Print

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

[Capntastic]

He did it because he wanted to engage with the Good Ol' Boys

[palsch]

Good on Obama.

US President Barack Obama has called to offer support to a US law student attacked by radio host Rush Limbaugh for her views on contraception.

Mr Obama told Sandra Fluke he was disappointed she had been the subject of "unfortunate attacks", White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

Limbaugh called Ms Fluke a "slut" and suggested her testimony to US lawmakers made her "a prostitute".

She was initially blocked from testifying by House Republicans.

But Ms Fluke eventually testified on 23 February in support of Mr Obama's ruling that religiously affiliated institutions such as universities and hospitals should provide insurance plans that cover all costs for medicinal contraceptives.

It's worth noting that her testimony involved non-contraceptive uses of the pill. And it was all good and true. However, there is an argument to be made (which I agree with) that this approach is conceding too much ground in the debate. Yes, the pill can be very useful in off-label ways. But using those as a primary argument can be taken as admitting contraceptives aren't justifiable on the face of it. It's the sort of reason you would give to a parent or other relative for going on the pill so they don't have to think about you having sex, not the reason your employer or insurer makes it available to you.

It's worth making a full throated defence of contraceptives as contraceptives.

[scriver]

I don't see gm food/items as a "progressive" issue in itself (though I personally thinks it displays a disregard for "life" that I am uncomfortable with), but it's certainly directly related to such things - like companies being able to patent and own genetical codes which is just plain fucking wrong in my mind, as well as the usual stuff with companies abusing or tricking others. Such as the cases were gm crops spread from a licensed farm to smaller unlicensed farms in South America, where the small, poorer farmer was sentenced to pay damages to the gm patent owner for "stealing" their crops. Or cotton farmers in India that bought "pest resistant" plants that when actually put in the ground was completely ruined by disease and insects, leaving the farmers ruined.

But as said, these problems are not problems with gene modified stuff in itself, just what's surrounding it.

[G-Flex]

I don't see gm food/items as a "progressive" issue in itself (though I personally thinks it displays a disregard for "life" that I am uncomfortable with), but it's certainly directly related to such things - like companies being able to patent and own genetical codes which is just plain fucking wrong in my mind

I'm not a fan of abuses of the patent system, or some of the things GM food companies have been doing, but... why is it wrong to own genetic code that isn't naturally-occurring? I don't really see how that's any more wrong than owning any other sort of schematic or design.

[Truean]

Good on Obama.

US President Barack Obama has called to offer support to a US law student attacked by radio host Rush Limbaugh for her views on contraception.

Mr Obama told Sandra Fluke he was disappointed she had been the subject of "unfortunate attacks", White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

Limbaugh called Ms Fluke a "slut" and suggested her testimony to US lawmakers made her "a prostitute".

She was initially blocked from testifying by House Republicans.

But Ms Fluke eventually testified on 23 February in support of Mr Obama's ruling that religiously affiliated institutions such as universities and hospitals should provide insurance plans that cover all costs for medicinal contraceptives.

It's worth noting that her testimony involved non-contraceptive uses of the pill. And it was all good and true. However, there is an argument to be made (which I agree with) that this approach is conceding too much ground in the debate. Yes, the pill can be very useful in off-label ways. But using those as a primary argument can be taken as admitting contraceptives aren't justifiable on the face of it. It's the sort of reason you would give to a parent or other relative for going on the pill so they don't have to think about you having sex, not the reason your employer or insurer makes it available to you.

It's worth making a full throated defence of contraceptives as contraceptives.

None of this "moral objection" should factor into it, especially from incredibly ill informed people who think you can get a pap smear at Walgreens. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/381282/april-11-2011/pap-smears-at-walgreens

I'm offended at numerous things; I don't try to force other people to follow them via changing the laws.... Several Religions ban ham, but you can still eat it....

[palsch]

Welp, another one for my reading list.

Set in North London, Intrusion begins with the story of Hope, a mother who has become a pariah because she won't take "the fix," a pill that repairs known defects in a gestating fetus's genome. Hope has a "natural" toddler and is pregnant with her second, and England is in the midst of a transition from the fix being optional to being mandatory for anyone who doesn't have a "faith-based" objection. Hope's objection isn't based on religion, and she refuses to profess a belief she doesn't have, and so the net of social services and laws begins to close around her.

I find this debate interesting, mostly because I don't see much choice in such things becoming possible and available in the future. The big questions are going to be about whether government decides to forbid or mandate anything along these lines.

Take a simple case. Someone is having a child through IVF. They have basic screening to test for genetic defects that would make the embryo not viable at all. As part of that screening other genetic information is available.

My question at this stage is does the government try to dictate how that information is used? If we have information about (non lethal) genetic disorders available, do we force the doctors to ignore it? To hide that information from the parents? Do we somehow force all viable embryos to be randomised before implantation? Do we hand all the information to the parents and let them choose?

What procedures do we put in place to stop doctors abusing such information, effectively making the choice for parents (or the choice we deny parents if you lean that way)?

How about for the sex of the child? Other genetic factors that become testable for in the future?

How about for parents who already have multiple children with a strongly heritable genetic disorder? How about when a certain disorder can't be directly tested for, but can have the risk controlled by selecting for other options, such as sex (think Downs, where the risk in males is far higher than for females)?

But then things get even harder when you realise that IVF is expensive, so if we 'allowed' (or rather, didn't forbid; limited forms of this are around today without needing any real permission) these things it would mostly be the well off/rich who benefit from them. I don't think we need to worry about a race of genetically engineered Übermensch anytime soon, but it's still extremely distasteful to me on a number of levels. But then, is making such treatments available through government funded medical care a good idea?

This area makes everyone (me included) very uncomfortable, but that just means there isn't enough solid discussion. Everyone sees eugenics as that thing that the Nazis did and inherent evil, but some level of eugenic selection is available right now [Click here to choose the sex of your child today!] so I don't think we can really avoid this much longer.

[kaijyuu]

Ultimately I think this can all be solved by giving the choice to the child, not the parents, through making such changes after birth. Since we're talking about futuristic technology that messes with the DNA of every cell of a complex organism already, applying it to a full grown human wouldn't be too far off.

[penguinofhonor]

Nobody should be forced to have a child they don't want. If they get more information on their potential child, then they should still be able to make that decision. Even if they don't want a girl child, you'd still be forcing someone to have a baby they don't want, and I feel that's incredibly immoral.

What should be done is an effort to change the views that cause people to make these discriminatory decisions.

[lemon10]

Ultimately I think this can all be solved by giving the choice to the child, not the parents, through making such changes after birth. Since we're talking about futuristic technology that messes with the DNA of every cell of a complex organism already, applying it to a full grown human wouldn't be too far off.

First off, it would probably have a significant failure rate after birth, compared to being much easier before it as well as being tons cheaper.
Changing a full grown human is a order of magnitude different from changing a fetus, and the technology for the adult will be perfected decades after the technology for a fetus.

But primarily because anything that is mental could only be done before the brain is really developed and the baby is born.

And even if it could work significantly after birth, having to wait till 18 to cure your lukemia or something seems pretty BS to me.

[Pnx]

Welp, another one for my reading list.

Ok, so the main character is named "Hope", the husband is a carpenter. and from the sound of things the baby will wind up changing the world for the better. This sounds like a horrible book.

[scriver]

I think it's funny how it's always the government forcing people to do these things in people's dystopias, when it's far more likely in my mind that people would end up doing stuff like that because insurance companies requires it from them.

[Descan]

And in the end, the Jesus proxy dies before ever achieving anything of note, and the government achieves total genetic unity. Everyone dies of the sniffles two years later.

[palsch]

I think it's funny how it's always the government forcing people to do these things in people's dystopias, when it's far more likely in my mind that people would end up doing stuff like that because insurance companies requires it from them.

Ken's British. Our insurance company is the NHS.

In any case, I have some confidence he will make this interesting. He's an oldschool Scottish socialist who has won three Prometheus awards for libertarian science fiction. The last two books of his I read involved, in turn, the war on terror as conducted by Hillary Clinton, and a UK/US where religious belief is forced underground and the cathedral are giant silent rave clubs from the perspective of a NZ evangelical Christian. I have no doubt this one will be enjoyably subversive.

[kaijyuu]

And even if it could work significantly after birth, having to wait till 18 to cure your lukemia or something seems pretty BS to me.

If a parent has control over whether their child has leukemia or not, something's really really fucked up with parental rights vs child rights.

[Reelya]

I did find the book review added a rather dubious comparison between Obama administration policies and Stalinism.

"With Intrusion, MacLeod pays homage to Orwell, showing us how a society besotted with paternalistic, Cass Sunstein-style "nudging" of behavior can come to the same torturing, authoritarian totalitarianism of brutal Stalinism."

As far as i can see Cass Sunstein's "nudging" idea is all about advocating healthy choices as opposed to forcing those changes. But all Sunstein did was write a book. The same "nudge" ideas have been used by all governments. e.g. Obama's administration is accused by Glenn Beck of heading to Stalinism because of putting up school posters with the food-groups :-

http://www.zimbio.com/Glenn+Beck/articles/w0auK1ZR1U9/Glenn+Beck+Says+Nudge+Leads+Shove+Shove+Leads

But Reagan, greatly admired by Beck had the exact same sort of school eating program that Obama does.