Roe v Wade is on deck

[ZiprHead]

Was Soap a comedy? I may have seen it and liked it, iirc.

Yup. Billy Crystal's big break.

He played Jody, the first openly gay major character on a TV show. And no, Dr Smith on Lost in Space doesn't count.

Concurrently and much more obviously gay: Uncle Arthur played by Paul Lynde

I thought of that, but Uncle Arthur was not formally recognized by the show as being "openly gay". Paul Lynde, the actor, (with the gay voice ) was widely assumed to be gay, even though he never formally admitted it. The TV networks were not ready for openly gay people back in the '60's. I believe Gene Roddenberry had ideas for a gay character on Star Trek, but the producers refused.

Was Dr. Smith gay? I never got that. I was only a sporadic viewer, liking only the Robot, and the characters played by Billy Mummy and Angela Cartwright. Everyone else was just a snooze for me and I’d go back to reading if they weren’t on screen. The actor was not gay afaik.

Uncle Arthur was not explicitly gay—no one was on tv in those days— but if I had known that there was such a thing as gay, I would have instantly realized Uncle Arthur was gay. Paul Linde was gay although not publicly acknowledged as such. Agnes Moorehead was rumored to be gay or bi.

It was recently reported that congressman Josh Hawley was seen kissing a gay male escort behind a restaurant.

 

[Toni]

Was Soap a comedy? I may have seen it and liked it, iirc.

Yup. Billy Crystal's big break.

He played Jody, the first openly gay major character on a TV show. And no, Dr Smith on Lost in Space doesn't count.

Concurrently and much more obviously gay: Uncle Arthur played by Paul Lynde

I thought of that, but Uncle Arthur was not formally recognized by the show as being "openly gay". Paul Lynde, the actor, (with the gay voice ) was widely assumed to be gay, even though he never formally admitted it. The TV networks were not ready for openly gay people back in the '60's. I believe Gene Roddenberry had ideas for a gay character on Star Trek, but the producers refused.

Was Dr. Smith gay? I never got that. I was only a sporadic viewer, liking only the Robot, and the characters played by Billy Mummy and Angela Cartwright. Everyone else was just a snooze for me and I’d go back to reading if they weren’t on screen. The actor was not gay afaik.

Uncle Arthur was not explicitly gay—no one was on tv in those days— but if I had known that there was such a thing as gay, I would have instantly realized Uncle Arthur was gay. Paul Linde was gay although not publicly acknowledged as such. Agnes Moorehead was rumored to be gay or bi.

It was recently reported that congressman Josh Hawley was seen kissing a gay male escort behind a restaurant.

Hasn’t it long been known or at least speculated that Hawley is gay?

 

[Emily Lake]

I have absolute no idea what the law is here. Forcing an abortion would seemingly be highly unethical, surrogacy or not. Ignoring the parents' also seems highly unethical. Also, saying the parents were acting selfishly seems absurd.

It's a tough situation. I'd say the baby buyers have no right to force an abortion, but they do have the right to decline to accept the child when it's born. At which point I suppose the surrogate mother would have the choice of keeping custody of the baby or of putting it up for adoption?

 

[ZiprHead]

Was Soap a comedy? I may have seen it and liked it, iirc.

Yup. Billy Crystal's big break.

He played Jody, the first openly gay major character on a TV show. And no, Dr Smith on Lost in Space doesn't count.

Concurrently and much more obviously gay: Uncle Arthur played by Paul Lynde

I thought of that, but Uncle Arthur was not formally recognized by the show as being "openly gay". Paul Lynde, the actor, (with the gay voice ) was widely assumed to be gay, even though he never formally admitted it. The TV networks were not ready for openly gay people back in the '60's. I believe Gene Roddenberry had ideas for a gay character on Star Trek, but the producers refused.

Was Dr. Smith gay? I never got that. I was only a sporadic viewer, liking only the Robot, and the characters played by Billy Mummy and Angela Cartwright. Everyone else was just a snooze for me and I’d go back to reading if they weren’t on screen. The actor was not gay afaik.

Uncle Arthur was not explicitly gay—no one was on tv in those days— but if I had known that there was such a thing as gay, I would have instantly realized Uncle Arthur was gay. Paul Linde was gay although not publicly acknowledged as such. Agnes Moorehead was rumored to be gay or bi.

It was recently reported that congressman Josh Hawley was seen kissing a gay male escort behind a restaurant.

Hasn’t it long been known or at least speculated that Hawley is gay?

Congress people have for quite a while been saying there are a lot of closeted gays in congress.

 

[Tigers!]

This might be off-topic for the thread as it has nothing to do with television programming, but I'm willing to derail the thread anyway and the moderators can do as they select.

link

The Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Civil Rights told Fox News Digital Thursday it is sending a letter to Children's Medical Center of Dallas and UT Southwestern Medical Center outlining their obligations under federal disability civil rights laws as doctors make treatment decisions involving baby Gabriel.

The federal intervention comes after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton took action to ensure the newborn receives medically necessary care after a dispute that began when his biological parents allegedly asked their surrogate to abort him after he was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome.

This is a very messy situation as it involves a surrogate mother. What makes little sense is that the surrogate mother lives in Alaska and travelled to Texas to deliver the child. When the diagnosis was made for the child (at 20 weeks), the biological parents wanted the pregnancy to end. The diagnosis was very bad. But the surrogate mother did not want to end the pregnancy.

"I felt like, when the diagnosis was made and the decision to end his life was made, that it was selfish," West said in an interview with the anti-abortion organization Live Action while she was 35 weeks pregnant.

I have absolute no idea what the law is here. Forcing an abortion would seemingly be highly unethical, surrogacy or not. Ignoring the parents' also seems highly unethical. Also, saying the parents were acting selfishly seems absurd.

I am also curious who is legally responsible for the medical care. The Federal and State governments are pressuring care for the newborn. "Medical care" for a newborn with significant heart problems is extremely expensive.

Pro-life groups are applauding the surrogate mother, though I haven't seen whether they have raised the hundreds of thousands that the medical treatment will cost, and may ultimately be in vain.

Surrogacy is another minefield.
Tread carefully.

 

[brewer]

Will the

Surrogacy is another minefield.
Tread carefully.

The surrogate and Texas took responsibility for the birth. Will they take responsibility for the life? AI tells me she's employed as a full time nurse in AK and presumably has health coverage thru work. It will be interesting to see where the medical expense liability lands.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Meanwhile, in this is none of our business...

Paxton had secured a court order saying the baby must receive lifesaving medical care after birth. The court also ruled that Gilkar and Ahmed are responsible for medical decisions within the requirements of the court order.

As a result of those orders, West was not allowed any contact with the child after his birth, her attorney, Lincoln Davis Wilson, told CBS News last week. Wilson said West intended to continue efforts to gain custody of the child, whom she had been calling Gabriel.

"We are working on challenging those orders of parentage because we think that Texas law makes a woman who gives birth [to] a child, the mother of the child," he said last week.

So, parents are with the child in Texas, Texas courts say they are the parents, surrogate is saying she should be the mother, but courts aren't agreeing right now.

I'm curious who drew West down to Texas. And whether they'll help her get back to Alaska or now that they are done with her, she is on her own.

 

[Toni]

I don’t know the particulars about this situation with a fetus with a serious heart condition but if I were betting, TX is more likely to have the necessary medical facilities to help when the fetus is delivered and requires surgery. AK well may not have the necessary facilities.

Some years ago, a friend was working in AK and began having more serious health problems. He obtained a transfer to another state with special medical expertise and facilities to deal with his very serious, life threatening issue.

It is well within the realm of possibility that AK did not have facilities which could deal well with the very complex health needs the fetus would require upon delivery and that TX did have such facilities.

If I were a betting person, I would rather cynically believe that TX determined the parents were the people with deeper pockets to better pay for the very expensive and complex medical needs of this child.

 

[Elixir]

If I were a betting person, I would rather cynically believe that TX determined the parents were the people with deeper pockets to better pay for the very expensive and complex medical needs of this child.

My brother went to med school in TX. Baylor med is well thought of …

 

[Arctish]

I don’t know the particulars about this situation with a fetus with a serious heart condition but if I were betting, TX is more likely to have the necessary medical facilities to help when the fetus is delivered and requires surgery. AK well may not have the necessary facilities.

Some years ago, a friend was working in AK and began having more serious health problems. He obtained a transfer to another state with special medical expertise and facilities to deal with his very serious, life threatening issue.

It is well within the realm of possibility that AK did not have facilities which could deal well with the very complex health needs the fetus would require upon delivery and that TX did have such facilities.

If I were a betting person, I would rather cynically believe that TX determined the parents were the people with deeper pockets to better pay for the very expensive and complex medical needs of this child.

Alaska doesn’t have the facilities or the specialists to deal with anything that medically complicated. Patients here are frequently sent to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle for treatment.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don’t know the particulars about this situation with a fetus with a serious heart condition but if I were betting, TX is more likely to have the necessary medical facilities to help when the fetus is delivered and requires surgery. AK well may not have the necessary facilities.

I'm not buying that is what drew her to Texas. Yes, she likely needed to be elsewhere, but Texas is further away than she needed to be, and I'm willing to bet money someone (third-party) paid for her to go to Texas (and stay) to ensure the baby was born. It isn't exactly the easiest thing to offset pregnancy care to a completely different area.

California, Washington, Oregon would have the care she needed as well, and California had the benefit of being the state the parents lived in, Washington would have been the closest. Also, I had no idea surrogates lived in different states! This Gig Economy thing is getting a little nuts.

 

[Tigers!]

I don’t know the particulars about this situation with a fetus with a serious heart condition but if I were betting, TX is more likely to have the necessary medical facilities to help when the fetus is delivered and requires surgery. AK well may not have the necessary facilities.

I'm not buying that is what drew her to Texas. Yes, she likely needed to be elsewhere, but Texas is further away than she needed to be, and I'm willing to bet money someone (third-party) paid for her to go to Texas (and stay) to ensure the baby was born. It isn't exactly the easiest thing to offset pregnancy care to a completely different area.

California, Washington, Oregon would have the care she needed as well, and California had the benefit of being the state the parents lived in, Washington would have been the closest. Also, I had no idea surrogates lived in different states! This Gig Economy thing is getting a little nuts.

Surrogates can be overseas.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don’t know the particulars about this situation with a fetus with a serious heart condition but if I were betting, TX is more likely to have the necessary medical facilities to help when the fetus is delivered and requires surgery. AK well may not have the necessary facilities.

I'm not buying that is what drew her to Texas. Yes, she likely needed to be elsewhere, but Texas is further away than she needed to be, and I'm willing to bet money someone (third-party) paid for her to go to Texas (and stay) to ensure the baby was born. It isn't exactly the easiest thing to offset pregnancy care to a completely different area.

California, Washington, Oregon would have the care she needed as well, and California had the benefit of being the state the parents lived in, Washington would have been the closest. Also, I had no idea surrogates lived in different states! This Gig Economy thing is getting a little nuts.

I'm curious where CA, WA, and OR would have fallen on the forced abortion aspect of it. Would they have sided with the baby-buyers and womb-renters, and insisted that the borrowed gestational automaton abort the no-longer-desirable fetus? Or would they have sided with the women growing the baby inside of her?

 

[Arctish]

I don’t know the particulars about this situation with a fetus with a serious heart condition but if I were betting, TX is more likely to have the necessary medical facilities to help when the fetus is delivered and requires surgery. AK well may not have the necessary facilities.

I'm not buying that is what drew her to Texas. Yes, she likely needed to be elsewhere, but Texas is further away than she needed to be, and I'm willing to bet money someone (third-party) paid for her to go to Texas (and stay) to ensure the baby was born. It isn't exactly the easiest thing to offset pregnancy care to a completely different area.

California, Washington, Oregon would have the care she needed as well, and California had the benefit of being the state the parents lived in, Washington would have been the closest. Also, I had no idea surrogates lived in different states! This Gig Economy thing is getting a little nuts.

I'm curious where CA, WA, and OR would have fallen on the forced abortion aspect of it. Would they have sided with the baby-buyers and womb-renters, and insisted that the borrowed gestational automaton abort the no-longer-desirable fetus? Or would they have sided with the women growing the baby inside of her?

Are you talking about a baby or a fetus?

You are using both terms interchangeably even though the two stages of development are easily distinguished.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don’t know the particulars about this situation with a fetus with a serious heart condition but if I were betting, TX is more likely to have the necessary medical facilities to help when the fetus is delivered and requires surgery. AK well may not have the necessary facilities.

I'm not buying that is what drew her to Texas. Yes, she likely needed to be elsewhere, but Texas is further away than she needed to be, and I'm willing to bet money someone (third-party) paid for her to go to Texas (and stay) to ensure the baby was born. It isn't exactly the easiest thing to offset pregnancy care to a completely different area.

California, Washington, Oregon would have the care she needed as well, and California had the benefit of being the state the parents lived in, Washington would have been the closest. Also, I had no idea surrogates lived in different states! This Gig Economy thing is getting a little nuts.

I'm curious where CA, WA, and OR would have fallen on the forced abortion aspect of it. Would they have sided with the baby-buyers and womb-renters, and insisted that the borrowed gestational automaton abort the no-longer-desirable fetus? Or would they have sided with the women growing the baby inside of her?

Are you talking about a baby or a fetus?

Depends on whose perspective I'm describing, which I thought was rather clear. To the body-borrowing baby-buyers, it's obviously nothing more than a fetus, given that they demanded an abortion because the grown-to-order-in-someone-else's-body wasn't up to their specs. To the woman who is being used as a mobile gestational unit for rent, it was clearly a baby.

You are using both terms interchangeably even though the two stages of development are easily distinguished.

I disagree that they're easily distinguished.

ETA: I would say that prior to about 20 weeks or so, most people would consider a developing human to be a fetus. Not all people though. I would also say that after about 28 weeks, most people would consider that developing fetus to be a baby. Not all people though.

You can point to a medical text and say "see, it's a baby only when it's born". But normal people don't think that way, and that's not common usage.

 

[Arctish]

I don’t know the particulars about this situation with a fetus with a serious heart condition but if I were betting, TX is more likely to have the necessary medical facilities to help when the fetus is delivered and requires surgery. AK well may not have the necessary facilities.

I'm not buying that is what drew her to Texas. Yes, she likely needed to be elsewhere, but Texas is further away than she needed to be, and I'm willing to bet money someone (third-party) paid for her to go to Texas (and stay) to ensure the baby was born. It isn't exactly the easiest thing to offset pregnancy care to a completely different area.

California, Washington, Oregon would have the care she needed as well, and California had the benefit of being the state the parents lived in, Washington would have been the closest. Also, I had no idea surrogates lived in different states! This Gig Economy thing is getting a little nuts.

I'm curious where CA, WA, and OR would have fallen on the forced abortion aspect of it. Would they have sided with the baby-buyers and womb-renters, and insisted that the borrowed gestational automaton abort the no-longer-desirable fetus? Or would they have sided with the women growing the baby inside of her?

Are you talking about a baby or a fetus?

Depends on whose perspective I'm describing, which I thought was rather clear. To the body-borrowing baby-buyers, it's obviously nothing more than a fetus, given that they demanded an abortion because the grown-to-order-in-someone-else's-body wasn't up to their specs. To the woman who is being used as a mobile gestational unit for rent, it was clearly a baby.

You are using both terms interchangeably even though the two stages of development are easily distinguished.

I disagree that they're easily distinguished.

ETA: I would say that prior to about 20 weeks or so, most people would consider a developing human to be a fetus. Not all people though. I would also say that after about 28 weeks, most people would consider that developing fetus to be a baby. Not all people though.

You can point to a medical text and say "see, it's a baby only when it's born". But normal people don't think that way, and that's not common usage.

Normal adults understand that a fetus receives oxygen, nutrition, fluids, and everything else in a pregnant woman’s bloodstream that will pass through the placenta because the fetus and its mother are linked via the umbilical cord. They understand that a fetus is literally inside its mother. A fetus will be affected by alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc, if its mother is being affected by them.

And normal adults also understand that a baby will not have alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc. in its system just because the baby’s mother has them in hers. A baby will only be affected by that stuff if it is passed along orally via breast milk or if it was born with the stuff already inside and the baby’s liver hasn’t yet gotten rid of it.

Common usage of terms is imprecise because people tend to express emotions like optimism that way. They might congratulate you on your new baby before it’s born, or your new job before you’re officially promoted, or for getting married before you actually do get married. It’s just the way the English language works. But surely you know by now the distinction between fetus and baby matters in a thread about abortion rights and Roe v Wade.

 

[ZiprHead]

And normal adults also understand that a baby will not have alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc. in its system just because the baby’s mother has them in hers. A baby will only be affected by that stuff if it is passed along orally via breast milk or if it was born with the stuff already inside and the baby’s liver hasn’t yet gotten rid of it.

Is this really true? First I've heard of that.

 

[Toni]

I don’t know the particulars about this situation with a fetus with a serious heart condition but if I were betting, TX is more likely to have the necessary medical facilities to help when the fetus is delivered and requires surgery. AK well may not have the necessary facilities.

I'm not buying that is what drew her to Texas. Yes, she likely needed to be elsewhere, but Texas is further away than she needed to be, and I'm willing to bet money someone (third-party) paid for her to go to Texas (and stay) to ensure the baby was born. It isn't exactly the easiest thing to offset pregnancy care to a completely different area.

California, Washington, Oregon would have the care she needed as well, and California had the benefit of being the state the parents lived in, Washington would have been the closest. Also, I had no idea surrogates lived in different states! This Gig Economy thing is getting a little nuts.

I'm curious where CA, WA, and OR would have fallen on the forced abortion aspect of it. Would they have sided with the baby-buyers and womb-renters, and insisted that the borrowed gestational automaton abort the no-longer-desirable fetus? Or would they have sided with the women growing the baby inside of her?

Are you talking about a baby or a fetus?

Depends on whose perspective I'm describing, which I thought was rather clear. To the body-borrowing baby-buyers, it's obviously nothing more than a fetus, given that they demanded an abortion because the grown-to-order-in-someone-else's-body wasn't up to their specs. To the woman who is being used as a mobile gestational unit for rent, it was clearly a baby.

You are using both terms interchangeably even though the two stages of development are easily distinguished.

I disagree that they're easily distinguished.

ETA: I would say that prior to about 20 weeks or so, most people would consider a developing human to be a fetus. Not all people though. I would also say that after about 28 weeks, most people would consider that developing fetus to be a baby. Not all people though.

You can point to a medical text and say "see, it's a baby only when it's born". But normal people don't think that way, and that's not common usage.

You very nicely highlight the difference between common usage of words and their actual meaning from a scientific/medical POV.

When women who are pregnant talk about or are talked to about the developing fetus, it is usual to talk about ‘the baby.’ There are many very good reasons for this, the most basic being that it helps the parents to begin to form emotional attachments to the developing fetus, and helps ensure ( in theory) that sufficient resources are directed to the pregnant woman to ensure the developing fetus gets the resources it needs in utero and after it is born. Being pregnant and going through childbirth ( or c-section) and post partum recovery plus the long weeks to months and sometimes years of interrupted, insufficient t sleep, breast feeding, and raising the resulting child while your body undergoes tremendous changes. Plus living your life. The level of commitment required needs to start early on.

That, of course, describes ideal circumstances when everybody is healthy, physically and emotionally and has access to enough resources to ensure sufficiently supported.

But babies are not always conceived under ideal circumstances or even decent circumstances. Women literally risk their lives to carry a pregnancy to term, every week, with greater risk to health and life.

Personally, I think that we fail to recognize or honor this because the emotional burden is too great to contemplate. Many or most of us have complicated relationships with our mothers who not only grew us but raised us ( or one or the other) while still being flawed human beings with their own wants, needs, hopes, wishes and dreams. The burden of gratitude is overwhelming. Especially when we recognize that we can be absolute shots, including and sometimes especially to our mothers. Who do not always like us or support us or care for us or love us we wish they did.

I’m old enough now to recognize that I can only make choices for myself —and that it is wrong for me to judge others for making the choices they do. Because it is not our body or our life.

 

[Toni]

And normal adults also understand that a baby will not have alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc. in its system just because the baby’s mother has them in hers. A baby will only be affected by that stuff if it is passed along orally via breast milk or if it was born with the stuff already inside and the baby’s liver hasn’t yet gotten rid of it.

Is this really true? First I've heard of that.

Some viruses and some drugs can cross the placenta and affect the developing fetus. Thalidomide is the most infamous drug bit other drugs, including prescriptions can affect a developing fetus. We know that babies are sometimes born addicted to drugs or with fetal alcohol syndrome, and that rubella can cause serious birth defects. The chickenpox virus can be fatal to both mother and fetus. Those are off the top of my head.

And, of course, the health and nutritional status of the mother can have a profound affect on the developing fetus. And if a woman dies not have sufficient calcium in her diet/blood stream, the developing fetus will make use of calcium stored in her bones. Which is part of the reason some women are at higher risk of osteoporosis.

 

[Arctish]

And normal adults also understand that a baby will not have alcohol, drugs, toxins, etc. in its system just because the baby’s mother has them in hers. A baby will only be affected by that stuff if it is passed along orally via breast milk or if it was born with the stuff already inside and the baby’s liver hasn’t yet gotten rid of it.

Is this really true? First I've heard of that.

Unfortunately, yes.

I first heard of it was when I saw the Ron Howard movie Bitter Harvest, which was based on a book by the same name that documented the health effects that resulted from an accidental contamination of cattle feed with PBB in the 1970s.

PBB accumulates in body fat and takes decades to clear, if it ever does. Cows fed PBB contaminated feed produced contaminated milk. Women who consumed dairy products made from that milk produced contaminated breastmilk. The children of dairy farmers in Michigan were heavily impacted and studies have shown the effects are multigenerational.