Author Topic: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?  (Read 8054 times)

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« Reply #200 on: July 01, 2022, 12:44:17 PM »
Well in the South slavery will probably be back since it is deeply rooted in their history and culture.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« Reply #201 on: July 01, 2022, 12:47:30 PM »
Quote
In one case you're talking about a doctor who was frankly the wrong doctor for this person, although I'm not entirely happy about the marketplace argument in medical matters. The bakery analogy doesn't hold water when comparing to a time sensitive emergency, which to me is more an issue of the general problems in the U.S. medical system. In principle a doctor acting on his conscience is not the same at all as the state banning something.

Except it wasn't only one doctor.

Quote
Her ophthalmologist suspected a stroke in her optic nerve and told her the condition can be caused by pregnancy, but Houshmand was stuck in a Catch-22: The pregnancy was now also preventing treatment. Doctors told her that she needed steroids and blood thinners and a specific type of MRI that could make sure there wasn’t something even more serious happening. But she couldn’t get any of those things because they could endanger her fetus.

Houshmand decided she wanted an abortion. She wasn’t willing to risk losing eyesight and continuing to be in pain, vomiting over and over, with no solution … not for an eight-week pregnancy. But her doctors couldn’t help her — abortion wasn’t even an option they brought up. Houshmand had to find a private clinic that could treat her on her own. After the abortion she found out the truth: She had a life-threatening infection in her optic nerve.

As long as she was pregnant, none of the doctors Houshmand encountered would do the things that needed to happen to diagnose her — or treat her.

She saw multiple doctors, not just one who had a problem with her pregnancy.  And it was because the procedures to diagnose and treat her could endanger the fetus.

Which is the Catch-22: you can't know if the illness is serious enough to kill the fetus until it is diagnosed, but you can't diagnose the illness without killing the fetus.  You either have to risk killing the fetus or wait until the illness is so serious that it is obvious the mother will die--at which point it may be too late to save the mother (and often the fetus). :(

So the only way to know if the illness is serious enough to kill the fetus is to kill the fetus.  But it isn't medically necessary at that point, because no one knows if it is that serious.  So it is an illegal abortion, and the doctor should go to jail.

So the doctor has a choice of killing the fetus but saving the mother--and possibly going to jail (in some cases possibly for life)--or risk the life of both by holding off as long as he can--and possibly getting a malpractice suit (with a good chance of beating it).

Which do you think most doctors will do most of the time? ;)

Of course, the mother could choose to terminate the pregnancy herself.  Except that now she can't in many states because there is no exception for "mother believes it is medically necessary."

The mother doesn't get to make her own medical decisions.  Only the doctors can do that.  And the doctors are incentivized not to make the decision that might cost the fetus' life, because the penalties for making the wrong decision are much worse in that case, even though it will cost of life of the mother and sometimes the fetus in a number of such cases.

Quote
And it is pretty common for sick pregnant people to end up squeezed in that vise, said Dr. Lisa Harris, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan who specializes in treating pregnant patients with complex medical problems. While she can remember cases where death was certain if an abortion couldn’t be performed — a patient with heart and lung failure, for example — they only come up maybe once a year in her work. But patients like Houshmand happen all the time, she said. “Maybe it’s a 30 or 50 percent chance that someone might die. And they might not die immediately. Maybe it would be in the next week or month, or even year or beyond.”

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« Reply #202 on: July 01, 2022, 01:24:28 PM »
The general argument being made is bad, anyhow. You can't have a piecemeal approach to good policy. Pretending for the moment that "protecting the fetus" was a generally accepted good starting place, that can't exist in a vacuum. If people use bad reasoning or immoral logic in other aspects of their approach to a pregnant women it doesn't say anything about the starting place. If people say "no abortion" and simultaneously throw young pregnant women under the bus and offer no services to single mothers, this isn't a commentary on abortion but rather on other matters. In the case of doctors there is plenty of room for improper decision-making even if (according to the premise) it is correct to protect the fetus if possible. I too would be dismayed at the idea of a doctor withholding necessary treatment because he decides personally that he just doesn't want the woman to have it. That doesn't mean I have to be pro-choice as a result.

Although to be fair part of the culprit here is a lack of first principles. It seems pretty obvious to Christians that the lack of a central authority among all Christian sects means you can't expect to have common ground in anything. Sure, someone could say they are "pro-life" due to their beliefs but that barely tells you anything. For a Catholic to say that it may mean something very different from a Mormon or Bible Belt Baptist. The words are the same, the underlying principles (if indeed there are any) may not agree. So in a practical case you can have, say, a Catholic pregnant woman wanting lifesaving treatment and baffled that a Baptist doctor thinks the fetus' life is more important than hers. It really matters when people are not even speaking the same language, but somehow have to interact in a practical matter involving life and death. It's a problem. In all seriousness it suggests there may be very good reason to find a doctor (if possible) sharing your belief system, and there are other reasons reinforcing this being a good idea.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« Reply #203 on: July 01, 2022, 01:29:34 PM »
Once we fully revert back to the States' control of abortion, such treatment can go forward legally and save the lives like Houshmand. It is not medical ethics that point to solutions. The two points will always coexist: Is it okay to kill an unborn child to possibly save a mother, or not?

BTW: the best use I know of for men to use sanitary napkins is as emergency use to stop bleeding of wounds. Special Ops warriors swear by them.

Otherwise, the only way to scientifically decide man or woman is simple: XX or XY.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« Reply #204 on: July 01, 2022, 02:18:51 PM »
Quote
Otherwise, the only way to scientifically decide man or woman is simple: XX or XY.
Scientists overwhelmingly disagree with you on this.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« Reply #205 on: July 01, 2022, 02:24:32 PM »
You trust scientist?  They say the world is billions of years old and that evolution is real?  How can you trust people like that?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« Reply #206 on: July 01, 2022, 02:36:39 PM »
You trust scientist?  They say the world is billions of years old and that evolution is real?  How can you trust people like that?

They deny the existence of angels! Do you need to know anything more?

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« Reply #207 on: July 01, 2022, 03:16:58 PM »
The general argument being made is bad, anyhow. You can't have a piecemeal approach to good policy. Pretending for the moment that "protecting the fetus" was a generally accepted good starting place, that can't exist in a vacuum. If people use bad reasoning or immoral logic in other aspects of their approach to a pregnant women it doesn't say anything about the starting place. If people say "no abortion" and simultaneously throw young pregnant women under the bus and offer no services to single mothers, this isn't a commentary on abortion but rather on other matters. In the case of doctors there is plenty of room for improper decision-making even if (according to the premise) it is correct to protect the fetus if possible. I too would be dismayed at the idea of a doctor withholding necessary treatment because he decides personally that he just doesn't want the woman to have it. That doesn't mean I have to be pro-choice as a result.

It does not address the first principle of "protecting the fetus," or more to the point, "the fetus is a human life."  But it does address the first principle, "the mother has control of her own body."

By making it illegal for a mother to abort a fetus without permission (i.e. except in certain circumstances) means that the mother no longer has control of her own body.  Which means doctors can refuse to perform certain diagnosis which may harm the fetus or certain treatments that may harm the fetus, but which the mother requires.  The mother can no longer decide what is best for her; she must have agreement from the doctor and the state.  And either may arbitrarily deny her of what's best for her.

And while the state does have an interest in preserving human life, does it have such an interest when it robs the rights of its citizens to control their own bodies, or even their own health and life?

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« Reply #208 on: July 01, 2022, 03:22:01 PM »
Once we fully revert back to the States' control of abortion, such treatment can go forward legally and save the lives like Houshmand. It is not medical ethics that point to solutions. The two points will always coexist: Is it okay to kill an unborn child to possibly save a mother, or not?

I don't see how States' control can change things for the better.

Quote
Otherwise, the only way to scientifically decide man or woman is simple: XX or XY.

So you believe that women who were born with penises should be required to use women's dressing rooms?  I didn't realize you were such a liberal!  ;D

Or are you suggesting we should create a third sex, based on the science?  Which rest rooms should they use?  ;)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« Reply #209 on: July 01, 2022, 05:43:00 PM »
Once we fully revert back to the States' control of abortion, such treatment can go forward legally and save the lives like Houshmand. It is not medical ethics that point to solutions. The two points will always coexist: Is it okay to kill an unborn child to possibly save a mother, or not?

Except most of the anti-abortion crowd isn't content with state's rights on this. They can't wait to outlaw abortion on a national level through congress. You don't think they want to let Massachusetts and California keep killing babies, and there's no way they get that through those state legislatures?

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« Reply #210 on: July 14, 2022, 06:54:53 PM »
Well, we're off and running.

I believe President Biden mentioned a 10-year-old rape victim who was denied an abortion in Ohio.

At first, there was denial.  "it was all made-up."

Then they caught the guy who raped her.  The AG, who denied they even had such a case, now is crowing about catching him. :)

But, of course, she was able to get an abortion in Indiana.  So Indiana's Republican reaction?

Write a law requiring 10-year-olds to have their rapist's baby.  "She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child."  You can't explain to most 10-year-olds the benefit of going to sleep on time.  ::)

This also completely ignores the fact that it is life-threatening to make a child that young have a baby.  (This article has nothing to do with the current situation, since is bemoaning a similar situation from 2015--in Paraguay.)

Not to be outdone, the Indiana AG is going after the one truly guilty person he can:  the doctor who performed the abortion.

Because, after all, when Republicans see a bunch of 5th graders playing in the school yard, they naturally think, "Oh, they'd all make fine mothers!"  ::) >:(


msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« Reply #212 on: July 15, 2022, 01:24:26 PM »
If only that 10 year old girl could learn the benefits of having a child. They could share the bus to school together, or even day care.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« Reply #213 on: July 19, 2022, 05:16:42 PM »
And it just keeps on going:

A woman in Texas had an ultrasound at 9 weeks that showed her fetus has no heartbeat.  So she asked for the dead fetus to be removed.  Then the problems began.

Quote
Her doctor refused.  That procedure, called a D&C, is the same procedure used to remove a living fetus.

"He said, "Because of the new law that passed, you're going to have to get another ultrasound for me to do anything for you.""

Overwhelmed emotionally and physically--"The pain would get so severe it would be hard to walk"--she went to get another invasive ultrasound at another imaging center...

"Even after that second ultrasound, would you're obstetrician give you that surgical procedure?"

"No. No."

She had to get another ultrasound showing her dead fetus.

"You had to go walking around carrying a dead fetus?" ...

"When a woman is walking around with a dead fetus, what is the danger to her?"

"She can develop an infection that can make her sterile..."

Or even worse.  "When the baby dies inside, the baby starts to release parts of its tissue which can get into the mother's blood supply, which can cause organ failure, which can cause death."

In Texas and in other states, a doctor who does the right thing and removes a dead fetus can be vulnerable to an expensive lawsuit.

"Any private citizen can walk into a court and say, "Dr. Smith performed an abortion.""

Citizens are incentivized to bring such cases.  They can win more than $10,000.  And even if the doctor can prove that the fetus was dead, the doctor still has to be responsible for his own legal fees.

"They are going to lose even if they win.  And that's the chilling effect.  They face the specter of endless, ruinous litigation that they can't stop, can't avoid, can't pre-empt."

It took her two weeks before she could get the D&C.

So healthy mothers who want a child may (and probably will soon) end up dying because doctors are worried that some brain-dead person thinks he can make a quick $10,000 suing the doctor for an abortion.  So a doctor has to decide between doing a simply procedure to save a mother's life and possibly being sued to bankrupcy, or...not. :(

Because some brain-deads out there--like like the Idaho GOP--think we should stop all abortions, regardless of the cost.  >:(

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« Reply #214 on: July 22, 2022, 04:39:17 PM »
If only that 10 year old girl could learn the benefits of having a child. They could share the bus to school together, or even day care.

If only illegal aliens that rape children could be kept out of the US. But that's not convenient for you, is it?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« Reply #215 on: July 22, 2022, 04:48:14 PM »
Yes, if only we put up a westeros wall sealing off the length of the mexican border, no 10 year old would ever be raped again.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« Reply #216 on: July 22, 2022, 07:02:56 PM »
If only that 10 year old girl could learn the benefits of having a child. They could share the bus to school together, or even day care.

If only illegal aliens that rape children could be kept out of the US. But that's not convenient for you, is it?

That's the Republican answer to all the problems they are creating, isn't it?  Stop all crime.

If all crime stopped, there wouldn't be a need for gun control.  If we cure all insanity, there wouldn't be a need to keep guns away from crazy people.  If there were no rapes and pushy boyfriends and medical problems with pregnancies, there wouldn't be a need for abortions.

But you guys can't wait, can you?  You first have to repeal all gun control measures and ban all abortions in a world where there are criminals and crazy shooters and rapists and ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages and then blame all the pain, misery and deaths that you cause with your brainless laws on these problems that no one can completely solve--not even you guys.

Here's a brilliant idea--why don't you ban all these things after you've created your fantasy world, and NOT while there are 10-year-old girls who get pregnant from men who are BOTH legal and illegal residents.

...Instead of trying to distract from the REAL problem--that Republicans want to require 10-year-old girls to have their rapist's babies, regardless of where their rapist comes from.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« Reply #217 on: July 26, 2022, 09:35:41 AM »
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/07/26/1111280165/because-of-texas-abortion-law-her-wanted-pregnancy-became-a-medical-nightmare

Quote
Elizabeth stood up to get some lunch. That's when she felt something "shift" in her uterus, down low, and then "this burst of water just falls out of my body. And I screamed because that's when I knew something wrong was happening."

Her waters had broken, launching her into what she calls a "dystopian nightmare" of "physical, emotional and mental anguish." She places the blame for the ensuing medical trauma on the Republican legislators who passed the state's anti-abortion law, on Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who signed it
...
 For a fetus at 18 weeks, the chance of survival in that state is almost nonexistent, according to Peaceman: "This is probably about as close to zero as you'll ever get in medicine."

Republican policy. Wait until women are about to die to treat them, even if the fetus has no chance to survive.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« Reply #218 on: August 03, 2022, 08:58:52 AM »
Well in a huge turn out for a mid term primary election, voters in Kansas voted down an anti abortion change to the State's Constitution by 2-1 margin.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sorry-kansas-voters-crusade-revoke-100000682.html

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« Reply #219 on: August 03, 2022, 11:23:53 AM »
While the decision was decisive, I wonder if the balance of people confused by the question affected one side more than the other. It seemed to be deliberately arcane and I'm not sure we can take it as given that both sides were equally confused by it.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« Reply #220 on: August 03, 2022, 01:07:41 PM »
Honestly, I don't see how this is confusing.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2022/aug/02/kansas-abortion-ballot-language


This article describes it as confusing, but it seems clearly stated to me.

Quote
A vote for the Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion...

In the articles rewording that they say is clear:

Quote
Voting “yes” would mean supporting an amendment that would change the Kansas state constitution so it no longer protects abortion,

How is that not the same thing? You don't even have to plow through all the other usual verbiage once you have that salient fact.

Now I'll grant you that people are stone dumb for the most part, which is why I am having growing misgivings about democracy on the whole. I just don't know what would be better. Now add to this the fact that there was no shortage of campaigns, and there was nothing confusing about the yard signs strewn about, religious leaders advocating yes, phone campaigns, media campaigns.

I doubt there was much actual confusion on which direction to vote. if anything, the wording encoraged a yes vote, which is why the Coalition for Constitutional Freedom (a reproductive rights organization trying to prevent a ban) complained about it. So there might actually have been more support to protect abortion than indicated by the vote.

jc44

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« Reply #221 on: August 03, 2022, 02:06:31 PM »
Having read the ballot question I'd certainly believe that it was designed to confuse and, to me at least, appears to be in favour of "yes". There are far too many words there. It could, and should, and been cut down to "Repeal the Kanas Constitutional amendment that protects abortion? yes/no".

On the other hand it seem unlikely anyone was actually confused due to the publicity surrounding the vote.

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« Reply #222 on: August 03, 2022, 04:57:51 PM »
hahahahaha

sucks to not be in the top caste doesn't it?

laws shouldn't be made based on the extremes

priests will deal with the extremes

I know you don't trust us

some of you will, some day, perhaps.