Print

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

[The_Explorer]

You know when I read about asking people to stock up food and that it was due some electron and fuel rationing I tried very hard to ignore it could be a Taiwan thing.... thanks for bursting my happiness bubble.

Hopefully is some bravado or bully movement to pressure Taiwan to give in or something.... would really hate a big war or even a global one if things get enough traction... many jerks would jump at the chace of playing war right now.

same. economy is already kinda bad in a lot of countries, doesn't need to get any worse. Though as my dad put it, when economies get bad (and china's economy is terrible and on brink of complete collapse), the usual answer to "solve" it is sadly war. We are all hoping they are just doing what north korea does and its all talk, show and like you said, bravado, to force taiwan to give in.

But been keeping a close eye on the situation, partly because its current and its a little worrying, but also we got family friends in china and got a family member (adopted mostly thanks to our family friends, but she wanted to travel back to meet her biological parents... well parent, one passed away due to covid a month before she was due to get there...very sad but that aside) that is chinese that is living there with her biological mom, so we are worried if anything does happen, what that would mean for all of them. (to add though, they don't say anything about whats going on there. Well we haven't heard from my niece in weeks, but that is expected. Our family friends never talk much about china itself besides the touristy kinda stuff, they are probably not allowed to say anything tbh)

[da_nang]

First day of Kenosha shooting trial:

• Jury selected by judge (apparently common in federal and high-profile cases).
• Defense team is suffering from internal strife (deliberate in case they need a mistrial?).
• Grainy as fuck FBI air surveillance footage (YT doesn't like it, or something) has been released/leaked (ABCs letting the pressure cooker heat up, name a more iconic duo).
• Prosecutors spinning the shit out of it (either out of desperation or they know their position is shit).
• MSM spinning the shit even further (someone should hook up a generator).
• Social media is resembling two dumpster fires; posters are hurling flaming garbage at each other.

I'm not sure which side is going to burn down the country more when the verdict comes.

[hector13]

Probably the side that recently invaded the center of government because they could not stand losing.

Assuming they lose, which they probably won’t.

[Vector]

And Judaism in particular considers free access to abortion as a clear-cut matter of religious freedom! Freedom of religion respecting Judaism would require all people to have access to abortion as they desired it ...

Sure, but if you're only going to count progressive branches then that goes for Christianity too.

Actually, this isn't correct. Orthodox Judaism and conservative Christians generally disagree on this point. Even the most conservative branches of Judaism require or permit abortion in the case of threatening the life of the mother, and some have advocated with pro-abortion groups out of concern that abortion in the case of threat to the life of the mother be outlawed. The most conservative branches, mind you.

[scriver]

Yes, but the stances on that page -- it's forbidden, except when lives are at stake -- are those that the majority of conservative Christians also take. I'm not sure how you read it, but that link makes it pretty clear to me that the conservative branches (in which, for the same of clarity, I include both conservative and orthodox jews) really frowns on abortion.

[Vector]

OK, although it really hasn't been my impression that the majority of conservative Christians consider abortion up to and including during labor acceptable to save the life of the mother. I was surprised to see that the Midrash said it was OK up until the point where the body was more than halfway out of the birthing parent.

[MaxTheFox]

I am very conflicted about abortion before the third trimester, personally, and if I was in parliament I would abstain from voting on it. But during the third trimester IMO a fetus should be treated as a baby, though I suppose it should be allowed if the mother's life is threatened or the fetus has a severe genetic disease.

[LordBaal]

Basically. Most people I have spoken here about this agree that abortion should be allowed and free when the pregnancy is no viable, the life of the mother is at risk or is product of rape, as long is done quickly enough and both parents agree (except on rape).

The biggest issue people have with it is that it starts to be treated as a regular anti-conception method (which is not even technically) in lieu of regular ones, specially preservatives that also has the benefit of preventing STD. Not the abort itself but the trivialization of it.

This is no small part due feminist protests in South America, Argentina specially, where the protesters were very extrem expressing their points of view and gained infamous notoriety for asking things like aborting all male babies as soon the sex was known, expressing that they would study medicine to make as many abortions they could, that using preservatives or pills were equal to rape or individuals proudly saing they had dozens of aborts among other shenanigans as shiting in the middle of a church and vandalizing lots of things.... all this led to a very negative image of both them and abortion.

[Frumple]

I am very conflicted about abortion before the third trimester, personally, and if I was in parliament I would abstain from voting on it. But during the third trimester IMO a fetus should be treated as a baby, though I suppose it should be allowed if the mother's life is threatened or the fetus has a severe genetic disease.

If a fetus was treated as a baby, or as a person in general, abortion would be acceptable at any point during the entire period, though. Pregnancy is literally the only medical type issue folks try to insist on the sort of care involved. A mother has no medical or legal obligation to act as very literal life support for a child once born, or another person ever. As far as I'm aware no one's even passed a single law demanding a mother breast feed, never mind anything more intensive than that.

There's just no other issue where people in general even consider forcing someone to share the functioning of their kidneys, or their blood, or whatever, and very precious few where they're obligated to risk their life or crippling injury... about the only thing that even comes close is fucking conscription. Even first responders or military generally have more leeway than folks talk about wanting to demand of pregnant women.

[MaxTheFox]

I am very conflicted about abortion before the third trimester, personally, and if I was in parliament I would abstain from voting on it. But during the third trimester IMO a fetus should be treated as a baby, though I suppose it should be allowed if the mother's life is threatened or the fetus has a severe genetic disease.

If a fetus was treated as a baby, or as a person in general, abortion would be acceptable at any point during the entire period, though. Pregnancy is literally the only medical type issue folks try to insist on the sort of care involved. A mother has no medical or legal obligation to act as very literal life support for a child once born, or another person ever. As far as I'm aware no one's even passed a single law demanding a mother breast feed, never mind anything more intensive than that.

There's just no other issue where people in general even consider forcing someone to share the functioning of their kidneys, or their blood, or whatever, and very precious few where they're obligated to risk their life or crippling injury... about the only thing that even comes close is fucking conscription. Even first responders or military generally have more leeway than folks talk about wanting to demand of pregnant women.

It just feels wrong to me to kill a healthy fetus shortly before it's born without a good reason (the mother's whim is not a good reason) but you do you.

Also I'm pretty sure killing a baby right after it's born is also illegal so that's not a valid argument.

[Frumple]

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?

[scriver]

I am very conflicted about abortion before the third trimester, personally, and if I was in parliament I would abstain from voting on it. But during the third trimester IMO a fetus should be treated as a baby, though I suppose it should be allowed if the mother's life is threatened or the fetus has a severe genetic disease.

If a fetus was treated as a baby, or as a person in general, abortion would be acceptable at any point during the entire period, though. Pregnancy is literally the only medical type issue folks try to insist on the sort of care involved. A mother has no medical or legal obligation to act as very literal life support for a child once born, or another person ever. As far as I'm aware no one's even passed a single law demanding a mother breast feed, never mind anything more intensive than that.

There's just no other issue where people in general even consider forcing someone to share the functioning of their kidneys, or their blood, or whatever, and very precious few where they're obligated to risk their life or crippling injury... about the only thing that even comes close is fucking conscription. Even first responders or military generally have more leeway than folks talk about wanting to demand of pregnant women.

I'm what world do you live in where parents aren't punished for neglecting their children? Mothers are only not forced to breastfeed because we can feed babies in other ways. 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.

[Starver]

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.

[None]

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.

[Frumple]

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