Print

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

[Rolan7]

To be clear, the Supreme Court's decision is not to ban abortion, but to allow individual states to ban abortion.

Some states are unlikely to ban abortion. Thus, those who can afford to travel to a Pro-Abortion state should be able to still get an abortion. And yes, some Pro-Abortion states will restrict abortions to residents of their state. But just like Nevada makes it's fortune on allowing people to do things they can't do in other states, you can be sure at least one Pro-Abortion state will cash in by allowing anyone to go to their state for an abortion.

I say this to offer some degree of comfort.

And there are heroes and groups willing to take on the massive financial burden of helping people out of Texas like this.  It's a lot to ask of volunteers, but people have been willing to do it.  That's some light in the dark I guess.

That's why Greg Abbot went after THOSE people with his bounty system.  He targeted the allies.
I hate to be a downer, and it's comforting that people are willing to help, but they're already moving hard against that "solution".  Abbot's system was... legally unsound, rushed, but only because he acted without his legislature.  And this "Supreme Court" appears sympathetic to such legislative measures.

(Goes to show that when they say "States Rights!  You can just leave!" they're being, surprise, total hypocrites.)

[Frumple]

To be clear, the Supreme Court's decision is not to ban abortion, but to allow individual states to ban abortion.

There's not actually comfort there, because that leaked decision was notable in lacking the language previously used in this kind of horseshit that limited the potential shitsack to an individual state. If that thing goes through it would open things up for a federal ban, and the GOP has made it abundantly clear that if they ever get the means to do so, that is exactly what they're going to do.

[Starver]

Folk remedies, of historic use and knowledge, were probably as good as you could get, under the circumstances. The "wise woman of the woods" who had a rather bad grasp of how much (e.g.) foxglove extract it was safe to give for <insert ailment here>, and ended up killing people by going too close/far overL D50, probably did not get to pass on the oral tradition to the next generation,veither discredited or actively prevented from continuing her misguided ideas, with no path of apprenticeship leading on.

Less rigorous than a full-blown clinical trial, having (carefully!) only a village or three of potential patients witha luck-based approach to what maladies might be asked to do their best for (pregnancy and related female-issues being probably a reliable constant), as well as the various side-fortunes of unrelated health-risks perhaps nullifying a perfectly valid treatment (or using something that these days might be contraindicated for, in the presence of (say) a coincident heart condition and/or second active medicinal intake). And nothing like the pharmacochemical depth of knowledge that only the current/recent techniques of molecular biology can really grant.

But any traditional medicine of long standing was likely to he on balance somewhat useful, if not entirely understood. Also complicated hy the placebo effect (conciously invoked or not).

"An alternative medicine" that does what it should is better termed "a medicine", but of course I would insist upon a proper study being part of any such justification. The rest is best defined as (new-age?) quackery, based at best upon the concept of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" and going through the "quantum woo-woo" stage out into actively dangerous stuff that the modern 'alternative practitioner' might neither know nor care about the problems with.

Snake Oil is part of the middle-era of medicine. A lot of baseless Suck-It-And-See or "if a half grain of arsenic does some people some good in some situations, how about we increase the dose and mix it with other things and advertise it as a Patented Panacea?" combined with peripatetic disaccoiation from any fall-out that may result (ignorance by accident or design). Rationalised food and drug purity/quality/efficacy developed (and was necessarily kicked to the fore in the light of the errors in Thalidomide usage, etc) but pharmacovigilence hasn't heen able to yet assess all Traditional Cures (or even just those that have survived in folk-memories, undisplaced by modern era treatments like penicillin/etc) so there may yet be a lot od surprises left to properly comprehend. Both happy surprises and nasty ones, of course, as the rougher edges of "well, it didn't generally harm most people" gets better qualified and the effects of chance get smothered by more precision and rigor.


So... Yeah, I got into a bit of a meander around the subject there.  What I'm getting at is that modern medicine is (generally, E&OE) to be trusted, but ancient remedies built up a good track record for their time (with risks involved that we wouldn't tolerate in modern ethical analyses). The join between the two is the worst bit, thoug, as it has to be done right. And the future may relegate today's 'prudance' also to a level of recklessness we ought to have heen ashamed of. If there is a better future and we don't start regressing, of course.

[wierd]

Well said.

As I said, any such claim in the (historic) literature, needs to be verified.

Science had a kind of glory-era, in which many things were put to experimental tests. This included many folk remedies, and the results of which became modern medicines.   Take for instance, aspirin, which comes from a summer tea. (not really willow bark, aspirin was actually synthesized from a different remedy, that just so happens to also contain salicylic acid. Specifically meadowsweet. The A in Aspirin is for Acetyl, and the Spirin is for Spiraea ulmaria, the botanical name for meadowsweet.) 

Some old remedies were in fact, quite effective, but carried risk factors, or other comorbidities from use, that made them less desirable than other remedies, and as science zeroed in on the best, and safest ones, they fell by the way side.


In this particular instance, I think it would be advantageous to remember that older methods exist, and what their risk factors are, in light of the fact that back-alley abortions are GOING to become things again.  Its not hard to justify spreading awareness of that knowledge, when the thing you are competing against is a goddamn coat hanger.  You aren't competing with modern medicine-- hands down, modern medicine is the best there is, and the best that can be provided--- the problem is that people are being actively DENIED that.  Instead, you are competing against dangerous shit like gorging on OTC medications, or using coat hangers.  If your risk factors are less severe than the consequences of those, and the preparation is effective, it has a valid use.


(and, for your convenience of knowing, Foxglove was administered for high blood pressure, and edema from congestive heart failure. It *WAS* effective. However, the useful dosages were dangerously close to toxic dosages, and the potency of the individual plants is difficult to assay. It was one of the "oh yes, it totally DOES in fact work" remedies that fell by the wayside, as superior medications that are easier to dose, and less likely to cause accidental poisoning were identified, and means of synthetic (and thus highly pure) synthesis discovered. )
 

[Starver]

Well said.

Kind of you to say so (if definitely to me... ), though horrendously typed... Urgh.

Spoiler: Note to self... (click to show/hide)

Stop trying to post anything of significance whilst traipsing over fields and through woods (mostly in the woods, because of it being easier to see the screen under a canopy, not that this actually seemed to help given the results), just wait until later, when you're not better off looking at the hares/ptarmigan/whatever!

[wierd]

Those look like "tapped into a phone" type spelling errors.

I am not so petty as to immediately turn off my brain because I see a typo.


Rather, I focused on the actual substance of the message, which was a good one.  Again, though, awareness of such alternatives (with proven efficacy) is not meant to compete with or replace a proper women's health center.

It's meant to replace very dangerous stuff that killed countless women in the 50s. Like coat hangers.  If all you have to offer a person with leg shackles is a rock (because you are denied to give them a hack saw), at least pick out the rock that is best suited to the task, and show them the safest way to use it.

[Vector]

I do have to say that my knowledge of medically induced abortion or Plan B is that it is safe but very fucking unpleasant to use. Basically inducing a stomach flu + the worst period of your life for 24 hours. If there's a way to avoid taking Plan B, apart from total abstinence, generally a person is going to take it.

It's also important to think about this in comparison with those old teas. The modern alternatives are safe, effective, and convenient ... by comparison. Not in an absolute sense.

(I would really like it if abortion were legal and people researched how to make it less hard on the body. Bad healthcare as punishment for being a whore is not OK)

[Dunamisdeos]

To be clear, the Supreme Court's decision is not to ban abortion, but to allow individual states to ban abortion.

There's not actually comfort there, because that leaked decision was notable in lacking the language previously used in this kind of horseshit that limited the potential shitsack to an individual state. If that thing goes through it would open things up for a federal ban, and the GOP has made it abundantly clear that if they ever get the means to do so, that is exactly what they're going to do.

I'd also be concerned in the immediate future for quality of care between states. I'd also be concerned about people seeking care in another state, then coming back home to some bounty-approved kangaroo court case.
 
I do not understand why (I mean I do, it's authoritarian circle jerking, but I digress) we have been so utterly incapable of legally treating abortion like a medical necessity in the rare cases that it is needed. We can come up with clear guidelines in which every other medical procedure is necessary or disallowed or what have you, and its not like we don't have medical data readily available. Only thing I can figure is that it's a political issue that has clear lines drawn across political parties, and it's in our leaders best interest to maintain those lines for ease of campaigning. People too obsessed with the perceived glamour of our political system and the political celebrities thereof just vote accordingly as they always have.

My thoughts on why someone would force (or try to force) through a huge game-changing bill on abortion but "neglect" to include guidelines or allowances on things like an ectopic pregnancy is that the point was never to introduce laws on abortion, but to prop themselves up in front of their constituents while deliberately inflaming their opposition, therefore resulting in assured continuation of the great political game that makes them so wealthy and powerful. They are perfectly aware of the medical facts, but to them it's not a medical situation, its an opportunity to secure their own position.

[Starver]

([...] Bad healthcare as punishment for being a whore is not OK)

I'm sure I'm not overstepping the mark or treading on the toes of those involved to say "...punishment for being a woman..." is as applicable. Not to virtue-signal, at least by intent, though I'm sure you really don't need me to mansplaining[1] this issue, right?



[1] That's when a man tells a woman something they already know!

[Nirur Torir]

I'm sure I'm not overstepping the mark or treading on the toes of those involved to say "...punishment for being a woman..." is as applicable. Not to virtue-signal, at least by intent, though I'm sure you really don't need me to mansplaining[1] this issue, right?



[1] That's when a man tells a woman something they already know!

I feel like Vector's line hits better.
There seem to be two main pro-life camps. 1, the unborn are Precious and/or a mother's love is Precious. 2, good women save themselves until marriage, and any who do otherwise are whores who must be punished.

Relatively few openly admit to being in camp 2, but it's strong enough that we get such injustice as treating miscarriage like criminal manslaughter, and trying to force women to remain pregnant with a dead fetus. These are not things desired by people who value all life, unless they're poorly educated about how common such events are.
And, as I've just realized, there's a distinct line of wanting to punish women by forcing them to remain pregnant. In other words, some see even a normal, healthy pregnancy as a punishment.


I feel there's a lot of feelings of "a mother's love is Precious" that is easily overlooked. That a mother would do anything, take a bullet, make any sacrifice, for her child, is just the way the world "is supposed to work." I can so easily see how arguing that a mother-to-be should have easier access to do the opposite might grate against ideals of of morality, while causing too much anger and unease to able to pinpoint exactly why. I can then see how that could easily slide into a feeling of wanting to increase punishments.

[EuchreJack]

Don't forget: Lots of Rich Couples are not biologically capable of having children. They need (mostly poor) people to give birth to children. Especially since most parents do not surrender their children, even when they never wanted the children to come to term in the first place.

I think Justice Amy Barrett's support of overturning Roe vs. Wade rests on that premise. It really is just about rich people getting what they want from poor people. In this case: Children.

[Vector]

([...] Bad healthcare as punishment for being a whore is not OK)

I'm sure I'm not overstepping the mark or treading on the toes of those involved to say "...punishment for being a woman..." is as applicable. Not to virtue-signal, at least by intent, though I'm sure you really don't need me to mansplaining[1] this issue, right?

No, many people believe that women are being punished with distressing periods and the pain of childbirth by God for Eve's sin, which is part of why medical support for dealing with, say, polycystic ovary syndrome, migraines, multiple sclerosis, and other problems disproportionately affecting yon females is slim. And today, we have also decided that punishing a woman for being a whore with pain, disability, and poverty via pregnancy is OK.

The woman who uses birth control correctly and was prudent with her finances and planned for contingencies and is supported by her husband deserves a legal abortion, yes? And the whores shall suffer, yes?

[Lord Shonus]

Folk remedies, of historic use and knowledge, were probably as good as you could get, under the circumstances. The "wise woman of the woods" who had a rather bad grasp of how much (e.g.) foxglove extract it was safe to give for <insert ailment here>, and ended up killing people by going too close/far overL D50, probably did not get to pass on the oral tradition to the next generation,veither discredited or actively prevented from continuing her misguided ideas, with no path of apprenticeship leading on.

This part really isn't true (besides the "wise woman of the woods" being mostly myth in the first place). The biggest reason that plants are never used directly in standard medicine (extracts of the active chemicals being used instead, in many cases) is that it is literally impossible to have reliably safe dosages. The amount of the active ingredient not only varies between plant, but often varies between different leaves/roots/etc of the same plant, and most methods of extraction such as teas and poultices are unpredictably effective. That doesn't make them inherently ineffective, but does mean that this form of medicine will always be less reliable and more dangerous.

[Starver]

Less reliable, certainly. I tried to put a sense of that in. Which is why they'd be narrowed down to (usually) diluted microdoses to improve outcomes. Or maybe prepare a mixture and by experience (or a rudimentary analogue of titration) know when the signs are that the preparation is bad.

A long way from modern tightly-controlled preparations, but things that were tried for some possibly spurious reason (e.g. the whole "doctrine of signatures" guff) out of desperation, and then appeared satisfactory by pure luck, would be potential keepers for a legacy of hand-me-down herbal knowledge that would slowly winnow out the worst ideas, etc. Better outcomes than entirely random (or zero) botanical experiments on an ad hoc basis, for each new need. So perhaps, as an example, prior to the scientific identification of actual antibiotics a mouldy-bread poultice might be the clincher between life and death for an individual, and not significantly more dangerous than the wound-induced fever they're already battling. Good enough, and not likely to add significant nephrotoxity to the mix.

(And the WWOTW was just a general concept. I'm not saying it's always exactly that.)

[Dunamisdeos]

No, many people believe that women are being punished with distressing periods and the pain of childbirth by God for Eve's sin, which is part of why medical support for dealing with, say, polycystic ovary syndrome, migraines, multiple sclerosis, and other problems disproportionately affecting yon females is slim.

I have never heard this directly stated within the church(-es that I have been to). I also have absolutely no trouble believing that there are a frustrating number of people that believe it.