Random Politics & Religion #00
Random Politics & Religion #00
Rav you have the capacity to be better than this, walk away son.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
We're right into the legality of viable babies being aborted where the mother is not at risk.
No we're not, nobody is talking about that.
[+]
Jetackuu said: »
Rav you have the capacity to be better than this, walk away son.
No. Not this time. I've made myself very clear and people are still talking about non-viable births and miscarriages when it comes to the topic of partial-birth abortions (IDX for the picky).
Because yeah, it would make perfect sense for me to complain about those.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Like Bacon said, legal under the discretion of a physician. I don't see what point you're trying to make.
Holy crap, this isn't that hard. Are you intentionally being dense?
What a lot of conservatives fail to argue is EVERYTHING ELSE Planned Parenthood Does. I know HIV and STI prevention might not sound like much but if you take several factors into consideration, PP does a great deal for the African-American Community.
African-Americans contract HIV at a very high rate of new infections. especially in the South.
Quote:
More HIV infections. African Americans make up 14% of the U.S. population, but they represent 44% of new HIV cases. The picture is even bleaker in black women, teens, and children.
Lets forget Plannet Parenthood does abortions for a minute. Do you know how much money PP saves the state providing STI/HIV services?
What do you think is more economical for a state 1) $2-4k/month for medication for the rest of the patients life for ARVs + the cost of specialized care 2) PEP at $1000 single administration, 3)PrEP $1400/month, or 4)$200/month for a PCR test?
Now go ahead an add in the reduced fatality rates from meningitis and syphillis provided by PP.
It baffles my head that the GOP wants to defund PP, when they are a primary clinic in MANY areas of the country. Additionally, imo PP is doing a great service to the African-American residents of the country specifically females.
Why would I be talking about any circumstances other than the ones specifically tied to the procedure?
[+]
Ah, my bad then. Then that should be a discussion amongst doctors and ethics boards, not civilians/politicians.
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
What a lot of conservatives fail to argue is EVERYTHING ELSE Planned Parenthood Does. I know HIV and STI prevention might not sound like much but if you take several factors into consideration, PP does a great deal for the African-American Community.
I actually have no issue with a large portion of what PP does. Honestly I'd rather see PP and abortion services be separated into different companies so that there wouldn't ever be this issue with them, even if it means funding them more.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Rav you have the capacity to be better than this, walk away son.
No. Not this time. I've made myself very clear and people are still talking about non-viable births and miscarriages when it comes to the topic of partial-birth abortions (IDX for the picky).
Because yeah, it would make perfect sense for me to complain about those.
Like I said to Spicy, that should be left up to doctor's and ethics boards, but do you have any actual examples of those being performed?
Asura.Floppyseconds said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
What a lot of conservatives fail to argue is EVERYTHING ELSE Planned Parenthood Does. I know HIV and STI prevention might not sound like much but if you take several factors into consideration, PP does a great deal for the African-American Community.
I actually have no issue with a large portion of what PP does. Honestly I'd rather see PP and abortion services be separated into different companies so that there wouldn't ever be this issue with them, even if it means funding them more.
Or we could just stay out of peoples lives rather than force people to have back-alley abortions.
And you completely missed the point again. There would still be places to have legal abortions and it wouldn't screw with the other services PP offers.
[+]
Asura.Floppyseconds said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
What a lot of conservatives fail to argue is EVERYTHING ELSE Planned Parenthood Does. I know HIV and STI prevention might not sound like much but if you take several factors into consideration, PP does a great deal for the African-American Community.
I actually have no issue with a large portion of what PP does. Honestly I'd rather see PP and abortion services be separated into different companies so that there wouldn't ever be this issue with them, even if it means funding them more.
Or we could just stay out of peoples lives rather than force people to have back-alley abortions.
You really need to be involved in the community regarding Public Health. The general population doesn't do the brightest things. Whether it be nutrition, diabetes, influenza, etc. If you look at some of the more significant public health concerns in the history of the US. You just don't ignore them. You get involved, educate, and provide better options for patients, ESPECIALLY IN MORE RURAL AREAS. More rural areas require so much more time and $$ its not funny.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Why would I be talking about any circumstances other than the ones specifically tied to the procedure?
Because not everyone who has an abortion does so legally? If I were a perfectly healthy women in my 7th trimester with a perfectly healthy pregnancy, would you be against me seeking an IDX procedure?
Asura.Floppyseconds said: »
I am specifically talking about the desire to ban abortions including "partial-birth".
Yet Rav wants to keep painting me like I am missing the point after skating around something he started.
Yet Rav wants to keep painting me like I am missing the point after skating around something he started.
They go hand-in-hand for females, especially at-risk African-American woman. Lets put two and two together. High HIV infection rate and rate of getting pregnant. Combine those two and you equate a very high price tag for the state.
Many females don't want to cary the risks of carrying a child who may contract HIV from the mother. That's a very real concern, especially in rape cases. I think some conservatives might have to bite their tongue when it comes to bringing a child to term with a chronic disease.
While they may have the RIGHT, in their bigoted heads, to dictate if a female should bring a child to term. They do not have the RIGHT to bring a child to term with a chronic condition.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Asura.Floppyseconds said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
What a lot of conservatives fail to argue is EVERYTHING ELSE Planned Parenthood Does. I know HIV and STI prevention might not sound like much but if you take several factors into consideration, PP does a great deal for the African-American Community.
I actually have no issue with a large portion of what PP does. Honestly I'd rather see PP and abortion services be separated into different companies so that there wouldn't ever be this issue with them, even if it means funding them more.
Or we could just stay out of peoples lives rather than force people to have back-alley abortions.
And you completely missed the point again. There would still be places to have legal abortions and it wouldn't screw with the other services PP offers.
And, an organization having to invest massive amounts of money to construct, outfit, and license clinics specific to performing abortions would be prohibitively expensive unless they passed that cost directly onto the patient. Not in a "federal funding lets them save money on other things" kind of way, because the PP clinics are already in existence, that cost was passed on long ago. It would effectively put an undue financial burden on any abortion service and therefor limit women's access to it.
There's a reason those kinds of solutions keep getting offered, because they're just another roundabout way to skirt Roe v Wade.
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Many females don't want to cary the risks of carrying a child who may contract HIV from the mother. That's a very real concern, especially in rape cases. I think some conservatives might have to bite their tongue when it comes to bringing a child to term with a chronic disease.
HIV is far more treatable than it used to be, but beyond that the pro-life response to abortion is usually directed more at mothers who are aborting out of convenience, not out of concern for legitimate health risks. Assuming they're all hard-liners is an ignorant generalization.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Many females don't want to cary the risks of carrying a child who may contract HIV from the mother. That's a very real concern, especially in rape cases. I think some conservatives might have to bite their tongue when it comes to bringing a child to term with a chronic disease.
HIV is far more treatable than it used to be, but beyond that the pro-life response to abortion is usually directed more at mothers who are aborting out of convenience, not out of concern for legitimate health risks. Assuming they're all hard-liners is an ignorant generalization.
It is but their is still a slightly high risk when the newborn is breaking through all those cavities. They'll typicallyrecommend C-section and PEP + some ARV's. That's still no guarentee though. Isn't the GOP logic, that we aren't giving that unborn child a choice? Well we arent giving that unborn child a choice of 0.1% of whatever it is in mother >>> fetus.
Also treating newborns significant different than treating adults, you can't just perscripe the same medication in the same doses to newborns. You have to super-saturate newborns with meds typically because they havn't developed all the cell receptors of an adults. So we're talking super saturating ARV's which have a long list of side effects on adults on an infant.
I can't say you're wrong Bacon, which is why I direct my comments exclusively to abortions that are performed out of mere convenience and not out of medical concern/necessity. If I went to med school, my opinion on the matter would be more diverse.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
I can't say you're wrong Bacon, which is why I direct my comments exclusively to abortions that are performed out of mere convenience and not out of medical concern/necessity. If I went to med school, my opinion on the matter would be more diverse.
Assuming there ARE convenience late-term abortions at any relevant amount or at all, they are such a narrow subset of abortions performed, I don't see why they should be the focus of a budget negotiation.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
I can't say you're wrong Bacon, which is why I direct my comments exclusively to abortions that are performed out of mere convenience and not out of medical concern/necessity. If I went to med school, my opinion on the matter would be more diverse.
Women don't get abortions as a contraceptive tool. They do it as a last resort. Especially in rape due to incubation period of retroviruses.
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
I can't say you're wrong Bacon, which is why I direct my comments exclusively to abortions that are performed out of mere convenience and not out of medical concern/necessity. If I went to med school, my opinion on the matter would be more diverse.
Women don't get abortions as a contraceptive tool. They do it as a last resort. Especially in rape due to incubation period of retroviruses.
Most statistics that I've found show that around 6% of abortions are deemed medically necessary. Rape or incest? 1%.
Asura.Floppyseconds said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
I can't say you're wrong Bacon, which is why I direct my comments exclusively to abortions that are performed out of mere convenience and not out of medical concern/necessity. If I went to med school, my opinion on the matter would be more diverse.
Women don't get abortions as a contraceptive tool. They do it as a last resort. Especially in rape due to incubation period of retroviruses.
Most statistics that I've found show that around 6% of abortions are deemed medically necessary. Rape or incest? 1%.
So, what is wrong with people aborting an unwanted fetus? Why should they be forced to deliver?
I'm not getting into the ethics of all aspects of it. Killing a late-term and viable fetus when there's no medically necessary reason to is a much easier thing to argue against, though. At that point you're killing something that is very much alive and very much human.
[+]
A fetus's viability is completely dependent on a mother's willingness to carry it. From that point, every fetus that is unable to survive outside of it's mother is not viable, and it's rights are subject to the mother's decision.
Ok a retrovirus has an incubation period in which it can't be detected but you still have it. That's a big concern in rape.
Jassik said: »
A fetus's viability is completely dependent on a mother's willingness to carry it. From that point, every fetus that is unable to survive outside of it's mother is not viable, and it's rights are subject to the mother's decision.
According to what? The law? Because, last I checked, the law says 24 weeks regardless of what the mother decides (barring medical exceptions blah blah blah).
Asura.Floppyseconds said: »
Oh, okay.
As long as we don't start using the term baby though.
Sad that you want/need to stick to one aspect of something to support your case, huh?
As long as we don't start using the term baby though.
Sad that you want/need to stick to one aspect of something to support your case, huh?
Considering the fact that that is the only case I've been making this entire time, no. I'm not backing the traditional "conservative" case, I'm backing my case.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.