Roe v Wade is on deck

[Elixir]

I'm not thinking 3G will make someone pass out, but your neck will feel it.

Modern racing restraints eliminate that problem. They say that up to 5 vertical Gs is tolerable to a healthy person, and lateral Gs are even less likely to make a person pass out.
I could see needing to be in good shape to maintain steering, or do anything else under a 3g load.

 

[Emily Lake]

If my understanding of primeval Savannah woodland ecology is on fleek, our evolution-approved diet consists of boro nuts. Lots and lots of boro nuts. With the occasional turtle, pig, or duiker for protein. But the real point is that arguments from nature or "what evolution wants" are usually disingenuous. Evolution affects us, but it has no agenda, and it doesn't fine tune. Humans do, addressing our physical limitations with complex social and cultural adaptations. But we cannot and do not wish to live as our ancestors did. 1.8 million years of itinerant foraging did impact our biology in some interesting ways - more relevant to this discussion is that unwanted children were probably a vanishingly rare phenomenon for most of that time, and one easily and ethically solved to boot - but no one is actually volunteering to return to that lifeway, and those that do live that way are despised or infantilized by most other cultures on the planet. It is a dishonest or at least fundamentally inconsistent line of argument.

At no point have I asserted or implied that evolution "wants" anything at all. My phrasing is neither inconsistent nor dishonest, and I'm extremely displeased with your insinuation.

Our evolution shapes how our bodies and our systems function. Evolution has resulted in a digestive system that handles plant fibers in a very different way than the digestive system of a ruminant or a bird, for example. We use different proportions of macronutrients for fuel and development than fish, for example.

I'm just so tired of being hounded about minutiae wrapped up in mischaracterization. I don't believe any of my statements were contextually misleading, nor that any normal person speaking normal english would ever interpret them the way that bilby and you seem to be doing.

 

[Politesse]

At no point have I asserted or implied that evolution "wants" anything at all. My phrasing is neither inconsistent nor dishonest, and I'm extremely displeased with your insinuation.

Then my post doesn't apply to you. Chill out.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes, those are exactly the same thing, with the same level of importance and regulatory oversight, e

You never heard of the Bake-o-cratic oath?
The board of yeastly ethics?

Humor aside...

Do you personally believe that it is unethical for a doctor to abort a third trimester healthy fetus that presents no known risk to the mother?
Do you personally believe that doing so would be a violation of the hippocratic oath?
What do you personally believe should be the repercussion for a doctor who does perform a non-medically-indicated abortion in the third trimester?

 

[Emily Lake]

At no point have I asserted or implied that evolution "wants" anything at all. My phrasing is neither inconsistent nor dishonest, and I'm extremely displeased with your insinuation.

Then my post doesn't apply to you. Chill out.

Are you claiming that your response to my post, with references to disingenuous, dishonest, and inconsistent arguments... was NOT directed at me?

If so, why on earth would you quote me in your post at all?

 

[Elixir]

Do you personally believe that it is unethical for a doctor to abort a third trimester healthy fetus that presents no known risk to the mother?

If I was a doc like my brother, I would refuse to abort such a fetus. As would my brother or any of his MD friends, or any OB/Gyn I ever encountered over the 20+ years I spent on the periphery of the emergency medical community.

Please stop asking the same question again and again after it has been answered multiple times.

My personal beliefs are not germane in any event; this is about what if any laws should be on the books restricting reproductive health care.

You believe (or believed) that the greater good was served by having such laws and THAT is where we differ. I gave facts and stats to support my case.
MAKE YOUR CASE WITH FACTS or admit you have no case.

 

[Emily Lake]

Do you personally believe that it is unethical for a doctor to abort a third trimester healthy fetus that presents no known risk to the mother?

If I was a doc like my brother, I would refuse to abort such a fetus. As would my brother or any of his MD friends, or any OB/Gyn I ever encountered over the 20+ years I spent on the periphery of the emergency medical community.

Please stop asking the same question again and again after it has been answered multiple times.

You've never actually answered it. I have asked for your personal view, your personal beliefs. This entire discussion is based on beliefs and values, the entire premise is based on beliefs and values.

Why are you so opposed to actually sharing your personal belief on this topic?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Do you personally believe that it is unethical for a doctor to abort a third trimester healthy fetus that presents no known risk to the mother?

If I was a doc like my brother, I would refuse to abort such a fetus. As would my brother or any of his MD friends, or any OB/Gyn I ever encountered over the 20+ years I spent on the periphery of the emergency medical community.

Please stop asking the same question again and again after it has been answered multiple times.

You've never actually answered it. I have asked for your personal view, your personal beliefs. This entire discussion is based on beliefs and values, the entire premise is based on beliefs and values.

Kind of my position that as a male, I have no position of authority when it comes to a woman and her doctor. This also does apply to males well. My feelings aren't relevant. And it isn't just my thoughts in theory. I've like never been consulted by a doctor about someone else's care. I don't think it is personal, but doctors don't give a fuck what I think.

How many other treatments or procedures do you require a third party to intervene between you and your doctor? Or is it just abortion?

 

[Elixir]

I have asked for your personal view, your personal beliefs.

WHY?

This entire discussion is based on beliefs and values

Wrong. YOUR PLEAS are based on beliefs. As I pointed out AGAIN, I have presented facts and stats indicating that your beliefs if instituted as laws, would harm more than help.

Why are you so opposed to actually sharing your personal belief on this topic

For CRISSAKES, Ems, can’t you take yes for an answer?
NO, I DO NOT SUPPORT NEEDLESS ABORTIONS AT ANY STAGE OF PREGNANCY, ESPECIALLY LATE TERM.

Do you support laws that kill people while trying to save fetuses?

Reading upthread, you did then you didn’t then you did again. Where are you today?

 

[Politesse]

At no point have I asserted or implied that evolution "wants" anything at all. My phrasing is neither inconsistent nor dishonest, and I'm extremely displeased with your insinuation.

Then my post doesn't apply to you. Chill out.

Are you claiming that your response to my post, with references to disingenuous, dishonest, and inconsistent arguments... was NOT directed at me?

If so, why on earth would you quote me in your post at all?

I didn't. I responded to Loren, and you chimed in.

 

[Emily Lake]

Do you personally believe that it is unethical for a doctor to abort a third trimester healthy fetus that presents no known risk to the mother?

If I was a doc like my brother, I would refuse to abort such a fetus. As would my brother or any of his MD friends, or any OB/Gyn I ever encountered over the 20+ years I spent on the periphery of the emergency medical community.

Please stop asking the same question again and again after it has been answered multiple times.

You've never actually answered it. I have asked for your personal view, your personal beliefs. This entire discussion is based on beliefs and values, the entire premise is based on beliefs and values.

Kind of my position that as a male, I have no position of authority when it comes to a woman and her doctor. This also does apply to males well. My feelings aren't relevant. And it isn't just my thoughts in theory. I've like never been consulted by a doctor about someone else's care. I don't think it is personal, but doctors don't give a fuck what I think.

How many other treatments or procedures do you require a third party to intervene between you and your doctor? Or is it just abortion?

1) Requiring that a doctor document the relevant medical conditions for the procedure doesn't constitute third-party intervention.

2) I think any treatment or procedure that is depriving someone of life should have robust guidelines for when it is and is not appropriate. For me, this is abortion and euthanasia. Those are the only two medical procedures that result in someone's death and are elective in nature. In this context "elective" means non-emergent. These are both procedures that I'm largely in favor of, but which I recognize represent some risk of abuse - and I want reasonable guidelines to mitigate the opportunity for abuse so that they can be more freely available to a great number of people as appropriate.

 

[Elixir]

Do you support laws that kill people while trying to save fetuses?

You forgot to answer, Emily.
Too busy accusing me of not answering your irrelevant inquisition? (Which I have fond repeatedly).

 

[Elixir]

I think any treatment or procedure that is depriving someone of life should have robust guidelines for when it is and is not appropriate.

That’s a common belief, which explains why SUCH GUIDELINES EXIST.

In this context "elective" means non-emergent. These are both procedures that I'm largely in favor of, but which I recognize represent some risk of abuse - and I want reasonable guidelines to mitigate the opportunity for abuse so that they can be more freely available to a great number of people as appropriate.

Yawn. Nobody is arguing that. The reasonableness of legal enforcement and participation in giving allowance is what is in question.
That is why I keep asking;

Do you support laws that kill people while trying to save fetuses?

Why is this a hard question ?

 

[Toni]

Yes, those are exactly the same thing, with the same level of importance and regulatory oversight, e

You never heard of the Bake-o-cratic oath?
The board of yeastly ethics?

Humor aside...

Do you personally believe that it is unethical for a doctor to abort a third trimester healthy fetus that presents no known risk to the mother?
Do you personally believe that doing so would be a violation of the hippocratic oath?
What do you personally believe should be the repercussion for a doctor who does perform a non-medically-indicated abortion in the third trimester?

What I personally believe is that there likely exists a circumstance where the scenario you so broadly described would in fact be the better choice. And that it is not MY choice or YOUR choice to decide. Nor is it lawmakers' choice to decide nor law enforcement's choice to make.

A better way of limiting abortion is to provide excellent and comprehensive sex education and education about how our bodies work and how to take care of them, starting at a preschool level (obviously age appropriate lessons). Also to provide excellent education, health care, access to good and safe housing and excellent day care, job and career training and opportunities, safe clean air, water and food: a society that works for the members of society rather than for corporate profits.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, those are exactly the same thing, with the same level of importance and regulatory oversight, e

You never heard of the Bake-o-cratic oath?
The board of yeastly ethics?

Humor aside...

Do you personally believe that it is unethical for a doctor to abort a third trimester healthy fetus that presents no known risk to the mother?
Do you personally believe that doing so would be a violation of the hippocratic oath?
What do you personally believe should be the repercussion for a doctor who does perform a non-medically-indicated abortion in the third trimester?

IMO, those are not questions that are amenable to simple answers. At the root of my views, is that a fetus is not a baby at all, and does not merit the same protection as a baby. I think that distinction is straightforward and much easier to enforce that anything else.

For example, whether or not I think it would be unethical for a doctor to abort a third trimester health fetus that presents no know risk to the mother depends on the specific context. Which means it may or may be a violation of the hippocratic oath.

Interestingly, I think repercussions for a doctor for violating the hippocratic oath should be left up to the medical profession. And I certainly do not think nor do I trust politicians to come up with standards and repercussions.

 

[Emily Lake]

At no point have I asserted or implied that evolution "wants" anything at all. My phrasing is neither inconsistent nor dishonest, and I'm extremely displeased with your insinuation.

Then my post doesn't apply to you. Chill out.

Are you claiming that your response to my post, with references to disingenuous, dishonest, and inconsistent arguments... was NOT directed at me?

If so, why on earth would you quote me in your post at all?

I didn't. I responded to Loren, and you chimed in.

???

Since we are nitpicking evolution: we are clearly not evolved to eat human. Specifically, we are vulnerable to prion disease.

By that logic, we are most certainly not "evolved to eat" any sort of livestock, as nearly all of our serious epidemic diseases have a zoonotic origin.

On the other hand... IIRC the proportion of plants that are toxic for us to eat is massively higher than the proportion of animals that are toxic for us to eat. And I'm not talking about just mammals, but rather the entirety of the kingdom animalia - there are relatively few animals, birds, fish, moluscs, insects, etc. that are unsafe for us to eat. Not necessarily tasty, mind you, but largely edible.

Not pufferfish, nor some jellyfishes, and I think some butterflies though I'm not sure. Probably wouldn't recommend poison dart frogs either .

If my understanding of primeval Savannah woodland ecology is on fleek, our evolution-approved diet consists of boro nuts. Lots and lots of boro nuts. With the occasional turtle, pig, or duiker for protein. But the real point is that arguments from nature or "what evolution wants" are usually disingenuous. Evolution affects us, but it has no agenda, and it doesn't fine tune. Humans do, addressing our physical limitations with complex social and cultural adaptations. But we cannot and do not wish to live as our ancestors did. 1.8 million years of itinerant foraging did impact our biology in some interesting ways - more relevant to this discussion is that unwanted children were probably a vanishingly rare phenomenon for most of that time, and one easily and ethically solved to boot - but no one is actually volunteering to return to that lifeway, and those that do live that way are despised or infantilized by most other cultures on the planet. It is a dishonest or at least fundamentally inconsistent line of argument.

I mean, sure I responded to your comment to Loren... but you did actually reply to me with insinuations of dishonest augmentation, so I don't know how you think I was supposed to read your mind and assume you were insinuating that Loren was arguing disingenuously? I don't think either of us have argued in bad faith.

 

[Emily Lake]

Do you support laws that kill people while trying to save fetuses?

You forgot to answer, Emily.

Elixir, this is you being disingenuous. I don't know how many possible ways I can say that the mother's life always wins, and if there's any risk to her life or health, abortion is perfectly justified. I've been consistently clear about that from the start.

I do NOT support laws that kill people while trying to save fetuses, I never have, and nothing I have proposed does so.

 

[Emily Lake]

That’s a common belief, which explains why SUCH GUIDELINES EXIST.

Point me to those guidelines for... Oregon, Washington DC, or Vermont, for example.
Alternatively, point me to those guidelines in any document that applies to ALL physicians and providers performing abortions in ALL states.

 

[Politesse]

At no point have I asserted or implied that evolution "wants" anything at all. My phrasing is neither inconsistent nor dishonest, and I'm extremely displeased with your insinuation.

Then my post doesn't apply to you. Chill out.

Are you claiming that your response to my post, with references to disingenuous, dishonest, and inconsistent arguments... was NOT directed at me?

If so, why on earth would you quote me in your post at all?

I didn't. I responded to Loren, and you chimed in.

???

Since we are nitpicking evolution: we are clearly not evolved to eat human. Specifically, we are vulnerable to prion disease.

By that logic, we are most certainly not "evolved to eat" any sort of livestock, as nearly all of our serious epidemic diseases have a zoonotic origin.

On the other hand... IIRC the proportion of plants that are toxic for us to eat is massively higher than the proportion of animals that are toxic for us to eat. And I'm not talking about just mammals, but rather the entirety of the kingdom animalia - there are relatively few animals, birds, fish, moluscs, insects, etc. that are unsafe for us to eat. Not necessarily tasty, mind you, but largely edible.

Not pufferfish, nor some jellyfishes, and I think some butterflies though I'm not sure. Probably wouldn't recommend poison dart frogs either .

If my understanding of primeval Savannah woodland ecology is on fleek, our evolution-approved diet consists of boro nuts. Lots and lots of boro nuts. With the occasional turtle, pig, or duiker for protein. But the real point is that arguments from nature or "what evolution wants" are usually disingenuous. Evolution affects us, but it has no agenda, and it doesn't fine tune. Humans do, addressing our physical limitations with complex social and cultural adaptations. But we cannot and do not wish to live as our ancestors did. 1.8 million years of itinerant foraging did impact our biology in some interesting ways - more relevant to this discussion is that unwanted children were probably a vanishingly rare phenomenon for most of that time, and one easily and ethically solved to boot - but no one is actually volunteering to return to that lifeway, and those that do live that way are despised or infantilized by most other cultures on the planet. It is a dishonest or at least fundamentally inconsistent line of argument.

I mean, sure I responded to your comment to Loren... but you did actually reply to me with insinuations of dishonest augmentation, so I don't know how you think I was supposed to read your mind and assume you were insinuating that Loren was arguing disingenuously? I don't think either of us have argued in bad faith.

I've not made personal accusations against anyone. Calm down, please.

 

[Emily Lake]

What I personally believe is that there likely exists a circumstance where the scenario you so broadly described would in fact be the better choice.

Can you describe a hypothetical circumstance in which you think it would be ethical and appropriate to terminate a healthy third trimester fetus that presents no known health risk to the mother? I'm not asking for hard data, I'll be content with a ferinstance.

And that it is not MY choice or YOUR choice to decide. Nor is it lawmakers' choice to decide nor law enforcement's choice to make.

But it *is* the lawmaker's decision to make when it pertains to euthanasia, is it not? Providing guidelines for when it is allowable or defensible to deprive someone of life seems like a reasonable thing for lawmakers to do.