I imagine not. They are great in small doses. But good luck with the 24/7. It’s somewhat amazing to me that the vast majority of children survive to adulthood, with the stuff they do and get into.
Re: someone being anti-abortion (that is, being disgusted with the idea of abortion) and yet still pro-choice, I can empathize with that. I do not like the idea of abortion, but I let go of negative feelings about it, because I am convinced that it is not up to me. I am convinced that it is the woman who has the fetus in HER body who is to decide.
The op-ed is very poorly argued. That’s all. --thatoneguySo, welcome again to the forum. Nice to have a different point of view included. It makes a forum, not an echo chamber. Some of us do kinda appreciate an actual argument though, not a simple opinion. I can't even tell from from what your opinion is. Do you agree, but think the argument is bad or do you have a different opinion and a different argument that could defeat this "poor" argument?
“It’s a dumb, boring take by a confused woman. She’s anti-abortion but pro-choice………must be hard.” said like a true grit macho macho man.
I wonder if you’ve ever even changed a diaper? It’s all so simple, 0’s and 1’s only, just ask Trump.
Oh and regarding the climate thing, perhaps someday when you grow up you’ll learn to appreciate how fuking important our weather and climate is to our existence.
I wonder if you’ve ever even changed a diaper? It’s all so simple, 0’s and 1’s only, just ask Trump.I have (though it's mostly her job!) Is that supposed to make a man more sympathetic to abortion?
So, welcome again to the forum. Nice to have a different point of view included. It makes a forum, not an echo chamber. Some of us do kinda appreciate an actual argument though, not a simple opinion. I can’t even tell from from what your opinion is. Do you agree, but think the argument is bad or do you have a different opinion and a different argument that could defeat this “poor” argument?I already explained upthread.
Writer of the op-ed doesn’t establish a connection between this bill and Maternal Mortality — a set of problems which are not fixed with abortion. She is just throwing different unrelated stats out there for easily triggered people like CitizensChallenge to cry about.What more connection would you like? She talks about pregnancy related deaths. You have to be pregnant to have one of those. This bill puts into law what Catholic hospitals already do, put the life of the child above the life of the mother, even if it's not a "child" yet in the definition that most doctors use. She doesn't mention, but maybe she should have, that when bills like this are made, they are used to un-fund or under fund clinics that support pregnant women. Most of that support is not giving abortions, but they make that connection and cut the funding. So women who need that care don't get it. She probably left that out because it is so well known.
Thank you Lausten. I believe she’s also worried that this law would also put a in woman legal jeopardy if her body performs a natural “spontaneous” miscarriage on its own.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/30/opinions/georgia-abortion-bill-hurt-women-hogue/index.html“More women die from pregnancy-related complications in the United States than any other developed country, and maternal mortality rates in the US are higher than countries like Kazakhstan, Bulgaria and Libya, according to the most recent figures from the CIA World Factbook.”
“When it comes to pregnant women who face serious health risks, we should ask, where is the outcry from those claiming the “pro-life” mantle? Where are their “pro-family” values for the children left behind from mothers who died preventable deaths? What kinds of policies is the “pro-life” GOP putting forth to curb these inexcusable tragedies?”
“If signed, this law will only exacerbate the existing health care problems that affect women in Georgia. Of Georgia’s 159 counties, 79 don’t have a single OB-GYN, according to a 2017 state government report. What doctors would want to come to a state that is hostile to the actual practice of medicine, and threatens to throw them in jail for providing abortion?”
(Oh and a little clarity would help - instead of op-ed why not name which writer you’re talking about - all three piece can be considered opinion pieces.)
3 buried facts about Georgia's 'heartbeat' abortion bill
Georgia’s heartbeat abortion bill is dangerous for women nationwide
@TimB
<div id=“post-298493” class=“bbp-reply-header”>
<div class=“bbp-meta”>April 2, 2019 at 12:56 pm</div>
</div>
"For me, this statement from the article is the bottom line and is an obvious truth:
“Abortion is a personal crisis of utmost importance to a woman’s life and it involves her circle of loved ones and her community. It is a personal tragedy, not a state tragedy, the state has no morally justifiable reason for meddling in this issue of a woman’s sovereignty over her own body. Not in a country that boasts about being “free”.”"
Is a term baby in utero part of the mother’s body, to be disposed of at will?
How many functioning brains can a person have? Can a single person have 2 brains? Is there a significant developmental difference in brain function that occurs by virtue of leaving the womb?
Brain function is how we determine individual humanity and life. 1 functioning brain per person. Once the fetus achieves a level of brain function analogous to that of living unconscious child the fetus has become an individual living human being. Or do you suppose it is OK to kill a living child while unconscious?
To intentionally or negligently withhold sustenance from a dependent living human being such that the individual dies, is and very well should be a crime of hig seriousness.
Psyche, It makes sense to me to consider a fetus an individual once it has reached the point that it can viably and healthily survive outside of the womb, if it does not pose a risk to the mother. Hence there are laws against late term abortions.
But your statement: “To intentionally or negligently withhold sustenance from a dependent living human being such that the individual dies, is and very well should be a crime of hig seriousness.” is not how things are. It happens everyday in our society that persons who are physically non-viably able to survive and are deemed to be so permanently without life support are intentionally taken off of life support, and denied all medical care, even to the point of severely limiting the provision of fluids, until they die.
This is an uncomfortable truth that is not spoken of much. In most cases that it happens, it is probably is in accordance with a living will. But it also occurs, in cases where there is no living will, and the individual cannot communicate their wishes. This happens with input from a physician and permission from the next of kin.
Brain function is how we determine individual humanity and life. 1 functioning brain per person. Once the fetus achieves a level of brain function analogous to that of living unconscious child the fetus has become an individual living human being. Or do you suppose it is OK to kill a living child while unconscious?Are you sure about that? Just because you've heard the term "brain dead", do you think you know all there is to know about defining what it means to be alive? And when does this analogous function occur? Do you have a number of weeks for that? Or did you just think that up so you could make doctors sound like killers?
Psyche, It makes sense to me to consider a fetus an individual once it has reached the point that it can viably and healthily survive outside of the womb,Viability is defined as being able to survive with the aid of the most advanced technology available. When an artificial womb is developed every pregnancy will be viable. Will you then favor banning abortion altogether?
When technology advances to make a 12 week, or 4 week, or 1 second conception viable will you instead of banning abortions based on viability, seek out a test of humanity in utero as the criteria for the legal developmental limit? If so, why wait until that time to change the criteria?
It happens everyday in our society that persons who are physically non-viably able to survive and are deemed to be so permanently without life support are intentionally taken off of life support, and denied all medical care, even to the point of severely limiting the provision of fluids, until they die.No, such individuals must first be declared brain dead, then the support that is keeping the rest of the body can be ethically removed because there is no human being any more, only a collection of tissue functioning reflexively.
To determine when life begins we can take the clinical tests and brain activity detection applied at declaration of death and apply them analogously in utero for a declaration of life.
We will have to take such measures as technology pushes viability back to conception, so rationally, we should apply that standard now.
Are you sure about that? Just because you’ve heard the term “brain dead”, do you think you know all there is to know about defining what it means to be alive?The only thing I know for certain is that there exists a consciousness that I experience as me. All the rest is estimates, models, and attempts to asymptotically approach the truth of our real existence.
We do, and must, as individuals and as a society make life and death judgements and set standards absent certain knowledge that they are optimally correct, for example in healthcare, military, criminal justice, transportation, and public safety.
And when does this analogous function occur? Do you have a number of weeks for that?No certain answer is available for that either, but we can begin by bracketing the question.
One day prior to birth of a term baby the brain is in virtually the same state of development as it will be after birth.
If there is no brain, there is no brain function.
Hopefully we can all agree on at least those 2 conditions to establish at least some kind of upper and lower bounds.
From there we can scientifically analyze the brain function of the earliest live born babies, at this point about 21 weeks give or take, and bring the upper bound down to that level.
Coming at it from the other end we can analyze when the brain first develops and when any brain activity is detectable at all and bring the lower bound up to that level.
Given the amazing progress of medical science, FMRI, and other analytical techniques, applied to fetuses in utero and those of spontaneous or elective abortions, I am convinced we can close the bracket of upper and lower bounds scientifically to within perhaps a few weeks difference.
TimB said: It happens everyday in our society that persons who are physically non-viably able to survive and are deemed to be so permanently without life support are intentionally taken off of life support, and denied all medical care, even to the point of severely limiting the provision of fluids, until they die.
Psyche said: No, such individuals must first be declared brain dead, then the support that is keeping the rest of the body can be ethically removed because there is no human being any more, only a collection of tissue functioning reflexively.
TimB replies: No. You are wrong. I stand by my statement. You may be blissfully unaware of the reality. A declaration of brain death is not necessary to cease care that is keeping them alive and let someone die under a physician’s direction to do so, if there is a living will, or in lieu of that, if the physician and next of kin agree on it, when the individual can not communicate their own wishes on the matter.
No certain answer is available for that either, but we can begin by bracketing the question.You seem to not know quite a bit, yet you also seem very sure of your assertions and conclusions. Really makes for a difficult conversation.
TimB replies: No. You are wrong. I stand by my statement. You may be blissfully unaware of the reality. A declaration of brain death is not necessary to cease care that is keeping them alive and let someone die under a physician’s direction to do so, if there is a living will, or in lieu of that, if the physician and next of kin agree on it, when the individual can not communicate their own wishes on the matter.That's another matter entirely. In that case a individual has left prior instructions either in writing or orally as to when he or she wishes to die. That is a personal choice involving prior decision making and is not relevant to the question of when life begins, since the fetus cannot provide prior instructions.
Below is one of many papers on the diagnosis of brain death:
You seem to not know quite a bit, yet you also seem very sure of your assertions and conclusions. Really makes for a difficult conversation.This is a subject I have considers carefully, in some depth, often, over many years, from a variety of perspectives. That doesn't make me right necessarily, I could always be wrong in some detail, or perhaps have missed some important point or committed some error of reasoning, which you are welcome to point out to me if you wish.
Psyche said: “…That is a personal choice involving prior decision making and is not relevant to the question of when life begins, since the fetus cannot provide prior instructions…”
TimB said: That is a correct statement in regards to persons who have a living will. However there are persons, who do not have a living will, whose next of kin agree with a physician that the best course of action is “palliative care” in which the person is placed in a hospice and provided what comfort is possible, including heavy duty pain medicines. These are persons who can have some brain function, who can breath on their own, but can do nothing for themselves, and who, e.g., need IV nutrition and fluids due to functionally being able to take nutrition and fluids normally (e.g. without choking), in order to continue to live indefinitely. These are people who would likely be miserable for the rest of their lives if or when they regained some level of consciousness. It is called palliative care, but IMO, it is essentially the same, except perhaps, perhaps, in intention, as euthanasia. This happens.
It is called palliative care,Well, ok, fine, but palliative care is irrelevant to determining when life ends by a diagnosis of brain death.
If you search on “diagnosis of brain death” you will find a number of links like the one I provided in 298658 above.
The criteria for diagnosis of brain death are very detailed and are typically a set of clinical tests. They can be mapped to brain activity with a number of scanning technologies including FMRI.
Since we decide when life ends by testing for a level of brain function it is logical to decide when life begins by testing for analogous fetal brain function.