Hard News: Medical Matters
588 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 24 Newer→ Last
-
Since I'm pretty sure I slipped through the robbery net on this one, I'm gonna suggest again (and i'll reword it a little more carefully in case some one wants to have another vent at me,
perhaps men should have the right to veto the pregnancy if it was understood to be sex for the purpose of procreation, and if an agreement can't be reached which would obviously leave things in the hands of the mother, then either the male or female be eligible for some kind of counseling,
and I'm hoping that before resorting to gutteral 'fucking/ fuck off' and telling me i should make females sign a contract, or that i need a brrod mare, or that I'm trolling, and that calling women baby incubators is much different from calling men lifelike dildos and something about feminazi 101, that stephen judd, danielle and lucy do check whether 'veto' can be interpreted as postpone in New Zealand or if it's just an international thing, and furthermore that asking for clarification is a far swifter root towards universal understanding than not.
what's the target market for this site?
-
The fact is that at conception there is a baby present. The fact is that baby is too small to be see and too well protected to be easily studied. The fact is that baby is alive. The fact is that baby is human.
These are not facts, they are assertions you make repeatedly and describe as facts.
At conception, there is not a "baby" present (although it is common for there to be two adults) and that is not because it is a special magical mini-baby "too small to be see and too well protected to be easily studied", it is because it is not a baby, it is a cell that might, if many conditions are met, later develop into a distinct human.
-
perhaps men should have the right to veto the pregnancy if it was understood to be sex for the purpose of procreation, and if an agreement can't be reached which would obviously leave things in the hands of the mother, then either the male or female be eligible for some kind of counseling,
I'm not being bitchy here Mark, but if men want to 'veto' pregnancy then they should either wear a rubber, actually have the kind of relationship where you have a frank and honest conversation about such things as contraception (and that does include getting your tubes tied, chaps), develop a mutual taste for all the kinds of sexual intercourse that doesn't involve your semen getting anywhere near your partner's eggs. Or just to keep it really simple, exercise your imagination and wank off.
Even better, stop acting like you're a permanent member of the Security Council who has veto rights over someone else's uterus. I not only wouldn't want to have your child, but I'd have to be loaded and blind to screw you.
-
mark, you've already made it clear that you get a kick out of winding people up and that what you're trying to do is get a reaction from them. That's what trolling is. If you don't like the label, then don't do it. If you don't like what people say when you do wind them up, maybe you should consider whether you really get such a kick out of it.
This is also why I won't be asking for any clarification, or engaging with you again: you've demonstrated that you really aren't interested in conversation, or discussion, or saying what you mean.
Finally, "veto" and "postpone" don't mean the same thing in New Zealand English, or any other kind that I know of.
-
"Or just to keep it really simple, exercise your imagination and wank off." - craig
or in Reverend Bill Hicks words.
"I have wiped entire civilizations off of my chest, with a grey gym sock. That is special. Entire nations have flaked and crusted in the hair around my navel. That is special. And I want you to think about that, you two-egg-carrying beings out there with that holier-than-thou, we-have-the-gift-of-life attitude. I have tossed universes, in my underpants, while napping. That is special." -
mark, you've already made it clear that you get a kick out of winding people up and that what you're trying to do is get a reaction from them. That's what trolling is. If you don't like the label, then don't do it.
Ack... and I should have remembered that trolls die of starvation. My bad.
-
a swifter root towards universal understanding
Wow, you mean like some sort of '60's love-in type thing? Make love not war?
-
Cheers Islander, I appreciate your comment.
I see the two issues as very similar & your views are consistant.
I don't see either becoming an election issue, but hope for a better formed and reasoned policy as a result.
-
Grant, there is a very important difference between
"Your definition is wrong"
and
"Reasonable people, working from different starting assumptions, can have very different definitions"
You have made very strong claims, which you say are "obviously true" -- i.e., true in all possible axiomatic frameworks. I hope I have avoided making such claims; nevertheless, my axioms differ from yours, and so your "truths" are not "obvious" to me; and vice versa, I'm sure.
We will not succeed in trying to persuade each other that our axioms are "wrong". If that is your aim, the discussion must end here. If you simply want to state your axioms, then repeating them serves no further purpose. -
Grant & Russell - Why try to invalidate each others understanding of life?
Might be time to accept their are different beliefs (yip science is a belief structure) on when life starts.
No-one seems to have changed their mind through this discussion, but certainly some thoughtful insights have been presented, by some.
-
Craig R:
We seem to be in agreement over this.
As a gay man, I find this fascinating. Many straight guys
endlessly pontificate about taking over women's bodies
in the context of abortion, yet seem to be mostly unwilling
to prevent fertilisation happening through exercising
responsible sexual behaviour (ie using a condom/having
a vasectomy).In the context of HIV/AIDS, gay men don't have that luxury.
I've lost count of the number of female friends I've had to
hold hands with, while they cried about their absent male partner, or escort to a local abortion provider, because their partner couldn't be bothered to take responsibility and play safe.Craig
safe. -
She hasn't posted recently on this, but Maia wrote some good pieces over the last couple of years on what access to abortion really means to women in New Zealand. Including one reference to a woman with a heart condition who died in 2004 after being refused an abortion.
-
I asked :
How is a fertilised egg more human than an unfertilised egg ?
Grant replied :
Because he has everything any other human being has. Why would he not be?
At this point it is two cells. It patently does not have everything any other human being has. Your assertion is wrong.
I asked:
There are millions of processes that have to occur before a sperm and an egg can become born as a baby. Why do you believe that the sperm fertilising the egg is the crucial one that turns these cells into a baby ?
Grant replied :
Because that is when the process is completed. Everything after that is just growth.
Everything after that is not just growth. For example, some of the cells separate off to become the placenta. That is not "just growth". Your assertion is incorrect.
Grant asked :
When do you think a baby becomes a person?
When it is born.
Grant stated :But you'd be ignoring the fact that at conception a baby is alive and human...
The fertilised egg is not a baby. It is two cells.
The fertilised egg is alive.
The fertilised egg is human.
However, the fertilised egg is not a human being.You conflate "human" as in having homo sapiens genetic material, with "a human" which is short for "a human being" which means a person. They are two totally different concepts. A hair on my head is a human hair, so it is human. It is not a human being.
-
Secondly, Yes! we should propose legislation based on what 'we' (being humanity) 'know' (being the corpus of science). Which means that your formulation that a 'baby' exists from conception is seen as completely bogus so we move on and find a much better, workable scheme based on knowledge and not emotive weasel words.
I think science should inform any debate, but I'm not sure if it can be the end of it. Questions of life, death, and the ending of life (or potential life) are also moral questions.
If we were to take euthanasia, which I have some sympathy for, science can tell us about a person's quality of life, their chances of recovery, their awareness, how they'll cope without life support etc.
After that though, we are faced with philosophical and moral questions. Even if a person has nil quality of life, who has the right to end their life? Only them? A doctor acting under their pre-prepared instructions? A doctor acting under the instructions of next of kin? No one at all?
Science can tell us a lot about life, but it can't cover the other half - how we feel about it, and in particular, the right to take it away. That's guided by morals, religious or otherwise.
I really couldn't understand why right-to-lifers would argue from a scientific point of view. As a (potential) father, I might grow more attached to my future child as it develops from fertilised egg (at which point I probably don't know about it) to tiny baby to beating heart to 20 week scan to full-sized baby to about-to-be-delivered-sprog. But I don't go no, no, no baby, nothing, no baby... and then suddenly 100% baby at some point in or out of the womb. I get attached to a foetus/baby as soon as I know about it, and probably more so as it grows and develops and appears into my arms. I would imagine a mother would have a similar but differently shaped trajectory.
If there was to be a law or policy etc change on the issue, I'd hope it was informed by science such as the material that Peter has mentioned. But I think only some people will be informed by science (which is the case for all issues, take global warming for example), but that almost all people will inevitably make moral decisions on where they fall on it. That's where the debate is/should be.
Deborah's post was good. I have no response, I'm just guessing that she put a fair bit of herself into writing it.
-
As it happens Craig, this medic *was* motivated by religous belief and made a point of telling us (patient and attending family) so, and I used 'it' advisedly rather than give the arsehole's sex - 'arsehole' also advisedly because severe pain was present, and while increased morphine would eventually have led to death, it would have helped lessen the pain: the patient made it clear that he understood that death would be hastened but he needed help with pain that was causing him to cry out and he'd happily accept a more immediate death.
Several of my family group are on medication for severe clinical depression: I am well aware the illness can make people want death. This wasnt the case here.
-
science is a belief structure
No. It. Isn't.
You don't 'believe' something you can measure and observe repeatedly. It either 'is' or it 'isn't'.
Advance hypothesis, test validity of hypothesis using gathered measurable data, add to sum of human knowledge.
How is that a belief system?
-
How is that a belief system?
I'm not sure how Shep meant it.
But things that have been through the science process are surely things that we 'believe' to be true, based on scientific testing, observation, review etc. Scientists often seem to use the phrase 'as far as we know'.
Some will be proven to be false, either through bad science, lack of understanding, misleading data etc.
I would have thought that if something that was thought to be correct, can later be proven to be false, then surely we 'believed' it to be correct, and we were wrong.
Science must therefore have an element of belief in it, just belief based on scientific principles rather than religious ones.
-
I'm sorry craig was that not clear?
I meant to type abortion but accidentally typed pregnancy, I assumed that would have been clear to those who attacked my initial statement, sorry for the misunderstanding Craig, by veto i'm not referring to a blanket cancellation as administered in the security council, merely a postponement so that some mediated discussion between both parties can be reached, in the same way i guess as the government currently has the right to veto abortions until they are satisfied that its the best informed decision medical and decision. I understand you're not being bitchy, I'ts my bad for inserting the wrong word, original post is on page 3.
mark, you've already made it clear that you get a kick out of winding people up and that what you're trying to do is get a reaction from them. That's what trolling is. If you don't like the label, then don't do it. If you don't like what people say when you do wind them up, maybe you should consider whether you really get such a kick out of it.
I'm sorry you took it that way stephen judd. I wasn't trolling, I was just trying to contribute to the discussion and you jumped on me made it personal, called me a troll, so I gave you an illustrative definition of trolling. please go back and reread if you're not sure who the troll was or is, or here it is:
The father should have the right to veto abortion. except in cases of rape, proven prophylactic failure or molestation, if an agreement can't be reached then the state should provide mediation and counselling to any of the casualties.
You didn't ask for clarification what i meant by veto, you completely ignored the fact I made specifications on when this counseling may be necessary, and I'm guessing the term agreement didn't even register.
you just read right past it seeing me as some easily classifiable thing you've met before and came out with this pearler:
Perhaps mark taslov can present all his prospective female sex partners with a contract where they agree to carry to term any possible pregnancy under all circumstances unless he releases them from that obligation.
That should help safeguard his rights against the unwanted termination of his progeny.
who's winding people up here stephen?
as i clarified:
I MERELY THINK THAT BOTH PARTIES SHOULD TECHNICALLY HAVE SOME RECOURSE INTO WHAT HAPPENS WITH THEIR DNA
and a whole lot of words put in my mouth,
all women who have unplanned pregnancies are stupid sluts
belligerently overlooking the initial conclusion of wider ranging damage control for all parties involved;
state should provide mediation and counseling to any of the casualties.
treating an unwilling woman as their own personal baby incubator.
compelling women to bear children they don't want.
mark: you want a brood-mare, get a horse.
and that's fine Stephen, but be sure, it was you who made this personal and patronizing, it was you who then leveled the trolling accusation, without even having bothered to get clarification on my initial statement. The tone I employed in any future trolling (as you like stephen) was not indifferent from the tone you proffered on your first statement about me getting all my prospective mates to do something ridiculous on the basis that is culpably ridiculous to suggest that a man involved in sex for procreation, facing the termination of that planned pregnancy be allowed some kind of nonbinding voice or involvement in the issue.
Finally, "veto" and "postpone" don't mean the same thing in New Zealand English, or any other kind that I know of.
well that's strange, or perhaps you just conveniently willingly misread your way through life in order to provoke reactions, cos it's right here on dictionary.com, first definition
ve·to Audio Help /ˈvitoʊ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[vee-toh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -toes, verb, -toed, -to·ing.
–noun
1. the power or right vested in one branch of a government to cancel or postpone the decisions, enactments, etc., of another branch, esp. the right of a president, governor, or other chief executive to reject bills passed by the legislature.so stephen, sir, you can define 'veto' for new zealand and the world over, but it could simply be seen as violating the autonomy of something.
So just one last time,
what do people think about the idea of counseling for for men who are suffering emotional problems related to pregnancies? And more specifically abortion of their offspring
- not meaning men can force a pregnancy
- not meaning they can prevent an abortionmerely that they can postpone it the necessary number of hours so that a mediated discussion between both parties are held, both voices are heard and more importantly, both parties feel they are being listened to
and furthermore,
(but I'm not so set on this because it came after stephen told me to ask my prospective (fingers crossed) sexuality partner,)- that if the male, could in a neutrally mediated situation convince the mother of her own free will to have the baby, that he should be financially responsible for that child.
is this extremism?
am I coming of as misogenist?
I'm not hear to provoke a reaction, just interested in hearing thoughts regarding the paternal role in pregnancy and childrearing in New Zealand lately , and hoping I can get some reasonable responses,please don't let-
I won't be asking for any clarification, or engaging with you again: you've demonstrated that you really aren't interested in conversation, or discussion, or saying what you mean.
-put you off, I am quite sincere in my query, and am still at pains to understand what happened the first time round, but will acknowledge it was rather poorly worded.
-
And to clarify even a little further, I offer this in that, in disagreement with some I think the overriding sentiment i've gaged from males during my brief stay here on earth is is that there is still a general sentiment, in the 21st century, for men, not to see women as baby incubators, but for them to see women as caves to stick their stick into.
and i think there are many situations when women may want to go through with a pregnancy but have their arms twisted to abort by their partners, who in certain cases then ditch them after the baby is born,
hence another motivation (besides counseling) for suggesting this, is that there is some record kept of how the decision to abort or not, is reached,
because it's all very well, living in a world where the female aborts the child she doesn't want to take to term,
I've no problems with that,but there are other issues besides
-
-
It seems I have to once again explain that my use of the term, "baby" is not what you guys need to argue against. I know you do not like my terminology. The facts I refer to are that the baby (translate the word in your mind if you must) is alive and human. Those facts are indisputable and nobody is prepared to put their money on the line in order to dispute them. Russel and Linger, I am utterly correct in my usage of alive and human. If you wish to argue against what I hold as indisputable fact then you have to argue against life and humanity. I haven't supported my opinion that at conception we have a baby so, even though you do not like my opinion, arguing that it is not supported is not something I am going to defend myself against here. So are you going to debate what I have said or are you going to debate what you wish I had said?
-
Brent:
You think that at conception a baby is two cells and it does not have everything any other human being has. My assertion is correct unless you have another source for everything the baby will have other than those two cells (plus time and nutrition).
You think some cells separating off to become the placenta is not "just growth". I wonder how you figure that. Do you think the placenta is not something those two cells produced?
You think that:
The fertilised egg is not a baby. It is two cells.
The fertilised egg is alive.
The fertilised egg is human.
However, the fertilised egg is not a human being.I'm happy to see that acceptance of my statements of fact is starting to shine through, yet you have no support for these additions to the facts except for issues related to size and your inability to recognise things.
You think that if a baby at conception is a human then a hair on your head is a human. Why would you think that? How are you able to tell the difference between humans and something with human tissue at any stage of a person's life?
-
PS. Isn't a fertilised egg initially only one cell?
-
"The facts I refer to are that the baby (translate the word in your mind if you must) is alive and human. Those facts are indisputable and nobody is prepared to put their money on the line in order to dispute them."
No those are not facts. Those are your beliefs. The fact's are that at conception a sperm joins with an egg to form a single cell that with the right conditions splits and grows. Those cells are not alive, are not a baby and are not human. You keep mistaking your beliefs for facts.
-
the baby (translate the word in your mind if you must)
We all know why you keep saying 'baby'. It's emotional manipulation; we get it. Trust me, we've all heard this Not-So-Subtle Weaselling routine before.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.