Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Pol Lounge General News Thread of "This doesn't deserve it's own thread"

Pol Lounge General News Thread of "This doesn't deserve it's own thread" (Page 66)
Thread Tools
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2022, 03:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
When it comes to dispensing treatments to trans minors, which side should we err on at this juncture? Permissiveness or restriction?
Is the current regime permissive? Again, what is the problem these laws are supposedly solving? Is the medical community doing a bad job developing what is considered the best treatment for trans children? Or are lawmakers (most of whom have no medical degree) the better option? Should the state get to make these decisions or patients with their legal guardians and doctors?

Practically speaking, as far as I understand, puberty blockers simply delay puberty but have no lasting effects. As far as I know surgery is not on the table until the trans person turns 18.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2022, 04:22 AM
 
Its hard to imagine a scenario where lawmakers from Florida or Texas are a better option than anything else whatsoever.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2022, 05:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Practically speaking, as far as I understand, puberty blockers simply delay puberty but have no lasting effects. As far as I know surgery is not on the table until the trans person turns 18.
Used correctly, puberty blockers may have a negative impact on fertility in those born male, but are otherwise considered safe. Like many drugs, when used incorrectly, they can cause all sorts of problems. Phun phact: it’s off-label.

If surgery is already off the table, it’s probably not worth going to the mat over doubling down on it.

Where there’s legitimate debate to be had is HRT. This has lasting effects.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2022, 05:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Apologies. My #MeToo example was very poorly phrased. What I meant was “the more we believe the woman, the more we convict innocent men, the more we protect innocent men, the more we unjustly dismiss women telling the truth.” Lying is a reason an innocent can get convicted, but by no means the only reason.
There was nothing wrong with what you said. You're quite right about the trade off between who you believe/protect. Its just there are lots of these left/right examples where the right takes a nugget of truth and uses fear (and slavish cultism) to blow it out of all proportion.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2022, 08:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Used correctly, puberty blockers may have a negative impact on fertility in those born male, but are otherwise considered safe. Like many drugs, when used incorrectly, they can cause all sorts of problems. Phun phact: it’s off-label.
Of course, I did not mean to imply they were candy and without side effects. But this seems something that doctors are eminently qualified to take into account and react towards if necessary.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Where there’s legitimate debate to be had is HRT. This has lasting effects.
HRT? What does that acronym stand for? Hormone therapy?
Again, I’d default to doctors and best practices here rather than politicians — especially politicians who frankly seem to be opposed to gender reassignment procedures in general.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2022, 05:54 PM
 
My statement about puberty blockers was more of less agreement. They’re essentially reversible if used properly. This is in contrast to HRT (which stands for Hormone Replacement Therapy).

The best practice with regards to HRT hinges on whether we want to err on the side of enabling access to those who need it, or restricting access to those who don’t. Are doctors the only ones who have valid opinions on this question?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2022, 08:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The best practice with regards to HRT hinges on whether we want to err on the side of enabling access to those who need it, or restricting access to those who don’t.
My understanding is that hormone replacement therapy is not something you get by talking to a doctor once on a whim.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Are doctors the only ones who have valid opinions on this question?
No, doctors aren’t the only ones, I’d also include the patient and if the patient is a minor, their guardians. In addition you’d probably want to consult a psychologist or psychiatrist (who are, I guess, doctors). I don’t see what politicians who reject transgender people and find them unnatural have to add.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2022, 08:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
No, doctors aren’t the only ones, I’d also include the patient and if the patient is a minor, their guardians. In addition you’d probably want to consult a psychologist or psychiatrist (who are, I guess, doctors). I don’t see what politicians who reject transgender people and find them unnatural have to add.
This sounds like the list of people who have valid opinions on whether HRT should be administered to an individual.

I didn’t ask about that. I asked about who can have valid opinions on what constitute best practices.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2022, 01:43 AM
 
Best practices? That’s the job of the medical community. Are politicians also weighing in on cancer treatments? Why should they do it here.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2022, 10:46 AM
 
A Texas judge has blocked the investigations into the parents of trans children.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2022, 12:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Best practices? That’s the job of the medical community. Are politicians also weighing in on cancer treatments? Why should they do it here.
I don’t see having cancer as particularly analogous to being trans.

So I’m clear, only doctors have valid opinions whether we should err on the side enabling those who need HRT or err on the side of restricting those who don’t?

I mean, I’m sure we could both shop around to find doctors who agree with our individual opinions and have a proxy war through them, or just dispense with that and provide our own opinions.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2022, 08:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So I’m clear, only doctors have valid opinions whether we should err on the side enabling those who need HRT or err on the side of restricting those who don’t?
You didn’t ask about opinions, but “valid opinions on what constitutes best practices” specifically earlier.

Like I wrote earlier, if you want to know about valid opinions in general, I gave an additional list that includes not least the patient and their parents (if they are a minor). But best practices are determined by the medical community. They are subject to all sorts of restrictions due to ethical guidelines and the like, so it isn’t that the medical community is creating their own space with no oversight. In that respect, treating a transgender person is just like treating someone with cancer.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I mean, I’m sure we could both shop around to find doctors who agree with our individual opinions and have a proxy war through them, or just dispense with that and provide our own opinions.
That has nothing to do with best practices, though, you are talking about individual doctors here. Individual doctors may or may not follow best practices, they may not be qualified to treat a rare disease, they may simply not be good doctors, etc. Or in this case, they may have ethical reservations of their own – just like not every gynecologist performs elective abortions.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2022, 08:39 PM
 
Then and now I was asking about who can have valid opinions about best practices.

The practice under consideration is erring on the side of enabling access to those who need HRT, or erring on the side of restricting those who don’t.

As far as I’m aware, the medical community has not reached a consensus as to which is the best practice, hence my quip about finding doctors to duke it out over our respective opinions.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2022, 09:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Then and now I was asking about who can have valid opinions about best practices.
Yes, and I gave you my answer, no?
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The practice under consideration is erring on the side of enabling access to those who need HRT, or erring on the side of restricting those who don’t.
I understand. And I said straightforwardly that the medical community (including psychologists) should have a say here, politicians should not. You can disagree with that, but I don’t think I was fuzzy.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As far as I’m aware, the medical community has not reached a consensus as to which is the best practice, hence my quip about finding doctors to duke it out over our respective opinions.
This is a separate issue. You asked who should have a say when creating or updating best practices, not whether best practices exist and what they are. The doctors also had no best practices to treat my mom’s cancer as it was so exceedingly rare. Another issue is that best practices are not static, but they evolve over time.

I don’t want politicians as part of that process for the same reasons that I don’t want politicians weighing on treatment options for unclassifiable soft tissue sarcomas (the cancer that killed my mom) or gliobastomas — it lies outside of their field of expertise.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2022, 12:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I said straightforwardly that the medical community (including psychologists) should have a say here, politicians should not.
That’s what I thought you were saying, but I wasn’t entirely sure and (genuinely) appreciate you clearing up the ambiguity.

I’ll respond further, but I wanted mention this ASAP.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2022, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
This is a separate issue. You asked who should have a say when creating or updating best practices, not whether best practices exist and what they are.
Your earlier statement “I’d default to doctors and best practices” implies you felt they existed.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2022, 07:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Your earlier statement “I’d default to doctors and best practices” implies you felt they existed.
Yes. I’m not a doctor, much less an expert on treating trans patients. I have just inferred from the discussion that there are some best practices (using puberty blockers to enlarge the decision making window and not having to commit to surgery while being a minor). I don’t know how often they are updated or what the current state is. Like I said, I’d default to doctors to tell me what the state-of-the-art is.

Of course, if I were a parent of a trans child, I’d have to put effort into finding good doctors and not blindly do what the doctor said. Informed consent to treatment plans is crucial. But that’s nothing new, finding a good dentist, oncologist, bike mechanic, hair dresser is not easy, although of course the consequences are all different in magnitude in the short list I just gave. And there are different treatment plans based on the same guidelines and best practices depending on the specific situation of the patient.

The closest thing I can relate to was when my mom finally told us (= her children) about her cancer diagnosis. The few details (e. g. size and likely type of the tumor, location, presence of metastases) she gave were enough to find sufficient information online and plot the likely outcomes. Finding good sources of info was crucial here, and interpreting the information appropriately, although I kept on reminding myself that googling does not make me an expert on one type of cancer. But my background in math helped me here interpret probabilities and expectation values better. Knowing this gave me comfort even though, strike that, because I knew where the journey was going and that the doctor’s treatment plan was consistent with the information I had. I knew she was in good hands, and I talked a lot to her about that, making sure she was happy with the care she received. My wife also helped me, her dad had died of cancer when she was in her early 20s. None of this replaces a good doctor, though.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2022, 08:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Yes. I’m not a doctor, much less an expert on treating trans patients. I have just inferred from the discussion that there are some best practices (using puberty blockers to enlarge the decision making window and not having to commit to surgery while being a minor). I don’t know how often they are updated or what the current state is. Like I said, I’d default to doctors to tell me what the state-of-the-art is.
When it comes to treating trans adults, don’t trans adults themselves have input into what should be considered best practices?

Let’s say I’m trans, and am of the opinion California hews closer to what I consider best practices than Texas. That’s invalid because I’m not a doctor?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2022, 09:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
When it comes to treating trans adults, don’t trans adults themselves have input into what should be considered best practices?
No, although experience with trans patients will over time lead to an evolution of what is considered best practices in the medical community.

But trans patients do have and must have a say in a treatment plan. Treatment plans are based on best practices, but I don't think best practices are a cookie cutter solution that force a particular medical treatment.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Let’s say I’m trans, and am of the opinion California hews closer to what I consider best practices than Texas. That’s invalid because I’m not a doctor?
You are conflating medical best practices with the best treatment options for an individual patient. The two are not identical. Treatment plans are based on best practices, but as far as I understand, best practices just formulate the fundamental principles.

Furthermore, talking about states, for both, abortion and treating trans people laws do have an effect on best practices (note that my earlier argument was about what I think ought to be, not what currently is). For example, if a state passes one of the laws on banning “abortions for ectopic pregnancies”, then the best course of action might be to send the patient to another state. I remember seeing a story last week about a women with a non-viable pregnancy that had to be medivacced (spelling?) out of state, because the hospital in her home state would not perform an abortion.

So if your best treatment options (according to medical professionals) are not available in your state and you have the option to travel to another state for treatment, then this may be your best option.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2022, 12:17 AM
 
Surely best practices should never be at odds with local laws without a good reason though? An actual good reason, not a Republican one.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2022, 01:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Surely best practices should never be at odds with local laws without a good reason though? An actual good reason, not a Republican one.
The only reason why Republicans are meddling into matters pertaining to abortion and the medical treatment of trans people is that they oppose it. It is as simple as that. And you cannot expect anything good to come of that, especially when it is about symbolism, with no real understanding of the actual problems on the ground and genuine concern.

Some proposed laws require doctors to “re-implant ectopic pregnancies”, something that is impossible with current medical technology. Ectopic pregnancies are the leading cause of death in women that are in early stages of pregnancy. Most women with ectopic pregnancy want to have children. (My mom had an ectopic pregnancy before me, and the doctors told her she was unlikely to ever have children of her own.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2022, 03:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You are conflating medical best practices with the best treatment options for an individual patient.
I’m not.

In my hypothetical example my opinion is “the medical community in Texas should adopt the best practices in use by the medical community of California”.

This opinion is invalid because I’m not a member of the medical community?

These two can’t be compared and contrasted without an advanced degree?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2022, 05:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The only reason why Republicans are meddling into matters pertaining to abortion…
Here’s what goes into liberal moral calculus when it comes to abortion.

Compassion for the fetus

Vs.

Fairness to the mother

The latter generally wins.



Here’s what goes into conservative moral calculus

Compassion for the fetus
Religion as a means of maintaining social cohesion
Needing bodies to fight wars
How women are of best use to society, and their duty in that regard
Some stuff I’ve probably missed

Vs.

Fairness to the mother.

The latter loses this one. The “best use/duty” part is pretty much explicitly deprioritizing fairness to the mother.


Edit: to be clear, for various reasons, conservatives don’t lay it out on the table like this. Many probably couldn’t if they tried.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2022, 08:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Here’s what goes into liberal moral calculus when it comes to abortion.

Compassion for the fetus

Vs.

Fairness to the mother

The latter generally wins.
I think that’s a caricature of a simplification at best. A lot of liberals would work with social conservatives on some issues that as a side effect would reduce the number of abortions. Going beyond abstinence first/abstinence only sex ed. Better financial support from the state for poor mothers (and poor families) before and after birth. Basically, social conservatives could find out why women want to have abortions and try to address those.

Ditto for what you present as the conservative moral calculus, it does not even go skin deep. Conservative politicians have had the trifecta in the beginning of the Trump Presidency, and they did nothing with regards to abortion. The reason for that is to keep a divisive issue alive, to stoke fear even though the number of abortions has been declining. And that you never have to make any difficult choices. The strategy is the same with immigrants and their behavior towards the LGBTQ community.

We should remember that during Trump’s run, he platformed gay supporters and presented himself as a champion for LGBT rights. So this is a 180.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2022, 08:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
In my hypothetical example my opinion is “the medical community in Texas should adopt the best practices in use by the medical community of California”.

This opinion is invalid because I’m not a member of the medical community?
I have no idea where you are going with this. I don’t even know whether the medical community in Texas has a different opinion than in California. Even as a hypothetical, it does not make sense to me: how should I as a non-expert know? If I were the parent of a transgender child in one of those states, would I necessarily know the ins and outs of best practices in another? I don’t think so. Maybe I’d find a specific doctor or hospital that is exceptionally qualified in that area and I think could help my child. But I don’t think I’d frame that in terms of differences of best practices between states.

Like I mentioned previously, the only obvious differences in treatment approaches would be due to different legal constraints in both states. But I would not characterize that as the Texan medical community having a different consensus on what the best practices are from a medical perspective.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
These two can’t be compared and contrasted without an advanced degree?
Anyone can discuss anything. But non-experts are not part of the discussion when the medical community evolves the state-of-the-art (other than being patients, of course).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2022, 10:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think that’s a caricature of a simplification at best. A lot of liberals would work with social conservatives on some issues that as a side effect would reduce the number of abortions. Going beyond abstinence first/abstinence only sex ed. Better financial support from the state for poor mothers (and poor families) before and after birth.
How is this inconsistent with the moral calculus I presented? Maybe what I meant isn’t totally clear.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2022, 11:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
How is this inconsistent with the moral calculus I presented? Maybe what I meant isn’t totally clear.
I think it is inconsistent, because it doesn't even come close to capturing the stance that most people have on it. That's why I called it a caricature of a simplistic view and not suited to base a discussion on. To me it has no bearing on reality. (That holds for both sides, not just the liberal perspective.) What is worse, it completely leaves out the thoughts that women have when they are confronted with a situation where a termination of a pregnancy is an option or even the recommended course of action.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2022, 11:26 PM
 
I’m talking about the moral calculus involved with matters of law, not actually getting one. Sorry I didn’t make that clear!

With liberals, in matters of law, fairness to the mother generally wins out over compassion for the fetus.


Edit: and to be clear, I’m not arguing liberals lack compassion for the fetus. I’m arguing that in matters of law liberals generally believe allowing the mother to have a choice (being fair to her) is a more compelling moral directive.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2022, 11:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
With liberals, in matters of law, fairness to the mother generally wins out over compassion for the fetus.

Edit: and to be clear, I’m not arguing liberals lack compassion for the fetus. I’m arguing that in matters of law liberals generally believe allowing the mother to have a choice (being fair to her) is a more compelling moral directive.
Like I wrote before, I think this characterization (and the one from the conservative perspective as well!) are so far away from what I'd consider a usably nuanced view, it isn't even worth basing our discussion on.

When a woman like my mom has an ectopic pregnancy, do you think her thoughts are about fairness or that she weighed “fairness” over compassion? In my mom's case, she was thinking of her life (ectopic pregnancies are the #1 cause of death among mothers in the early stage of pregnancy) and her worry whether she will be able to have children at all. Or when a couple that wants to have a baby finds out that their daughter not only suffers from trisomy, but also has severe birth defects and she won't be viable. (Also a real life example.) Do you think they thought about fairness when they had to make the difficult choice of inducing birth early and letting their daughter die early or carrying her to term? Or a young pregnant woman whose boyfriend left her after she found out she was pregnant, and she is too poor to raise a child by herself. (My ex gf accompanied her to have an abortion performed by a back alley doctor in Mexico.) I know plenty of women who have miscarried. (Most wanted to become pregnant.)

None of these examples fit into your two schemes. None of the women I know have such a simplistic view, and nearly all of them have either direct or very close experience with early terminations. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I don't think your cookie cutter characterizations even come close to how people think.

While these examples seem as if they have no relation to “abortion”, all of these cases can or would be affected by (proposed) laws. E. g. the proposed laws that require “reimplantation of ectopic pregnancies” would have impacted women like my mom. The tragic story of a non-viable baby would likely be considered a “late term abortion” by many laws.

Ditto for how you propose conservatives think about the issue, I have never heard them argue that they need “bodies to fight wars”. I think that's a deeply unfair characterization. I have never heard that one. I believe that most really just believe that the soul enters the body at conception, i. e. when sperm and egg fuse. No doubt many have misconceptions, because they don't seem to know how pregnancy works.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2022, 12:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
When a woman like my mom has an ectopic pregnancy, do you think her thoughts are about fairness or that she weighed “fairness” over compassion? In my mom's case, she was thinking of her life (ectopic pregnancies are the #1 cause of death among mothers in the early stage of pregnancy) and her worry whether she will be able to have children at all. Or when a couple that wants to have a baby finds out that their daughter not only suffers from trisomy, but also has severe birth defects and she won't be viable. (Also a real life example.) Do you think they thought about fairness when they had to make the difficult choice of inducing birth early and letting their daughter die early or carrying her to term? Or a young pregnant woman whose boyfriend left her after she found out she was pregnant, and she is too poor to raise a child by herself. (My ex gf accompanied her to have an abortion performed by a back alley doctor in Mexico.) I know plenty of women who have miscarried. (Most wanted to become pregnant.)
I’m almost positive my point still isn’t clear.

I’m discussing the moral calculus which goes into a question like “should Roe v. Wade stand?” That’s what I mean by “matter of law”. In answering the question of whether Roe v. Wade should stand, liberals weigh the compassion they have for the fetus against allowing the mother to choose, and the latter generally wins out. To put it another way, liberals generally believe Roe v. Wade should stand despite the compassion they feel for the fetuses this impacts. The reason being that prioritizing compassion for the fetus in this context leads to unfair outcomes for the mother. In answering this question liberals weigh their compassion for the fetus against fair outcomes for the mother, and pick fair outcomes for the mother.

You’re talking about the moral calculus which goes into “should I have an abortion?” That’s something else entirely.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2022, 12:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m discussing the moral calculus which goes into a question like “should Roe v. Wade stand?” That’s what I mean by “matter of law”. In answering the question of whether Roe v. Wade should stand, liberals weigh the compassion they have for the fetus against allowing the mother to choose, and the latter generally wins out.
I understand that this is your goal, but I am saying that the two ways you propose that liberals and conservatives supposedly think about it has nothing to do with reality.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To put it another way, liberals generally believe Roe v. Wade should stand despite the compassion they feel for the fetuses this impacts. The reason being that prioritizing compassion for the fetus in this context leads to unfair outcomes for the mother.
No, I think this is not a good characterization for neither side, not even as a caricature.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You’re talking about the moral calculus which goes into “should I have an abortion?” That’s something else entirely.
No, I don't think I am. I am showing that current or proposed laws will directly impact women in situations that people when they discuss the topic of abortions seldomly think about. You frame this as weighing “compassion for the fetus” against “fairness to the mother”. I'm pretty sure the couple that was faced with the decision whether to carry a non-viable child to term or not were feeling plenty of compassion for the baby, and felt that the situation was fair neither to the baby they wanted nor to the parents. In fact, neither decision will be “fair” to anyone.

That's why I think your framing makes very little sense.

The only generalization that I have observed is that opponents to abortion typically believe that a fetus is a human being with all of the rights. However, in my experience it is not true that supporters of a woman's right to choose believe the opposite. I know plenty of women who never would want to have an abortion performed on themselves (if they had the choice), but were vigorously in favor of women having the right to choose for themselves.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2022, 01:26 AM
 
Okay, let’s take it from the other direction.

My premise is liberals generally think Roe v. Wade should stand.

Assuming you don’t think this premise is faulty (I’m not taking any chances ) I ask the following question:

Why do they think that?

I’m not asking you to cover everything, just give me one or two big reasons. If you think Roe v. Wade should stand, you can just give your own reasons (which I’d be interested in hearing).

Example reason: it should stand because it’s unfair to deny the mother a choice in the matter.
( Last edited by subego; Mar 15, 2022 at 01:45 AM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2022, 02:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My premise is liberals generally think Roe v. Wade should stand.

Assuming you don’t think this premise is faulty (I’m not taking any chances ) I ask the following question:

Why do they think that?
I think there is a great many reasons, and I would emphasize that this is not just a liberal stance, but the stance of a great majority among the US population who thinks that abortions should be legal, safe and rare.

- Some people think that this is a decision that should be left up to women themselves — independently of whether they'd have one performed on themselves or not. I know women who wouldn't choose an abortion from themselves who are staunchly pro choice. That is, the state interferes in the bodily autonomy of women.
- Some people think that a cell doesn't become a human in a 0-1 fashion, but there is a gradient: the further along the development a fetus is, the more it becomes human and the more rights it should have. They reject the binary offered by many opponents to abortions.
- Some people think that religious values of others are forced unto them against their will, and thus, it violates the separation of church and state.
- Some people think that it is better in some circumstances if a life never comes to be if that person is expected to grow up in hardship (e. g. poverty, physical or psychological abuse and substance abuse).
- Many people do not think of many abortions as such. For example, they might not view the removal of an ectopic pregnancy an abortion. Or inducing early labor when a fetus will not become viable even when carried to term. For many an abortion is an elective termination of pregnancy, even though in the eyes of the law it is not the only case. So there may be people who might want to be rather strict when it comes to abortions as an elective procedure to terminate a pregnancy, but be very lenient when it comes to terminations of pregnancies for good (e. g. medical or psychological) reasons.
- Some people think there are extenuating circumstances like rape or incest that warrant exceptions.
- Most people I know think that if a pregnancy is not viable, there should be no barrier to an abortion.
- If a pregnancy presents a significant risk to the mother, many people are open to exceptions and allow for an abortion. The judgement call of what constitutes a significant risk should be left to medical professionals and perhaps other experts who may be involved such as social workers.
- Some people think politicians (mostly men) have very little clue what pregnancies look like, what is and is not common, and what could happen.

I don't think it would make sense to boil them down much further than that. FWIW I think pro choice people usually have a much better understanding of people who are staunchly against abortions than the other way around.

My personal feelings have colored the list very strongly. I was never in a position where I wanted my partner to have an abortion should she get pregnant. I love children. I love my children and the only regret I have is that my wife only wants 2 and I want 3–4. I went to the first ultrasounds of both of my kids, and it was a very special moment for me. At worst I was thinking “this would significantly complicate our lives and bind us together for eternity, but I'm here to take my share of the responsibility.” Yet, I am aware that many women are not in the same situation as my wife (or hypothetically speaking, earlier partners of mine): they are left alone, are without means and without options. It is their body, and a pregnancy takes a lot out of a woman.

My cousin, for example, put herself at huge personal risk when she decided to have children: her mom died during her birth, and she carried the same risk factors. Her pregnancy was not easy (it would be too hard to explain everything in detail). I wouldn't want any politician (especially clueless men) making that risk calculus for my cousin. Her pregnancy was planned, but if she got pregnant and wasn't sure, I want that this decision lies with her, her partner and her doctors. Is a 20 % risk of death acceptable? How about 50 %? Or 10 %? What if the risk is more subtle, e. g. risk of being poor for the rest of your life rather than finishing your education? That's a decision that should lie with someone else, not me.

I also have a strong dislike of others forcing their values, especially religious values, on me. I have very little sympathy for people rejecting things like gay marriage since whether or not a gay couple is married in no way infringes on any right I have. With abortion I feel the same. If you are against abortions, don't get one. Feel free to counsel your friends against having one if they seek your advice. Just don't force others.

And thinking about this, I am very skeptical against binary and all about nuance. You might have noticed. New life exists on a spectrum. The claim that a zygote is equivalent to a human being is ridiculous. As a parent I also know that things like love for one's child grows over time. Their capabilities and their promise for a full life grows over time. That's why losing a pregnancy is, generally speaking, nowhere near as traumatic as losing a 5-year-old or a 10-year-old with whom you share many more memories, experiences and know what they are like.

As you can see, my main motivation is not about weighing the life and rights of a fetus with the rights of the mother. My main motivation is that forbidding abortions would infringe on someone else's freedom in a significant way. I feel doubly strongly about this since I will never be pregnant.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2022, 12:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
IAs you can see, my main motivation is not about weighing the life and rights of a fetus with the rights of the mother. My main motivation is that forbidding abortions would infringe on someone else's freedom in a significant way. I feel doubly strongly about this since I will never be pregnant.
My main motivation to avoid infringing on someone else’s freedoms is because it is unfair to infringe on the freedom of others.

Likewise, it would be unfair to:
Not leave the decision up to the woman
Insist women consider pregnancy to be binary
Force religious values on others
Not allow women to terminate risky pregnancies
Force women to bear the products of rape and incest
Force women to take an unviable pregnancy to term
Force women to take risky pregnancies to term

These are all unfair. All these examples fit my initial claim. Your disagreement baffles me.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2022, 02:32 PM
 
I also implore everyone here to call me out on this caricature I’m making of their morals and beliefs.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2022, 09:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My main motivation to avoid infringing on someone else’s freedoms is because it is unfair to infringe on the freedom of others. […] These are all unfair. All these examples fit my initial claim. Your disagreement baffles me.
I don’t think these are all examples of things that “are all unfair”, forcing values onto others has nothing to do with fairness to me nor when a woman has to risk her health or even life. I wouldn’t also call it “unfair” if school children in a public school were forced to pray or observant Jewish prison inmates were forced to eat pork and other non-kosher food. These are violations of their rights, and the idea of fairness doesn’t capture any of that. Nor does it capture the reasons why a big majority opposes simplistic bans on abortions. Trying to shoehorn their argument into the premise of “fairness towards the mother vs. rights of the fetus” does nothing to help you understand their motivations. That’s all.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2022, 10:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
These are violations of their rights, and the idea of fairness doesn’t capture any of that.
What you see as the correct solutions in all your examples are all the fairest ones. If it walks like a duck…

Respectfully, I’m not going to stop saying fairness enters into it for you unless you stop displaying a consistent sense of fairness in your opinions.
( Last edited by subego; Mar 18, 2022 at 12:20 AM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2022, 11:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
unless you stop displaying a consistent sense of fairness in your opinions.
I can teach you how to do this BTW.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2022, 12:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What you see as the correct solutions in all your examples are all the fairest ones. If it walks like a duck…
I think you are torturing the English language.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2022, 01:34 AM
 
Okay… real talk then.

“Fair” is a synonym for “just” as in “justice”.

Is “justice” a word which captures any of the reasoning involved?

“Fair” is also a synonym for “equitability”. Does this word capture any of the reasoning?




Edit: take any example you’ve given me and ask the question “what is the fairest solution?”

Is there one where the answer doesn’t match what you believe to be the correct course of action?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2022, 11:55 AM
 
Fairer to who? Who is entitled to legal protection under the law?

Unfortunately, for abortion that is where the discrepancy lies. Conservatives feel that a clump of cells has more legal rights and autonomy than a living breathing woman.

In Idaho they are pushing a law where the rapists family can sue the doctor who performed an abortion on the rape victim.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022...apist-families

They are making laws where it is illegal to abort an ectopic pregnancy, which the medical community agrees is NEVER viable.

Sometimes it comes down to who makes the laws is who has the power, not what is "fair".
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2022, 12:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Fairer to who?
To all parties involved.

Should Roe v. Wade stand or be overturned?

What is your opinion?
In your estimation what is the fairest solution for all parties involved?
Do the answers to these two questions match?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2022, 01:07 PM
 
The crux of the matter is determining who is a party that is involved, needs to be involved, and deserves to be involved. No one can agree on that, before deciding what is fair.

(We are getting abstract here, but clearly my stance is that Roe v Wade should stand. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2022, 01:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
No one can agree on that, before deciding what is fair.
I posit you have correctly identified the parties involved, and from that point have correctly determined the fairest solution.

A person who disagrees with you favors an unfair solution, and their arguments are a gambit to distract both you and themselves away from this fact.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2022, 10:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
The crux of the matter is determining who is a party that is involved, needs to be involved, and deserves to be involved. No one can agree on that, before deciding what is fair.
QFT.
This is yet another issue when you want to shoehorn this into a perspective of “fairness”.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
“Fair” is a synonym for “just” as in “justice”. […] “Fair” is also a synonym for “equitability”. Does this word capture any of the reasoning?
These words are not synonymous.
Justice or just in the legal sense need not have anything to do with fairness. Laws, which justice administers, need neither be fair nor just. Nor is fair the same as equitable, boxing without weight classes is fair but not equitable.

I think your insistence to boil down a complex situation into a single keyword is really detrimental to you communicating what you think and (at least I think) you understanding what others are saying. Humans are very complex and full of contradiction. And if you e. g. don’t think that a lump of cells has the same rights as a fully formed human, then this lump of cells might simply not enter into your calculation of what you think is reasonable or fair or just.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2022, 10:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
These words are not synonymous.
When I Google “fair synonym” the first result is “just”. When I Google “justice synonym” the first result is “fairness”.

The dictionary I use, the Advanced English Dictionary, links “fair” and “just” to the same definition. It defines “justice” as “the quality of being just or fair”, and provides “fairness” as a synonym.

On what basis should I reject these sources?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2022, 05:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
When I Google “fair synonym” the first result is “just”. When I Google “justice synonym” the first result is “fairness”.
Think in terms of Venn diagrams. Synonyms are not perfect replacements for one another. Let me quote you my dictionary of choice (emphasis mine):
Originally Posted by Apple Dictionary
having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language: aggression is often taken as synonymous with violence.
They are words whose Venn diagram of meanings has significant overlap. Just and fair have an overlap, as does just and justice. But the overlap of fair and justice is smaller than that of just and justice.

Man, you've been arguing with us on the internet for two decades, you should know this!
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2022, 06:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
These words are not synonymous.
Are they synonyms or not?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2022, 09:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Are they synonyms or not?
In this context they should not be used synonymously.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2022, 01:30 PM
 
Why not?

Where the terms overlap represent a singular principle, and that is the principle I’m discussing.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:20 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,