7 ms·

States ought not ban medical procedures which are mainstream in major countries around the world on the basis of religious ideology, but unfortunately that's wh

States ought not ban medical procedures which are mainstream in major countries around the world on the basis of religious ideology, but unfortunately that's what's happening in states like Texas. This is a private matter between any individual and their doctor. Of course rich individuals will still be able to fly to countries like UK or Germany to receive mainstream medicine backed by mainstream science.

xyzzy4747 5y ago
- autoexec 5y ago
  By that "logic" birth control does too.
  - xyzzy4747 5y ago
    - philistine 5y ago
      Do you realize the egregiousness of what you're saying? Any child at any cost under any circumstance is not in any shape or form a net good that can be said without any proof. Could you point to a country that has gotten better after reversing the freedom to receive an abortion?
      - xyzzy4747 5y ago
        Better for who? The children who are alive and otherwise wouldn’t be are doing better. It also increases the total population and GDP so it’s better on a geopolitical level.
        Bancakes 5y ago
        How does it increase GDP? If people aren't having kids because the living conditions are shit, or the kids they had emigrated for better opportunities, then having kids was a net waste.
    - autoexec 5y ago
      Japan would do better if birth control was banned? They don't need more unwanted children. If they actually need population, they can increase immigration or incentivize and encourage people to both have and want children. Maybe not work people to death so much so they have time to spend on romance and families.
      - xyzzy4747 5y ago
        autoexec 5y ago
        Obviously "a jungle with no people" is ridiculous hyperbole. They've tried a few minor things without reforming the cultural issues that have contributed to the decline in births. What difference does it make if the people they bring in aren't ethnicity Japanese? Are you concerned that the Japanese will die out like an endangered species? On a long enough timeline, all ethnicities are doomed, but there's no genuine concern that that will happen to the japanese any time soon.
        Bancakes 5y ago
        Yes and it's the natural extension of modern lifestyle. The invariant is that for as long as there's kids, they are taken care of, and it still holds true for "jungles". How many humans do you even need?
    - mdoms 5y ago
      This is truly one of the most bizarre comments I have ever read on this website.
  - yucky 5y ago
    Not saying I agree with the OP, but your conclusion does not follow. Birth control does not "kill" a developing human life, it prevents one from forming in the same way that sex while not ovulating does.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      Depends where you draw the line. A copper IUD, for example, can prevent the implantation of a fertilized blastocyst. I've known some folks who believe that any kind of birth control is a moral wrong, so they draw the line even before fertilization. Arguing these minutae is highly unproductive. It's much better to start from common ground, and a supermajority of Americans believe that the choice should be between patient and doctor.
      - yucky 5y ago
        >and a supermajority of Americans believe that the choice should be between patient and doctor. If you asked Americans how many support abortion at 39 weeks, how big do you think that percentage would really be? I would guess single digits. So then that means we have to draw the line somewhere (12 weeks? 24 weeks? Somewhere else?), which means most people actually do support some form of abortion regulation, does it not?
        klyrs 5y ago
        No. We don't need to draw the line. Doctors and their patients do.
        yucky 5y ago
        But see that is where you lose the support of most people. Do you really think the majority of people would support abortions at 39 weeks if the mothers life isn't in danger? You started off with an appeal to the majority, and then took a position not supported by the majority. I understand this is an emotional issue for many people, but laws can't work off of emotion.
- kccoder 5y ago
  So you are also against IVF?
  - TheFreim 5y ago
    Most pro-life people I know are also against IVF. Can't speak for everyone, though.
    - kccoder 5y ago
      And are therefore free to not get IVF themselves. Anecdotally, I know someone who is pro-life and he and his wife just had their first baby via IVF. The principles most apply to others seem to become flexible once it affects them personally.
      - TheFreim 5y ago
        I would agree that some people are inconsistent, but I don't think that overturns their arguments. Outright murderers often think murder is wrong even though they committed that crime. Also on IVF some simply haven't thought through their principles in regard to it or have emotional reasons that make it hard for them to apply their own principles.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  - xyzzy4747 5y ago
    [flagged]
    - Fellshard 5y ago
      Correct: consensus is never a good justification on its own.
      - threatofrain 5y ago
        In this case we are talking about medical consensus across the west. Of course one can always argue about the inadequacy of medical consensus with your doctor, especially if your instincts tell you that you're about to happen upon intellectual gold.
    - threatofrain 5y ago
      > The Nazis had a medical consensus to euthanize undesirable people. The allies of America do not deserve to be denigrated as Nazis. American scientists and doctors should be proud to consult with their peers in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Korea, or the various EU nations such as Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Finland or the Netherlands.
  - Auracle 5y ago
    The United State’s abortion laws are far more lax than most first world countries. Many don’t even have at-will abortions, and most are limited to something like 12 weeks - not almost double that.
    - threatofrain 5y ago
      What countries like Canada, Australia, NZ, UK, Germany, France, Italy, South Korea have is the ability to seek abortion in consultation with their doctor. With the loss of federal protection, what the United States has in one of their most populous states is criminal and civil liability for doctors.
- hotpotamus 5y ago
  - autoexec 5y ago
    Hint: It's a been a large part of every culture for all of recorded history
TrispusAttucks 5y ago
- subsection1h 5y ago
  - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
    - t-3 5y ago
      - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
        margalabargala 5y ago
        The issue is in the definition of "unborn human". Many people don't believe that something without a brain is considered to be a living human, in the same sense that people who are braindead but with a beating heart are considered dead. The question is, at what point in the unfertilized egg -> fertilized egg -> clump of cells -> developing fetus -> viable infant spectrum does the being take on "humanity"? Personally I think basing this on neurological activity is a reasonable line to draw.
        Auracle 5y ago
        I’ve always thought it was odd that people feel like it’s a binary condition. It’s fine if the fetus is undelivered, or if it can’t live outside the womb, or ___. I’m pro-choice, but my opinion is that “choice” is always at least a little evil (barring medical or other specific reasons). The longer it goes on, the more evil it gets. To that end I think it’s insane that some states are pushing to have abortion be legal up until delivery. That’s 99.99% straight up killing a baby.
belorn 5y ago
As a new basis for ideology, it would be interesting if the law put it clear that reproduction is about personal autonomy with no legal requirements put forth onto any individual, except that all aspects should be based on consent and free will. When ever the outcome of that consent and free will causes social or medical issues, the state ought to provide aid and support so that consenting parents and children get what they need and require.
yucky 5y ago
>on the basis of religious ideology Having read the leaked opinion, it has nothing at all to do with religious ideology, but rather separation of powers. The fact is, Congress should have acted years ago (including most recently under Obama when they had a supermajority) to enshrine abortion rights in federal law since Roe was always on weak ground constitutionally. Also, medical advancements and knowledge have grown tremendously in the last 50 years, so "the science" no longer views a 32 week old fetus as a parasite to be freely disposed of, and one doesn't need to be religious to see doing so as morally bad. So then you're left with the logical problem of where to draw the line - 8 weeks? 24 weeks? 39 weeks? And that isn't something the Constitution covers, therefore it needs to be left to the states. Removing emotion from it, it was logically correct.
- donarb 5y ago
  Of course it didn't spell out religious ideology, just as people claim the civil war wasn't about slavery. If you can cloak your argument in neutral language, it's easier to dismiss the views of the opposition and not be branded a zealot.
  - yucky 5y ago
    So where should the line be drawn? Should abortions at 39 weeks be legal? If not, what restrictions should be placed on them?
    - donarb 5y ago
      The line drawn is the government should not be involved in medical decisions between doctor and patient. Women don't endure pregnancy for almost 9 months and then decide to have an abortion a week short of birth on a whim. Late stage abortions are due to medical problems with the fetus or the health of the mother. If people are personally against abortion, don't have one, but don't force your views on others when you have no idea of the personal and painful decisions that others have to make.
      - 5y ago

xyzzy4747 5y ago

autoexec 5y ago
By that "logic" birth control does too.
- xyzzy4747 5y ago
  - philistine 5y ago
    Do you realize the egregiousness of what you're saying? Any child at any cost under any circumstance is not in any shape or form a net good that can be said without any proof. Could you point to a country that has gotten better after reversing the freedom to receive an abortion?
    - xyzzy4747 5y ago
      Better for who? The children who are alive and otherwise wouldn’t be are doing better. It also increases the total population and GDP so it’s better on a geopolitical level.
      - Bancakes 5y ago
        How does it increase GDP? If people aren't having kids because the living conditions are shit, or the kids they had emigrated for better opportunities, then having kids was a net waste.
  - autoexec 5y ago
    Japan would do better if birth control was banned? They don't need more unwanted children. If they actually need population, they can increase immigration or incentivize and encourage people to both have and want children. Maybe not work people to death so much so they have time to spend on romance and families.
    - xyzzy4747 5y ago
      - autoexec 5y ago
        Obviously "a jungle with no people" is ridiculous hyperbole. They've tried a few minor things without reforming the cultural issues that have contributed to the decline in births. What difference does it make if the people they bring in aren't ethnicity Japanese? Are you concerned that the Japanese will die out like an endangered species? On a long enough timeline, all ethnicities are doomed, but there's no genuine concern that that will happen to the japanese any time soon.
      - Bancakes 5y ago
        Yes and it's the natural extension of modern lifestyle. The invariant is that for as long as there's kids, they are taken care of, and it still holds true for "jungles". How many humans do you even need?
  - mdoms 5y ago
    This is truly one of the most bizarre comments I have ever read on this website.
- yucky 5y ago
  Not saying I agree with the OP, but your conclusion does not follow. Birth control does not "kill" a developing human life, it prevents one from forming in the same way that sex while not ovulating does.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    Depends where you draw the line. A copper IUD, for example, can prevent the implantation of a fertilized blastocyst. I've known some folks who believe that any kind of birth control is a moral wrong, so they draw the line even before fertilization. Arguing these minutae is highly unproductive. It's much better to start from common ground, and a supermajority of Americans believe that the choice should be between patient and doctor.
    - yucky 5y ago
      >and a supermajority of Americans believe that the choice should be between patient and doctor. If you asked Americans how many support abortion at 39 weeks, how big do you think that percentage would really be? I would guess single digits. So then that means we have to draw the line somewhere (12 weeks? 24 weeks? Somewhere else?), which means most people actually do support some form of abortion regulation, does it not?
      - klyrs 5y ago
        No. We don't need to draw the line. Doctors and their patients do.
        yucky 5y ago
        But see that is where you lose the support of most people. Do you really think the majority of people would support abortions at 39 weeks if the mothers life isn't in danger? You started off with an appeal to the majority, and then took a position not supported by the majority. I understand this is an emotional issue for many people, but laws can't work off of emotion.
kccoder 5y ago
So you are also against IVF?
- TheFreim 5y ago
  Most pro-life people I know are also against IVF. Can't speak for everyone, though.
  - kccoder 5y ago
    And are therefore free to not get IVF themselves. Anecdotally, I know someone who is pro-life and he and his wife just had their first baby via IVF. The principles most apply to others seem to become flexible once it affects them personally.
    - TheFreim 5y ago
      I would agree that some people are inconsistent, but I don't think that overturns their arguments. Outright murderers often think murder is wrong even though they committed that crime. Also on IVF some simply haven't thought through their principles in regard to it or have emotional reasons that make it hard for them to apply their own principles.
threatofrain 5y ago
- xyzzy4747 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - Fellshard 5y ago
    Correct: consensus is never a good justification on its own.
    - threatofrain 5y ago
      In this case we are talking about medical consensus across the west. Of course one can always argue about the inadequacy of medical consensus with your doctor, especially if your instincts tell you that you're about to happen upon intellectual gold.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    > The Nazis had a medical consensus to euthanize undesirable people. The allies of America do not deserve to be denigrated as Nazis. American scientists and doctors should be proud to consult with their peers in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Korea, or the various EU nations such as Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Finland or the Netherlands.
- Auracle 5y ago
  The United State’s abortion laws are far more lax than most first world countries. Many don’t even have at-will abortions, and most are limited to something like 12 weeks - not almost double that.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    What countries like Canada, Australia, NZ, UK, Germany, France, Italy, South Korea have is the ability to seek abortion in consultation with their doctor. With the loss of federal protection, what the United States has in one of their most populous states is criminal and civil liability for doctors.
hotpotamus 5y ago
- autoexec 5y ago
  Hint: It's a been a large part of every culture for all of recorded history

TrispusAttucks 5y ago

subsection1h 5y ago
- TrispusAttucks 5y ago
  - t-3 5y ago
    - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
      - margalabargala 5y ago
        The issue is in the definition of "unborn human". Many people don't believe that something without a brain is considered to be a living human, in the same sense that people who are braindead but with a beating heart are considered dead. The question is, at what point in the unfertilized egg -> fertilized egg -> clump of cells -> developing fetus -> viable infant spectrum does the being take on "humanity"? Personally I think basing this on neurological activity is a reasonable line to draw.
        Auracle 5y ago
        I’ve always thought it was odd that people feel like it’s a binary condition. It’s fine if the fetus is undelivered, or if it can’t live outside the womb, or ___. I’m pro-choice, but my opinion is that “choice” is always at least a little evil (barring medical or other specific reasons). The longer it goes on, the more evil it gets. To that end I think it’s insane that some states are pushing to have abortion be legal up until delivery. That’s 99.99% straight up killing a baby.

belorn 5y ago

As a new basis for ideology, it would be interesting if the law put it clear that reproduction is about personal autonomy with no legal requirements put forth onto any individual, except that all aspects should be based on consent and free will. When ever the outcome of that consent and free will causes social or medical issues, the state ought to provide aid and support so that consenting parents and children get what they need and require.

yucky 5y ago

>on the basis of religious ideology Having read the leaked opinion, it has nothing at all to do with religious ideology, but rather separation of powers. The fact is, Congress should have acted years ago (including most recently under Obama when they had a supermajority) to enshrine abortion rights in federal law since Roe was always on weak ground constitutionally. Also, medical advancements and knowledge have grown tremendously in the last 50 years, so "the science" no longer views a 32 week old fetus as a parasite to be freely disposed of, and one doesn't need to be religious to see doing so as morally bad. So then you're left with the logical problem of where to draw the line - 8 weeks? 24 weeks? 39 weeks? And that isn't something the Constitution covers, therefore it needs to be left to the states. Removing emotion from it, it was logically correct.

donarb 5y ago
Of course it didn't spell out religious ideology, just as people claim the civil war wasn't about slavery. If you can cloak your argument in neutral language, it's easier to dismiss the views of the opposition and not be branded a zealot.
- yucky 5y ago
  So where should the line be drawn? Should abortions at 39 weeks be legal? If not, what restrictions should be placed on them?
  - donarb 5y ago
    The line drawn is the government should not be involved in medical decisions between doctor and patient. Women don't endure pregnancy for almost 9 months and then decide to have an abortion a week short of birth on a whim. Late stage abortions are due to medical problems with the fetus or the health of the mother. If people are personally against abortion, don't have one, but don't force your views on others when you have no idea of the personal and painful decisions that others have to make.
    - 5y ago