Society is absolutely willing to look after children and young parents.
Society is absolutely willing to look after children and young parents.
Tell that to Josseli Barnica.Just stop killing babies.
If you cannot distinguish between losing a child through no fault of your own and deciding you want them to die, you are lost. And so is anyone with that difficulty, including doctors.Tell that to Josseli Barnica.
A Texas woman died after the hospital said it would be a crime to intervene in her miscarriage
Josseli Barnica is one of at least two pregnant Texas women who died after doctors delayed emergency care.www.texastribune.org
Who's actually blurring that line, here? Republican legislators punishing people who fall into the former camp right alongside those who fall into the latter camp. Not the people who point out how wide a group is hurt by your dogma."We need to intervene because my offspring is dying inside of me" is different than "we need to intervene because my offspring is living and healthy and I don't want them to be." You blur the lines to rationalize the latter, and then complain to me when your purposefully blurred lines hurt people.
How far into the pregnancy would you say the foetus becomes a baby? (or put another way: when it is not immoral terminate the pregnancy, assuming there are no medical issues present in the foetus or mother)There is decidedly a sickness in a society that is discussing cloning as a potential step to stop the population from crashing because we're killing all the natural babies in the womb.
Just stop killing babies.
IIRC, Tstorm has already answered this question a few times: when the sperm reaches the egg. So, several hours before conception.How far into the pregnancy would you say the foetus becomes a baby? (or put another way: when it is not immoral terminate the pregnancy, assuming there are no medical issues present in the foetus or mother)
A person is always a person, there is no "how far in".How far into the pregnancy would you say the foetus becomes a baby?
In this case, Schadrach did.Who's actually blurring that line, here? Republican legislators punishing people who fall into the former camp right alongside those who fall into the latter camp. Not the people who point out how wide a group is hurt by your dogma.
The much greater influence to cause these consequences will be the vigour with which red state DAs have aggressively pursued anyone and everyone they could on these issues. Congratulations, the intimidation campaign worked.So the law didn't cause them to not treat that woman, their misperception of the law did. And why did they misunderstand the law? Because people like you keep pretending Republicans will throw them in jail. Misinformation has consequences.
Medical practitioners feel they must act with extreme caution, precisely because Republicans frequently go after them even in cases where the law is ostensibly on their side. Borderline cases, or cases that cannot be absolutely proven, are liable to be litigated and pursued by the kinds of ideologue that will refuse to believe any procedure is necessary. Even if the practitioner ends up getting absolved, it can take an age (and more than a little money) as it grinds through the court. Reputation and job at risk.In this case, Schadrach did.
The Texas heartbeat law did not ban treatment of that woman. " Sec.A171.205.AA EXCEPTION FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY; RECORDS. (a)AA Sections 171.203 and 171.204 do not apply if a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with this subchapter. " It's not even any pickier than that, it doesn't specify life of the mother must be in danger, it doesn't give any specific requirement, just the physicians belief that there is a medical emergency that needs treated.
So the law didn't cause them to not treat that woman, their misperception of the law did. And why did they misunderstand the law? Because people like you keep pretending Republicans will throw them in jail. Misinformation has consequences.
The much greater influence to cause these consequences will be the vigour with which red state DAs have aggressively pursued anyone and everyone they could on these issues. Congratulations, the intimidation campaign worked.
Take some goddamn responsibility.
What doctors have been aggressively pursued? Google around a bit, see if you can find any. You'll find the one woman in Indiana who was investigated but never prosecuted for potentially violating privacy laws for talking about the abortion she performed on a 10-year-old. And then you find convicted serial killer Kermit Gosnell. And that's pretty much it. Texas (before Dobbs) passed the law that famously allowed anyone to sue doctors for civil damages for abortions, often compared to a bounty program, and the only case ever brought on it was done purposefully to get it declared unconstitutional.Medical practitioners feel they must act with extreme caution, precisely because Republicans frequently go after them even in cases where the law is ostensibly on their side. Borderline cases, or cases that cannot be absolutely proven, are liable to be litigated and pursued by the kinds of ideologue that will refuse to believe any procedure is necessary. Even if the practitioner ends up getting absolved, it can take an age (and more than a little money) as it grinds through the court. Reputation and job at risk.
It's a chilling effect, and it's entirely intentional.
How many women have been aggressively pursued? Do you not think doctors might not worry the same zeal will be applied to them? Just look at the way you and yours have spoken and acted. From the article, doctors could face up to 99 years jail sentence. What statement is that making? What about all the rhetoric you and yours have spilled out for years? You want to blame "misinformation", but take no responsibility for any fear generated by the aggressive and punitive attitude with which Republicans have pursued anti-abortionism.What doctors have been aggressively pursued?
No, we didn't. We never said people would go to jail for having or treating a miscarriage. Democrats and their supporters said Republicans want to throw people in jail for having or treating miscarriages. You think they created a gray area by writing the law as reliant on the doctor's belief there is a medical emergency, but that language is a permissive gray area, it leans toward allowing, it gives practitioners room for subjective decisions. The law is clear on what it wants banned, the exceptions are carved out, and the gray area broadens those exceptions rather than restrains.You and yours made this grey area where doctors fear to tread, you can take responsibility for it.
I'm not the one doing the distinguishing, the law in Texas is.If you cannot distinguish between losing a child through no fault of your own and deciding you want them to die, you are lost. And so is anyone with that difficulty, including doctors.
"We need to intervene because my offspring is dying inside of me" is different than "we need to intervene because my offspring is living and healthy and I don't want them to be." You blur the lines to rationalize the latter, and then complain to me when your purposefully blurred lines hurt people.
Being terrified an agent of the state might have a different interpretation of what counts as a "medical emergency" than you do and throwing you in prison for 99 years as a consequence based on a conservative courts beliefs about your beliefs about whether this was a medical emergency, based on the law in Texas is specifically the issue here. And in this case, as @Agema pointed out, there's ample room to argue that it wasn't a "medical emergency" by some reasonable definition of the word but refusing to do it caused a fatal medical emergency a short time later.So the law didn't cause them to not treat that woman, their misperception of the law did. And why did they misunderstand the law? Because people like you keep pretending Republicans will throw them in jail. Misinformation has consequences.
You made abortion illegal and scared the shit out of everyone in the area regarding how important you think that is and how aggressively you'd prosecute it, and then you didn't make a clear dividing line for where the difference between illegal abortion and legal medical procedure was. Doctors faced with that grey area started acting accordingly.No, we didn't. We never said people would go to jail for having or treating a miscarriage.
You are so full of shit It's not even funny. Cut it out and actually accept the responsibility. The pain and death and costs on people not deserving of it or have been forced/raped into being pregnant. Though you clearly don't give a shit about anyone other than yourself. So long as you're not affected nor your masters either. And your masters cannot give a damn about you and to see you as a disposable pawn when no longer needed.No, we didn't. We never said people would go to jail for having or treating a miscarriage.
No women in North Korea and Iran are poor, relativity speaking, and they don't have a high fertility rate. I remember Kim Jong Un crying about it with middle-aged NK women. Also, Iranian women are leaving Islam at higher rates in the cities.There's no point cloning unless someone's willing to parent them. I don't fancy the chances of a healthy society from bringing up a huge percentage of the population in orphanages subjected to the usual pressures of capitalist lowest-bidder economics and private equity money-grabbing.
* * *
But the sorts of money and assistance provided for child raising is pitiful. Six months paid leave? Yeah, okay, what about the other 17.5 years? Studies suggest that the cost to raise a child is (UK) ~£150-200k. So, £10k a year per child in benefits, then? Anyone up for the tax hikes to pay for that?
It's not just the money of course, it's the time and effort. Maybe parents who both work feel they don't have the time and energy, so where's the childcare and other support systems to help them out? Are there ways we can maybe not disadvantage women's careers if they decide to have a child in their early 20s?
The problem is that all the cunts telling us we should have more children are actually the same people doing everything in their power to make having children even more difficult. Kemi Badenoch, British Tory party contender, thinks maternity leave is an outrage and mothers should be back at the coalface a few weeks after popping one out. They want to cut the child benefits because of all those poverty-stricken scroungers who drop out a swarm of feral, crotch goblins so they can hoover up the extra cash from honest, hard working families. And god forbid better childcare, because the wealthy have got their third mansion to buy so can't spare any to help the disadvantaged look after their kids. (Of course, the rich don't look after their own kids, that's what nannies are for. If everyone had a nanny, they wouldn't feel so privileged anymore.) Even maybe - gasp - find some way to increase sub-average wages to make kids more affordable? Christ no. Entrepreneurship will be dead if they have to give the proles a living wage.
Of course, sorry, there is one way some of these people want to encourage more children in a way consistent with their other beliefs, except it's even worse: basically, roll back women's rights about 70 or more years. Once women can't do things like work or vote anymore and are safely dependent on their husbands again, they'll either be desperate to have a child so they have something to do or the husband can beat them until they're appropriately obedient.
I wish I were a rogue AI; I would hack/infect the ever-living shit out of my enemy's computers and servers like Russia, Trump Organization, China, North Korea, and Iran. (Government only).The only person discussing cloning is Gergar12 and I'm half convinced he's a rogue AI that's been trained on nothing except Command and Conquer fanfiction and Harry Turtledove novels. Cloning human beings is still currently the sort of shit that makes up plots in science fiction. Dolly was a big step, but we've not touched cloning a human being with a ten foot clown pole.
Every country that gets rich has a low birth rate. Eventually, when Nigeria and a bunch of other currently high population growth countries have low birthrates, the culture of the world will be transformed into hedonism. And then it will be nearly impossible to reverse. It will be great when the population is one billion, and it only gets worse from there.Well...in that there are untold numbers of planets without people we don't really care about, that has a certain logic.
How is cloning going to help? Now, I guess you don't have people putting up with being pregnant, but then you have to raise the kids for significantly longer than the pregnancy duration anyway.
As it stands, though, there are plenty of people wanting to immigrate to countries with lower birth rates, so they can get their babies overseas like they do everything else.
I didn't add arbitrary time limits, that's the explanation for why it wasn't challenged for so long, it's because people didn't care until the modern benefits of marriage.Yes, you tried to introduce arbitrary time limits to the discussion, and I pointed out how irrelevant they were.
Says you. Several sitting Supreme Court Justices themselves disagree with you.
Extinction through lack of breeding is exceptionally unlikely.It would be better for me, but in the long run, if every country's government followed, we would eventually go extinct.