Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Helgoland]

They do work differently though. The tea party doesn't have any regionalism, and the CSU is not whipping the entire CDU into adaping its positions. Plus the CSU is not much more reactionary than the CDU, it's just more visible. And the CSU is part of the establishment!

If you want to find a tea party equivalent in Germany, look at the less sane parts of Die Linke.

[Sheb]

Yeah, but lefty nutjobs are so much more adorable than righty nutjobs.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Either way, my primary point is that Germany's peace between Christian and Social democrats as the political bedrock isn't particularly useful for dealing with things in America, which you have rightfully said is so different it can't be related. Politics are an endless struggle, and that won't change.

Further, I don't believe social democracy will ever be the order of the day in the US. New England's left is there sometimes, but by and large it is rejected.

[Frumple]

... ever? I was under the impression the states were already a (kinda' shitty) social democracy, and heading further towards europe's example with successive generations.

[aenri]

Remember, in the US corporations are people.

So they are everywhere else (except for communist countries) and I don't really see how could it be another way.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

... ever? I was under the impression the states were already a (kinda' shitty) social democracy, and heading further towards europe's example with successive generations.

Only by the most wide ranging criteria, which would encompass the vast majority of nations. Also, Europe's example is newer than people would like to believe. It wasn't all that long ago that the US was trending Great Society and Europe was operating under "our way or communism".

[Bauglir]

Remember, in the US corporations are people.

So they are everywhere else (except for communist countries) and I don't really see how could it be another way.

There's a difference between "This thing is functionally a person, in that it has the legal ability to make contracts, assume risks, pay taxes, and otherwise function as an economic entity" and "This thing is functionally a person, in that it has civil rights like freedom of speech, the ability to vote, a right to privacy, and whatever other tools are accorded to political entities". Conflating the two is dangerous stuff.

[Helgoland]

It's the difference between natural and juridical persons basically.

[Tack]

There's a question. If a caesarian is universally more likely to result in a healthy birth because of whatever complications - is it right to force the pregnant woman to undergo a caesarian (Assuming here that she wants herself and the baby to survive, but for whatever reason doesn't like the idea of surgery).
Vaccinations have been brought up, with similar theories.

My personal opinion:
"Suspending the rights of the stupid" seems to be something which would quickly be turned against minorities, and probably give some very bad doctors far too much power.
But otherwise, I'd like to consider it as a pipe dream. It would be nice, but nobody could or should ever do it.

[Leafsnail]

Vaccinations are different from almost every other health issue due to the fact that refusing to get one puts the whole of society in danger, not just you.  Caesarians should be treated like every other medical procedure, you cannot put the rights of an unborn child ahead of those of a fully grown adult woman.

[Bauglir]

...you cannot put the rights of an unborn child ahead of those of a fully grown adult woman.

Fucking this. You can, at best, put them at an equal level, but there's a disturbing trend to do otherwise when people pretend to talk about nuance. General policy when you're not sure one way or the other is not to implement law to force (or forbid) a single person to have a medical procedure for the sake of another single person.

There are exceptions, like vaccinations, or water (or salt) fluoridation. Those are situations where the expected harm is so low, and the net gain for society if implemented universally is so high, that there's hardly a moral question in the first place. Likewise, ownership of biological weapons by private citizens has such an obviously high expected harm and low gain for society, so there's no real moral question in banning it. But when things get iffy, you generally err on the side of letting people make their own decisions.

So "it's a difficult question" is a really shitty reason for robbing women of their rights. You don't do that sort of thing when you're not sure.

[Vector]

I don't really understand why everyone seems to think that giving birth and undergoing C-sections really aren't a big deal. "What if a C-Section could help the baby a lot? We could make the mom do surgery!"

Yeah, and having a better list of organ donors would be great, but nobody's forcing you to routinely give up one of your kidneys because "your relative could really use it."

[Sheb]

What Bauglir said, I can see the moral arguments for taking away some rights (like the right to buy alcohol) from a pregnant woman given being pregnant was a choice she made in the first place, aka abortion and birth control are available and free. But forced surgery? Come on.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Ok, so in the case of an OD'ing mother, we are of the opinion the State & local health care providers should stand by and hope for the best.

What about laws regarding harmful behavior?
Should the mother be held accountable for attempted/actual murder in the above case?

What about a woman deliberately throwing herself down the stairs? Arrested? Charged? (in all cases, we're assuming the most extreme case of the woman being full-term)

And then 'risky' behavior- should skydiving mommas be illegal? If not, could she be held liable for manslaughter if the child is lost in a mishap resulting directly from the 'risky' behavior?



Hm, howabout a shit sandwich.
Say a mother just got diagnosed with aggressive cancer at 22 weeks pregnant, (the earliest reasonable fetal personhood). Lets say she's had a dozen kids already, isn't particularly enamored by the most recent addition, and wants to get surgery for the cancer & begin aggressive chemotherapy immediately, child be damned.
Let's also say she's against pre-term labor induction & c-section, for the sake of making a rather graceless-but-convenient hypothetical.
Can she get the full dose? Is she responsible for injury to the child, and in taking full doses committing a crime? Are the doctors liable for enabling it?
Should she be limited by law to low-doses or of only 'safe' types of chemo-treatment? (potentially sacrificing her health for that of the babe) Are the doctors liable for withholding treatment?


-edit
Ooh, in the case of the drugged-up mom & impending damage to the fetus: if not surgery, what about other non-voluntary/forced treatments? Say a Narcan injection, or somehow force-feeding a self-poisoned lady activated charcoal?

[Leafsnail]

Ok, so in the case of an OD'ing mother, we are of the opinion the State & local health care providers should stand by and hope for the best.
[...]
What about a woman deliberately throwing herself down the stairs? Arrested? Charged? (in all cases, we're assuming the most extreme case of the woman being full-term)

Are you talking about someone trying to induce abortion themselves?  This shouldn't happen if you give them access to medical abortion facilities.  In any case it sounds like the best response to both of these situations would be psychological treatment rather than slapping them with absurd murder charges.

And then 'risky' behavior- should skydiving mommas be illegal? If not, could she be held liable for manslaughter if the child is lost in a mishap resulting directly from the 'risky' behavior?

It's up to the company involved to decide whether what they're doing is dangerous to pregnant women (or anyone else with a medical condition).  If it is then they should refuse to let pregnant women participate.  If they let pregnant women participate in spite of an elevated risk to them they should be charged with failing to protect the safety of their clients.

If it's a case of a woman tricking the company then there should maybe be some legal consequence (probably a civil case for damages to their business) but a manslaughter charge would be ridiculous, even if you completely believe in fetal personhood this action would not qualify at all.

Hm, howabout a shit sandwich.
Say a mother just got diagnosed with aggressive cancer at 22 weeks pregnant, (the earliest reasonable fetal personhood). Lets say she's had a dozen kids already, isn't particularly enamored by the most recent addition, and wants to get surgery for the cancer & begin aggressive chemotherapy immediately, child be damned.
Let's also say she's against pre-term labor induction & c-section, for the sake of making a rather graceless-but-convenient hypothetical.
Can she get the full dose? Is she responsible for injury to the child, and in taking full doses committing a crime? Are the doctors liable for enabling it?
Should she be limited by law to low-doses or of only 'safe' types of chemo-treatment? (potentially sacrificing her health for that of the babe) Are the doctors liable for withholding treatment?

This is actually really easy: women have the right to decide what happens to their bodies (like all human beings), so the answers are yes, no, nonsense question, no, yes if they do respectively.