Ramaswamy

[neurosis]

The doctor told her that if she had that baby it would be her 3rd cesarean. Which would possibly keep her from ever having children again. My mom, had 7 cesareans. (not uncommon for catholics at the time)

I'm sure that you and I are more qualified to decide how many cesareans she can have without adverse affects than her doctor. I got my PHD on google too.

Everyone is different and willingly rolling the dice with someone's health because "I know someone who" doesn't sound very practical.

10 years ago I would have thought that the internet was a huge benefit to society. Now I'm not sure that we're not going backwards. 

[beej]

I'm sure that you and I are more qualified to decide how many cesareans she can have without adverse affects than her doctor. I got my PHD on google too.

Everyone is different and willingly rolling the dice with someone's health because "I know someone who" doesn't sound very practical.

10 years ago I would have thought that the internet was a huge benefit to society. Now I'm not sure that we're not going backwards. 

I didn't google my mom. I did read the news stories of the case. I'm sorry if my personal experience doesn't line up with the narrative de jour.

[neurosis]

I didn't google my mom. I did read the news stories of the case. I'm sorry if my personal experience doesn't line up with the narrative de jour.

Anecdotes are no better.

A few second google search (where I got my phd) gives enough information on the dangers of multiple c-sections that it should be evident that not everyone is going to be able to have 7 of them. I don't know how rare complications are but I would assume her doctor knows better than you or I what her risk is and I don't know what that has to do with anything. Discrediting her doctor maybe?

We're getting off track and I was enjoying Yodougs food thread more.   

[beej]

Anecdotes are no better.

A few second google search (where I got my phd) gives enough information on the dangers of multiple c-sections that it should be evident that not everyone is going to be able to have 7 of them. I don't know how rare complications are but I would assume her doctor knows better than you or I what her risk is and I don't know what that has to do with anything. Discrediting her doctor maybe?

We're getting off track and I was enjoying Yodougs food thread more.   

alright maybe I've been dismissive of your views. You don't want lawmakers to get involved but you must want lawmakers to do something, even if it's fixing a law that you think is unjust. What should lawmakers do to make this fair? Abortion up to birth?

[YoDoug]

Oh for fucks sakes, Beej.    Is everything a conspiracy with Republicans?

Duh, yes it is! Thank you and good day.

And thanks for playing the nonsensical circular argument game with beej today, I needed a break.

[neurosis]

alright maybe I've been dismissive of your views. You don't want lawmakers to get involved but you must want lawmakers to do something, even if it's fixing a law that you think is unjust. What should lawmakers do to make this fair? Abortion up to birth?

A majority of the Country leans more toward my views than yours. You're not just dismissing my views.

I don't want lawmakers passing spite legislation that threatens prison time for going to States where a procedure is legal and I don't want them passing spite laws that put a mothers life or health in jeopardy or forces them to carry an unviable pregnancy to term. This to me, is where they cross that line between morals and crazy zealotry. I wont get in to the religious aspect of "my views" because I don't want to inadvertently disrespect anyone.

It seems to me that even in States where they want abortion to be illegal, they could take cases like this one by one and make decisions based on health. Not whether or not it's a political win.

[beej]

A majority of the Country leans more toward my views than yours. You're not just dismissing my views.

I don't want lawmakers passing spite legislation that threatens prison time for going to States where a procedure is legal and I don't want them passing spite laws that put a mothers life or health in jeopardy or forces them to carry an unviable pregnancy to term. This to me, is where they cross that line between morals and crazy zealotry. I wont get in to the religious aspect of "my views" because I don't want to inadvertently disrespect anyone.

It seems to me that even in States where they want abortion to be illegal, they could take cases like this one by one and make decisions based on health. Not whether or not it's a political win.

Fair enough, but the only reason you know about this case is because the publicity of it is a political win for the Left. They are putting a face and a name to the "terrible tyranny" of right. Have you seen any coverage of the 32,000 babies that were born because of Roe-v-Wade was overturned? I keep waiting for Steve Hartman to do one of those real feel good segments at CBS on a baby who would have been aborted but now is just learning to crawl at her adopted home in the suburbs with parents that waited for years to adopt but just never could have a baby. News stations don't ever do those stories. But they sure do stories about women who wanted an abortion and couldn't get one, because of you know, evil republicans wouldn't let them.

[beej]

stories like this one, don't make national news. I've met this woman. Have you heard of her? I'm guessing not.

[neurosis]

Fair enough, but the only reason you know about this case is because the publicity of it is a political win for the Left.

I don't see this as a win for the left. Maybe that's the problem.  I see this as a win for this family and hopefully any other family that may have to go through this in the future.

This is why I hate politicians on either side and politics in general. Politics turns otherwise intelligent people dumb.  Everything we do now is based on who gets the political win.

[beej]

I don't see this as a win for the left. Maybe that's the problem.  I see this as a win for this family and hopefully any other family that may have to go through this in the future.

This is why I hate politicians on either side and politics in general. Politics turns otherwise intelligent people dumb.  Everything we do now is based on who gets the political win.

I might be in the minority, but that doesn't make me wrong. At one point both the North and the South wanted the Underground Railroad shut down. Most people would say that if freeing slaves caused some suffering to the slave holders, then so be it. It's still worth it. And IMO,if overturning Roe-v-Wade allowed an addtional 32000 babies to be born who would otherwise be dead, but caused some temporary suffering to a few people here or there, well....so be it, as well.

[mowens]

I might be in the minority, but that doesn't make me wrong. At one point both the North and the South wanted the Underground Railroad shut down. Most people would say that if freeing slaves caused some suffering to the slave holders, then so be it. It's still worth it. And IMO,if overturning Roe-v-Wade allowed an addtional 32000 babies to be born who would otherwise be dead, but caused some temporary suffering to a few people here or there, well....so be it, as well.

Because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

[neurosis]

I might be in the minority, but that doesn't make me wrong.

And what determines who is wrong and who is right? 

[beej]

Because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

so to stick with the analogy, do you think that the needs of the slave holders outweigh the needs of the slave owners? it's rhetorical. I know how you would answer that. But for one group, they are looking at this a life issue, and one group is looking it at from a financial issue.

That is how abortion is also framed most of the time. In this case it's a quality of life issue. The mother will have better quality of life, if she aborts this child that is probably going to pass away anyway. (well, did pass away, she traveled to a different state) Maybe a plantation owner will have better quality of life if he keeps his slaves. But that doesn't take into account the fact that his quality of life is being elevated over and above the life of a human being that he considers to be less than a person. There are a lot of parallels between these 2 issues. I know that they are not exact matches. but a lot of parallels, and interestingly the same parties standing on opposite sides of a polarizing issue.

Slave owners use to say, if you don't believe in slavery, then don't own them. but don't tell me what to do with my property.sound familiar?
Abortion advocates say, if you don't believe in abortion don't have one. But don't tell me what to do with my body.

I could go on and on, and probably just bore everyone here.

btw, Rick Santorum, daughter had the same diagnosis. She is 15 years old now. and she has a good life. Maybe this baby would have too. We'll never know now.
https://twitter.com/RickSantorum/status/1734707424693559670

[beej]

And what determines who is wrong and who is right? 

The same principle that says slavery is wrong says abortion on demand is wrong. Life is an inalienable right. I recognize as does almost everyone since the dawn of time, that if the pregnancy puts the mother's life in danger, then the mother's health comes first.

[neurosis]

The same principle that says slavery is wrong says abortion on demand is wrong.

I wont argue with you about abortion on demand, but that's not what I'm talking about. If it's all about abortion on demand, why not just ban abortion on demand and leave medical complication to the discretion of the parent and doctor?