what the hell
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
Lets look at this logically tiassa, what your saying is that a smoker who smokes while driving to the hospital to give birth is "oh that poor adict" but if she smokes on the way BACK from the hospital with the baby in the back its "that evil women, how dare she endanger that child"?
Which time do you think the baby is getting more of the toxic chemicals?
Which time do you think the baby is getting more of the toxic chemicals?
This has nothing to do with anything except your own insane ramblings. Start your own thread if you want to post this crap.
The "question of evil" vs. practical considerations
The question of a person's evil is, in my book, a separate issue.
Remember, Asguard, that when it comes to questions of abortion, pregnancy, and "life", I have a dryfoot policy.
What anyone does to the inside of their body, whatever or "whoever" is there, is their own prerogative.
What anyone does to someone else—defined by that dryfoot standard in reproductive questions as a person that exists outside of anyone else's body—is an entirely separate question.
And with parents who are also addicts, it's not necessarily a question of evil. Rather, the question is whether or not addiction significantly diminishes parental capacity or burdens the children with extraordinary risk.
Asguard said:
The question of a person's evil is, in my book, a separate issue.
Remember, Asguard, that when it comes to questions of abortion, pregnancy, and "life", I have a dryfoot policy.
What anyone does to the inside of their body, whatever or "whoever" is there, is their own prerogative.
What anyone does to someone else—defined by that dryfoot standard in reproductive questions as a person that exists outside of anyone else's body—is an entirely separate question.
And with parents who are also addicts, it's not necessarily a question of evil. Rather, the question is whether or not addiction significantly diminishes parental capacity or burdens the children with extraordinary risk.
And that's the point, it does. If the mother choses an abortion that's fine and her choice but with that any choice comes conquenses. She is CHOSING to have that child and therefore she needs to take reaponcibility for it and yes that means taking reasonable precautions whike pregnant.
Your right, adiction is a mental illness but we still lock up adicts, gambling adicts for stealing, drug adicts simply for being adicts. If adiction is no excuse for being aficted to drugs then why is it an excuse to harm a child YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO HAVE. That's the difference tiassa, pregnancy is always a women's CHOICE in countries like Australia and I assume the US. abortion is freely avilable, the fetus isn't being imposed on her.
Your right, adiction is a mental illness but we still lock up adicts, gambling adicts for stealing, drug adicts simply for being adicts. If adiction is no excuse for being aficted to drugs then why is it an excuse to harm a child YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO HAVE. That's the difference tiassa, pregnancy is always a women's CHOICE in countries like Australia and I assume the US. abortion is freely avilable, the fetus isn't being imposed on her.
(Insert title here)
There is a difference, Asguard, between "right and wrong", to the one, and "the law", to the other.
I can agree with you to the point that I would say: If a woman chooses to carry to term, then she should make every effort on behalf of the fetus' health.
But reality doesn't exactly work that way.
Indeed, the complication in this case is addiction. However—
—there are a number of functional problems with that outlook when applied within the boundaries of American law.
Primarily, the standing context of the law is that what happens inside a woman's body is her business.
Abortion services are reasonably available in many places. But not everywhere.
For instance, Rachel Maddow (transcript, video) recently covered an attempt by the Kansas government to close the last three abortion clinics in the state by implementing new, exacting, and specifically-calculated licensing regulations, including the dimensions and numbers of restroom facilities and janitorial closets inside a building, intending to pass the laws and carry out inspections quickly enough to force the closure of these facilities. That is, pass the regulations and give three days for the clinics to complete the necessary construction or relocation to comply.
The result would be a swath of the country, from eastern Colorado, all the way through Kansas, and into Missouri, in which there would be "no known regular provider of abortion services".
Kansas: Politicians are attempting to create an abortion free zone through building codes and license regulations.
Additionally, as I described of a Utah case, in February:
That footnote, on "limited options", included the following:
One hundred seventy-three miles (i.e., from Vernal, Utah, to Salt Lake City, Utah) to the nearest provider is not what most Americans would describe as "freely available".
____________________
Notes:
Maddow, Rachel. The Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC, New York. June 23, 2011. Television.
There is a difference, Asguard, between "right and wrong", to the one, and "the law", to the other.
I can agree with you to the point that I would say: If a woman chooses to carry to term, then she should make every effort on behalf of the fetus' health.
But reality doesn't exactly work that way.
Indeed, the complication in this case is addiction. However—
Asguard said:
—there are a number of functional problems with that outlook when applied within the boundaries of American law.
Primarily, the standing context of the law is that what happens inside a woman's body is her business.
Abortion services are reasonably available in many places. But not everywhere.
For instance, Rachel Maddow (transcript, video) recently covered an attempt by the Kansas government to close the last three abortion clinics in the state by implementing new, exacting, and specifically-calculated licensing regulations, including the dimensions and numbers of restroom facilities and janitorial closets inside a building, intending to pass the laws and carry out inspections quickly enough to force the closure of these facilities. That is, pass the regulations and give three days for the clinics to complete the necessary construction or relocation to comply.
The result would be a swath of the country, from eastern Colorado, all the way through Kansas, and into Missouri, in which there would be "no known regular provider of abortion services".
Kansas: Politicians are attempting to create an abortion free zone through building codes and license regulations.
Additionally, as I described of a Utah case, in February:
Still, though, the case arises from a rather chilling episode in which a teenager, facing limited options°, paid a friend to beat the hell out of her in order to cause a miscarriage. The assailant pleaded guilty under second degree attempted murder, but was sentenced under the anti-abortion statute—third-degree attempted killing of an unborn child. The girl was remanded to state custody until her twenty-first birthday, but was released in October because of how the statute was written.
That footnote, on "limited options", included the following:
It should be noted that the Utah case highlights any number of problems surrounding the abortion debate. The nearest service provider to the young lady was in Salt Lake City, three and a half hours away from where she was. Ninety-three percent of Utah counties have no abortion service providers within their boundaries.
One hundred seventy-three miles (i.e., from Vernal, Utah, to Salt Lake City, Utah) to the nearest provider is not what most Americans would describe as "freely available".
____________________
Notes:
Maddow, Rachel. The Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC, New York. June 23, 2011. Television.
—Transcript. June 24, 2011. MSNBC.com. June 29, 2011. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43527601/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/
That is why I had the "I think" beside the US. it is avilable in public hospitals in Australia at no charge, SHine in SA also provides freely avilable sexual health services including either providing or aranging abortions (they also provide the pill for $4 a script and provide the script so its widly avilable)
Your story reminds me of L&O SVU episode where a girl got her boyfriend to beat her to cause an abortion after the clinic lied to her to make her wait to long to get one. The boy was charged but not the pregnant girl (yours was probably the case which inspired it). However that's a reason to crack down on the provision of services, not to throw up your hands and say Sa la vi.
Your story reminds me of L&O SVU episode where a girl got her boyfriend to beat her to cause an abortion after the clinic lied to her to make her wait to long to get one. The boy was charged but not the pregnant girl (yours was probably the case which inspired it). However that's a reason to crack down on the provision of services, not to throw up your hands and say Sa la vi.
Oh and no its not, you lock up people for taking drugs and that is about what someone does to there own body. We charge people with not wearing seatbelts and (excluding bad luck) that only effects theself and we charge people with smoking in cars with children or animals in the car.
Really? Animals, too?
Really? Animals, too?
Yeah, we have some problematic issues in our laws regarding drugs, and even seat belts. But, in the end, anti-abortion groups don't have the same kind of financial lobbying power as the pharmaceutical, cotton, timber, and liquor industries, among others.
(Then again, wouldn't it be just insanely unlucky to survive crashing through the windscreen only to be charged with manslaughter because the obese guy who broke your fall died of a heart attack from the fright?)
Asguard said:
Really? Animals, too?
Yeah, we have some problematic issues in our laws regarding drugs, and even seat belts. But, in the end, anti-abortion groups don't have the same kind of financial lobbying power as the pharmaceutical, cotton, timber, and liquor industries, among others.
(Then again, wouldn't it be just insanely unlucky to survive crashing through the windscreen only to be charged with manslaughter because the obese guy who broke your fall died of a heart attack from the fright?)
Actually the "unlucky acident" that refers to is from a series of TV ads which I belive came out of a case in the UK. the rear passanger in a car wasn't wearing a seatbelt and went flying through the car and hit the driver in the back of the head crushing there skull and killing them.
Bells
Staff member
And you advocated arresting women for what she may have ingested during pregnancy but thinks a 'farmer who forgets to wash his hands after wiping his arse and ends up killing dozens and injuring hundreds' should only be made to feel sorry for what he did.
I guess I could try to point out the difference between the two instances, but it would be a waste of my time as you have a tendency to not read what is written and only go off on your own mental tangents about what you think or assume people are saying. After all, a woman apparently no longer has control over what she ingests or what she does with her body once she becomes pregnant and decides to keep it. But killing so many is just fine.
It is clear, you do not believe in the actual notion of "choice" and that a woman's body is her own. You seem to believe that if a woman chooses to have a child, then she must be treated like an incubator and any choice she may have for herself and what she may or may not consume goes out the window. In Asguard's world, she must comply to the man's wishes as soon as she carries his seed..
Lets face it, this kind of legal action is actually your cup of tea. Some of these women were charged because they chose to do drugs while pregnant, for example.. This is what you wanted Asguard. Why are you now backtracking and saying "what the hell"?
And there are doctors who advise that it is safe to consume alcohol in moderation during their pregnancy. One glass of wine, before a woman even knows she's pregnant could cause issues. And others say that after the 2nd trimester, women can have a tipple but in moderation.
In your world, or the world you desire, she should be "strung up", arrested and charged.
It is clear you have an issue with women. You bring this kind of shit up all the time and each time, it is overtly clear you hate women. You hate that women have a choice and you do not. You hate that women are in control of their own bodies at all times, even while pregnant. It showed in the other thread when you stated you had issued ultimatums to your partner and then scoffed when we pointed out that you were sexist and condescending. You don't like that women, those bitches, expect men to pay child support if the man wanted her to get an abortion - ie, how dare she have a choice!
As I said, I am suprised you are not ejaculating all over the very notion of these laws in the US. This is your dream Asguard.
As Tiassa pointed out, you only have an understanding of addiction if it does not involve a woman and her womb.
I think Tiassa answered this sufficiently..
Which you obviously misunderstood or misrepresented because you have issues with women. You spout about women's choices, but you are very restrictive in what choice she actually has with her own body.
Not everywhere.
You cannot force women to abort because she may or may not be addicted to a particular substance Asguard.
You really have to stop living in TV land and living in the real world.
Yes but studies show that :
◦Many women who drink alcohol continue to drink during the early weeks of pregnancy because they do not realize that they are pregnant.
◦Only about 40% of women realize that they are pregnant at 4 weeks of gestation, a critical period for organ development.
And that ~12.2% of pregnant women (about 1 in 8) reported any alcohol use in the past 30 days. This rate has remained stable over the 15 year period, but only 0.2 to 1.5 cases of fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) occur for every 1,000 live births (.02 to .15%)
So clearly, your "there is no safe level" is not true.
Indeed, approximately 2% of pregnant women (about 1 in 50) engage in binge drinking or frequent use of alcohol, or roughly 13 times as many women binge drink as have children with FAS, so the relationship is clearly related to more than just drinking, but for some reason you want to punish the 1 out of 13 binge drinkers that have an FAS child, when the damage might have been caused before the woman even knew she was pregnant.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fasd/data.html
More to the point, it would seem that your position, carried to it's logical conclusion, would ultimately mean that any woman who has a miscarriage or deformed child will have to prove to a court that it wasn't her fault.
Arthur
That might be true if things like CARS didn't exist and weren't freely available to nearly anyone old enough to be pregnant.
Finally, using Utah as your poster child for distance to nearest abortion clinic simply ignores the demographics of Utah. The population of the entire state is only 2.8 million, and 80% of them all live in a very small part of the state.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Carte_Utah_population.png
Last edited:
Something, something, Burt Ward
I don't know, man. I mean, my parents weren't especially conservative, but the idea of me driving a hundred seventy-three miles in their car when I was a teenager? That wouldn't have gone over well with them.
Especially since I wasn't going to tell them I was going.
Because then they would want to know where I was going and why.
Even setting aside the idea of a teenager, though, no, a three hour drive isn not what I would call "freely available".
I mean, depending on traffic, it's fifteen minutes from where I am sitting as I write this to the nearest facility that I know provides abortion services. And, to be honest, I would not be surprised if there is a closer facility that I don't know about.
Additionally, I'm pretty sure there are other places I don't know about.
Furthermore, I live in the southern part of Snohomish County. It's less than twenty miles to downtown Seattle, and within the general metropolitan area of Seattle (King County), there are plenty of facilities available to me.
The idea that abortion is "freely available" when one has to drive a hundred seventy-three miles is, at the very least, slightly absurd.
Well and fine, but that doesn't speak to Vernal.
You see Unitah County? It's the one on the east edge of the state, with three shades of green around a tiny orange splotch? That tiny orange splotch is Vernal; the population of that town is just a bit over nine thousand. It has an airport with a subsidized regular flight to Denver, Colorado, but no regular service to Salt Lake City. It is said to be the only city of its size in the nation without rail service, though, in truth, I would be surprised if that was actually true. Vernal is not as affluent as the Utah average. All of which lends to an image of rocketing across the wasteland on US 40 in a rickety, twenty year-old Ford bought for fifteen hundred dollars in an act of teenage rebellion. Very romantic, except that it would be for an abortion, the girl is probably scared very nearly witless, and she can't have it anyway because she hasn't told her parents.
This is not what I would call "freely available".
What if you had to drive three and a half hours to the nearest dentist? Would you call that "freely available"?
(We might note that, between social attitudes, educational standards, and the state of reproductive medical services in Utah, a seventeen year-old is statistically more likely to suffer chlamydia than the flu. It's not quite the third world in Utah, as far as reproductive services go, but there are reasons a seventeen year-old went with the option of paying someone to beat her into a miscarriage.)
Ah, well, see, that's kind of the problem. He already knows this. He just doesn't care. It's a particular quirk of his insofar as issues pertaining to women tend to result in our generally progressive neighbor hopping the rail. In truth, we who have witnessed it over the years are puzzled by it, but whatever the problem is, it's his to resolve because only he knows whence it comes.
But no. He doesn't care what the studies show. It's a woman, and it has something to do with reproduction. And ... er ... uh ... well, that's just it. I can't explain it. And he never really has.
Adoucette said:
I don't know, man. I mean, my parents weren't especially conservative, but the idea of me driving a hundred seventy-three miles in their car when I was a teenager? That wouldn't have gone over well with them.
Especially since I wasn't going to tell them I was going.
Because then they would want to know where I was going and why.
Even setting aside the idea of a teenager, though, no, a three hour drive isn not what I would call "freely available".
I mean, depending on traffic, it's fifteen minutes from where I am sitting as I write this to the nearest facility that I know provides abortion services. And, to be honest, I would not be surprised if there is a closer facility that I don't know about.
Additionally, I'm pretty sure there are other places I don't know about.
Furthermore, I live in the southern part of Snohomish County. It's less than twenty miles to downtown Seattle, and within the general metropolitan area of Seattle (King County), there are plenty of facilities available to me.
The idea that abortion is "freely available" when one has to drive a hundred seventy-three miles is, at the very least, slightly absurd.
Well and fine, but that doesn't speak to Vernal.
You see Unitah County? It's the one on the east edge of the state, with three shades of green around a tiny orange splotch? That tiny orange splotch is Vernal; the population of that town is just a bit over nine thousand. It has an airport with a subsidized regular flight to Denver, Colorado, but no regular service to Salt Lake City. It is said to be the only city of its size in the nation without rail service, though, in truth, I would be surprised if that was actually true. Vernal is not as affluent as the Utah average. All of which lends to an image of rocketing across the wasteland on US 40 in a rickety, twenty year-old Ford bought for fifteen hundred dollars in an act of teenage rebellion. Very romantic, except that it would be for an abortion, the girl is probably scared very nearly witless, and she can't have it anyway because she hasn't told her parents.
This is not what I would call "freely available".
What if you had to drive three and a half hours to the nearest dentist? Would you call that "freely available"?
(We might note that, between social attitudes, educational standards, and the state of reproductive medical services in Utah, a seventeen year-old is statistically more likely to suffer chlamydia than the flu. It's not quite the third world in Utah, as far as reproductive services go, but there are reasons a seventeen year-old went with the option of paying someone to beat her into a miscarriage.)
Ah, well, see, that's kind of the problem. He already knows this. He just doesn't care. It's a particular quirk of his insofar as issues pertaining to women tend to result in our generally progressive neighbor hopping the rail. In truth, we who have witnessed it over the years are puzzled by it, but whatever the problem is, it's his to resolve because only he knows whence it comes.
But no. He doesn't care what the studies show. It's a woman, and it has something to do with reproduction. And ... er ... uh ... well, that's just it. I can't explain it. And he never really has.
Not to sidetrack the debate but we are discussing this with people who don't live in the US and so using Utah as an example, considering it's demographics is a tad misleading.
And NO, I don't find having to have to go to the nearest reasonable size city as justification for saying a service isn't freely available, because for the VAST majority of the US population, that's not an issue at all.
As you know, a lot of our country has very low population density and thus the people who chose to live in these tiny out of the way areas are already used to going long ways for damn near anything, including non-routine medical care, but that doesn't justify to make the sweeping claim that abortion services are not freely available. And comparing it to a trip to the dentist is also not reasonable. Everyone goes to the dentist typically twice a year at least, but only women have abortions and only for a quarter of their life and then only about 13 out of 1,000 women of childbearing age have one each year. So in Vernal, a town of 8,000 residents, and 4,000 women, and about 1,000 of childbearing age, that would be about one abortion per month, so it's not a big surprise that one can't find an abortion clinic or a doctor who is willing to undertake this somewhat risky procedure in this podunk town.
Arthur
Last edited:
Interestingly, this is the exact same strategy being used to shut down medical marijuana dispensaries in various places right now (San Diego, for example). There must be some conservative policy think tank pushing this as an end-run around social policies that they dislike, but have been unable to get overturned through democratic means. A major red flag there is the lack of grandfather clauses, which are a typical, expected feature of these sorts of changes in zoning regulations (when carried out for normal, non-politicized purposes, of course).
Everyone with a Cadillac health plan, you mean. In reality, only about 2/3 of Americans visit a dentist even once per year. Something like 1/4 of the population doesn't get any dentistry at all.
Bells
Staff member
And his position would also entail having women, once finding themselves pregnant, getting an abortion if they have ingested something that could possibly be dangerous to the fetus in the weeks prior to that or face criminal sanction or a law suit if the child is born with any problems. Along with a plethora of other issues surrounding the mother's choice which Asguard has, ermmm, advised us he has issues with.
It would be fair to say that you would probably find it more constructive and worthwhile of your time to take a brick and smash your head in it than to try to reason with him about any issue where women's reproduction and choice is involved. Also much less painful.
I should have put a comma in there, I meant that both men and women go to the dentist as opposed to only women getting abortions.
(note, Vernal, a town of 8,000, has 9 Dentists and 1 Orthodontist)
Source for the 1/4 never going to the dentist?
I don't believe that, we aren't the UK after all.
Arthur
Last edited: