Print

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

[Sergarr]

reverence for free markets.

Creepy wording there. Also... kind of interesting? I can't imagine that trying to force children to like free market systems by getting to them early is at all in line with free market ideals.

Gotta praise the Dollar - the True God of US!

[EnigmaticHat]

reverence for free markets.

Creepy wording there. Also... kind of interesting? I can't imagine that trying to force children to like free market systems by getting to them early is at all in line with free market ideals.

You would also think that donating piles of Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" to schools so that they will make kids read it is against her ideals, but... well.

[Vector]

Let's talk about abortion

[Sirus]

Let's talk about abortion

Jeezus. I never even heard of stuff like the cases in the article before now :<

[LordSlowpoke]

Let's talk about abortion

Jeezus. I never even heard of stuff like the cases in the article before now :<

while i at this point am able to say that it's just republicans doing republican things

if not for a certain veto on president level i bet they'd be passing a law requiring all women to be chained up in a sort of kitchen under threat of summary execution

thanks notbama

[lorb]

If you think that's bad check this: Abortions in El Salvador

To quote:

Women who have had miscarriages have been charged with aggravated homicide, a charge which can bring a sentence of up to 50 years in prison.
[...]
El Salvador banned abortion in all circumstances in 1998.
[...]
El Salvador has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Latin America. According to the National Family Health Survey, more than one-fifth (23 per cent) of all teenagers aged between 15 and 19 in El Salvador have been pregnant at least once. Nearly half of them were under 18 and didn’t intend to get pregnant.
[...]
Last year the National Civil Police registered 1,346 rapes of women and girls. Nearly two-thirds were aged under 15 or classified as “mentally incapacitated” and unable to give informed consent either because they were rendered unconscious or because of their mental health.

[Phmcw]

The topic is very important but the article isn't very good.


There are two different kind of cases here, that have very few thinggs in common with each other, and the issues aren't as clear cut as the journalist make the be.


The first is simply about criminalising abortion and violently enforcing that.


The second is about the right to choose your medical treatement if you are sane. America allow you not to make cruxial vaccines to your kids but will force you to have a C section, apparently.
I must say I'm a bit uneasy with this topic : making the feutus take unecessary risks that late is extremely close to putting a third party in danger. Bodily autonomy trump all, though. One cannot force you to give blood or bone marrow, for instance, even if that mean the death of someone else.


About the first case it was overturned , after the deed sadly. It is important to note that the journalist choose not to give the full picture : the mother didn't die from the c-section but from cancer, whom she was dying from and had no chances to recover. The very partial coverage of this case irk me, to say the least, and make me question the coverage of the other cases regardless of the fact that I support his cause. 

It would also be nice if he said which cases he's talking about.

[Sheb]

Yeah, while I think woman should have the right to choose whether or not to have a baby, once they choose to do so, I don't think it's unreasonable to enforce steps to protect the baby. Just like the state can infringe on your right to protect your kids once they're born.

However, I think this position is only morally defensible if the woman in question had a choice in the first place, aka if abortion and birth control are readily accessible.

[Phmcw]

Actually, even in Belgium, you can't as long as you're deemed responsible for your actions. I made a quick google check.

[Sheb]

You mean "You can't force someone to takes steps?"

[Phmcw]

Nope. Well at least you cannot force anyone who is able to claim legal responsability for his own actions to undergo any kind of medical intervention without their consent. It's absolute.


However I don't know if you cannot press charges if their decision of not getting the intervention result in preventable damages for the child if he lives.

Edit : added a clarification.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Yeah, while I think woman should have the right to choose whether or not to have a baby, once they choose to do so, I don't think it's unreasonable to enforce steps to protect the baby. Just like the state can infringe on your right to protect your kids once they're born.

However, I think this position is only morally defensible if the woman in question had a choice in the first place, aka if abortion and birth control are readily accessible.

Hm, it's all about how 'making a decision' is recorded, and when it takes place.
If it's early as hell, you can bet your ass local authorities & parents will try to strong-arm their pregnant teens into 'deciding' immediately. And that's -fucked-.
And opening any sort of dialogue on -when- this sort of 'physical body sharing' begins is risky as hell because you know republicans are going to push for the most unreasonably early time they can.

But, there are cases where it's a really gray moral issue. Let's see..
The second case, in Iowa, did the mother state she had, in fact, thrown herself down the stairs? Did she intend to do so again? How far along was she?
In the Florida case, if she was 8 months pregnant (and the hospital knew what it was fucking doing) and she tried to leave during an obvious fetal medical emergency, should she be allowed to willfully endanger her fully-developed child?
And the sheriff that kidnapped the woman and took her to the hospital where she forcibly underwent a Cesarian- why did he do this? Was she binging on alcohol & cocaine while 9 months pregnant?

IMO I think a fetus ought to be treated as a human being at a certain point. About the same point where legal abortions stop in fact- about when the kid's brain starts truly functioning, 22-26 weeks into the pregnancy or just before the third trimester.
Here's some stuff:
http://www.svss-uspda.ch/pdf/brain_waves.pdf
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Pregnancy_timeline.png

But, just how the law handles the body-sharing and what a mother can or cannot do- delaying a cesarian, water-births, sky-diving- is so incredibly sensitive we might be better served by not addressing it at all at this time.
It would need mature law-makers to work on a case-by-case basis & create a rather complicated legal code- which mothers-to-be are able to understand.
And we just don't have those mature law-makers.

[Angle]

Eh, I'm afraid that a woman's bodily autonomy trumps all else. And besides, if you really are concerned about fetuses, the best way to save them isn't to outlaw abortion, it's to mandate contraception unless the couple has stated intent to have a child. Now of course, I wouldn't support that either, but it bears mentioning.

[Bauglir]

I think that, if you're going to be making the claim that you're doing this out of respect for human rights that you're ascribing to the unborn child, the starting point for figuring out what's a "reasonable" thing to be able to force a woman to do to protect an unborn infant should still start from the perspective of her rights. Certainly, there should be no legal punishment for simply failing to bring a pregnancy to term, nor should the government have the power to force a medical procedure on one person to save the life of another. Both of these are actual examples from the article - as it stands, all I see is an excuse to impose on women a view of how things "ought" to be that can't be backed up by aught but personal opinion.

[Loud Whispers]

Eh, I'm afraid that a woman's bodily autonomy trumps all else. And besides, if you really are concerned about fetuses, the best way to save them isn't to outlaw abortion, it's to mandate contraception unless the couple has stated intent to have a child. Now of course, I wouldn't support that either, but it bears mentioning.

And don't forget adoption too.