Leaderboard

A post of clarity in a sea of sport-bitching. I like this thinking. Here's my problem with the discussion. Roe found that abortions were legal until 28 weeks, because that was the court-defined point of "viability." Ok, let's use that term/idea as the consistent standard. To be logically consistent, pro-choice people should now be for restricting abortions after 22 weeks, because medicine has improved since 1973, and the data shows that babies are surviving at 22 weeks. Hell, one was just born at 21 weeks in MN, albeit it was a miracle. The standard Roe sets is a sliding scale. As medicine improves, that number should keep going down. It could even theoretically go down to 1 day. Are abortion advocates going to hold that consistent "viability" standard if that happens? Hell no, because "viability" isn't really their argument. The true argument is "choice." It boils down to this: My ability to live my life as I choose, without the responsibility of a child, is more important than the fetus' right to live. Read that twice, and tell me that doesn't make you uneasy. Idk what the answer is, but I can't support that argument.

This is a stupid Bodn argument. If we found a blade of grass in the universe it’d be life. This is a subjective moral dilemma. I ask my religious friends where in the Bible it talks about abortion...the conversation goes off the subjective rails from there. Not all life has value and value is a subjective opinion. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." -Jeremiah 1:5 My friend, your opinion is also that, an opinion. And some opinions have zero value.

A philosophically consistent mechanism for determining the beginning of human life might be using the opposite of the identified end of human life: 1. cessation of either circulatory & respiratory function OR 2. cessation of brain activity. A logical starting point would be assuming human life begins at the opposite of defined human death.

BLUF: I want our laws and policy to err on the side of personal freedom and choice, particular on complex issues (such as abortion or gun control) Your question is over simplistic. I'll admit though it's an uneasy question though, but that's good. It assumes that all people will change their life after having a child to raise that child and not neglect it. But that's not even the case today. You could threaten the selfish parent with fines or jail, but that doesn't solve the problem of a child being raised poorly or perhaps even abused, and even if they are removed from the bad parents, they'll enter the foster care system. So here's some more uncomfortable questions. So who pays to keep a very premature baby (20ish weeks) alive? It's only viable through medical advances and affected by the availability of the equipment and staff as well as an individual's ability to pay for that advanced care. Should the mother or father be forced to pay for that care of they didn't want the baby in the first place but was forced to deliver because abortion was made illegal? Or if the government (society) is willing to pay for an expensive NICU stay, why aren't we willing to pay for other healthcare later in life (like an aggressive cancer through no fault of the individual, treatment is expensive and if you don't have the money, it doesn't matter how good the medicine is because you don't have access to it). This makes an unwanted child society's problem, and we don't have the drive/will to care for abandoned children at a larger scale. Do we give those kids free school lunch? What about access to medical care? How do we incentivize adoption, especially of kids that have significant medical out behavioral issues? Many pro life advocates stop valuing life after birth, as shown by their stance on access to medical care, or school lunch subsidies (or rejecting benefactors that aren't the parents from paying off school lunch debts), or willingness to adopt/foster children. All of that under the guise of personal responsibility (which does exist to a certain extent no doubt, but there's also a social responsibility as well that often is ignored). Because if we take away the abortion choice of an individual, we have to replace that with societal support. Otherwise, that child will suffer, maybe throughout their life (it can be hard to dig out of a hole, especially if you start life already in a hole) Some other uncomfortable questions: What constitutes a medically necessary abortion? An outright ban on abortion *will* kill women. Who makes the decision then? What about if it's in a gray area where there's trades between the health outcomes for the mother vs the baby with no "right" answer? Who pays for the expensive procedures that increase the odds of positive health outcomes, for either the mother or baby? Doctors, nurses, and medical staff do not week for free. What about if the women is pregnant due to rape? What if medicine identifies significant diseases in utero? If the baby will suffer and die shortly after birth, should it be brought to term? What if the parents don't have good insurance and will not be able to pay for treatment during the baby's short life, even if they expend all their savings and retirement accounts (which jeopardizes their life and retirement, putting additional stress on social systems as they get to retirement age)? What about maternal care before the birth? Should things like prenatal vitamins be provided to pregnant women to avoid adverse outcomes for the baby? (For example, supplementing with folate is recommended to avoid spina bifida in the baby). What about routine visits? What if the pregnancy is determined to be high risk to the mother or baby, who pays for the additional visits and specialist care? What about normal expenses during and after pregnancy? If a mother can't work due to pregnancy, should they starve (bad outcome for the baby) or go into debt if they don't have access to paid short term or long term disability? What if they aren't married to the father? Would the father of the child be responsible for reimbursing the government (or mother) for any support provided to the mother before birth? Should the mother get any say in the matter? Often the arguments ignore the fact that the mother is also a person that is significantly impacted by pregnancy physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially, and is not just an incubator for a fetus. On the other end of the problem, what do you think about the whole "poor women having babies to increase welfare payment?" Maybe they just really value life and won't have an abortion because they believe it is wrong/evil, and are doing the right thing by keeping the baby and raising it. Should the government force them to stop having sex? Or worse? There's many other questions that touch the abortion question. Like I said in the other thread, I don't think abortion for personal convenience is right, but there's enough gray area or unanswered questions that there may be acceptable or even necessary reasons for abortion. Since that's the case, I would want our laws and policy to err on the side of personal freedom and choice. Too often we focus on the 5-10% where the something (like freedom of choice) is abused, rather than the 90-95% when things work like intended for the reasons the flexibility was provided for.

the author of that opinion article couldn't be biased... sorry, a collection of random quotes doesn't mean shit just because it has 'princeton.edu' in the URL

Pretty simple. He’s using a parallel example of Mars to show the error in your/society’s whimsical definition of “life.”

The new PSDM just dropped today with a 5 October 2021 deadline and the board meets 16-18 November. Best of luck for everyone applying!

Don't just post good shit like that and not include a link! https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2021/02/25/san-antonio-based-pilot-selected-to-join-air-force-thunderbirds/ Congrats, Wang Chung!

Is it murder to pull the plug on someone who is solely surviving based on life support equipment? Does that answer change if there are different levels of brain activity? Does it matter who pulls the plug? Or their reason for doing so? What if the life support equipment keeping a brain dead patient alive is needed to keep a patient who is responsive alive? Remember, hospital resources are finite. (Though if you're rich enough, you can buy your own equipment and staff). And yes this question is relevant, because a trade is being made between patients, and sometimes at the extreme of one or the other (mother vs baby).

I’ve yet to meet a violently pro-life individual that has adopted kids. im sure they exist … I just haven’t met one.

Alive on life support = alive. There’s nothing in the definition that stipulates self sustaining respiration. “Personhood” whatever that means is not something I even understand, much less have an opinion on.

He doesn't know how to do the 50 mission curve either. I would also say that the #44 car was faster then the Red Bull, but that's nothing new.

I don’t understand, did you initiate this discussion to blame Trump for something? The link you posted stretches imagination to blame the former POTUS. Here’s an article about C19 origins with some truly good analysis and information: https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038

Well it's not. Narrow body example. I fly highly inefficient trips. 2-4 hours of flying for 10:30 pay, two days. So to get a full month, I do 8 of those for 84 hours. 16 days of work, 16-32 flight hours, 8 nights away from home. A highly efficient trip might pay 13:00 for a 2-day or 19:00 for a three day. So two of the first and three of the second equals 83 hours. 13 days of work, 78-83 flight hours, 8 nights away from home. A third efficiency option are 8:00 turns (single day, two legs). Fly 11 of those, 88 flight hours for 88 hours of pay, home every night. Goes very senior. I'm getting a much better pay/flight-hour, but pilots two and three get more days off. And a lot of guys I fly with who do just that will say "I don't mind flying the hours, I want more time off." More power to them. 8-hour turns are my hell. What we want is not what they want. Thank God, because I wouldn't get what I want if the 12,000 pilots senior to me wanted it too.

I’m jealous bro. You’re living the dream

Every time you rub one out you are eliminating the lives of millions #NoFap

Shack. I can't begin to tell you how beautiful it is to be less than 40 minutes from both my base and my guard unit. I bid reserve on purpose; sometimes long/most of the time short. There are days I get 3-4 hrs notice. Sometimes (rarely) it's a 4-day trip. A lot of times it's a 2-day or a day turn and I am back in my bed that night. I've gotten the call while I was mowing the lawn or working on the car and I was able to wrap things up and take a shower and pack and get out the door with time to spare. If you have the opportunity to live near a very junior base you can move up in the ranks on reserve pretty fast because a lot of Pilots are looking to get the hell out of there and move somewhere else so they don't have to commute more. I've flown with Captains that run off the airplane and asked me to shut her down because they're trying to make it to the next terminal so they can get home that night. Some have to stay in a hotel that night because they had no way to get back home and they're flying home on their off days. I couldn't imagine living that way.

Max, buddy, can we talk for a minute? Listen, man, that was a good race. Merc's strategy just was better, but you did a really good job and are still up there in the points race as well. No, really the reason I wanted to talk was... Man, don't know how to bring this up but... Dude, it's the 'stache. It's gotta go or at least go full 70's porn star with it. This thin manicured line makes you look like a knock-off Inspector Clouseau or Hercules Poirot. Either way, it's just not a good look for you. Only saying this to help...

Sure, I’m currently 4th year. SWA wasn’t initially huge on my radar either, but looking back and knowing what I know I probably would’ve targeted it. My guess is that’s what most guys from the other majors would say about their own airline too! Cons: - You’ll fly a 737…kind of cramped, non-Maxes are noisy, old timey overhead panel, etc. It’s a bigger deal to some than others depending on personal desire for variety or something big or going to the other side of the world. - Current year 1-4 pay lags the other majors, then it is about equal year 5 and moves ahead (of narrowbody scales) after that. Still, it doesn’t reach senior wide body pay elsewhere. - Days can get busy…3-leg days are probably average, 2 or 4-leg days are common, and 1 or 5-leg days exist (somewhat rare). So in a same duty day you’re doing more briefings, more up-down, ears popping, etc. I find it helps the day go by quicker than droning, but definitely tough to catch up on the Netflix que—I mean study the FOM. - Generally younger and evenly spread pilot group, so retirements trickle compared to other guys. Upgrade seems to always be at 8 years, give or take. - No long call reserve, and nobody in the pilot group who has to go back to the sims because they’re overdue on landing currency. The game for senior guys at other airlines seems to be minimizing time at work while still getting paid. At SWA it’s maximizing pay for the time spent at work. Pros: - 11 domiciles around the country (except the PNW) so odds of being able to drive to work are fairly high. - Company stability…the airline is run by real nerds who stay for the long haul. 2020 was the first year in its 50 year history it hasn’t turned a profit, and its financials are always well ahead of industry-standard. - Job security: I’ll keep this as a pro because it’s still true SWA has never furloughed a pilot. But I’d caution that past performance doesn’t equal future success, and last year there was an uncharacteristic demand from the company for pilot concessions, which when we didn’t agree to, resulted in furlough notices going out. It’ll be interesting to see if it foreshadowed a more “traditional” labor relations posture than we’ve historically enjoyed moving forward. - Trip trade market: since everyone is qualified on the same aircraft you’ve got a robust ability to trade or pickup trips with other pilots or with the company (some of that can pay time and a half). Picking up flying to make more money is usually pretty easy (except during pandemics). The flip side is the only way to decrease your flying is to hope another pilot wants to take your trip from you, which is tougher to do in July than it is February. - Culture-wise, I won’t get too rah-rah other than to say it is exactly as it looks from the outside. The work groups pretty much all get along and nobody takes themselves too seriously. I haven’t flown with anyone yet who I wouldn’t fly with again. - Being home: I think 50% of trips are 3-days, and the remaining are divided between 1, 2, and 4 days. Average line is 3-on, 4-off (x4) or 4-on, 3-off (x3) plus a random day for 13 total days of work. And you’re never more than 3 time zones away, so you can stay in touch with the family, get business done on the road, or get home quick if there’s a family emergency. - No language barriers, NATS procedures, non-radar environments, ATC driving you into thunderstorms, etc. All told, it’s not perfect or everyone’s cup of tea (especially if they’ve got the widebody international itch), but it’s been a joy for me and never nearly as bad as some of the warnings I’d heard. Definitely a great place to spend a 30+ year career!

Priority - the airline that has a base where you want to live (within ~2 hrs to enable short call...for when you have to do that. Closer the better just for general drive time to work). Secondary - The first major that gives you a job; seniority is damn near everything. If you don’t get your priority airline out the gate, maybe consider jumping if they call you later, to a certain extent...at some point your seniority at the first airline won’t be worth trading. I don’t know what that line is, maybe 6-12 mo? I know a few guys who jumped at the year point and are happy they did it. Either way, very personal choice and dependent on a lot of personal factors. The rest of the discussion on contracts, etc. is a little bit of an exercise in masturbation. Contracts will rise and fall, airlines will go from worst to best and back to worst, etc. You weather those falls with seniority and living the life you want (location, etc.) Bottom line: Apply to multiple and take what you get...cross the “swap bridge” when you get there (if at all).

Obviously the definition of life is not the appropriate framing for the conversation, especially within the context of a single celled organism on mars. I'm sure you would also concede that a spider, a mosquito, a cow, and aging family pet, or a mouse would be considered "life." We do not debate these intentional life-endings with nearly the same furor. Ironically, if you were to correlate political ideologies, the people who are against the murder of non-human-animal "life' are equally for the protection of abortion. But that's because the environmental movement is more anti-human than it is pro-earth. Tangent. Each side of the abortion debate is trying to frame it using precisely chosen words to bolster their argument. Every single person knows exactly what the debate is about. Killing a fetus. It doesn't matter what we would do on Mars with a single cell. It also doesn't matter that a fetus can't function on its own. Debate the issue, not the semantics. And in case it seems like I'm waffling, I'm personally against all abortions that aren't for rape or health concerns for the mother or child. However I concede, as an atheist, that my views are based on a personal analysis of humanity and not some magical graybeard in the sky telling me what to do. In such instances where the population is clearly split, the tie goes to the citizen. So I would make abortion legal up the the point of viability (currently hovering around 22 weeks, so let's call it 25 for now). After viability only serious risk to the mother or child would be ground for an abortion. A middle ground solution to a deeply divided issue. But like so many conversations in American politics today, we now spend more time talking about the semantics of the issues than the issue itself.

Hired in september. Do you have dates yet? Have you even done anything officially on military duty? I just don't know if you have much room to work with. If you were off at training and they fired you... for sure. But it sounds like you were actively working for the company, and they chose to release you.