Cluster Two

i said what i said. i wasn’t confused about saying it.

if i found out a woman had aborted a fetus because she found out that fetus had a disability that i have—disabilities that i have firsthand knowledge of being painful, difficult to live with, and often resource-intensive—i would not be angry with her. i would not feel like she doesn’t think people like me should not be alive (unless she actually said so).

fetuses are not little potential “you”s. projecting your own anxieties onto a woman’s abortion (”i wouldn’t have wanted to be aborted” is common reasoning in plenty of pro-life circles; it’s not better here) is invasive and nonsensical.

bodily autonomy isn’t conditional. you don’t know a woman’s exact reason for abortion and you don’t need to. women’s rights to abortion need to be protected, even if you feel icky about some potential reasoning behind an abortion, which you aren’t even fully privy to in the first place.

disabled people should always be in the care of people who have the resources and desire to take care of them. insisting that disabled children be born simply to ease your own moral qualms with abortion is frankly unethical in my opinion, resources are often very slim for disabled people. not to mention our quality of life is often just lower in general. you can argue all you want in the notes about “mild” disabilities but you aren’t the arbiter of what constitutes a mild enough disability to make an abortion terrible and immoral and shame-worthy. 

women aren’t vessels. regardless of how morally pure you feel your crusade is, they simply aren’t.

speaking as a disabled person, energy is literally always better spent on changing society—by increasing resources for caretakers and disabled people alike, speaking frankly about quality of life, correcting notions about what disabled people’s lives are like, punishing mistreatment of actual disabled people [not potential ones], and putting research into easing the pain/suffering of people as much as possible—than it is on getting mad about women getting abortions. and it isn’t just better spent that way, it’s just immoral to do the latter.

Tycho supernova remnant in visible light, x-ray, and a composite.

(Constellation of Cassiopeia)

In 1572, Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe was among those who noticed a new bright object in the constellation Cassiopeia. Adding fuel to the intellectual fire that Copernicus started, Tycho showed this “new star” was far beyond the Moon, and that it was possible for the Universe beyond the Sun and planets to change.

Astronomers now know that Tycho’s new star was not new at all. Rather it signaled the death of a star in a supernova, an explosion so bright that it can outshine the light from an entire galaxy. This particular supernova was a Type Ia, which occurs when a white dwarf star pulls material from, or merges with, a nearby companion star until a violent explosion is triggered. The white dwarf star is obliterated, sending its debris hurtling into space.

As with many supernova remnants, the Tycho supernova remnant, as it’s known today (or “Tycho,” for short), glows brightly in X-ray light because shock waves — similar to sonic booms from supersonic aircraft — generated by the stellar explosion heat the stellar debris up to millions of degrees. In its two decades of operation, NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory has captured unparalleled X-ray images of many supernova remnants.

Chandra reveals an intriguing pattern of bright clumps and fainter areas in Tycho. What caused this thicket of knots in the aftermath of this explosion? Did the explosion itself cause this clumpiness, or was it something that happened afterward?

This latest image of Tycho from Chandra is providing clues. To emphasize the clumps in the image and the three-dimensional nature of Tycho, scientists selected two narrow ranges of X-ray energies to isolate material (silicon, colored red) moving away from Earth, and moving towards us (also silicon, colored blue). The other colors in the image (yellow, green, blue-green, orange and purple) show a broad range of different energies and elements, and a mixture of directions of motion. In this new composite image, Chandra’s X-ray data have been combined with an optical image of the stars in the same field of view from the Digitized Sky Survey.

By comparing the Chandra image of Tycho to two different computer simulations, researchers were able to test their ideas against actual data. One of the simulations began with clumpy debris from the explosion. The other started with smooth debris from the explosion and then the clumpiness appeared afterwards as the supernova remnant evolved and tiny irregularities were magnified.

A statistical analysis using a technique that is sensitive to the number and size of clumps and holes in images was then used. Comparing results for the Chandra and simulated images, scientists found that the Tycho supernova remnant strongly resembles a scenario in which the clumps came from the explosion itself. While scientists are not sure how, one possibility is that star’s explosion had multiple ignition points, like dynamite sticks being set off simultaneously in different locations.

Understanding the details of how these stars explode is important because it may improve the reliability of the use of Type Ia supernovas “standard candles” — that is, objects with known inherent brightness, which scientists can use to determine their distance. This is very important for studying the expansion of the universe. These supernovae also sprinkle elements such as iron and silicon, that are essential for life as we know it, into the next generation of stars and planets.