|
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 November 19 2024 03:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2024 03:15 oBlade wrote:
many people of both sexes find something wrong with unrestricted technological/selective eugenics This is the first time anyone has mentioned eugenics. Why are you talking about eugenics?
What do you mean eugenics!?
Jews simply mind control people into abortions so that they can become the dominant population. Then they will claim the land. They call it New Israel. It's been written in The Journey Of Baphomet at least 5000k years ago. You know, when the Earth was still new and dinosaurs were around. It just so happens you don't need to kill, when people will kill themselves for you. It"s free, passive eugenics through deep state propaganda! You should really look into that Bern Goldsilverstein, he's the actual leader of the shadowgroup that runs the Rotschilds.
|
On November 19 2024 03:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2024 03:15 oBlade wrote:
many people of both sexes find something wrong with unrestricted technological/selective eugenics This is the first time anyone has mentioned eugenics. Why are you talking about eugenics?
Terminating a viable fetus in the 3rd trimester for no other reason than "fetus will not have a life worth living," put forth by our esteemed colleague, is eugenics. Encouraging that in society is eugenics. It's based on a judgment of a viable life that its life is worth less, which is in turn based on prenatal testing of variable reliability, which can itself induce miscarriages - all with the goal of assuring the best possible human stock is born and weeding out any chance of that genetic or other inferiority. This is no better than aborting because it's the wrong sex. Which in whatever case if people have to do, at least do it in the period before dealing with a viable life. That's not a third trimester thing. It's not excused at that point. Nor is it a "let it slide" case just because it's not as many as all the elective abortions that are done earlier. Now it may be a form of eugenics we ultimately conclude is ethical or necessary or a necessary evil, but nevertheless.
|
|
|
On November 19 2024 04:02 oBlade wrote:
Terminating a viable fetus in the 3rd trimester for no other reason than "fetus will not have a life worth living," put forth by our esteemed colleague, is eugenics. Encouraging that in society is eugenics. It's based on a judgment of a viable life that its life is worth less, which is in turn based on prenatal testing of variable reliability, which can itself induce miscarriages - all with the goal of assuring the best possible human stock is born and weeding out any chance of that genetic or other inferiority. This is no better than aborting because it's the wrong sex. Which in whatever case if people have to do, at least do it in the period before dealing with a viable life. That's not a third trimester thing. It's not excused at that point. Nor is it a "let it slide" case just because it's not as many as all the elective abortions that are done earlier. Now it may be a form of eugenics we ultimately conclude is ethical or necessary or a necessary evil, but nevertheless.
It's not not necessarily about life that's worth less. It's about the entirety as a whole, the child and the parents, that can suffer extremely under circumstances where the child is born with (un)expected disorders. It is infinitely better than aborting for the wrong sex, because in all of the times, "the wrong sex" was based on an intrinsically flawed idea that "the right sex" was better (for some weird made up reason because authoritarianism probably), when you need both sexes to actually thrive as a society. We've known this since before agriculture was invented.
You have no idea what you're talking about oBlade. People don't need to and don't have to succumb to a life of eternal servitude to their children because they'll never be able to take care of themselves. Regular children already transform your life enough as it is.
|
I guess some people can't fathom the idea that life can be too cruel to be worth living. Most adults understand the concept, but apparently not all.
|
On November 19 2024 04:02 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2024 03:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 19 2024 03:15 oBlade wrote:
many people of both sexes find something wrong with unrestricted technological/selective eugenics This is the first time anyone has mentioned eugenics. Why are you talking about eugenics? Terminating a viable fetus in the 3rd trimester for no other reason than "fetus will not have a life worth living," put forth by our esteemed colleague, is eugenics. Encouraging that in society is eugenics. It's based on a judgment of a viable life that its life is worth less, which is in turn based on prenatal testing of variable reliability, which can itself induce miscarriages - all with the goal of assuring the best possible human stock is born and weeding out any chance of that genetic or other inferiority. This is no better than aborting because it's the wrong sex. Which in whatever case if people have to do, at least do it in the period before dealing with a viable life. That's not a third trimester thing. It's not excused at that point. Nor is it a "let it slide" case just because it's not as many as all the elective abortions that are done earlier. Now it may be a form of eugenics we ultimately conclude is ethical or necessary or a necessary evil, but nevertheless.
I'm going to pretend like this is a joke, because aborting a fetus for a legitimate quality-of-life issue is not even remotely the same thing as what people refer to when they generally talk about eugenics. You should probably stop talking about eugenics. Changing the subject from being pro-choice to being pro-eugenics is just a deceitful and factually incorrect pivot.
|
I would like to add some personal experience to the abortion discussion.
My wife has had an abortion about two years ago. Not because we didn't want the child. We wanted it very much. But because at about 10 weeks in, the heart of the fetus stopped beating. So instead of a baby, my wife had a bunch of dead tissue inside of her. Obviously, this was both very dangerous and emotionally draining.
Removing that dead fetus was an abortion in the medical sense. We are lucky that we don't live in an insane country, where that would have been forbidden. I can not imagine the danger and strife it would have caused us if she were forced to carry the dead fetus until it naturally left, and hope that all of it would go out.
Instead of that horror, we had a medicinal procedure where it was removed. Still not fun. Very much not how we had hoped that thing would go. But a lot better than what would have happened in a "Pro Life" state.
When you are talking about a ban on abortions, keep in mind that this is also one. And i can see literally no sane reason to ban it.
|
Some babies are born with their organs on the outside, for example. Aborting them before they can experience horrible pain and then inevitably die is always the ethical choice. Doctors have the expertise to see what's coming and they help women understand the situation correctly. Women don't gleefully abort a baby that is so horribly deformed that nothing can be done to give it a chance. It's an unavoidable and regrettable decision every single time.
|
spontaneous abortion isn’t relevant to the debate because that’s not what is meant by abortion in context. miscarriages happen. some folks who have miscarriages do require abortions. some folks will pass the dead tissue naturally. a spontaneous abortion can’t be outlawed for obvious reasons, which is why it is entirely irrelevant to the abortion debate. which centers on outlawing abortions// denying women the right to choose.
while women also can’t choose not to have spontaneous abortions, try as they may, conservatives/christians will have a hard time banning it. though getting healthcare for it may still continue to get harder. this is one exceptionally cruel consequence of some of the stricter abortion bans. i count my blessings to live in new york.
|
On November 19 2024 04:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2024 04:02 oBlade wrote:On November 19 2024 03:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 19 2024 03:15 oBlade wrote:
many people of both sexes find something wrong with unrestricted technological/selective eugenics This is the first time anyone has mentioned eugenics. Why are you talking about eugenics? Terminating a viable fetus in the 3rd trimester for no other reason than "fetus will not have a life worth living," put forth by our esteemed colleague, is eugenics. Encouraging that in society is eugenics. It's based on a judgment of a viable life that its life is worth less, which is in turn based on prenatal testing of variable reliability, which can itself induce miscarriages - all with the goal of assuring the best possible human stock is born and weeding out any chance of that genetic or other inferiority. This is no better than aborting because it's the wrong sex. Which in whatever case if people have to do, at least do it in the period before dealing with a viable life. That's not a third trimester thing. It's not excused at that point. Nor is it a "let it slide" case just because it's not as many as all the elective abortions that are done earlier. Now it may be a form of eugenics we ultimately conclude is ethical or necessary or a necessary evil, but nevertheless. I'm going to pretend like this is a joke, because aborting a fetus for a legitimate quality-of-life issue is not even remotely the same thing as what people refer to when they generally talk about eugenics. It's not even close, and you should probably stop talking about it.
Oh, goodness me, you said the word "legitimate," obviously that makes it different. What could I have been thinking?
On November 19 2024 04:22 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2024 04:02 oBlade wrote:
Terminating a viable fetus in the 3rd trimester for no other reason than "fetus will not have a life worth living," put forth by our esteemed colleague, is eugenics. Encouraging that in society is eugenics. It's based on a judgment of a viable life that its life is worth less, which is in turn based on prenatal testing of variable reliability, which can itself induce miscarriages - all with the goal of assuring the best possible human stock is born and weeding out any chance of that genetic or other inferiority. This is no better than aborting because it's the wrong sex. Which in whatever case if people have to do, at least do it in the period before dealing with a viable life. That's not a third trimester thing. It's not excused at that point. Nor is it a "let it slide" case just because it's not as many as all the elective abortions that are done earlier. Now it may be a form of eugenics we ultimately conclude is ethical or necessary or a necessary evil, but nevertheless. It's not not necessarily about life that's worth less. It's about the entirety as a whole, the child and the parents, that can suffer extremely under circumstances where the child is born with (un)expected disorders. It is infinitely better than aborting for the wrong sex, because in all of the times, "the wrong sex" was based on an intrinsically flawed idea that "the right sex" was better (for some weird made up reason because authoritarianism probably), when you need both sexes to actually thrive as a society. We've known this since before agriculture was invented.
I'll skip quibbling with your personal judgment that neither sex has undue suffering in this world, but rest assured there are people who sincerely believe one or the other does suffer unduly, and wouldn't want to rear one or the other sex, and I don't see how you can call their belief different in any way from your belief in the suffering caused by a human with Down syndrome, in any objective way.
On November 19 2024 04:22 Uldridge wrote:
You have no idea what you're talking about oBlade. People don't need to and don't have to succumb to a life of eternal servitude to their children because they'll never be able to take care of themselves. Regular children already transform your life enough as it is.
Key word: Succumb to a LIFE. Because the mother is still alive.
There are basically 3 possible cases here.
1) Viable abortion should be allowed always. Whether reluctantly, or enthusiastically, or because there's no choice (ironically) but to conclude this, for whatever reason.
2) Viable abortion should never be allowed. Abortion = murder = unforgivable.
3) Viable abortion is wrong because it kills a viable life which is wrong; nevertheless sometimes the moral calculus makes it necessary. Because the alternative is demonstrably more wrong. So we carve out exceptions. If the mother is going to die, they are both going to die anyway. There's no contest - save the mother. As for any "life worth living case" - No, I do not see how the inconvenience of anyone involved could be seriously weighed against life if we are to accept the viability point for life. Grandparents can also inconvenience people and cause servitude but we don't accept mass euthanasia of old people's homes even in cases where the grandparents are too feeble to refuse.
Remember that you can set up a perfect socialist utopia and adopt or orphanage away children from a social safety net. For all the burdensome children that despite your best efforts are born anyway. Don't forget about them. What kind of solution is abortion to defects or malformation. We should not be mass prenatal testing and inducing thousands of miscarriages from needles, to screen for rare genetic defects, so that we can abort babies who present any risk of them. If you would like to go all-in on this, be my guest.
Note: There's not a single state in the US that classifies miscarriage treatment as abortion - which is legally the act of ending a pregnancy, not medically or colloquially - if someone has miscarried they aren't legally pregnant no matter the medical situation of the fate of the unborn child - because they don't have a developing fetus in them - and any doctor who thinks otherwise is retarded and I fully support legislating against medical retardation because most people don't even have a basic understanding of specificity and sensitivity.
|
the rate of miscarriage from amniocentesis (the most dangerous prenatal test to my knowledge,) is less than one percent.
while i won’t quibble about your suggestion of thousands of miscarriages though honestly i do strongly doubt it, but i’ll concede the number anyway strictly due to the large number of pregnancies generally, it is silly to suggest it is a significant risk. it is preceded by non invasive tests to rule out its necessity as well.
to your note- the same procedures and medications for ending a pregnancy due to miscarriage are used for abortion, so when the R’s do away with mifepristone what do you think magically replaces it for sufferers of miscarriages Oblade?
women having miscarriages are still pregnant bro, the dead fetus doesn’t always expel itself. i think any obstetrician you ask falls under your definition of retarded. a pregnancy is ended when the fetus, dead or alive, leaves the body. it’s the same treatment (mifepristone or d&c, ask me how i know[just kidding, do not.])so i don’t think you’re correct about their outlawing, though your confidence is persuasive.
it’s literally the story of the dead texas teen, because a doctor wasn’t brave enough to declare the fetus dead enough. in states where abortion is still legal there isn’t that chilling effect to risk killing a woman, thank god, and the abortion procedures or medications can be prescribed without fear of jail time.
it makes the most sense to me to leave medical decisions to doctors and their patients but i haven’t had all the schooling of someone like Ted Cruz so what do I know.
|
Question. Does the US have some form of federal mandate that the state takes care of disabled people? Everyone? Only adults? No one?
Or does it vary by state?
Or is there no social net for this at all?
|
@oBlade. I don't have to forget about them. They're everywhere. Our society is set up to take care of them. People don't always abort when they find out their child has Down's syndrome for example and they don't have to. Certain people can learn to live or even accept beforehand certain problems - even if the child will die before the age of 6 or something. But not everyone should have to bear that same burden. Not everybody can. And that's perfectly okay. Life isn't holy. If you're a champion of genetic diversity or a staunch protestor of eugenics, you should also let those people, those who can't cope with their burden, be able to thrive instead of subjecting them to a miserable existence.
Forcing someone to cope or (try to) embrace bad luck isn't for everyone. No one has a right to force that on someone else, I call that rape.
|
Northern Ireland24279 Posts
While it’s not generally what folks think of when the term eugenics is invoked, for once I think oBlade does have something of a point here. First time for everything and all that.
It doesn’t particularly swing my position overall, aborting a viable foetus who may have a challenging medical condition, but who isn’t necessarily doomed to a miserable life, I mean it does at least somewhat fit the bill.
A foetus with say, Down’s syndrome for example.
|
On November 19 2024 04:41 Simberto wrote:
I would like to add some personal experience to the abortion discussion.
My wife has had an abortion about two years ago. Not because we didn't want the child. We wanted it very much. But because at about 10 weeks in, the heart of the fetus stopped beating. So instead of a baby, my wife had a bunch of dead tissue inside of her. Obviously, this was both very dangerous and emotionally draining.
Removing that dead fetus was an abortion in the medical sense. We are lucky that we don't live in an insane country, where that would have been forbidden. I can not imagine the danger and strife it would have caused us if she were forced to carry the dead fetus until it naturally left, and hope that all of it would go out.
Instead of that horror, we had a medicinal procedure where it was removed. Still not fun. Very much not how we had hoped that thing would go. But a lot better than what would have happened in a "Pro Life" state.
When you are talking about a ban on abortions, keep in mind that this is also one. And i can see literally no sane reason to ban it.
Thank you for sharing, and I'm sorry you and your wife had to experience that.
|
On November 19 2024 05:53 WombaT wrote:
While it’s not generally what folks think of when the term eugenics is invoked, for once I think oBlade does have something of a point here. First time for everything and all that.
It doesn’t particularly swing my position overall, aborting a viable foetus who may have a challenging medical condition, but who isn’t necessarily doomed to a miserable life, I mean it does at least somewhat fit the bill.
A foetus with say, Down’s syndrome for example.
We know exactly where oBlade is leading to, with that inappropriate comparison.
If they want, pro-choice individuals could share where they would personally draw the line in terms of certain genetic disorders and quality of life issues possibly being a justifiable reason to abort a fetus (or not abort a fetus), without needing to use oBlade's loaded term.
|
ok it was harder than i thought, I don’t want my own personal decisions out here to be quoted lol.
|
On November 18 2024 23:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 21:45 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:19 Velr wrote:On November 18 2024 19:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 19:28 Velr wrote:
I don't get why abortion is allowed until Week XY (exact time decided by some expert group) and after abortion is only allowed due to danger to the Mother/Non-Viable Fetus.
Yeah, it won't be perfect and there will allways be some fringe cases that won't make anyone happy but nothing is perfect.
Aside from super hardcore pro-lifers, which you can't find any compromise with anyway, whats the argument against such a rule/law? Are you asking for the reasoning of having such a law or the reasoning for objecting to such a law? The argument against clearly proposing such or a similar law by the pro-choice crowd. I mean abortions whenver you want no matter what is pretty much as bad as no abortions ever. Allowing the issue to be framed that way is probably a big part of the issue. Is it? A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. Terminating the pregnancy doesn't necessarily involve the use of a T-1000 Terminator robot to kill the baby, despite the similarity in name. The inverse of forcing a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to be carry to term is forcing a woman who wants to carry to term to have an abortion. Mandatory abortions is the insane parallel to no abortions ever. Abortions when you want them isn't. You made this point the last time this topic came up. Do you have evidence to support the idea that abortions that occur after viability dont typically involve fetal demise? They’re called inducing labour. Inducing labour doesn’t typically end in executing the baby. Nor does a c section. Hospitals are very equipped to end pregnancies after 8 months. It happens all the time. Hell, it happened with my wife and I with our first child, we prematurely terminated the pregnancy on medical advice. It literally happened to us. The procedure is routine. If you and your healthcare provider make a decision to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months they are very able to perform that without any killing. There are loads of facilities for that. It’s no problem.
Except that’s not the same thing at all. When people talk about abortion, fetal demise is the intent of the procedure. We don’t include anyone that received meds to induce labor when we talk about abortion. If we did we wouldn’t say 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester because drugs like pitocin are routinely used on labor wards. You wouldn’t tell people your wife had an abortion. Do you have any other evidence that most 3rd trimester abortions result in the delivery of a baby where it goes on to celebrate birthdays?
|
United States42212 Posts
On November 19 2024 07:29 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2024 23:25 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:45 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 21:26 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2024 21:19 Velr wrote:On November 18 2024 19:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 18 2024 19:28 Velr wrote:
I don't get why abortion is allowed until Week XY (exact time decided by some expert group) and after abortion is only allowed due to danger to the Mother/Non-Viable Fetus.
Yeah, it won't be perfect and there will allways be some fringe cases that won't make anyone happy but nothing is perfect.
Aside from super hardcore pro-lifers, which you can't find any compromise with anyway, whats the argument against such a rule/law? Are you asking for the reasoning of having such a law or the reasoning for objecting to such a law? The argument against clearly proposing such or a similar law by the pro-choice crowd. I mean abortions whenver you want no matter what is pretty much as bad as no abortions ever. Allowing the issue to be framed that way is probably a big part of the issue. Is it? A 9 month abortion doesn't involve killing the baby, it's a c-section. Terminating the pregnancy doesn't necessarily involve the use of a T-1000 Terminator robot to kill the baby, despite the similarity in name. The inverse of forcing a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy to be carry to term is forcing a woman who wants to carry to term to have an abortion. Mandatory abortions is the insane parallel to no abortions ever. Abortions when you want them isn't. You made this point the last time this topic came up. Do you have evidence to support the idea that abortions that occur after viability dont typically involve fetal demise? They’re called inducing labour. Inducing labour doesn’t typically end in executing the baby. Nor does a c section. Hospitals are very equipped to end pregnancies after 8 months. It happens all the time. Hell, it happened with my wife and I with our first child, we prematurely terminated the pregnancy on medical advice. It literally happened to us. The procedure is routine. If you and your healthcare provider make a decision to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months they are very able to perform that without any killing. There are loads of facilities for that. It’s no problem. Except that’s not the same thing at all. When people talk about abortion, fetal demise is the intent of the procedure. We don’t include anyone that received meds to induce labor when we talk about abortion. If we did we wouldn’t say 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester because drugs like pitocin are routinely used on labor wards. You wouldn’t tell people your wife had an abortion. Do you have any other evidence that most 3rd trimester abortions result in the delivery of a baby where it goes on to celebrate birthdays?
That people don't talk about that as abortion is exactly my point. There's an existing option to voluntarily end a late stage pregnancy without fetal demise. There's this weird conservative fantasy where a woman goes into a hospital 8 months pregnant with a viable fetus and says "get this out of me" and the doctor then induces birth, pulls out his abortion glock, and performs a quick 2 in the chest 1 in the head. It's not real.
A fetus that is already dead or incompatible with life outside of the womb (nonexistent organs, entirely reliant on the umbilical and the function of the mother's organs) won't survive but they weren't going to survive anyway. There are clinics that specialize in removing those but in the scenario in which it's a healthy baby that will survive outside of the womb the process really is just to deliver them.
Your demand for evidence is weird because of course most pregnancies ending in the 3rd trimester go on to result in babies. That's where babies come from. Your school should have covered this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
