|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 27 2023 23:38 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2023 23:33 BlackJack wrote:On October 27 2023 23:14 JimmiC wrote:On October 27 2023 22:51 BlackJack wrote:On October 27 2023 17:41 Acrofales wrote:On October 27 2023 17:10 gobbledydook wrote:
I actually think the literal reading of the survey question favours Blackjack's interpretation here. We shouldn't be reading into the minds of those answering the survey when the obvious answer is available: there is a small but significant minority that support abortions at any stage of pregnancy for any reason. That is one interpretation, but reading the survey, I myself would probably have said that abortion should be legal for any reason in the third trimester of pregnancy. But I don't mean that abortion should necessarily end with a dead baby, and if it's a viable, even healthy, baby, it should just get axed because that is what abortion means to blackjack and you. What I mean with abortion should be legal is that the mother has the right to not be pregnant anymore at any given point. Of course, the moment the fetus is sufficiently developed to survive outside the womb, it has the right to do so, and abortion must now be done in a way in order to not harm the fetus, so probably a C-section (assuming the mother is otherwise healthy as well). The newborn is taken away and cared for in the best way we know how. The mother goes home and never sees the baby again. The pregnancy was successfully aborted. I support that. I don't support taking that newborn and murdering it. It is a lot of money and effort to resuscitate premature babies in the neonatal ICU. I don’t think it’s even worth it for a baby that nobody wants. I think you’re better off avoiding any heroic measures and if they live then great but if not oh well. That or consider a moratorium on abortion from like 22-32 weeks to avoid those messy cases in the middle of viability. Isn’t doing everything to keep a fetus alive even if no one wants it pretty core to the argument? But once it becomes a baby it’s not worth it anymore? Are you not plainly saying one of the main arguments against Republicans that they fight tooth and nail for fetuses and then give up instantly on the babies when they realize how much work and cost is involved? Per usual, I have no idea what you’re talking about. What does my post have to do with Republicans or what they believe? I’m certain pro-life Republicans would want to save the premie babies too, what’s your point? Doctors and nurses are going to try to save a baby if possible, it is what they do. Once the Fetus is out of the womb its a baby and were all on board with saving it and taking care of it. Is this one of these arguments you start where you are arguing just for the sake of arguing? Like you actually hold the Dem position on abortion but not the strawman Dem position so you are arguing against that and claim you do not have the Rep position?
Not everyone lives there lives by choosing the “Dem position” or the “Rep position.” It’s Acrofales position to be able to end the pregnancy at any time and then attempt life saving measures. I think that’s a waste of resources. I don’t think either major political party in the United States is aligned with this. It’s okay to have discussions that aren’t exactly Republican vs Democrat, even if it makes it difficult to decide what side you need to be on.
|
|
|
United States43021 Posts
On October 27 2023 23:01 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2023 22:53 Uldridge wrote:
The violinist analogy is flawed. You can always rationalize to disconnect 'at any time', but the second there is actually someone hooked onto you, using your body for survival, things change. Voluntarily pulling the plug on someone, even if it's someone you don't know, is not something you 'just do because it's inconvenient for my body and soul'. Also, in this metaphor you had no choice in the matter. In general, people get pregnant with premeditation (am I using that right?), so you 'don't just wake up' with some creature sapping your resources.
I think these thought experiments fall completely flat with what they're trying to achieve as they fail to take into account that they're very easy to assess from afar, but in the moment, it's a very different type of situation. Right, most people don’t get pregnant by being kidnapped and then waking up with a pregnancy they don’t want. Well, some people do. It’s called rape. Using the violin analogy is a sly way to reframe the debate around abortion in the instance of rape which is a much more favorable debate for a pro-choice argument.
Even if we accept that it only applies in instances of rape, that doesn't make a difference when rape as an exception isn't legally carved out. If the law fails to make that exception then the law is bad.
|
United States43021 Posts
On October 27 2023 23:52 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2023 23:38 JimmiC wrote:On October 27 2023 23:33 BlackJack wrote:On October 27 2023 23:14 JimmiC wrote:On October 27 2023 22:51 BlackJack wrote:On October 27 2023 17:41 Acrofales wrote:On October 27 2023 17:10 gobbledydook wrote:
I actually think the literal reading of the survey question favours Blackjack's interpretation here. We shouldn't be reading into the minds of those answering the survey when the obvious answer is available: there is a small but significant minority that support abortions at any stage of pregnancy for any reason. That is one interpretation, but reading the survey, I myself would probably have said that abortion should be legal for any reason in the third trimester of pregnancy. But I don't mean that abortion should necessarily end with a dead baby, and if it's a viable, even healthy, baby, it should just get axed because that is what abortion means to blackjack and you. What I mean with abortion should be legal is that the mother has the right to not be pregnant anymore at any given point. Of course, the moment the fetus is sufficiently developed to survive outside the womb, it has the right to do so, and abortion must now be done in a way in order to not harm the fetus, so probably a C-section (assuming the mother is otherwise healthy as well). The newborn is taken away and cared for in the best way we know how. The mother goes home and never sees the baby again. The pregnancy was successfully aborted. I support that. I don't support taking that newborn and murdering it. It is a lot of money and effort to resuscitate premature babies in the neonatal ICU. I don’t think it’s even worth it for a baby that nobody wants. I think you’re better off avoiding any heroic measures and if they live then great but if not oh well. That or consider a moratorium on abortion from like 22-32 weeks to avoid those messy cases in the middle of viability. Isn’t doing everything to keep a fetus alive even if no one wants it pretty core to the argument? But once it becomes a baby it’s not worth it anymore? Are you not plainly saying one of the main arguments against Republicans that they fight tooth and nail for fetuses and then give up instantly on the babies when they realize how much work and cost is involved? Per usual, I have no idea what you’re talking about. What does my post have to do with Republicans or what they believe? I’m certain pro-life Republicans would want to save the premie babies too, what’s your point? Doctors and nurses are going to try to save a baby if possible, it is what they do. Once the Fetus is out of the womb its a baby and were all on board with saving it and taking care of it. Is this one of these arguments you start where you are arguing just for the sake of arguing? Like you actually hold the Dem position on abortion but not the strawman Dem position so you are arguing against that and claim you do not have the Rep position? Not everyone lives there lives by choosing the “Dem position” or the “Rep position.” It’s Acrofales position to be able to end the pregnancy at any time and then attempt life saving measures. I think that’s a waste of resources. I don’t think either major political party in the United States is aligned with this. It’s okay to have discussions that aren’t exactly Republican vs Democrat, even if it makes it difficult to decide what side you need to be on.
Hold up, you think there isn't a major political party that thinks that newborn babies should get medical care? And you yourself think that medical care for newborn babies is a waste of resources?
Dude, what the fuck?
I thought it was a given that if we terminate a pregnancy at 8 months or whatever and the baby is alive then it should get a hospital stay until it's ready for foster care. I thought we could all agree on that. But apparently it's a waste of resources to let them live?
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
I assumed what BJ meant was it’s a waste of resources to abort a viable foetus and then have to keep it alive with all the difficulties associated with a premature birth, rather than waiting a few weeks and delivering normally.
I cannot imagine it’s a common scenario but I’d tend to agree that it’s a sub-optimal use of medical resources for that very specific scenario.
|
United States43021 Posts
On October 28 2023 02:36 WombaT wrote:
I assumed what BJ meant was it’s a waste of resources to abort a viable foetus and then have to keep it alive with all the difficulties associated with a premature birth, rather than waiting a few weeks and delivering normally.
I cannot imagine it’s a common scenario but I’d tend to agree that it’s a sub-optimal use of medical resources for that very specific scenario.
Sure, but what’s the alternative? The pregnant woman cannot be forced to share her body and the baby is blameless. To me there’s a huge gulf between “this is not economically optimal” and “let the baby die”. It can be the former without necessitating the latter.
|
On October 28 2023 02:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2023 02:36 WombaT wrote:
I assumed what BJ meant was it’s a waste of resources to abort a viable foetus and then have to keep it alive with all the difficulties associated with a premature birth, rather than waiting a few weeks and delivering normally.
I cannot imagine it’s a common scenario but I’d tend to agree that it’s a sub-optimal use of medical resources for that very specific scenario. Sure, but what’s the alternative? The pregnant woman cannot be forced to share her body and the baby is blameless. To me there’s a huge gulf between “this is not economically optimal” and “let the baby die”. It can be the former without necessitating the latter.
Inducing a pregnancy at 24 weeks just to have a team of medical professionals standing by to stick tubes in every orifice it has in a heroic effort to save it is ridiculous. Yeah I’m sure neither political party supports that. The alternative is to restrict the ability of a woman to end her pregnancy at any time for any reason. I believe most countries have adopted the alternative.
|
KwarK, could you provide a reason for a pregnant woman who wants to abort her pregnancy post 24 weeks where the woman won't carry it as longterm as possible?
Disease, a body condition, mental health, physical harm, baby viability, ... are all viable reasons for me to end a pregnancy, but I'm trying to see if you actually mean this, with the general undertone that the woman has the right to actually end it whenever for whatever reason - while this practically doesn't happen -, or if you mean something else.
|
|
|
This is a lot of discussion for something that doesn't actually exist...
|
On October 28 2023 02:51 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2023 02:40 KwarK wrote:On October 28 2023 02:36 WombaT wrote:
I assumed what BJ meant was it’s a waste of resources to abort a viable foetus and then have to keep it alive with all the difficulties associated with a premature birth, rather than waiting a few weeks and delivering normally.
I cannot imagine it’s a common scenario but I’d tend to agree that it’s a sub-optimal use of medical resources for that very specific scenario. Sure, but what’s the alternative? The pregnant woman cannot be forced to share her body and the baby is blameless. To me there’s a huge gulf between “this is not economically optimal” and “let the baby die”. It can be the former without necessitating the latter. Inducing a pregnancy at 24 weeks just to have a team of medical professionals standing by to stick tubes in every orifice it has in a heroic effort to save it is ridiculous. Yeah I’m sure neither political party supports that. The alternative is to restrict the ability of a woman to end her pregnancy at any time for any reason. I believe most countries have adopted the alternative.
Of course, it doesn't matter whether or not this is legal, because hospitals don't want to literally throw money down the drain for nothing but a few weeks, so i doubt you'll find many, if any, doctors who would agree to this, pretty much meaning the woman would need to give birth normally anyway. Unless of course, its a life threatening pregnancy where the outcome for both mother and baby improves with termination of the pregnancy.
|
On October 28 2023 03:12 JimmiC wrote:
How would you possibly determine between mental health and "not wanting it"? I would suggest that no one mentally healthy would make that choice. In most (if not all) systems there would be a lot of discussion before it would even be allowed as you need a doctor to agree that this is the correct course of action.
Obviously, these things are exceedingly rare and difficult to assess, but I found a case report.
Serial factitious disorder and Munchausen by proxy in pregnancy
We report on a 44-year-old woman who, over a period of two decades, self-induced labour and delivery in five consecutive pregnancies. She precipitated labour by rupturing her own amniotic sac with a fingernail or cervical manipulation, or misappropriating and self-administering prostaglandin suppositories from the hospital unit on which she worked as a nurse. Preterm deliveries resulted in fetal demise in one case and in neonatal intensive care treatment for two of the offspring.
How should we handle this?
Edit: I replied answering beside the question. I don't really know how to differentiate between those two. Like I said in my past posts; I don't actually think people become pregnant and then decide they don't actually want to be pregnant midway through. It takes a lot of effort.
|
Remember, you can support and even write into law a policy without thinking about and regulating every unique niche case that might happen.
Also a funny thing the freedom loving reps like to do. Regulate people's, I mean women's lives, completely dissociating from their own disregard of e.g. environmental protection policies "infringing" on what people are allowed to do, to prevent the destruction of our livelihoods.
|
|
|
On October 28 2023 03:37 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2023 03:12 JimmiC wrote:
How would you possibly determine between mental health and "not wanting it"? I would suggest that no one mentally healthy would make that choice. In most (if not all) systems there would be a lot of discussion before it would even be allowed as you need a doctor to agree that this is the correct course of action.
Obviously, these things are exceedingly rare and difficult to assess, but I found a case report. Serial factitious disorder and Munchausen by proxy in pregnancy Show nested quote +We report on a 44-year-old woman who, over a period of two decades, self-induced labour and delivery in five consecutive pregnancies. She precipitated labour by rupturing her own amniotic sac with a fingernail or cervical manipulation, or misappropriating and self-administering prostaglandin suppositories from the hospital unit on which she worked as a nurse. Preterm deliveries resulted in fetal demise in one case and in neonatal intensive care treatment for two of the offspring. How should we handle this? Edit: I replied answering beside the question. I don't really know how to differentiate between those two. Like I said in my past posts; I don't actually think people become pregnant and then decide they don't actually want to be pregnant midway through. It takes a lot of effort. That reads like its not so much a medical problem and more a mental illness problem.
|
I completely agree. I'm all for a professional assessment which resides in a general encompassing legislative framework, which isn't overly restrictive. By the way, time and time again cases pop up anyway where the law wasn't followed because professionals acted in the - imo - best interest.
I guess there's something grating about the way the "for any reason" was represented, but I haven't found a decent way of formulating it.
On October 28 2023 03:55 Gorsameth wrote:
That reads like its not so much a medical problem and more a mental illness problem.
It is. But the mental ilness problem can turn very easily into a medical problem once the mother induces labor causing a premature birth potentially causing harm to herself and her child.
|
I did not mean to spark a huge abortion debate. Personally I think I'm in the norm, 15-20 weeks after that life of the mother or other(some terrible) reasons. Wasn't really the point of my post But it is what it is I guess.
|
United States43021 Posts
On October 28 2023 03:07 Uldridge wrote:
KwarK, could you provide a reason for a pregnant woman who wants to abort her pregnancy post 24 weeks where the woman won't carry it as longterm as possible?
Disease, a body condition, mental health, physical harm, baby viability, ... are all viable reasons for me to end a pregnancy, but I'm trying to see if you actually mean this, with the general undertone that the woman has the right to actually end it whenever for whatever reason - while this practically doesn't happen -, or if you mean something else.
Pregnancy is really rough on the body. Maybe they were having an extremely difficult one and just wanted it out of them. There are women who just have really torturous pregnancy experiences and women who don't. Or an easy first pregnancy and a difficult second one. Some women with no mental health issues beforehand spend months literally wanting to kill themselves because of how much it fucks up their brains. The discussion is abstract and theoretical so it doesn't really matter but the question of why someone would want to abort a healthy baby does have possible answers.
It does however weigh in on the whole "you consented to have sex and so you consented to carry the baby to term, no matter what" thing. Pregnancy is an unknown, a black box, even for women who have already had children. There is no substance to any argument that the woman knew what she was getting into. She may have had a good idea what she was getting into in most cases but that does absolutely nothing for the edge cases where it was unexpectedly challenging.
Of the various reasons to compel someone to share their organs with another human I fail to see how "better use of hospital resources" is rising to the top. If we allowed for that reason as an excuse for violating bodily autonomy then all sorts of fun new cost saving methods become available.
|
Pregnancy can sure be extremely difficult. It's crazy how many ways it can go and how many ways it can turn out. Same goes for babies though. Babies are just as much a black box and you'll never know how torurous parenthood can be. Parents to be are not at all prepared. Personally I feel so extremely lucky to not have had a crybaby and I treaded the waters twice, even after my partner had to give birth due to HELLP. Friends of mine can't say the same and their lives have - possibly irreperably - changed.
I guess the best thing you can do in life is say: well, it won't happen to me. Because if you don't do that, you'll live the rest of your life in paralyzing fear.
|
On October 28 2023 03:58 Taelshin wrote:
I did not mean to spark a huge abortion debate. Personally I think I'm in the norm, 15-20 weeks after that life of the mother or other(some terrible) reasons. Wasn't really the point of my post But it is what it is I guess.
I think you would find a lot of people saying that was a reasonable compromise between parties but that it was very clearly disrupted by one side of the spectrum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
