Print

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

[MaxTheFox]

Letting your born child die because you didn't want to (or couldn't, or any reason) hook your kidneys up to them or do a blood transfusion, or whatever along those lines, is in fact entirely legal, and I've never seen a serious effort to change that. If your kid's not breathing, you don't have a legal mandate to hook your lungs up to them or even perform CPR. So on and so forth.

It's not a me do me thing, it's that you're asking of pregnant folks something that isn't asked of literally anyone else, in pretty close to any other situation. You don't, in fact, seem to want a fetus treated as a baby, because the latter would have less burden of care.

e: And like, that is what it is. Just... say that, instead of something else, y'know?

Yeah I misinterpreted it. It's just... doesn't sit right with me you know? Kind of a distinct situation to me. Literally can't explain it. Part of the reason I'm conflicted.

As always, it's important to bear in mind that the process is done before the third trimester like 99% of the time, can be a traumatic procedure, has a lot of social stigma around it, (these latter two points make it a rare case just 'as birth control replacing other methods'), and those who need it without it being legally or medically available will find dangerous, potentially life-threatening ways to get it. The worst case scenarios for opposing the procedure's availability are already the last resort.

We've gone around this circle a few times now, so I'm trying to be utilitarian in my contribution here.

Yeah, it's 70% moot for me anyways because embryos hold less moral weight to me than fetuses. As long as there are no third-trimester abortions performed without reason, I'm content.

I am very conflicted about abortion before the third trimester, personally,

(I originally read that as "after the third trimester", you know...)

I wrote an awful lot about the ultimate arbitrariness of a ⅔rds cut-off (and indeed the iniquity of varios competing cut-offs), with or without medical exceptions/etc, but that's scrapped. Suffice to say, there's much more smoke than light in many of the more absolutist arguments (both ways). Anyone who isn't in some way conflicted isn't thinking enough beyond what they think immediately concerns them.

Yeah I spend a lot of time thinking about it, I have draw the line somewhere.

[dragdeler]

a

[MaxTheFox]

Twisting my words, nice.

Anyone who isn't in some way conflicted isn't thinking enough beyond what they think immediately concerns them.

Even if you allready shat out 7 kids, had a lengthy philosophical back & forth concerning the 7th and came to the conclusion that it will be the last because there are many reasons for you not to birth an 8th... You should at least show an adequate amount of trepidation. Only a monster would make up their mind.

Use contraception then. Or at least abort early. Where did I say I was against all abortion? Quote me.

if I was in parliament I would abstain from voting on it.

Like I said only a monster could just willy nilly make such a decision. Better to stay out of it and may the chips fall where they may, if the outcome forbids others from making such a decision for themselves at least I didn't sully my hands with MURDER, A LIFE IS A LIFE is immeasurably precious.

It's as if it's impossible to be nuanced on an issue and be unable to fully make up your mind.

I suppose it should be allowed if the mother's life is threatened or the fetus has a severe genetic disease.

Handicapped life though, I don't know about the sanctity of that.

It's about quality of life. I wouldn't want someone to have a life of literal constant pain. Even then it should be up to the parents.

[dragdeler]

a

[dragdeler]

a

[scriver]

If breastfeeding was the only way to feed a baby I am pretty certain it would be considered criminally negligent to refuse to breastfeed them because of how it is already considered criminally negligent to let babies starve to death now.

If so, I've never heard of it happening, or any attempts to mandate it as a method of last recourse.* Breastfeeding is probably a poor example, though, sure, since there generally is alternatives to it and it being about as minimally (and only minimally, since it's actually capable of fucking someone's body up... there's very little involved in the birthing and rearing process that isn't) harmful to the mother as anything involved in having a kid is.

There's more direct stuff involving parental/familial blood transfers and whatnot, iirc, that despite being functionally or explicitly required for a kid's survival, wouldn't see a parent pinged with neglect for refusal and has zero support for being legally mandated. Again, especially when there's medical risks to the parent in question.

*Though it could be super interesting if it was, considering we've reached the point we're able to induce lactation in men sufficient to support a child. I could just about guarantee you legislation trying to mandate that would disappear in an instant the moment someone figured out a legal basis to enforce that medical knowledge on a father

You've never heard of parents being sentenced for child neglect?

[Frumple]

Not for not breastfeeding a starving child, no. Or for refusing any sort of medical procedure that involved the parent themselves. Neglect charges happen, but if they've happened because a parent refused to literally provide part of their flesh or other bodily fluids to their child, I've never heard of if, and if there's some kind of substantial pressure to legally mandate they should be held accountable like that, I've missed it.

[MaxTheFox]

Did I @ you? I take offense in the kind of argument I persiflage. Look I'd be willing to buy all the concessions  people who are oh so concerned about it make once you escalate the tone just right, AT THE FIRST TIME. But somehow this solved subject keeps coming up every 3 months, so forgive me to assume that anything that isn't pointing towards the largest and most pathetical philosphical debate on fundamental principles possible,  is just lip service really.

What.

If quality of life truely is of the utmost concern, I don't see how deadlines and cutoffs are anything but the attempt to consolate the opposition.

Where did I say it was of utmost concern?

[scriver]

Not for not breastfeeding a starving child, no. Or for refusing any sort of medical procedure that involved the parent themselves. Neglect charges happen, but if they've happened because a parent refused to literally provide part of their flesh or other bodily fluids to their child, I've never heard of if, and if there's some kind of substantial pressure to legally mandate they should be held accountable like that, I've missed it.

Okay, but then it's like I said. Not breastfeeding is not a crime because there are other ways to feed a child. But not feeding a child is a crime. If there was no other ways to feed a child than breastfeeding it, then not breastfeeding it would be criminal, because not feeding your child is criminal.

You're being completely irrational in your thinking here, as it comes off to me. Your entire argument seem to be nothing but a huge false equivalency between the situations you are describing.

[hector13]

I think Frumple’s position is that as pregnancy is a unique thing in that it requires the bodily resources and functions of a woman in order to actually work properly, and there’s no other thing like it outside the womb so it shouldn’t be treated like any other medical procedure.

Or something like that, I’m pretty sure I know what they mean I’m just trying to get it across in the 3 minutes I have left before my break ends.

[dragdeler]

a

[Lord Shonus]

I'm just gonna put this in ameripol, cause it probably effect the US anyway

But videos being leaked on twitter showing an endless stream of military vehicles+missiles+troops+equipment going through/to wenzhou which looking on google maps is right near taiwan pretty much. Then they just told everyone in china to stock up on emergency rations.

Currently only one tweet I can find about it, this morning there were more videos up so I dunno what happened to the other ones

https://twitter.com/BtcAkira/status/1455473010987569155

I mean its twitter, but I've actually seen useful stuff come out of north korea of uhm, probably things meant not to be seen (well things they wouldn't want you to see), of all places even though only seen it twice, on twitter (both times it disappeared quite quickly pretty much almost as soon as it popped up) so its not all useless if want to find more "hidden" info. But I don't really pay attention to them so maybe its more common than not.

Either way, seems they are really gearing up for something.

The instructions to hoard food likely have more to do with domestic realities. Supply chains saw significant disruption last year causing food shortages, made worse by government assurances that Everything Was Okay and that citizens should not stockpile. There is a real chance this will be even worse this year because coal shortages have impacted domestic agricultural output.

To make matters worse, government attempts to bring certain aspects of the economy under greater regulation is likely to result in the collapse of the Evergrande Group, a major player in the Chinese economy. This was probably planned, so there are almost certainly firebreaks in place to prevent a cascade failure, but the possibility that those breaks will fail can not be ignored. Advising citizens to prepare a food stockpile would also help with that.

It is very likely that the current saber-rattling toward Taiwan is nothing more than an expensive and loud version of bread and circuses to distract from these problems. This does not mean there is no reason for concern - there is a very real chance somebody will let loose with a warshot during one of the frequent harassment sessions and provoke a crisis. There is also a much lower but not non-existent chance that PRC leadership will decide to embark on a Short Victorious War to paper over any coming unrest. But at this time neither scenario is hugely likely.

[Starver]

I do not inculpate you nor starver, in your case I consider it the curiosity of the young, and I consider starver to be second thought incarnate.

If I understand that properly, I think that (in cutting down my more in-depth thoughts) I left things looking a little different from how I'd have intended with the full ramble as originally written. (Then again, knowing my 'full rambles', maybe not effectively that much different...!)

But I cut it because "It was a rehash of exactly the same arguments", perhaps only in different words. I know most of us here have gone over this enough times for it not to be new (agreeing or otherwise with anyone's particular worldview).

(If I badly misunderstand your apparent misunderstanding, perhaps you do really appreciate my intent. But untying that probably isn't worthwhile.)

[dragdeler]

a

[Frumple]

Okay, but then it's like I said. Not breastfeeding is not a crime because there are other ways to feed a child. But not feeding a child is a crime. If there was no other ways to feed a child than breastfeeding it, then not breastfeeding it would be criminal, because not feeding your child is criminal.

You're being completely irrational in your thinking here, as it comes off to me. Your entire argument seem to be nothing but a huge false equivalency between the situations you are describing.

Breastfeeding was mostly just a poor example to use, to repeat that. There's other things where it's absolutely explicit, there's no or near no way for a kid to survive without some sort of blood, organ, or tissue donation from a parent or close family. We don't criminalize choosing not to do that. We don't even try to criminalize refusing to involve yourself in a medical procedure of that sort under basically any circumstance except when it's a pregnant woman, even when the risk is minimal for the prospective donor or whatever.

I think Frumple’s position is that as pregnancy is a unique thing in that it requires the bodily resources and functions of a woman in order to actually work properly, and there’s no other thing like it outside the womb so it shouldn’t be treated like any other medical procedure.

It's not even really unique, though -- there's procedures that basically require two people to be hooked up together for a period for one of them to survive or otherwise heal, and beyond that anything in the general region of organ or blood donation fits in roughly the same category of action. It's just treated differently than every damn thing else.

Most of what I'm trying to say is that if it's your intent to inflict unique burdens on pregnant women, you either own that or you make it clear you don't want that burden to be unique and start treating everything in the same general category of medical issues like you do pregnancy.

Mandatory blood, tissue, and organ donations could be a start. Conscript relevant people for applicable medical issues that requires another body if there's no volunteer. So on and so forth. Feel free to enforce hormone treatments on fathers if you really need the breastmilk, we've apparently more or less figured that one out and we're mostly pretty chill about parents going through lengthy hormone treatments to better care for young (we just let mothers' bodies pay the cost of it rather than insurance, ha).

Well, so far as the somewhat derailment goes. The initial bit was just noting that treating a fetus like a baby would actually reduce the burden of care beyond what was apparently intended. We (to be clear, the US in general -- I'm not trying to speak for other nations on this one, even if it's probably still applicable) just don't handle things outside the womb like we do things inside it, even so far as folks trying to consider things like friggin' heartbeat or breathing differently.