Print

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

[scriver]

Hope that clears things up a bit. You see, we actually really need to damage the environment and walk over the natives; so that we can avoid damaging the environment and walking over the natives. It's the lesser of two evils, you understand.

Best comment

"Nature and Youth"-leader Gaute Eiterfjord (it's a weird name in Norwegian too) was asked to provide a counterargument to Hauge's statement about there being no alternatives. Mr. Eiterfjord replied with "u focking wot".

He provided no further details as to how he looks like he's simultaneously 14 and 40 years old.

I googled him. While most pictures do seem to make him look like a youngster, I found that his norwegian wikipedia picture gives him the awkward feature of a man whose smile starts at his eyes but doesn't quite reach his mouth

[thompson]

Nuclear family is just a breakdown of the extended family tqbh and is not a working model to begin with

You'll never have a perfect model, but I suspect time scarcity is one of the root causes here, and having two adults objectively improves that metric. Other factors are things like substance abuse, poverty and lack of opportunity, but they're all interrelated.

[Kagus]

For fuck's sake Norway, please hit the stupid brakes.

"When abortion laws were adopted in the 70's, it wasn't technically feasible to abort one twin and keep the other. New technology has made this possible, which raises some difficult ethical questions"

So to fix this, we're just going to disallow women from having said abortions unless they apply for and are granted a special concession from an appeals board.

"The woman's evaluation of her own situation will be given consideration" says Minister of Health Bent Høie.

(emphasis mine)

He goes on to clarify that this is definitely not an attack on women's rights to their own body, because they're still allowed to have full abortions. But if you become pregnant with twins and want one kid but not two, you're shit outta luck. All or nothing, baby!


To quote the enlightened Minister of Children, Family and Church Affairs Kjell Ingolf Ropstad:

"If you can carry one child to term, you can carry two."

[Loud Whispers]

Why do people keep forgetting about adoption

[TD1]

Women's rights > Right to Life.

Or, indeed, father's rights.

[da_nang]

To be fair, if you can choose to keep one healthy child and reject the other healthy child when you can safely carry and deliver both of them, then I feel like you're only one step away from eugenics.

[Kagus]

Even under the best of circumstances, pregnancy and birth are extremely taxing on a woman's body, even more so when dealing with more than one at a time. I don't really feel that it should be a committee's decision as to whether or not a woman should carry both children to term just because they've decided that she's physically capable of surviving the affair (and of course it's rather difficult to accurately predict the chance of complications before the fact).

Additionally, there's the economic aspect, both time and money-wise. You might be able to afford and provide for one child in acceptable standards, but arranging for two of them at the same time adds that much more of a tax on your situation, and you may end up providing a lesser living standard for both children (and yourself, of course). As for time economy, for as much as twins get memed in popular depictions, it's still important to give them attention and love as individuals and not just as part of a two-set. It's a shitty thing to say that you "don't have time" to give that kind of dedication to two kids individually, but some people live with harsh constraints. They might've been able to push things around to spend on one child, but two is again pushing how much quality time you can give to each.


And, of course, the pressing question... If it's alright to abort one child in a single pregnancy, why is it specifically not alright to only abort one in a double pregnancy?

[SaberToothTiger]

1. Even under the best of circumstances, pregnancy and birth are extremely taxing on a woman's body, even more so when dealing with more than one at a time. I don't really feel that it should be a committee's decision as to whether or not a woman should carry both children to term just because they've decided that she's physically capable of surviving the affair (and of course it's rather difficult to accurately predict the chance of complications before the fact).

2. Additionally, there's the economic aspect, both time and money-wise. You might be able to afford and provide for one child in acceptable standards, but arranging for two of them at the same time adds that much more of a tax on your situation, and you may end up providing a lesser living standard for both children (and yourself, of course). As for time economy, for as much as twins get memed in popular depictions, it's still important to give them attention and love as individuals and not just as part of a two-set. It's a shitty thing to say that you "don't have time" to give that kind of dedication to two kids individually, but some people live with harsh constraints. They might've been able to push things around to spend on one child, but two is again pushing how much quality time you can give to each.


3. And, of course, the pressing question... If it's alright to abort one child in a single pregnancy, why is it specifically not alright to only abort one in a double pregnancy?

1. From what I understand, the comittee doesn't determine whether the mother *should* give birth to twins but whether she'll survive the ordeal. Indeed, if it is deemed that the mother is able to carry both fetuses to term then most likely it would be decided that she should do so. If her body would fail to carry both fetuses to term then, by all means, she should consider aborting one or both of them.
2. If you don't want to care for one of the newborns then you can give it up for adoption. You aren't forced to take in both of them, from what I understand. [sarcasm] Of course, this is Norway, so you can always just yeet the baby straight into the sea. If you can dump industrial waste into the sea, why not slam dunk children into the ocean? [/sarcasm]
3. Is it okay to abort a baby when a feasible alternative is present? After all, if the mother carries one of the fetuses to term then she likely could carry both.

I'm not saying I agree with the policy, but it's not utterly unreasonable.

[TD1]

Abortion seems like a distasteful but potentially necessary practice. If the mother is incapable of bearing the child, or if their life is in danger, certainly. Life should not come at the direct expense of life. If the mother simply doesn't want a child? No. I will not be part of condoning what is essentially the premature termination of life. There is more at stake here than simply letting the woman do what she wants so that her gender is empowered. A future, a life, hangs in the balance. There are also more people invested than simply the woman - as I said before, the father no doubt has a strong opinion, one way or another (remember folks, it's only sexism to ignore and marginalise women).

To tie in with the issue of aborting twins, the same criteria is used. Will the mother die? Are there severe medical complications? If so, then it is an unpleasant necessity. Does the mother only want one child? Then no, she shouldn't go through the procedure. Even if you worry that two children won't feel as loved as one or that they won't be treated individually. The choice is between the termination of an entire life or respecting someone's decision. It may be an uncomfortable choice, but it is one which in my opinion should only go one way.

This is a matter which all too often becomes mired in gender politics. "Mothers shouldn't abort unless absolutely necessary" draws feminists like flies to honey. It is perceived as an attack on femininity. Not so. If men were to bear children, the issues would be the same. Life transcends such trivialities as gender politics - this should be reflected in common attitudes towards abortion. But it's not.

[scourge728]

If the potential to become life is the main criteria here, that means both periods and masturbation are murder, since they are killing something that has the potential to become a life

[TD1]

No, they don't. A zygote has the potential to become life (indeed, may be thought of as already being alive). The gametes do not.

[Il Palazzo]

What do you even mean? All living cells are alive.

[scriver]

Don't feign obtuse.

[Il Palazzo]

I'm not.

[TD1]

Yes?

By "potential of life" should I specify complicated life? In particular human life?

Well, ninjas. But I'll post anyway.