Print

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

[smjjames]

If both babies are healthy, that's a severe moral ethics quandary, wouldn't want to be the doctor that has to decide in that case. One could perhaps leave it up to the Random Number Gods (or just God, as in the Christian one), but that's a whole other slice of ethical quandary hell. Obviously the anti-abortion position would be to keep both (or more, if that's the case), but if the woman gets to the point of asking that sort of question, you have to consider why they are making the decision.

I probably wouldn't leave it up to a council, unless maybe the gender balance is equal, but I still don't really like the idea of a council. Obviously there needs to be a filter for stuff like aborting just because of gender....

I suppose the PM was referring to the ethical quandary hell that still remains.

edit: Though really, if the woman can still carry to term, what about putting up for adoption? I know that's a whole other (again) slice of morality though.

[Iduno]

So what you're saying is, if we want to stop terrorism, we need to escort the terrorists to the politicians and let them kill them until the politicians stop being stupid? (Note to the NSA: This is a joke)

I mean, it couldn't hurt...me

[Loud Whispers]

They will, though. That's why politicians love to do stupid shit that will cause more terrorists. Terrorists are a great boogeyman that allows them to do what the hell the want, and politicians are generally isolated from them. Politicians will shut down any arguments about their plans with "but terrorists" and people will eat that shit up even though they know they're getting fucked. So terrorists hurt citizens living under shitty rulers because they can't get to the rulers, then the rulers take advantage of the attacks to make things even worse.

Eh nah. You have terrorists who selects soft targets like London Bridge or Borough market but most of the terrorism in the UK prior to Jihadi Johns targeted leaders & their support with prejudice. Mountbatten & his family, Margaret Thatcher and the Tory conference bomb, Ulster Union Party assassinations & any number of the bombings on legal officials, civil servants or security forces and their family would very easily disagree. There have been about half a dozen attacks that tried to get into Houses of Parliament last year resulting in the deaths of civilians and security personnel, though that was from jihadists and not troubles related, while the last time a British politician was assassinated was in 2016, by a far-right assassin.

Crudely simplifying what is an intricate and complicated mess into "politicians bad, make bad man explode more make more bad man" isn't terribly helpful for understanding anything, especially when the first goal of most of our terror groups is to disrupt civil administration of the government. Attacks on aforementioned civil administration is the most direct way of achieving that. Terrorists of the organised kind have their own ambitions; you cannot attribute clueless politicians as being the root of all sin, there's plenty of sin to go around for everyone to be guilty.

In happier, and also surprisingly related news, the Norwegian crew of the ship struck by torpedoes/mines/unidentified unquantified motiveless munitions have safely reached Dubai. Should be interesting to hear what they have to report. Perhaps we can complete the terror bingo with state terrorism

[smjjames]

In happier, and also surprisingly related news, the Norwegian crew of the ship struck by torpedoes/mines/unidentified unquantified motiveless munitions have safely reached Dubai. Should be interesting to hear what they have to report. Perhaps we can complete the terror bingo with state terrorism

I wonder why the Norwegian crew hasn't said anything yet, the captian of the Japanese ship was able to say what he said relatively quickly. I suppose there might be some company policy behind it or someone needed them to not speak publicly so soon (which generally makes sense in an investigation, even one with this much intrigue surrounding it)

[ChairmanPoo]

If both babies are healthy, that's a severe moral ethics quandary, wouldn't want to be the doctor that has to decide in that case. One could perhaps leave it up to the Random Number Gods (or just God, as in the Christian one), but that's a whole other slice of ethical quandary hell. Obviously the anti-abortion position would be to keep both (or more, if that's the case), but if the woman gets to the point of asking that sort of question, you have to consider why they are making the decision.

I probably wouldn't leave it up to a council, unless maybe the gender balance is equal, but I still don't really like the idea of a council. Obviously there needs to be a filter for stuff like aborting just because of gender....

I suppose the PM was referring to the ethical quandary hell that still remains.

🙄 I honestly dont see it as a severe ethical quandary. I guess I might think different if I was of the "embryo=human being" persuasion.

Btw I think you misunderstood the reason for the procedure. Selective abortion like that is normally done in cases of multiple pregnancies  because its not certain the pregnancy will be safe.

Which, btw, I find that many of these supposed moral quandaries are not real in the first place, because things are stretched to the point of things being a no brainer. A classical one in my field, for instance: a pregnant woman with APML. Often a supposed "ethical quandary: because APML is treated with ATRA which is teratogenic. Only... either the fetus is past the stage where it would be teratogenic, or there is a snowball chance in hell for the patient to survive long enough to give birth. So the default answer should be to go ahead with ATRA.

[Kagus]

I wonder why the Norwegian crew hasn't said anything yet

We don't like to cause a fuss, generally...

Btw I think you misunderstood the reason for the procedure. Selective abortion like that is normally done in cases of multiple pregnancies  because its not certain the pregnancy will be safe.

There's also the matter of the economical and emotional capacities of the parents to provide a decent life for that many kids, preferably without completely bankrupting themselves (again, economically or emotionally). So now we get cases of a couple saying "We would like to have a child", and then finding out that oh no, you're gonna need fertility treatment if you want that to happen, and then they get the treatment and it's twins. They don't have the space, the money, or the time to take care of two kids, so they try to get the procedure done to abort one of the twins and just have the one kid they bargained for. Now the council comes in and says "Nope. You're physically capable of bearing two children, therefore you're going to bear two children".

(To put things a bit more on the nose, a Christian People's Party spokesman made waves when he publicly announced his position on the matter as "If you can give birth to one kid, you can give birth to two"... Which is a delightfully respectful and also very medically accurate comment to make)


The real kicker? Because of the scope of this law change, straight abortion is still legally the choice of the mother. Which means that if the council rejects a case, they're giving her the choice between two children or no children... But she's not allowed to have just the one.



And yeah, no, I guess I'm another one of those horribly thoughtless and emotionless people who feels that abortion or fetal reduction isn't a massive ethical problem. At least no greater of an issue than the idea of raising a child in an unfit home or putting them up for adoption in an already poorly-managed and overloaded system.

[Iduno]

There's also the matter of the economical and emotional capacities of the parents to provide a decent life for that many kids, preferably without completely bankrupting themselves (again, economically or emotionally). So now we get cases of a couple saying "We would like to have a child", and then finding out that oh no, you're gonna need fertility treatment if you want that to happen, and then they get the treatment and it's twins. They don't have the space, the money, or the time to take care of two kids, so they try to get the procedure done to abort one of the twins and just have the one kid they bargained for. Now the council comes in and says "Nope. You're physically capable of bearing two children, therefore you're going to bear two children".

(To put things a bit more on the nose, a Christian People's Party spokesman made waves when he publicly announced his position on the matter as "If you can give birth to one kid, you can give birth to two"... Which is a delightfully respectful and also very medically accurate comment to make)

The real kicker? Because of the scope of this law change, straight abortion is still legally the choice of the mother. Which means that if the council rejects a case, they're giving her the choice between two children or no children... But she's not allowed to have just the one.

And yeah, no, I guess I'm another one of those horribly thoughtless and emotionless people who feels that abortion or fetal reduction isn't a massive ethical problem. At least no greater of an issue than the idea of raising a child in an unfit home or putting them up for adoption in an already poorly-managed and overloaded system.

I'm shocked. The religious telling people they must have children, and also feel it should suck trying to raise children while being poor, because fuck you for being poor?

[Kagus]

To be fair to KrF (the Christian People's Party), they have actually been campaigning quite a bit for more and better kindergarten offers, and for better maternity/paternity (yes! It's a thing in Norway!) leave...

But then again, KrF has been going through a bit of an identity crisis lately between the conservative crowd being old religious people and the progressive crowd trying to uphold actual Christian values. There was a whole big party meeting to discuss the future of the party.

The conservatives won, if you're curious!

[scriver]

But then again, KrF has been going through a bit of an identity crisis lately between the conservative crowd being old religious people and the progressive crowd trying to uphold actual Christian values.

If it's anything like the situation in Sweden I think you might be misassuming things here. If anything it tends to be the old people who still carry a candle for the old Christian social progressism that used to pervade Christian movements, while the younger members are thoroughly ideologised to the American 80's extremely conservative right.

[smjjames]

If both babies are healthy, that's a severe moral ethics quandary, wouldn't want to be the doctor that has to decide in that case. One could perhaps leave it up to the Random Number Gods (or just God, as in the Christian one), but that's a whole other slice of ethical quandary hell. Obviously the anti-abortion position would be to keep both (or more, if that's the case), but if the woman gets to the point of asking that sort of question, you have to consider why they are making the decision.

I probably wouldn't leave it up to a council, unless maybe the gender balance is equal, but I still don't really like the idea of a council. Obviously there needs to be a filter for stuff like aborting just because of gender....

I suppose the PM was referring to the ethical quandary hell that still remains.

I honestly dont see it as a severe ethical quandary. I guess I might think different if I was of the "embryo=human being" persuasion.

Btw I think you misunderstood the reason for the procedure. Selective abortion like that is normally done in cases of multiple pregnancies  because its not certain the pregnancy will be safe.

Which, btw, I find that many of these supposed moral quandaries are not real in the first place, because things are stretched to the point of things being a no brainer. A classical one in my field, for instance: a pregnant woman with APML. Often a supposed "ethical quandary: because APML is treated with ATRA which is teratogenic. Only... either the fetus is past the stage where it would be teratogenic, or there is a snowball chance in hell for the patient to survive long enough to give birth. So the default answer should be to go ahead with ATRA.

Yeah actually, I think I did since I didn't really have the full context and at-will made me think it included cases where the womans life wasn't at risk.

But then again, KrF has been going through a bit of an identity crisis lately between the conservative crowd being old religious people and the progressive crowd trying to uphold actual Christian values.

If it's anything like the situation in Sweden I think you might be misassuming things here. If anything it tends to be the old people who still carry a candle for the old Christian social progressism that used to pervade Christian movements, while the younger members are thoroughly ideologised to the American 80's extremely conservative right.

80's? More like right now.

[scriver]

80's because that's when it grew prominent

[Kagus]

Nope. It's mostly the younger crowd in KrF that are progressives, and trying to reconcile their good Christian beliefs with a modern inclusive society. A lot of loving thy neighbor and turning the other cheek.

Meanwhile the established Lutheran farmers are angry that youngsters nowadays are trying to do things differently from how things were done in the old days, and they don't want anyone growing up without the important trauma and repression that shaped them in their formative years.

[smjjames]

Well, we do know that they were shooting at a drone (whether the same type or not, no idea) the same day the explosions happened on the tanker ships, so, it might have only been a matter of time.

I don't think the escalation is that fast, tensions have been high for quite some time and it could be just them trying to flex their muscles without escalating TOO far.

[bloop_bleep]

Yes, I believe the feeling the majority of us are getting is that the US provoked the attack, as shown by previous posts.

[smjjames]

It does remind me a lot of when Turkey shot down a Russian jet for repeatedly crossing what was essentially a finger of Turkish territory sticking into Syrian territory (and Russia was all 'Want to do that again?', though things de-escalated FAST from there despite Russian posturing). However, things are a lot less clear here because nobody is really showing definite proof like radar images that show the craft crossing said territory. So, I'm not so sure about the US provoking it here as there'd need to be proof of it intentionally provoking like Russia 'cutting corners' with Turkish territory.

Iran has said that they plan on taking it to the UN where they'll show proof or something, maybe they're just more confident in displaying their proof in that audience rather than right now. UAE and Omani radars should definetly be able to see the area, so, there would be third party (if not exactly neutral third party) confirmation available.