin wanted to remove an appendage that she felt was in the way, would her sister have a right to disagree? How should one balance competing claims to the body?
I imagine that for those who are pro-life, they see the fetus/mother relationship in a similar fashion to conjoined twins, while those who are pro-choice would see the fetus as having less of a claim than a conjoined twin. But that seems like it could place the argument of abortion outside of the somatic rights concept.
Our scientific knowledge does not back up your claim.
The brain has a map of the body. It's how we know where our arms are without looking. It's what keeps us upright when we walk. It's what prevents us (usually) from whacking our appendages into door frames. The two senses that govern this are Proprioception and Kinesthesia.
Sometimes these senses don't work as expected. When an amputee 'feels' his lost arm, it is because his proprioception tells him that his arm is still there, despite the quite obvious (to the rest of us) evidence to the contrary. This can happen with perfectly healthy-bodied people as well. Sometimes (due to any number of factors) the mind creates a map for one gender, and the body goes right on developing a different one.
There are many ways to reconcile these body/mind dilemmas. For amputees, like my example above, cybernetics are in development which should, in time, let him be whole again. His body and mind will no longer be at odds. For the transgendered, things are more complicated. One solution is therapy alone. Occasionally, the body and mind can be reconciled though counseling alone. Occasionally, the patient can be made to overcome his/her dysphoria (this has led some people, yourself included no-doubt, to view gender identity disorder and body dysmorphic disorder as the same thing. They aren't).
For many, simply being accepted as a member of the target gender is enough. Change hair, change clothes, change a pronoun, minimize the appearance of certain assets, and the problem disappears. You would not believe how many transgendered people do this. It's cheap (medical treatment is expensive). It's reversible. And sometimes it's all you can do, since many health issues make surgery and hormones impossible.
One step further are those who go on hormones. Going this far legally, and ethically requires therapy. (The laws vary by state and country, I can only speak for Maryland) It also, generally, requires the patient to live for a year in the target gender to see if it works out. With a good medical doctor, these therapies aren't any more dangerous than hormone replacement therapy for people who's sex matches their gender (like men with low testosterone, or women who take birth control).
Then there are those who get surgery. Every doctor will recommend that the patient have lived with their target hormones for years before any surgical procedure is even attempted. (Some laws limit this as well) There is sound medical reasoning for this. The number of possible surgeries are far too many for me to list here. They all entail some form of risk.
Ask yourself, would anyone go though that much hassle if they had any other option?
All of this does not even cover intersex conditions (of which there are many), or androgen insensitivity (sex chromosomes indicate male, but the body will not respond to testosterone).
So, that was the sort version. Glad you're still here. Look at wikipedia, bilerico, gender identity groups, etc for more information. You'll find many, many dry academic articles and many more blogs on this topic. If you have an interest in this, for or against, you owe it to yourself and the other side to do the research.
Thanks @Archright for the insight on gender identity issues. I understand there are many reasons for people who go this route&are willing to take the risks associated w/surgery, I just think it is unnecessary when they can dress like a woman or man already…however, I also find it something that should not be encouraged in society because recognizing there are two genders in society is what helps us from an early age know the differences between men and women, boys and girls. Parents who deny the truth to their children and allow them to 'choose' their gender are not being honest with their children and using them as social experiments.
You didn't address my thoughts on the abortion issue as far as 'my body, my choice' goes…does that mean you agree with me??
Most Transhumanists would champion the germ-line genetic enhancement which is genetic engineering that would be passed on from generation to generation. That would absolutely be forcing your preferences on every generation there after. Germ-line genetic enhancement is the exact opposite of "my body, my choice."
You can be charged with a federal crime and fined $250,000 for killing sea turtle eggs. But, human eggs are fair game. Where has the human EGO taken us?
Abortion effects no one, but the Mother…since she is the one who gives life to the embryo. I always wondered how it's "murder" when someone wants an abortion because really…if the cord is cut, will the unborn child survive without the mother in Nature? No one's opinion matters to anyone, but themselves.
If every man was an island, you would be so correct. However, since we live in a society where what we do affects others, it gets a little muddier. What happens when what you do with YOUR body impacts me? We live in a society, not in complete isolation. Your logic is certainly consistent but I'm not sure it works in the real world of relationships and responsibilities.
"Noone would be able to do anything to a child like body alteration without the child's consent. Like we pass laws on when we can drive a car, we could easily legislate how young/old a child must be before they can do something like get cyborg eyes."
My question was not to whether it was possible to pass legislation.
True, but there are other implications for some of these things. Hard drug users (cocaine, crack, heroin, and meth addicts) are more likely to spend their money on drugs than on health insurance. But then when they are unable to pay for their inevitable health-care, they pass their health care costs onto those of us who can. Thus, a seemingly "victimless" crime, i.e. illegal drug abuse, actually does have more victims than just the user.
Unless you can prove that life does not begin at conception, I maintain that abortion is that taking of a life. Burden of proof is yours. To go even further, what does a late-term abortion, with a viable foetus, have to do with a woman's body?
This is a wonderful article, and I'm very happy that people are presenting mature and (for the most part) logical arguments. It's a great read, both the main piece and the comments!
Never thought of this. It is interesting to think about.
@Erl, Joel
I totally agree. While I agree with pro-choice for the most part, I think there are some boundaries and protocols that must be followed for just this reason. I can say "my head, my choice" when I hop on my motorcycle and choose not to wear a helmet, but really, if I drop the bike and police need to be dispatched, roads blocked off, etc, I'm not the only one who is impacted. I think a good starting point for things like suicides/euthanasia/etc would be to follow the lead of our (very much imperfect, but better than the historic alternative) justice system. We get a panel of experts and peers together to help decide whether or not a criminal is guilty and what the consequence is. For example, in terms of right to suicide, I don't feel someone should be able to go ahead and try to kill themselves the second they feel really sad. If someone really didn't want to live their life anymore, and could justify this to psychiatrists and a panel of their peers after having the chance to really reflect and seek help, I don't see why they should be denied the right to choose the status of their life.
"And for [THIS AUTHOR] who find [himself] pro-choice on [all] issues, you'd best reevaluate why you [don't] have conflicting stances. You [should]."
Well-argued for the right to self-determined freedom. BUT reproductive rights do not only involve the self. Just as you would not allow a four year old total freedom of choice over the body, abortion and other reproductive issues are more complex than this simplistic argument.
@littlebytes Abortion was not the topic that I wanted to discuss. Please do not consider silence to be objection or agreement. I have no interest in debating abortion in this forum.
@littlebytes I think it a stretch to say that anyone encourages transsexuals to receive HRT or SRS. Psychiatric and medical professionals will certainly appraise transsexual patients of their options, surgical or otherwise, but they do not push surgery. Whether a transsexual gets surgery or not really does not affect other people (except for their intimate partners and their physicians). Whether you 'believe' someone can change his gender or not, you cannot logically oppose SRS without throwing all plastic surgery out with it.
Regarding the 'think of the children' bit: most children will develop a male or female gender identity and learn the difference between the two whether or not they have someone chanting in their ears about it. Thus, I do not see a problem with allowing children to choose their gender presentation. Research shows that most cross-gender behavior in childhood has no bearing on adult gender identity. Tomboys and sissy boys alike grow up to lead productive lives and have no trouble distinguishing men from women (except maybe in East Village…).
Though I find Anderson Cooper a bit…dramatic, I do recommend his report on the 'sissy boy experiment' (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/07/sissy.boy.experiment/index.html) for an example of how forcing children to conform to 'appropriate' gender behaviors does not do them, or anyone else, any favors. We have a pretty exhaustive body of evidence that you cannot beat, cajole, or otherwise operant-condition the gay or trans out of someone.
If you mean children with intersex conditions, micropenis, or circumcision accidents who receive surgical 'correction' in infancy and get raised as the most 'convenient' gender, pretty much everyone considers that unethical now. In fact, most of these individuals struggle with persistent depression and eventually opt for SRS…much as transsexuals do.
As for a transsexual child who believes firmly in her girlhood despite the fact that she has a little boy's 'parts', no amount of gender policing will change that. At best it will silence her, for a time; at worse it will instill a lifelong sense of self-loathing like that which leads so many transsexuals to commit suicide.
When I meet a woman (trans or otherwise!), I do not know whether she has natural breasts augmented by HRT, silicone implants, or a bra stuffed with socks. Nor do I need to know, unless I intend to sleep with her. If knowing affects how I behave toward her, then my parents probably should have worried more about something other than my choice of clothes or my favorite color.
Thank you so much for being calm and intelligent. So many people let their opinions get in the way of seeing things as they actually are. I am a family member of a person who is undergoing gender therapy to become a member of the opposite sex and as much as we could tell her that we love her and respect her just the way she is; this is what she wants and is a much happier person with each step she takes toward becoming male. Who am I to take that away from her? Where does it say in the Constitution that I can control what someone else does to their own body? I'm so glad to have read your short response because I can see now that there are people out there mature enough to educate themselves and let science speak.
Hmm, all of these responses and the main essay were so well done I don't have anything to say. Thank you all for actually shutting me up on a few topics. =D
So, does this mean I can run around naked? It's my body right? It's hot outside I don't feel I should wear clothes. This also means that I can engage in public sexual acts right? So long as I'm by myself? You might say that your argument only pertains to doing things to yourself in private, not a public setting. So for the common grouping you could say this all boils down to privacy rights. I am inclined towards the view that absent of societal constraints people will most definitely do as they wish. And here, the argument is negated by the fact that, within your own little bubble, there simply are no rights. Rights only exist under a social contract or some other kind of rule of law. In a private setting, there is simply nothing stopping you from doing whatever you wish. But coming back into society, there are rules, I'm afraid. Right or wrong, the issue is not a Constitutional one but more of an overarching philosophical constraint. In regards to the abortion issue, merely mentioning it and not expecting a debate is a bit like opening the hatch of a submerged submarine and not expecting the ocean to come rushing in. I'll leave it to you to examine the wisdom in this expectation.
Some of the thoughts expressed in the duscussion above about gender and sex change have very little connection with reality.
The idea that all people should be forced to go through puberty as dictated by their unmodified hormones borders on abuse in many cases. It dooms many Male to Female spectrum individuals to a degree of masculinization that may never be able to be undone regardless of the amount of funds invested and the amount of pain endured. This can prevent people from getting a decent job and being able to live everyday life in reasonable safety. Electrolysis alone can cost 15k-30k , is painful, sometimes leaves scars and can take years. Facial feminization surgery is expensive, painful, has health risks and varying success. I'm not saying that delaying and/or stopping puberty is correct in every case but that in some cases it may be appropriate and can allow the individual to have many more options later in life.
Your short version covers a lot of ground but one important point slides by. For some individuals the body issues are as important or maybe even more important that the social/gender issues. A lot of research is being done on the brain's map of the body and how conflicts between the two occur.
I know of many folks who do not fit well into the mainstream binary gender roles but have a strong sense of how their body should be and consequently a strong need to change their body. Some do not have the financial resources to follow the existing standards of care which are only recommendations and or requirements for medical practitioners to belong to certain organizations. Most doctors follow these standards to protect themselves from possible malpractice claims not because of any legal requirements. Still, many patients receive hormones and also surgery with minimal red tape. Some travel around the world in order to do so when necessary.
Do we really need to be protected from ourselves? Do we have to talk about all the restrictions placed on us in order to somehow impress people that our desires are legitimate. Truth is that we are frequently prisoners of convention and other people's thoughts far above and beyond the current extent of the law.
The idea of somatic rights is fascinating, and as a left-leaning bioethicist I am inclined to support the ends at which the idea is aimed, namely a level of freedom from external intrusion into one's corporeal self management.
I would agree, however, with one of the comemmentors above that gay marriage (which I totally support, despite the slightly depressing bourgeoise implications thereof) could not be argued for from somatic rights, as it is a legal contract with no particular implications for one's right to engage in gay sex. I would suggest that the inclusion of gay marriage under the rubric of somatic rights may be to conflate the right to freedom from corporeal intrusion with the right to enter into contract. Both are important liberal goals, but need not be grounded in the same moral principle.
Equally, though pro-choice, I think it is naive to suggest that somatic rights could not, by some arguments, be extended to foetuses or the unborn (it would then be a question of balancing two sets of somatic rights, a balance which in most cases would perhaps come out in favour of the mother).
To these issues, I should like to raise two related problems which somatic rights, as stated, may need to address in order to thrive as a foundation for bioethical thinking.
1) Ahistoricism. My background is in the history of medicine, primarily in the history of the body. As such, I tend to view references to 'your body' or 'my body' as somewhat ahistoric, or at least lacking in historical awareness. The idea of a human body belonging to the individual, a body which is closed off from the world at large, a physically discrete entity, is entirely the invention of eighteenth century Enlightenment thought (see: Barbara Duden, "The Woman Beneath the Skin"). Previous to the modernist mode of corporeal thought that emerged with the Enlightenment, the human body, at least in Europe, was seen as being in a constant state of flow and flux with the wider world. The idea that one could simply do something to one's body which did not impact upon the rest of one's world, would have been alien.
The Enlightenment 'closing off' of the human body was, in part, a process by which the body was prepared for industrialisation. As a discrete physical entity, the body becomes 'homo oeconomicus', a productive individual unit whose labour could be measured and valued, and for which the individual was solely responsible. This is the body upon which the biopolitics of Enlightenment thought is founded. This is the historical foundation for the 'your body' upon which somatic right rest: a body which is entirely sealed off from the rest of the world.
All of which historical peregrinations are to say that 'somatic rights' may need to posit an awareness of the historical processes by which our contemporary conceptions of 'your body' are based. Similarly, some note should be made of the potentially negative aspects of the discrete modernist body, namely the way in which, as a discourse, it locates responsibility for the body with the individual, rather than with socio-cultural factors. The modernist body is a vital plank of neoliberal economic thought.
2) The key part of somatic rights as stated seems to be that you can do whatever you want to your body as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. This is an attractive idea, but to work it would require a rigorous examination of a) harm metrics and b) harm causation.
Metrics – how much, and what kind of harms can be caused by someone's somatic right to alter their body? How would we decide whether someone's emotional distress (at, say, a tattoo of the word 'fuck' on their child's elementary school teacher's head) is weighted more or less heavily than said teacher's somatic rights? Rare are the somatic choices which actually physically harm someone else, but plentiful are those which may result in emotional distress. The argument against considering emotional distress as a valid metric tends to be that such distress is grounded in socio-cultural prejudices (against, say, homosexuality, sex in general etc.), which is fair enough, but we need a very clear process for explaining why we discount some form of distress but not others (we'd probably count the distress at the 'fuck' tattoo as valid, no?)
Causation – as I suggested, most of the 'harm' caused to others by somatic alterations are not physical, they are (often prejudiced) emotional reactions to difference. These, though, are questions of immediate harm which can be traced directly to one person's encounter with another's somatic choice. What though, of more distant harms, ones in whcih causation is less clear? Consider, for example, cosmetic surgery to enhance a woman's breast size. There is no obvious physical harm to anyone else, and no immediate causation of harm. However, it could be argued that by undergoing breast enhancement surgery, that individual has reinforced certain unjust stereotypes about how women are supposed to appear. In exercising her somatic rights she may not have caused immediate harm to anyone, but she has arguably contributed to a discourse of unjust, sexist, patriarchal appearance standards which regularly harm millions of women every day. One might make the same argument about, say, the use of skin-lightening creams amongst people of African descent.
The point I am trying to make here is that, as a couple of the other commentators have said, 'somatic rights' as a useful idea would have to consider the social embeddedness of the idividual who is exercising those rights. It is very difficult to consider any somatic act which is not somehow embedded in the social fabric and which does not confirm or challenge just and unjust discourses of appearance, economics, or power.
I think I've gone on quite long enough; the length of my response is tribute to the fascinating nature of the original post, and to my general sympathy with its aims. What I've presented here are intended to be criticisms which may strengthen, rather than undermine, somatic rights.
Dan O:
I'm interested in your claim that the pre-Elightenment view of the body was not one of discrete corporeality. Can you point me to some of your sourcing for that comment? I would argue that that may have some bearing on Islamic views of the body and even the views of the body in Confucian societies, both of which are not as highly individualistic as Western societies, though Asian nations are having to adopt individualist practices to gain the 'Asian tiger' economies that they have had the last 40 years. I'd like to read some more on that concept.
On your second point, I would say that harm causation could only matter if the harm was direct and obvious. The only gray area should be when there is a social or contractual obligation that the somatic freedom contradicts, such as the parent to child obligation or the obligation in certain sporting events to not use performance enhancing drugs.
This is, by the way, where I have to disagree with the author on his article. In my view, a woman's right to her body does not give her right to terminate the life of another, even if that other is growing inside of her. She has a perfect right to avoid getting pregnant, but once pregnant, I feel that her right to take a life ends. This, once again, begs the question of when a fetus becomes a life, which is where the debate should stay.
My (mostly former) faith says that it is at conception (though plenty of members of my faith have disagreed), but I won't seek to impose my faith on anyone else. I don't have an answer to this, so I'm staying out of it entirely and leaving it to wiser ethicists than I (who is not really an ethicist in any wider of a context than that we are all ethicists in our daily lives).
Finally, I agree that the social context (as I mentioned above) is important, but not determinative. We are the society that we want to be, whether we like it or not. If we don't choose to be the society we would LIKE to be, then we are stuck with what we collectively want. I would rather push for a society of greater freedoms and less requirements on the individual for "society's good". Frankly, I think that society should be for the good of everyone, which means that it should only very rarely have to squash or burden a minority for the sake of the majority.
As a Newcomer, I'm regularly searching for resources that can help me . Thanks
Anti-choice peeps are annoying and boring. Get over abortion it is legal and that is the way it should be in an evolved advanced society. Just had to get that out of the way.
Kyle was right on all points of his article. I would like to add its always ULTRA conservatives who are against ind. rights ironically. Life is short and there are billions of humans on the planet, get out of others business. We all know the truth. The people who oppose the initial topics brought forth in this article and who oppose transhumanism/extropianism are Super religious, uneducated or just not that intelligent. Im not saying all, its just highly probable they are one of the three. Some far right conservatives are so indoctrinated, their not dumb but believe so much bs. Im not being political here in no way. Just saying what i here and observe.
Thanks Kyle
I compliment you on this one, it is really quite clever. It is also a kind of wedge issue, in which you force people who might otherwise recoil in horror at transhumanistic ambitions to join your side.
But you set the facts up just a bit too neatly for my taste when you say "Transhumanists and like-minded bioethicists recognize that somatic rights are individual rights. That means that, unless they harm someone else directly, you should be able to do as you please."
The problem is that you restrict the harms that one might cause to others as those that arise directly. Why do your responsibilities to others end with direct harms? I suspect the answer is because your argument would be weakened (perhaps not fatally, but certainly substantially) if indirect harms to other are taken into account.
Let's take the example of healthcare resources. I don't know if you have been to a hospital lately, but in my experience they are all running on empty, whether in the USA with its vaunted private healthcare system or here in Canada with its oft derided public system that provides quantitatively measurable excellent outcomes. Healthcare costs are among the most rapidly rising expenses that society faces. Diverting resources from those who are ill to those who are well has effects, albeit indirect, and some of those may be detrimental. Hence your hedge about 'direct' effects. As this is a comment stream, I will be brief here, but I will point out that this is but one example among many that merit the attention of the ethical branch of the transhumanist community.
If the community were really serious about this issue, perhaps they could follow in the footsteps of the physicians and take a pledge: First, do no harm.
If you dont mind me asking what theme is the blog? Thanks.
I can't actually take anyone seriously until they learn how to spell 'foetus' correctly.
Otherwise, interesting article with a lot of thought provoking ideas.
On abortion….
Since when does ANYONE, even a grown, adult human, have the right to use someone else's body?
Never. And since not even adults get this right, why should a fetus?
Case closed.
@Etienne – what about people altering themselves in non cybernetic ways? For example strength training? Is that an infringement on you too??
I have point out a semantic oddity: How is a fetus a *separate* human being, as a couple commenters phrased it?
Which contributes more to higher healthcare costs: illegal drug use or overeating? Perhaps we should criminalize gluttony.


text:
Access is forbidden
This saga is for friends only, please contact the author of the saga to request proper permissions.
Join GotSaga for free! You can share your sagas and much more with millions and are offered a wide variety of tools to enhance your travel experiences for sagas yet to come.
People from Facebook

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Lately, I've been trying to cure myself of my packrat tendencies and have been sorting through boxes of papers and mementos I've amassed over the years. In the box I most recently opened, I found an old Comiskey Park ticket stub from a Sox game I attended with a long-lost college pal and an overexposed Polaroid photograph of the West Rogers Park house where I grew up. I found playbills, letters, postcards, newspaper clippings about the 1983 mayoral election, a cocktail napkin from Myron & Phil's steakhouse, scraps of abandoned short stories, and a Michael Dukakis campaign button. Clearly, I never bothered to arrange the items in the boxes in any particular way. And yet, taken together, each of the small items manages to fuse with the others in my mind to become part of a cohesive, autobiographical narrative, an entire history told in fragments.
Though Peter Orner is quite purposeful and precise in his nonlinear approach to storytelling, reading his latest novel "Love and Shame and Love" can evoke the sensation of unpacking a box full of memories. The author eschews traditional chronology as he tells the multigenerational saga of the Poppers, a Jewish family from Chicago, as its members progress from the first half of the 20th century to the beginning of the 21st, from lower middle class to assimilated, upper class status, from Rogers Park to Highland Park to Wicker Park. Orner relates this history in brief, frequently lovely chapters, vignettes, and letters, which ultimately coalesce to create a powerful and heartfelt family history, one that seems characterized as much by loss and longing as it is by shame and the double dose of love suggested by the book's title.
This is Orner's third work of fiction, and his primary focus here is on Alexander Popper, a child of the 1970s who survives his parents' doomed marriage, studies creative writing at the University of Michigan and law at John Marshall, and starts his own ill-fated family in Wicker Park with his college girlfriend, Kat. Popper's experiences share some similarities with those of the character of Alex Burman in Orner's 2001 collection "Esther Stories" and are apparently based in part on the author's own life — Orner is a lawyer who grew up in Highland Park, attended the University of Michigan and now teaches creative writing in San Francisco. But this is less a semi-autobiographical bildungsroman or a sad chronicle of one family's ascent and decline than it is an ambitious, kaleidoscopic novel of the Jewish experience in Chicago, one that is vast enough to encompass the 1933 Century of Progress world's fair, World War II, the 1968 West Side riots following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the mayoral reigns of Jane Byrne, Harold Washington, and a pair of Daleys, and the legacies of Jewish machine politician Jake Arvey and Judge Abraham Lincoln Marovitz.
"Love and Shame and Love" serves not only as an ode to the history of Chicago, but to Chicago literature itself. Orner's chapters, sometimes no more than half a page long, can bring to mind the cumulative "pow!" of the novel-in-stories approach utilized to great effect by Stuart Dybek in "I Sailed withMagellan" and "The Coast of Chicago." A feisty and pugnacious anthem dedicated to Bernard Epton, who almost became Chicago's first Jewish mayor, suggests a comic riff on Nelson Algren's "Chicago: City on the Make," one that practically begs to be read aloud by the late Studs Terkel: "Go get 'em, Jew boy. Italians for Eptonini. Irish for MacEpton. Poles for Eptonizinski. Mexicans for Bernie Cruz. Wait, what? (Never mind, just pull the lever for the white guy)." Popper's own suburban, poetic yearnings recall those of the characters in Rich Cohen's "Lake Effect" and James Atlas' "The Great Pretender." A lyrical aside about fog pays homage to Carl Sandburg. And in Orner's erudite, quotation-filled prose, which references such writers as Stendhal, Shakespeare, Ben Hecht, and dozens of others, there is, of course, more than a hint of Saul Bellow, an author whom Popper's significant other dismisses as a "blowhard," whose characters "all sound like him." This is a criticism that Orner clearly rejects and one that does not apply to his own cast of multifaceted characters.
As a native of Rogers Park who always took pride in the fact that his parents never escaped to the suburbs, I did bristle at Orner's specious and fairly elitist assertion that "Jews who didn't have means either stayed put in Rogers Park or they went north and inland away from the lake, to Skokie." But for the most part, Orner's writing exhibits admirable accuracy, great generosity, and a keen capacity for observation. The novel is particularly remarkable for the specificity of its characters and the settings they frequent. Readers with Chicago connections will have no trouble cozying up to a book that name-drops underrated White Sox infielder Jorge Orta, the Villa Venice supper club, and Lincolnwood's purple hotel, formerly called the Hyatt House, where Jewish mobster Allen Dorfman was gunned down. But the more universal story of the Poppers' thwarted dreams and loves will likely resonate with those who have never set foot in Chicago or its northern suburbs.
For some, the author's style may at first take some getting used to and it may, in fact, sacrifice something in terms of forward momentum and traditional character development. But Orner more than makes up for that with the refreshing unpredictability of his narrative, which performs the neat trick of mimicking the logic of memory itself, or perhaps, the experience of opening up a box filled with artifacts and seeing all the memories and stories that rise to the surface.
Adam Langer is the author of numerous books, including "Crossing California" and, most recently "My Father's Bonus March".
"Love and Shame and Love"
By Peter Orner
Little, Brown and Company, 448 Pages, $24.99


text:
AS A SOPHOMORE IN 2009: Led the Tritons with 128 blocks, including two matches with a career-high 12 - vs. USC (3/6) and vs. Hawai'i (3/14)... Hit a career-high .727 (8-0-11) at UC Irvine (1/21)... Recorded a season-high 13 kills in a five-set win at UC Santa Barbara (2/6)... Had one or less hitting errors in 15 different matches.
AS A FRESHMAN IN 2008: Appeared in 72 sets, recording at least 10 kills four times... Posted a career-high 15 kills in a five-set win over UC Irvine (3/29)... Collected a career-best 20.0 points in the win over Irvine… Tallied 11 kills on .526 hitting and a season-high seven blocks in a five-set win on the road at Pacific (4/5)... For the season, hit at a .309 clip... Averaged 0.83 blocks per set.
HIGH SCHOOL: Attended Santa Fe Christian in Solana Beach... Division IV CIF runner-up in 2005... Earned Division II CIF runner-up in water polo in 2007... Picked up all-league honors for volleyball… Recorded a career-best 39 kills in one match and 15 saves as a goalkeeper on the water polo team.
PERSONAL: Born Nov. 20, 1989... Parents are Joe and Teresa Ross... Has two siblings named Alex and Nathan... A mechanical engineering major in Sixth College… Cheers for the Anaheim Ducks… Favorite movie is Gladiator.


text: Our Atelier contains a melange of goods inspired by our curiosity and travels. The uniqueness of our treasures come from the handmade and limited production designs of the artisans and designers we feature. Whether it's around the corner or around the world, the showroom is a destination for well-designed gifts and accessories. Are you intrigued? We are open 6 days a week for you to browse and enjoy.


text:
Letter to Editor August 11, 2011
As written in its Mission Statement, BISD is charged with enabling children to lead a well-rounded, successful and happy life. With this in mind, Mr. (Woodrow) Reece, (BISD Board of Trustees president) and Mr. (Tim) Chargois were remiss in their explanation regarding the continued display of BISD's "recognized" signs without qualification. They proposed that it would make the children "who worked so hard feel good" about themselves. Though success is measured by different standards, the truth is not. Blending the lines between truth and fiction is detrimental and can lead to a false sense of accomplishment and entitlement, and thus, directly contradict the mission BISD has placed on its educators and educational leaders.
Unfortunately, life is often unfair, and things don't always pan out the way planned. Children must be aware that the outcome of a situation not only depends on what is done as individuals, but can also be affected by others. But when children are taught deception, they learn to practice deception. In one way or another, our choices, our actions and attitudes bear strongly on the future. Is this the lesson that BISD would engrain in its students?
Such erred logic has led BISD to be embroiled in its present situation with taxpayers and the law. Covering up the truth behind a matter and sweeping it under a rug appears to have become the norm. The district must surely realize that camouflaging reality doesn't change it, and that it has direct influences on the lives of so many. BISD should be mindful that it clearly sends out wrong signals to all, especially those young ones with impressionable minds. It is not good, and it is not right. To be honest to our children and to the public, the gentlemen must first be honest with themselves. One, then, might wonder who actually would have benefited from this proposal, if not the children? No district is entitled to be boast recognized scores when it is not. BISD is no exception and must stop fabricating excuses. All people on either side of the issues plaguing BISD must stop and wonder. Could it be that the distorted reasoning expressed by these gentlemen who are entrusted with the well being of our children is directly responsible for the grand scale of disillusionment in our community and the charges lodged against district leadership? It is quite possible that BISD is its own worst enemy.
Liz Lovoi Welch
We want to know what you're thinking! We welcome snail-mail, emails and phone calls. Please, address your correspondence to Letters to the Editor, 795 Willow, Beaumont, Texas, 77701, email dodd [at] theexaminer [dot] com, or call (409) 832-1400. As the Independent Voice of Southeast Texas, we look forward to continuing to provide the area with in-depth coverage of local news.


text:
The Tristan shag
The Tristan shag
Our inventory changes quickly. This is an example of a style of a vintage Moroccan rug. We can quickly source a very similar rug or commission a copy.
Since these rugs have been made on village looms, mostly in people homes, the sizes vary and are often a little narrower then most commercial rugs.
Add To Cart


text:
The Society for Urban, National and Transnational/Global Anthropology is pleased to announce its undergraduate paper prize competition. We are seeking nominations — by faculty — of student papers that address SUNTA's interests, including refugees and immigrants, space and place, and poverty and homelessness. The prize includes a $150 award. The winner will be announced at the 2012 AAA Annual Meeting in San Francisco, California.
Papers should be submitted by email to Alaka Wali at email@example.com by September 15th, 2012.
Alternative submission arrangements can be made through contacting Alaka Wali at the email above. Authors who are undergraduates or who have graduated within the 2012 calendar year are eligible for the competition, as long as the submission was composed while s/he was an undergraduate. Although submissions will be accepted from faculty only (students may not submit papers on their own), faculty need not write in support: a nomination is sufficient — letters of recommendation/justification are welcome but not required. International entries are encouraged. SUNTA membership is not required.
Papers should be no more than 30 double-spaced pages, 12-point font, including bibliography, notes and images/figures. Papers should be single-author, not co-authored. The paper's formatting (e.g., citations, bibliographies etc.) should be consistent throughout. Send queries to Alaka Wali, email@example.com.


text:
trade in deals can be very difficult to find. Many websites
and deals claim to offer great lease trade in deals, but
LeaseTrader.com offers the best lease trade in deals on
the market.
A lease is a contract that is typically entered into by
a lessee (the individual who will be driving the given vehicle)
and a lessor (the individual or company that actually owns
the vehicle). The lessee is agreeing to pay for the use
of the vehicle over the period of the lease. Payment are
determined by depreciation, which is the value that the
vehicle is expected to lose over the term of the lease.
The lessee also assumes financial responsibility for any
damage done to the vehicle over the period of the lease.
At lease end, the lessee must return the vehicle to the
lessor, unless the lessee decides to purchase the vehicle
at lease end.
Copyright © 2019 LeaseTrader.com. All rights reserved.


text:
Kammann Opens Demo Center
Installation of K15 CNC provides hands-on training.
With the installation of a new K15 CNC universal screen-printing machine, Kammann USA inaugurated its new Demo Center at its North American headquarters in Portsmouth, NH. The installation will demonstrate the machine's capabilities and provide hands-on training for operators.
According to Paul Bolduc, president of Kammann USA, "the early response has been fantastic. The Demo Center allows us to more easily show off the machine's capabilities while also providing our customers with an opportunity to learn how to take full advantage of those capabilities."
The ten-station/four-color K15 is equipped with complete CNC-functionality and prints on round, oval, square, or flat products. It is also outfitted with UV dryers and screen heaters for thermoplastic inks. Its handling system allows for vertical and horizontal infeed and outfeed of articles.


text:
High Quality Apps for Your Website, Without the Clutter
Simple to Add to Your Site
Pre-made Plugins for:
- WordPress
- BuddyPress
- Blogger
- Spruz
- Ning
- and Everything Else
Benefits of the Skysa Bar
Increase TrafficMaking it easy for your visitors to share content with their friends drives traffic back to your site.
Promote Content ConsumptionScrolling news, RSS reader, announcements, and other apps, all help your users discover more.
Improve Social EngagementLet your members chat and instant message each other directly on your site to drive a social expirence.
- More...
What Users Say About Skysa
- Really impressed with the capabilities of the Skysa bar. Exactly what our team was looking for to make our entire website come together. It's easy to set up, easy to edit, and looks really sharp. Good job on this one Skysa!Daniel at WIKD
- I really love this app. I searched long and hard on the web for something cool, never thought that something this cool existed especially since it's free. She_So_Fresh
- The trial period is great and the seamless integration as mentioned before is really NICE, now I can ease back on trying to code and focus more on booking gigs! Oh yeah, subscribing now! DangerousMindz Ent.
- I love this lol. I love the compact rather than the full tool bar so nice. Roastrus
- I've been really happy with the integration and pace of improvements. Your team strikes a good balance between developing new features and countinually improving existing ones. Keep up the great work. The Ning member integration is wonderful. Jwings
- Thank you so much for this site. I've tried a few other bars, none of which are as great as yours. It was a perfect solution to a private site I moved off of MySpace to Blogger. Our group can now see who is online, chat with one another, post funny comments, etc. etc. Vicki Hopkins


text: Venezuelan sculptor James Mathison renders the male figure with an anatomical precision. Using resin and bronze, he depicts standing nudes, individual portraits, and isolated fragments of the human body, such as outstretched forearms or clenched fists. Recalling the weathering of ancient Greeks and Roman sculptures, Mathison also manipulates the texture of his hyperrealistic works. He adds cracks, perforations, grid lines, and even text to the surfaces of his portraits, giving them the appearance of archaeological objects.


text:
In order to login you must be registered. Registering takes only a few moments but gives you increased capabilities. The board administrator may also grant additional permissions to registered users. Before you register please ensure you are familiar with our terms of use and related policies. Please ensure you read any forum rules as you navigate around the board.
Terms of use | Privacy policy
Click here to sign up
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Operated by Taiwaneasy team. Style designed by Artodia.


text:
Kingdoms of Southern Africa - South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho
|Overview • Detailed Itinerary • FAQ's • Testimonials • Dates & Prices
Download Kingdoms of Southern Africa Detailed Itinerary
Day 1: Arrive in Johannesburg, South Africa
Upon your arrival at the Johannesburg International Airport, you will be met and transferred to our hotel in Hartbeespoort. We meet this evening for dinner and orientation.
Day 2: De Wildt Cheetah and Wildlife Center
After a relaxing morning, we enjoy a stroll through the local market before heading to the De Wildt Cheetah Center where we will receive an introduction to this special place. De Wildt has an extensive community outreach and education program and a strategic breeding plan. The Trust conducts research on wildlife disease and nutrition, and in South Africa it has implemented a national plan for the conservation of free roaming cheetahs, as well as wild dogs, the second most endangered carnivore in Africa.
Day 3: Pretoria City Sites, Misty Mountain, South African Natural Heritage Site, to Mapumalanga
We will return to De Wildt Cheetah Center this morning where we enjoy a special treat - viewing cheetahs running full speed. Three cheetahs will each chase a small decoy designed by the sanctuary. The cheetahs accelerate and run in excess of 100 kilometers per hour. Afterwards, we make our way to Pretoria to enjoy the city sites before our journey through some of the most stunning landscapes in South Africa. We will enjoy lunch enroute to Mapumalanga and our final stop at a 280 hectare South African Natural Heritage Site, situated on the spectacular Long Tom Pass, Mapumalanga. Perched at an altitude of 1700 meters above sea level, Misty Mountain is uniquely set in mountainous countryside with majestic views across the escarpment and into the Lowveld.
Day 4: Timbavati Safari Lodge - Evening Game Drive/Sundowner
We are up early for a brisk morning walk to see the sunrise and how the colors change in this beautiful region. After breakfast, we journey towards Timbavati, our base to the world famous Kruger National Park. On the Panorama Route, we travel to Bourke's Luck Potholes, the impressive Lisbon or Berlin Falls and the majestic Blyde River Canyon, the third largest canyon in the world. We continue our journey through the rural towns of the Lowveld to Timbavati Safari Lodge. Enjoy the excitement of a sundowner in the wild after our sunset game drive on a private reserve. Dinner will be a delicious braai in a reeded boma, under a canopy of African starlight.
Day 5: Kruger National Park - Full Day Safari
We get up before sunrise to search for the "Big Five" in the famous Kruger National Park. We set off after an early breakfast for a full day safari with a picnic lunch in the park. Make sure your camera is fully charged as we won't be returning until dusk. Keep your eyes open for elephant, lion, cheetah, rhino, buffalo, giraffe and other magnificent wildlife roaming South Africa's most famous game park.
Day 6: To Swaziland, Mlilwane Wildlife Sanctuary, Bush Walk, Swazi Chief Visit
Today, we travel into the Kingdom of Swaziland. Lunch will be enroute. In the late afternoon, we visit the Umphakatsi Chief's homestead, which is a hands-on experience run by the female chief, Inkhosikati. Your guide, who will hand the women in your party traditional Swazi cloths to wrap around their waists, greets us at Mlilwane's main gate. The Inkhosikati has a vibrant, energetic and infectious manner and not only talks us through how the huts and traditional items are made, but also teaches us the Siswati words for them.
Day 7: Kingdom of Swaziland, Royal National Park
This morning we take a safari walk to explore this tiny kingdom. Afterwards we head to Hlane Royal National Park, where we will enjoy a light lunch before embarking on an afternoon rhino drive. Hlane is famous for its abundant rhino population. This is easily one of the best opportunities to see rhinos at very close range. The juvenile rhinos can be very curious and can often approach our vehicles. We explore these former royal hunting grounds by vehicle after lunch. Later in the afternoon, we return back to Mlilwane Reserve.
Day 8: Return to South Africa- Zululand
This morning we travel back into South Africa and into the province of Kwa-Zulu Natal, the heartland of the Zulu people. We journey further south to the town of Mkuze where we stop for a light lunch followed by a visit into the Lebombo Mountains, where we visit a traditional Zulu homestead and experience rural Zululand as it is today.
Day 9: iSimangaliso Wetland Park (UNESCO)
Our journey today takes us to iSimangaliso Wetland Park (previously known as the Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park). iSimangaliso Wetland Park is one of the jewels of South Africa's coastline, with a unique mosaic of ecosystems - swamps, lakes, beaches, coral reefs, wetlands, woodlands, coastal forests and grasslands - supporting an astounding diversity of animal, bird and marine life. The park takes in a 60-kilometer river mouth that creates a huge estuary, Lake St Lucia, running parallel to the coast and separated from the sea by the world's highest forested sand dunes. The lake is part of the St Lucia estuarine system, the largest estuarine system in Africa.
Day 10: Full Day Safari in Hluhluwe Imfolozi Park
We have another exciting day on safari in one of the oldest game reserves in South Africa - Hluhluwe Imfolozi. From your open game drive vehicle with an experienced game ranger, we search for the "Big 5", as well as an abundance of other African wildlife. The park is one of the best places to view rhinos. Enjoy lunch back at the hotel in between the morning and afternoon game drives.
Day 11: To Kloof, Durban
We travel down the coast to South Africa's 3rd largest city, Durban. In Umhlanga, we enjoy a light lunch close to the seaside. From here, we drive a little farther inland to Kloof where we will be staying at a Botanical Garden. The rest of the afternoon is free to relax and enjoy the garden.
Day 12: Drakensberg Escarpment, Oaklands
This morning we travel to Howick, where we visit the capture site of Nelson Mandela and the Apartheid Museum. Following our visit, we make our way to the Free State and the Drakensberg region. We enjoy a short city tour around Ladysmith to enjoy its rich history of the region, which is captured in the architectural styles of old buildings. It is here we learn more about the battles before we visit the actual battlefields from the Anglo-Boer War.
Day 13: Drakensberg Mountains and Zulu Communities
We rise to take in the beautiful morning sun as it warms up the Drakensberg escarpment and greets us for our full day excursion into the valley of the mountains to meet rural Zulu communities. Enjoy a picnic lunch amongst the dramatic Drakensberg backdrop. Experience an indigenous South African tribal way of life and observe traditional home building, food preparation, and cultural dancing. Meet the tribes and learn more about their families and way of life. In the afternoon when the suns heat has cooled down we will have a nature walk and explore the flora and fauna, as well as the bird life and possible game spotting in the unspoiled countryside.
Day 14: To the Kingdom of Lesotho
We travel towards the Kingdom of Lesotho and stop at the Basotho Cultural Village situated at the entrance to the Golden Gate National Park. The museum introduces visitors to the South Sotho (Basotho) nation, from its inception through to the present. After the tour we make our way to our overnight accommodation.
Day 15: Ramabanta
Today we visit a Basotho village and school after breakfast. For hiking enthusiasts, enjoy a mountainous hike where you can go to see ancient bushman cave paintings.
Day 16: Return to Graaff-Reinet, South Africa via the Roma Plateau
Today we have a long drive. We set off early after breakfast and drive to the Roma Plateau to see dinosaur footprints. They are believed to be approximately 200 million years old. We cross the border and return to South Africa before stopping for a late lunch in Burgersdorp. Time permitting, we pass by the Taal Monument. From here, we continue our drive to Graaff-Reinet where we will stay for the next two nights.
Day 17: Graaff-Reinet, Valley of Desolation in the Great Karoo
This morning we spend time exploring the town of Graaff-Reinet by foot, arguably one of the most charming and historic towns in all of South Africa. After lunch we visit the Valley of Desolation for sundown. A steep and narrow road leads into the mountains that surround the valley. A circular hiking trail leads to wonderful views of Graaff-Reinet and of the endless expanse of the surrounding Karoo. This trail is very rocky and clients should wear comfortable walking/hiking shoes.
Day 18: Tsitsikamma National Park, The Garden Route
We continue our journey through the Eastern Cape today, traveling to the coast. We drive through the local sheep and farming region, enjoying breathtaking countryside views before making our way to Tsitsikamma National Park. On arrival at the park, there is time to take a hike or walk on the beach.
Day 19: Knysna - Featherbed Nature Reserve
Today we enjoy a eco-experience in Featherbed Nature Reserve. Our journey includes a return ferry trip, 4x4 nature drive and a guided walk, including spectacular viewpoints and ancient sea caves while learning about the history and flora and fauna of the reserve, ending with a sumptuous buffet lunch at the Food Forest Restaurant.
Day 20: To Oudtshoorn - Ostrich Farm, Cango Caves
We travel inland to Oudtshoorn, where we visit an ostrich farm. We also visit the Cango Caves situated at the head of the picturesque Cango Valley, in a limestone ridge parallel to the Swartberg Mountains, where you will find dripstone caverns, with their vast halls and towering formations.
Day 21: To Cape Town
Today we drive to one of the most beautiful cities in the world, Cape Town, enjoying the scenery enroute.
Day 22: Table Mountain, Robben Island
We begin our day by ascending the famous Table Mountain by cable car. From the top we have spectacular views in every direction including over the city, Robben Island, the beaches of the Atlantic Ocean, Mountain Ranges, ravines and the Inland Plains.
Day 23: Coastal Drive to Cape Point, Good Hope Nature Reserve
We travel along the Atlantic Seaboard via Sea Point, Clifton, Camps Bay and Llandudno to Hout Bay, a quaint village and fishing harbor with magnificent views of the mountains and beach. On through Chapman's Peak, one of the world's most breathtaking coastal drives, to Cape Point and the Good Hope Nature Reserve, which has fantastic fynbos vegetation, birdlife, endemic antelope species, zebra, historic lighthouses and shipwrecks. Cape Point is perceived to be the meeting point of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans.
Day 24: Stellenbosch, Wine Tour
This morning after breakfast we set off for Stellenbosch, the second oldest settlement in South Africa after Cape Town. Its oak lined streets and famed Cape Dutch architecture make it one of the most charming towns in the country. We continue from here to Paarl, where we stop at the impressive Afrikaans Language Monument, that offers awe inspiring views of the Winelands and the Hottentots Holland Mountains, before enjoying lunch and a wine tasting at one of the nearby wine estates. We continue to Franschhoek, where we enjoy another wine tasting, before returning to Cape Town. Tonight we will enjoy our group farewell dinner.
Day 25: Depart Cape Town, South Africa
Today we say goodbye to Cape Town and Africa and transfer to the airport to connect with our international flights homeward.
1-800-741-7956 North America • 0808-234-1714 United Kingdom • 416-588-5000 Worldwide


text:
Braxton Hicks contractions are a painless but sometimes
uncomfortable tightening of the uterus. The contractions may be mild enough to
go unnoticed or may be strong enough to make the woman stop what she is
Braxton Hicks contractions might be considered "warm-up exercises"
for the uterus during pregnancy. They can begin as early as the 20th week and
increase through the 40th week (9th month) of pregnancy.
It is often hard to tell the difference between true labor and
Braxton Hicks contractions. Braxton Hicks contractions:
True labor pains tend to last longer, become stronger, and occur
closer together than Braxton Hicks contractions.
Last Revised:
January 8, 2013
Healthwise Staff
Medical Review:
Sarah Marshall, MD - Family Medicine & William Gilbert, MD - Maternal and Fetal Medicine
This information does not replace the advice of a doctor. Healthwise, Incorporated disclaims any warranty or liability for your use of this information. Your use of this information means that you agree to the Terms of Use. How this information was developed to help you make better health decisions.
To learn more visit Healthwise.org
© 1995-2012 Healthwise, Incorporated. Healthwise, Healthwise for every health decision, and the Healthwise logo are trademarks of Healthwise, Incorporated.


text:
Small. 3 x 3/4
Large. 3 1/4 x 1 long
choose your color
There are no reviews for this item. Be the first to review it!
Shipping times range from 7 to 10 business days and may be longer depending on size of order.
WE SHIP TO CANADAWAX FAKE FOODS, Wax Candle Embeds, Candles , Wax Melts


text:
Even mild-mannered scientists get excited sometimes.
Take Audrey Magoun, a 35-year veteran of field biological research, who made a discovery so unexpected she says, "I have to admit I literally skipped down the mountain trail coming home, saying, 'Yahoo! Yahoo!' all the way down."
Magoun had just confirmed the first wolverine in recorded history in northeastern Oregon. "I was just exhilarated," she said.
With the remote trail camera in hand, she headed home to look at the pictures on a large computer screen. There she got an even bigger surprise; the camera had snapped photos of not one but two male wolverines.
Later, another camera captured images of yet a third wolverine.
Magoun had found three wolverines in her first season of research since moving to Oregon, making discoveries that had eluded the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) for decades.
She knew what she was doing, having tracked wolverines in Alaska and Canada since 1978. In the early days researchers lured wolverines into traps, tranquilized them and then fitted them with radio collars to see where they went.
Modern technology has made that intensive, hands-on handling of wildlife virtually unnecessary. "You can find out a lot of things about wolverines just using cameras," says Magoun. "It's not quite as invasive.
She has carried cameras, supplies and roadkill deer in her backpack deep into the Eagle Cap Wilderness of Oregon's Wallowa Mountain to set up 34 camera stations over a two-year span.
She hangs the deer as bait but the free food lured in more than just wolverines. Marten, bear, elk, flying squirrels, bobcat, cougar and a wolf have all come to the bait station and had their pictures taken. Magoun only learns of these sightings after she hikes back to each and every location to retrieve the memory cards.
Her cameras have spied wolverines from about 5,500 feet in elevation up to 7,000 feet. "They probably roam higher, but I can't get up there in the winter because of the avalanche danger," she said.
Magoun's success has inspired other researchers to resume the hunt for wolverines and other carnivores in Oregon's central Cascades range. ODFW teamed with Oregon Wildlife and the U.S. Forest Service to place 20 cameras across three wilderness areas, but after a full season of waiting, no wolverines had visited any of the cameras retrieved in the summer of 2013.
Like Magoun's cameras, however, the Cascade cameras saw a host of other wildlife including montane fox, flying squirrel, a bear and a rare high elevation sighting of a raccoon.
Says Oregon Wildlife's Jamie McFadden-Hiller, "When we're looking for a wolverine it's like looking for a needle in a haystack, but you don't know if that needle exists."
Her team hopes to get funding to continue the Cascades Carnivore Project into a second season.
Magoun extended her cameras for a second winter in the Wallowas. This time only one wolverine returned, one she nicknamed Stormy.
"He didn't show up until January," says Magoun. "So where he was all the time, I don't know."
DNA analysis of a hair sample from Stormy traces his roots to a known population of wolverines in Idaho. They have ranges of hundreds of miles and swim easily. Magoun says wolverines would have no trouble swimming the Snake River to visit Oregon.
She's not sure where the other two wolverines went. But she intends to keep looking.
"For me, wolverines make wilderness — more than wolves, more than grizzly bears," Magoun says.
"To me, if an area doesn't have wolverines, I don't feel like I'm in the northern wilderness. I feel like something's missing."
The US Fish & Wildlife Service is due to decide in 2014 whether to add wolverines to the endangered species list.
By Vince Patton for OPB, a NW News Exchange co-op member


text:
- This event has passed.
Shark Reef Talk
October 23 @ 11:00 am - 11:20 am
|Recurring Event (See all)
An event every day that begins at 11:00 am, repeating indefinitely
During our daily talk, an educator will share interesting facts about the inhabitants of our aquarium's largest tank. Come with questions! On select days, this talk will include a conversation with a live diver inside the exhibit.


text:
A year before his death Einstein expressed in a hand written letter his views rejecting the existence of god as childish superstition. In the same letter he espoused that the Jewish people of whom he gladly belonged were nonetheless no more chosen nor special than any other. That letter is now up for auction on eBay. Per the article:
Einstein handwrote the letter in German to Jewish philosopher Eric B. Gutkind on Jan. 3, 1954, a year before Einstein's death. The letter was a response to Gutkind's book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt" (1952, H. Schuman; 1st edition). In part of his letter, Einstein writes, "For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people....In a March 24, 1954 letter, he is quoted as writing, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." However, in the letter to Gutkind, Einstein wrote the word God was "nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
Update: The letter was bought by an anonymous purchaser for $3,000,100.
Views: 454
Cool John I made a discussion of this too - no one saw it - or missed it somehow.
Thank you. For some reason I've not head of this action or letter yet. Very interesting.
Great stuff from Einstein, I particularly like the last line in reference to the bible.
This letter risks being sold very expensively. I have written about it before on a thread in Atheist Nexus, and suggested that I fear that some christian or Jewish billionaire will buy it in order to destroy it.
I posted the same discussion in the Atheist News group and the member, David W, there had the same concern:
Nice. I wouldn't put it past some wealthy religious person or group to purchase the letter and then ceremoniously destroy it.
The opening bid was supposed to be $3,000,000.
Even if purchased and destroyed, it is now part of the historical record and well documented. It deserves a prominent place in the Smithsonian or American Museum of Natural History ... not in someone's house.
I agree that it should be in a museum. However, I don't know how absolutely it is part of history. If it were destroyed a debate could open as to what supposed copies of it were authentic and which were not.
In a March 24,1954 letter he indicates that people have falsely accused him of believing in a god. Per the article of this discussion:
In a March 24, 1954 letter, he is quoted as writing, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
Isn't he viewed as a scientist who usually don't believe anyway?
That doesn't stop the theists who have no freaking clue or just lie freely, as many do.
The letter was bought by an anonymous purchaser for $3,000,100.
© 2019 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group. Powered by


text:
Insulin leaks from your reservoir or infusion set are usually so small they are quite hard to detect. Your pump will not warn you of leaks. Insulin has a distinctive smell, often describes as creosote, or railroad ties, or Band Aids. Regular blood sugar tests are the only reliable way to detect leaks. No warning except for high blood sugars!
A hub will leak when it is not tightened snugly, but may also crack if tightened too much (Makes a thin crack down the hub that is hard to see).
Tighten hubs firmly but carefully at pump setup. If a leak is suspected, smell the hub for insulin. Insulin usually dries fast and cannot be seen. Replace the reservoir and infusion line if you are unsure about a hub leak.
Read Pumping Insulin for easy steps on how to succeed with your insulin pump.
Today's Insulin Pumps
New Advanced Pumping Slide Show
Compare Current Pumps
Pump FAQs From The Pump Oz Project
Slide Show On Who Makes A Good Pump Candidate
File/Search FDA Reports On Pump Problems
Pump Life
Pump Prep
Pump Solutions


text:
The tweets came, one after the other, telling a tale of cruelty and bloodshed.
We're talking, of course, about the posts – from online gossip columnist Perez Hilton's Twitter account – initially charging he was assaulted at a Toronto party over the weekend by will.i.am and the musician's bodyguards.
"I am bleeding. Please, I need to file a police report. No joke," Perez tweeted.
There were more tweets (after all, how much can you really say in 140 characters or less?) and a video response from will.i.am, who said that after a verbal dust-up with Hilton, fans defending the star's honor scuffled with the gossip. Hilton posted his own tear- and profanity-filled video Monday, disputing will.i.am's version (though Hilton now directly blames his injuries on the Black Eyed Peas' tour manager, who reportedly has been charged in the alleged assault).
The silly celebrity saga stands in marked juxtaposition to the tweets emanating from Iran, describing the continuing violence and containing links to the sickening video of the murder of a young woman named Neda, who quickly become the face of the uprising.
But who - or what - is the face of Twitter?
Much of the news about the microblogging tool in recent months – and there's been a ton of it, in traditional and nontraditional media – has focused on celebrity users (Oprah tweets! But Ashton's still the Twitter king!)
But the turmoil in Iran has provided a showcase for Twitter's possibilities – and potential pitfalls – as an information dissemination tool.
Despite a clampdown on social media by embattled Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad following his disputed claims of a re-election landslide, Twitter, Facebook and other online services have become a key means of distributing news and rallying opposition to the regime. However, there have been troubling reports of disinformation campaigns employing online media.
The lack of filters is both Twitter's strength and weakness. The power of Twitter rest with the users – in what's posted and in whose tweets you follow and believe.
The content can range from the frivolous to important breaking news. Users can choose to follow the moment-by-moment travails of Perez Hilton, the budding revolution in Iran as it unfolds – or both.
Either way, what we're really seeing is a revolution in how information is delivered.
Hester is founding director of the award-winning, multi-media NYCity News Service at the City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism. He is the former City Editor of the New York Daily News, where he started as a reporter in 1992.