Abortion
#1
What are your thoughts about this topic ? Feel free to discuss and say YOUR OWN opinion. Still,keep in mind that this shouldn't turn into discussion about religion in general.
Reply
#2
Since we don't wish to open the whole field of religion, let me try to narrow the scope of how religion applies.

Both the Western Judeo-Christian social fabric and the Muslim social structure are deeply rooted in a miasma of traditions maintained by various priesthoods. Every tradition has a start and the Judeo-Christian and Muslim holy truths started as necessities for tribal survival. Now their link to primitive survial in the desert is forgotten, but the priesthoods live on - feasting on the offerings to the mystical gods.

Fast-Forward: Tribal survival no longer requires the great majority of men to serve as warriors to fight the hoards of enemies surrounding the tribe. But women are still treated by the priesthoods as breeding machines who must produce replacement warriors as fast as possible because the casualities mount and plans must be laid for battles years in the future.

When you take a hard, cold look at the holy "words of god" as presented by the priesthood, that is what it strips down to mean.

So it seems to me that abortion is a life choice that a woman has the individual and absolute right to make for herself. Just as she has the absolute right to accept or reject the injection of sperm from an otherwise useless donor who typically also bullies other men besides the women with whom he wishes to have his way. The infant takes life of its own when it parts from its host (mother) just as a chicken takes a life of its own when it cracks the shell of its egg.

Is there a god of chickens that has decreed that all eggs are the same as chickens after the rooster has had his way with the hen?

The same god who is presented by the priesthood as opposed to any interruption of conjunction of sperm with egg in his female image has also provided at least one simple herb which is an almost fool-proof abortifacient.

Introduction to
How I See It.
Reply
#3
So it seems to me that abortion is a life choice
that a woman has the individual and absolute
right to make for herself.

I entirely agree with that.


In my opinion it is better for woman to pay one time cost of abortion than take poor care of the child because she can't afford another mouth to feed,wouldn't have time to take care of him etc. Sure it is still considered by The Church "immoral,unholy and what not. So women raised in Christian families may consider it out of question. Not to mention parents wouldn't allow it.

I entirely support women's right to abortion,especially in case of rape or incest. That pretty much sums it up for me but I am open for firther discussions
Reply
#4
So, where do you draw a line? I remember when under 26 week gestations were not bothered with; now we get even some 23 week gestation survivals with good outcomes. Soon, extrauterine support may be possible for more extreme cases. Why not selected infanticide, in late pregnancy (like 32 weekers) or after delivery? Many mothers do not want defective infants, cannot support or have the time to care for them, and you cannot always tell early.

Logically, there is no dividing line that can be defended.
Reply
#5
Frankly speaking I think the reasons of "having too many mouth to feed" or "the child is defective" aren't valid reasons for an abortion.

In the first case a woman and man should have used some kind of anti-conception to start with. Although it's even possible to get pregnant by using that, odds are very small. And thus it saves a lot of trouble afterwards.

I also think it's not right to abort the pregnancy of a child that's "defective". Although they may not become PotUS or FLotUS; they're still able to give and receive love.

The reason I think of the above is that there are millons of couples wishing to have a child, but aren't able to. Their only chance to raise a child is by adopting one.

The only two valid reasons - for me - for an abortion are:

- If the child is concieved by (domestic) rape. I don't think I have to explain that.
- If the pregnancy is threatning the life of both mother and child.
Although in this case using anti-conception is the first option, that anti-conception might fail, causing an unwanted - and life threatning - pregnancy.

As for the one deciding to abort the pregnancy or not:

Since both woman and man are involved in the conception, both woman and man should decide.
The only exception for that is obviously when the conception happened because of the woman being raped.
Hack seinen Kopf ab. Ich brauche einen Aschenbecher!
Reply
#6
Ptoblem is that many young people ( 17 or so ) are very...careless. They think only about "scoring" and if a girl gets pregnant they abandon her.

Unwanted pregnancy can be prevented by using protection,I agree. But are people really aware of all the risks of not using it ? Sad

Reply
#7
(24-11-2011, 09:21 PM)Baltic Trader Wrote: So, where do you draw a line? I remember when under 26 week gestations were not bothered with; now we get even some 23 week gestation survivals with good outcomes. Soon, extrauterine support may be possible for more extreme cases. Why not selected infanticide, in late pregnancy (like 32 weekers) or after delivery? ...
Logically, there is no dividing line that can be defended.

In a way, indirect though it may be, you support my point. It is the woman's decision.

If there is a line to be drawn, it is a line at which the state\(community) assumes control of and total responsibility for the infant, and removes it from its host (the mother) and absolves her of any further responsibility for it. This is merely an extension of the principle that the community has an over-arching responsibility for its children which supercedes the blood parents' ownership -- children are citizens from birth by logic and not theology. They are in a custodial relationship with their parents, not as a chattel or bonded possession since such relationships have been prohibited by the constitution. The community is responsible to care for its members\(citizens) who can not care for themselves -- especially for children whose parents can not or will not properly carry out their custodial relationship.

Criminalizing the parents for failure or refusal to fullfill the expected custodial role does nothing to nuture and support the children. Indeed, it makes concealed or open infanticide more likely. The ultimate responsiblility for late term infant deaths rests on the state for a common community failure to take proper responsibility and provide the money required to care for these extreme cases.

Trying to legislate universal "mother love" is a rather stupid effort. That's particularly so when male lawyers are leading the chorus baying at the moon.

Male and female humans do not engage in coitous to procreate or because they love children. If that were so, they could never conceive of the idea of masturbation. Just because a female can become pregnant and produce an infant does not mean biology has also produced a nuclear family or a particular set of emotions in the female. Politicians need to avoid assumptions based on the "movies."

I suggest that instead of term limits for the US Congress, the members should be required to be celebate and to refrain from masturbation during their term. The turn-over would be fantastic.

(spelling error - at least one - corrected)
Reply
#8
(25-11-2011, 12:51 PM)Thorin Oakshield Wrote: Frankly speaking I think ...

So you speak as a male who has been raised in a strongly patriarchal culture where women were restricted to Kinder, Küche, Kirche -- and with that background you think you understand how women ought to think. You know how men think, so then you know how women think, yes?
There's no flame intended. I don't know another way to ask a person (or raise their level of understanding) about how the culture in which they were raised may have restricted their ability to see another view point. I simply don't see those questions as a personal attack or a "flame." Are they true or not?

(25-11-2011, 12:51 PM)Thorin Oakshield Wrote: In the first case a woman and man should have used some kind of anti-conception to start with. Although it's even possible to get pregnant by using that, odds are very small. And thus it saves a lot of trouble afterwards.

And in 90% of the cases where the woman and the man have this long intellectually discussion about how to keep his sperm from her egg, she is the one who has not only to take the most precautions, but also to run all the risks. She is the one who has to play the role of the virginal maiden whilst practicing the skills of an accomplished whore. The man pleads, "Oh, using a condom is like washing my feet with my socks on! Just let me put it in for a good feel first!"

Is there such a thing as a pre-coitous contract in which the male surrenders his potential life earnings to support "the small odds?"

(25-11-2011, 12:51 PM)Thorin Oakshield Wrote: I also think it's not right to abort the pregnancy of a child that's "defective". Although they may not become PotUS or FLotUS; they're still able to give and receive love.

The reason I think of the above is that there are millions of couples wishing to have a child, but aren't able to. Their only chance to raise a child is by adopting one.

Is it really millions? If so, the planet's population would really bloom if they were suddenly blessed to do it themselves. I'm not sure of your connection between adoption and what you define as "defective" children. I understand the vast majority of parents who adopt because they can't bear their own, is that they demand infants who are "perfect" and young enough to have not implanted on any other parents. I think the facts are that there are millions of "imperfect" and perfect but older children waiting in vain for adoption. They will continue to wait in vain because the poor, sad infertile couples will spend thousands of dollars for a perfect infant from a foreign country before they will consider the children waiting in their own country. I think the term is dilettante adoptionists. I pity the infants they get.

(25-11-2011, 12:51 PM)Thorin Oakshield Wrote: The only two valid reasons - for me - for an abortion are: ...
As for the one deciding to abort the pregnancy or not:
Since both woman and man are involved in the conception, both woman and man should decide. ...

The well nutured patriarch speaks. (O.K. - There is a bit of sarcasm there. However, Thorin O. is repeating a common male arguement -- that is, he is perhaps unconciously acting as spokesman for a particular male view point. Some US states have a law requiring mutual concent, and there have been cases where the male had absconded and could not be located so the female had to bear an unwanted child.) The male contributed a bit of "fore-play" and a 30 second ejactulation of sperm. Unless he has signed a firm and binding contract and has not fled the area, his involvent in the conception ended when his penis got limp. Meanwhile, the female is engaged in a firm biologically required commitment of her body for nine months and approximately a year following of nurturing the infant with breast milk and otherwise bringing it to a level of some self-sufficiency. Pardon me, but this 'air-head' male claims an "EQUAL" say about a decision on abortion?

In order to claim any say what-so-ever about an abortion, the male involved needs to throw his butt into high speed on the typically neglected feature of coitous called "After-Play" which lasts for many years. Words alone mean nothing; deeds only count. Have you heard the term, "Bringing home the bacon?" Well that's after you build the home.

Now, what were you saying about involvement in conception? (Sorry. Unneeded sarcasm. It would have been better to ask simply if I had raised any questions in his mind about his previous conclusions.)

(25-11-2011, 05:43 PM)Che Guevara Wrote: ... many young people ( 17 or so ) are very careless. They think only about "scoring" and if a girl gets pregnant they abandon her.

Unwanted pregnancy can be prevented by using protection, I agree. But are people really aware of all the risks of not using it ?

Why do you pick the age of "17 or so"? Is your country so backward from behind the US that the boys get erections so late in life? LOL

With all the hormoes pumped into the cows (hamburgers) and chickens ( the fried colonel), girls here are menstrating at ten or eleven years. And guess what, the boys don't lag behind.

You indicate by your terms that you too are a well trained patriarch who thinks only in terms of careless young men. (The US experience is that many if not most teen age pregnancies are the result of predatory older men - in their mid-20s to mid-30s.)

Please tell us about how young people in your country are supposed to learn about their sexual interests as they mature. What is the current sitiuation with the church, the former soviet style state, and the education institutions. In the US, the tax supported public schools are technically religion neutral, but under local control. So, the content of classes about sex topics varies widely. Some conmmunities can't connect the dots between what the churches and the schools say or don't say and all the pregnant young girls they have.
Reply
#9

@ If that is what are you are asking,schools here are religion neutral too. We do have some kind of sex ed in schools but it is far from enough. It will probably appear in schools as a new subject very soon though.

Abortion laws here are same as they were in former SFRY. It is always allowed,no matter if preganancy was caused by rape or something else or not.
[/quote]

Reply
#10
@ CK:

If not mistaken this topic was to ask the opinion of other forum members. Not to start a flame-war by attacking someones personal believes or someones culture.

However, since you do, let me ask you this:

How is it possible that in the USA there are 10 times more teen-pregnancies and teen-abortions as in the Netherlands, where I live?
Considering the "extremely loose sexual morale" in my country it should be the opposite, don't you think??

The way you put things, abortion for is you the ultimate anti-conception. Just in case a man does hit the bullseye; he's allowed to run away and let the woman deal with the crap he caused.

If that's how you think abortion should work, you're a very pathetic person; because perhaps I've been raised with old-fashioned standards, but I still have respect for women and don't see them as breeding machines.


Thorin :@
Hack seinen Kopf ab. Ich brauche einen Aschenbecher!
Reply
#11
Come on,we don't need flame wars. Thorin is right,I made this topic so people could say their own thoughts about this. They may or may not agree with your opinion but there shouldn't be flaming Sad
Reply
#12
(25-11-2011, 06:52 PM)CoconutKid Wrote:
(24-11-2011, 09:21 PM)Baltic Trader Wrote: So, where do you draw a line? I remember when under 26 week gestations were not bothered with; now we get even some 23 week gestation survivals with good outcomes. Soon, extrauterine support may be possible for more extreme cases. Why not selected infanticide, in late pregnancy (like 32 weekers) or after delivery? ...
Logically, there is no dividing line that can be defended.

In a way, indirect though it may be, you support my point. It is the woman's decision.

Not really. I remember watching the murder of an anencepalic; the attending just turned the respirator off, and the infant (born at term) asphyxiated. I remember another, who continued to breathe. He was being tube fed, and survived three weeks. He was changed to oral feeds, but had no good suck reflex, and dehydrated to death. In neither case was the mother consulted.

I use those as examples, because the brain is only a brainstem; you can slide easily to the porenechalic cysts, and on through the profound developmental delays (we tend to call them "static encephalopathy" which sounds better than vegetable), the cerebral palsies, the autistics, the Asperger's syndrome into the learing disabilities or even the spina bifidas. No logical line exists.

(25-11-2011, 06:52 PM)CoconutKid Wrote: If there is a line to be drawn, it is a line at which the state\(community) assumes control of and total responsibility for the infant, and removes it from its host (the mother) and absolves her of any further responsibility for it. This is merely an extension of the principle that the community has an over-arching responsibility for its children which supercedes the blood parents' ownership -- children are citizens from birth by logic and not theology. They are in a custodial relationship with their parents, not as a chattel or bonded possession since such relationships have been prohibited by the constitution. The community is responsible to care for its members\(citizens) who can not care for themselves -- especially for children whose parents can not or will not properly carry out their custodial relationship.

Criminalizing the parents for failure or refusal to fullfill the expected custodial role does nothing to nuture and support the children. Indeed, it makes concealed or open infanticide more likely. The ultimate responsiblility for late term infant deaths rests on the state for a common community failure to take proper responsibility and provide the money required to care for these extreme cases.

Trying to legislate universal "mother love" is a rather stupid effort. That's particularly so when male lawyers are leading the chorus baying at the moon.

We had one mother get frustrated over the 3 week old infant being fussy; she threw it against the wall, causing a fractured skull and massive brain damage. No recovery; should society "finish the job"? I had a five month old similarly beaten last month; she is on a ventilator, in a rehab facility, won't be much but a societal burden from here out.

So who will care for the child? Who will pay? Is it so very different from the earlier examples, or aborting a 26 week old Down's syndrome?

Of course, handicapped children are much more likely to suffer abuse.

In Afghanistan, I sent children away to die, too ... many could have lived, here. There? Well, six million children die of complications of malnutrition every year. Who really cares?

(25-11-2011, 06:52 PM)CoconutKid Wrote: Male and female humans do not engage in coitous to procreate or because they love children. If that were so, they could never conceive of the idea of masterbation. Just because a female can become pregnant and produce an infant does not mean biology has also produced a nuclear family or a particular set of emotions in the female. Politicians need to avoid assumptions based on the "movies."

I suggest that instead of term limits for the US Congress, the members should be required to be celebate and to refrain from masterbation during their term. The turn-over would be fantastic.

P.S. It's spelled "masturbation".

And no flaming here. The murder and death of infants, born or unborn, is just a matter of shades of gray. No black and white anywhere ...

Reply
#13
(25-11-2011, 11:54 PM)Thorin Oakshield Wrote: @ CK:
If not mistaken this topic was to ask the opinion of other forum members. Not to start a flame-war by attacking someones personal believes or someones culture.

Probably I was the one who made the mistake. I thought that when one posted an opinion, others were free to comment on it to the extent of raising questions or disagreements -- of course, NOT in the form of "you fool you." If you believe there is nothing wrong with a patriarchal culture or if you believe that yours is not, then if I see it as being one why is that an attack? Why can you not simply answer my comments without springing to a counter-attack and going for my throat? O.K. I let some sarcasm slip in without a line of emoticons\smilies.

While I can't repair your outrage, I did go back and inset some edits to try to clarify my throughts. I hope you will read them.

(25-11-2011, 11:54 PM)Thorin Oakshield Wrote: However, since you do, let me ask you this:

How is it possible that in the USA there are 10 times more teen-pregnancies and teen-abortions as in the Netherlands, where I live?
Considering the "extremely loose sexual morale" in my country it should be the opposite, don't you think??

I am well aware of the commonly held idea that the Netherlands has a culture of loose sexual attitudes (and free trade in recreational drugs). I have heard from knowledgeable Europeans that such a reputation is completely unfounded. That false reputation is based on the activities of a very small segment of the population confined to an extremely limited area. The Dutch culture at large is rigidly traditional in the Calvinist mold so far as I know. Are you telling me something else?

The population of the Netherlands may be becoming less homogeneous, but it is no where near the racial, ethnic and religious polyglot that is the US. There is no US national policy (or at least no effective one) on family planning and the other elements of health care and indoctrination in common mores. Mores, in sociology, are any given society's particular norms, virtues, or values.

(25-11-2011, 11:54 PM)Thorin Oakshield Wrote: The way you put things, abortion for is you the ultimate anti-conception. Just in case a man does hit the bullseye; he's allowed to run away and let the woman deal with the crap he caused.

If that's how you think abortion should work, you're a very pathetic person; because perhaps I've been raised with old-fashioned standards, but I still have respect for women and don't see them as breeding machines.

I detect a bit of sarcasm there. I'm pathetic in your opinion because what I say -- you can't reconcile with your old-fashioned mores.

Possibly it might have to do with the word ultimate and whether it means first or last -- rather than just highest. I do think abortion should be the ultimate birth control (not anti-conception since it can't happen unless conception has already occured) although it may come just before the mother's suicide and\or execution which is actually the ultimate control.

Abortion should be the last alternative for a woman to control her own body. There should be a series of prior steps which are not predicated on denial of sexual activity which allow her - in concert with a health care professional - to control her fertility while allowing her to enjoy her body. Men can enjoy sexual activity and are free to walk away; women should have the same freedom.

When I say men are free to walk away, I do not mean they should not be held responsible for their actions. I mean their body is not changed by a conception they have caused. How, when and why they are called to account for "the wild oats" they have sowed is a subsidiary problem.

I am proud to have overcome the male chauvinist culture in which I was raised. My parents made me think for myself and take nothing for granted. I don't "respect" women; I treat them as equals.

http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2011/09/11/o...wild-oats/

Doing five minutes of quick Internet research reveals that the expression “sowing wild oats” to refer to reckless, usually promiscuous behavior on the part of young men, goes back to at least the 17th century. And while many old-fashioned phrases have vanished from the idiom of today’s college-age population, most of them are quite familiar with the “wild oats” notion.

There are a couple of things I loathe about this theory. One, women rarely get to use the “wild oats” excuse. Teenage and twenty-something women who exhibit reckless or sexually adventurous behavior get shamed as sluts. Since we all “know” that “women don’t really have wild oats”, a woman who behaves as if she does is “unnatural”, “perverse”, a “whore.”

The other great problem with the wild oats theory is more subtle. It suggests that if we indulge irresponsible and reckless male sexual behavior for a given period of time, young men will just “grow out of it.” Remember, the implication is that the number of oats inside each lad is finite. Once he’s sown them, he’ll be “done” and be ready for settling down. Clearly, this isn’t an accurate description of how most of us work! When we do something pleasurable and exciting, the more we want to do it. Rather than getting rid of our wild oats, we become more and more accustomed to the lifestyle of sowing them. We all know many men who have prolonged their adolescence into their thirties, forties, and beyond. Some fellas out there have been sowing their oats fairly consistently since the early days of disco, and their internal barn shows no sign of being depleted any time soon.
Reply
#14
(26-11-2011, 12:43 AM)Baltic Trader Wrote: ...
And no flaming here. The murder and death of infants, born or unborn, is just a matter of shades of gray. No black and white anywhere.

I infer that you are of a medical or related profession\occupation and either military or DOD contractor -- possibly a NGO person.

I have to think a bit before commenting. I wonder about the concept of triage. "A process for sorting injured people into groups based on their need for or likely benefit from immediate medical treatment."
Reply
#15
Currently a GS employed physician, not active duty now but I still hold the rank of lieutenant colonel USAR; veteran.

The triage is DIE for the battlefield. Delayed, Immediate, and Expectant. Delayed meaning that though they are hurt or ill, they can wait. A person with a broken leg, for example is Delayed. Immediate is someone who, if evacuated, can be saved. Expectant is just that, he/she will die, even if potentially viable elsewhere.

In a mass casualty, the priorities are ABC. Airway first; then attend to the ones who require ventilation, and lastly, if you are not too busy, the circulatory casualties -- tourniquets, bandages, whatnot. Yes, some will bleed to death, but you save more numerically. Now, as a society, we face the same triage issues. Can we afford to pay increasing insurance bills and government deficits to give care to those who cannot pay? People die every day. Do you give all your money personally, save for a bare minimum living expense, to feed and care for the world's needy? If you do not, if you have any savings at all, you are partly responsible for the deaths and sufferings of many.

Europe now is facing a crisis, of debt. It seems that the socialist way cannot be sustained. "Austerity" is just another word for triage, after all. D-I-E. They just have to decide who is expectant, and who is delayed, that's all.

And abortion? I don't much care for active killing, fetus/infant/child/adult. Where I draw my own imaginary line is at the active/passive border. It is one thing to let events take their natural course, and another altogether to hasten them along. I have never helped anyone die. I have allowed the death process to continue, with my only intervention being to try to help lessen the pain.
Reply
#16
(26-11-2011, 12:43 AM)Baltic Trader Wrote:
(25-11-2011, 06:52 PM)CoconutKid Wrote: In a way, indirect though it may be, you support my point. It is the woman's decision.
Not really. I remember watching the murder of ... In neither case was the mother consulted.
I use those as examples, because the brain is only a brainstem; you can slide easily to ... [all the others with imperfections] No logical line exists.

(25-11-2011, 06:52 PM)CoconutKid Wrote: If there is a line to be drawn, it is a line at which the state\(community) assumes control of and total responsibility for the infant, and removes it from its host (the mother) and absolves her of any further responsibility for it. ... The community is responsible to care for its members\(citizens) who can not care for themselves -- especially for children whose parents can not or will not properly carry out their custodial relationship.
Criminalizing the parents for failure or refusal to fullfill the expected custodial role does nothing to nuture and support the children. ...
We had one mother get frustrated over ... No recovery; should society "finish the job"? I had a five month old similarly beaten last month; ... So who will care for the child? Who will pay? ...
...
And no flaming here. The murder and death of infants, born or unborn, is just a matter of shades of gray. No black and white anywhere.

Who will pay?

That's really the ultimate question, isn't it. Just before it comes the question, do we have the technology and\or skills to overcome the problem? We have the skill and ability to overcome death from malnutrition, but those who care don't have the money to pay to do it. Too many Ebenezer Scrooges have not yet been haunted by their own mortality. Others must die so they can live large and high.

In the past, responses to such ethical questions evolved over centuries as conditions changed. The rate of change in medical technology (or science if you prefer) has greatly accelerated over the last hundred years. Meanwhile, there has been great pressure by many social forces to keep the ethical outlook on associated issociated issues static -- or stated another way, locked in the past. So a major social problem is the public's understanding of the ethical issues of medical questions about malformed infants, and mentally \ emotionally unfit mothers.

Unfortunately, the unrelenting focus seems to fall only on "Abortion" - and incompletely covers even it. If it is absolutely prohibited, who pays for the bad outcomes? If citizens appear at conception so that not keeping a fertilized egg alive becomes 'murder', who pays for the incapable who require total care after birth?

What does the passage of such a law as an approach to banning abortions say about women's role in society? Will the next step be to ban hysterectomies and tubectomies? That would insure that women understand their role as breeding machines.
Reply
#17
Interesting to know. Thank you. You posted while I was composing. FYI, I'm a Federal Employee retired 1987, paper-pusher in many places; three years army enlisted.

(27-11-2011, 05:27 PM)Baltic Trader Wrote: Currently a GS employed physician, ...

I'll guess that's General Schedule meaning Federal Government, so it's likely Veterans Afairs, DoD, Indian Health Service, or a minor nook\cranny somewhere else. Although IHS used to have a portion of the Public Health Service's Commissioned Corps, your glimpse of your practice makes me guess IHS. And that explains the non-consultation with the mother. Either that particular tribe's attitude or the "White-Eyes" still control that facility. Hey, I did a tour of duty in the BIA.

(27-11-2011, 05:27 PM)Baltic Trader Wrote: The triage is DIE for the battlefield. Delayed, Immediate, and Expectant. Delayed meaning that though they are hurt or ill, they can wait. ... Immediate is someone who, if evacuated, can be saved. Expectant is just that, ...
In a mass casualty, the priorities are ABC. Airway first; then attend to the ones who require ventilation, and lastly, ... tourniquets, bandages, whatnot. ... Now, as a society, we face the same triage issues. ...

For an individual, that's very similar to what the Red Cross taught me for 'first aid' as a Cub Scout in the 1940s (as nearly as I can remember). 1} If breathing has stopped, clear the mouth and throat and apply artificial resuscitation. 2} After breathing has restarted or if you are the second aider, stop bleeding with direct pressure, or in extreme cases on the limbs - a tourniquet. 3} Prevent shock and keep movement of the victim to a minimum. Keep them warm by coverning with a blanket or coats. Keep them lying down and elevate the feet. Move them only as necessary to prevent additional injury. Be concerned about disturbing broken bones.

Thank you for the "DIE" description. My experience with triage has been only observation of drills for civilian events such as airliner crashes, earth quakes, etc. One intuitively understands the D & E, but the I is never clearly explained. It has to be done by someone with some level of training and\or experience in medical issues, but it probably also requires a grasp of the instant situation in terms of what is available for partial stabilization for and "vehicles" available for evacuation. (For a few weeks, I was assigned as a litter bearer in the army.)

(27-11-2011, 05:27 PM)Baltic Trader Wrote: Europe now is facing a crisis, of debt. It seems that the socialist way cannot be sustained. "Austerity" is just another word for triage, after all. D-I-E. They just have to decide who is expectant, and who is delayed, that's all.

Yes! That is an interesting analogy (or some sort of exercise in logical discussion).
How does the "crisis of debt" equate to a medical situation involving a sudden surge of wounded? I suggest this discription: The financial managers and economists who control the money have become so personally used to living high by pretending that the ogre "inflation" has been caged and controlled, that they have been suddenly struck by an attack of mental gout. The acute pain of discovering that a radical adjustment between the money and what it buys is long overdue has set them into an insane rant. They wish to continue to live large, so some have to die to make it so.
"Austerity" is financial triage approached from the other end: EID

E = Expendable or Excess. That part of the population which is really surplus to the best model of a free market economy which the academics and Nobel Prize (established not by Nobel, but the Swedish Bankers) for Economics Winners can present. We really get along well by ignoring them, but from time to time -- we have to adjust for them.

I = Index Items. That part of the population which performs according to the economist's model. They must be preserved in their proper economic performance mode; not completely dead, but somewhat functional.

D = Duh! You haven't figured it out? That's US folks. The peak of the financial pyramid without whom the rest of the population is meaningless. Civilization exists only because there is a "sound" money supply and debt + inflation is kept under control.

Big Grin

(27-11-2011, 05:27 PM)Baltic Trader Wrote: And abortion? I don't much care for active killing, fetus/ infant/ child/ adult. Where I draw my own imaginary line is at the active/passive border. It is one thing to let events take their natural course, and another altogether to hasten them along. I have never helped anyone die. I have allowed the death process to continue, with my only intervention being to try to help lessen the pain.

Of course, that is your choice. But to what extent would you fault someone simularly situated for taking a different approach -- to either side of the possibilities? What about the civil law applied by persons who are not medical professionals? Do you refer your patients who are able to rationally communicate with you to other physicians if they disagree with your stance?
Reply
#18
I was civilian for seventeen years before active duty, never with IHS.

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) describes the presentation of this anencephaly as follows: "A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain. Although some individuals with anencephaly may be born with a main brain stem, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness. Reflex actions such as breathing and responses to sound or touch occur."

There is no cure or standard treatment for anencephaly and the prognosis for patients is death. I picked it as an extreme example. Today the usual clinical practice is to offer hydration, nutrition, and comfort measures and to "let nature take its course". Artificial ventilation, surgery (to fix any co-existing congenital defects), and drug therapy (such as antibiotics) are usually regarded as futile efforts. Clinicians and medical ethicists may view the provision of nutrition and hydration as medically futile. Ethics are a slippery thing; as a resident, the attending is in charge. I personally support nutrition and hydration, but at the time, the attending did not. Consultation? The parent was told the case was hopeless, and the infant would die. I personally would not have revived a nonbreathing anencephalic, but would not have withdrawn fluid and nutrition.

It is just the line I draw, that's all. Ethics committees now exist, for consultation, and that is a good thing. Sometimes people, or parents, just don't want to give up, when it is past the time you should do so. Personally, I always try to revive when I have the option. For example, on a two year old whom the stepmother beat unconscious, and placed in the freezer (to make it look like it happened earlier to blame it on the father), I coded until the body was warmed, but after no heart rate at fifteen minutes of normal temperature, I called the code. We kept the parents informed, but consult them as to whether and when we should stop? That is a medical decision. When there is time, the ethics committee may be involved, but that isn't always the case.

Deployed, you are in a tent, M.A.S.H. style, and have limited resources. A foreign child, with cancer? The mission isn't to transport him/her back to the US for treatment. A child with polio, who would benefit from physical therapy? That's a no go. Yes, I was very troubled about it. I saved lives where I could, and did not where I could not. Abortion to me crosses the line, of active versus passive. I bring forward the economic aspects, just to illuminate hypocrisy. A mother cannot afford the care? In most of Europe or the US, that is b.s. Foodstamps, medicaid is available here. Might she have to give up luxuries? Too bad ... And I bring up post delivery infants and children, because the issue of support isn't really so very different. For me, I just can't advocate active killing.
Reply
#19
(28-11-2011, 02:09 AM)Baltic Trader Wrote: I was civilian for seventeen years before active duty, never with IHS.

Sorry, I was just idly speculating. I certainly meant no disrespect.

(28-11-2011, 02:09 AM)Baltic Trader Wrote: ... I bring forward the economic aspects, just to illuminate hypocrisy. A mother cannot afford the care? In most of Europe or the US, that is b.s. Foodstamps, medicaid is available here. Might she have to give up luxuries? Too bad ...

I'm no expert on Foodstamps, but I am fairly sure they are not allowed as replacement for money spent on medical bills. I don't know how one gets on Medicaid, but I'm fairly sure it has to do with gross income -- not net income after paying medical bills. I could be wrong. I do know about Medicare and how much I pay for it and for the supplemental insurance to cover what it doesn't cover. I also know how the Congress "saves" money by restricting Medicare and Medicade payments to an arbitrary percentage of the table of "ordinary and reasonable" amounts allowable for billable procedures and services. Doctors are able to reasonably limit their private or group practice uncollectables by carefully screening the patients they accept. On the other hand, hospitals are typically required (in some states all; in other states specific ones) by law to provide for all arrivals needing care. Their uncollectables can balloon, so the patients who can pay see bigger bills and\or the local taxpayers have to cover the losses.

So I have to respectfully submit that trying to tag the mother alone with "hypocrisy" over paying is letting the rest of the community off the hook far too easily.
Reply
#20
Medicaid recipients pay nothing, either for coverage or for services or for medications. It is, in Texas, about two and a half times the poverty level that may be earned and still qualify. I don't know the current figure, but in 2009 a family of four could earn 22,050 and still qualify. Medicare is different altogether. You may also receive food stamps, and other support. CHIPs is a different program, and income limits are higher ($66,150 for a family of four); they would pay monthly premiums on a sliding scale according to their income. For example, a family of four would pay $88 to $120 a month.

That is hardly at luxury levels, but it is better than many in the world live.
Reply
#21
I Googled Medicaid and found one description of convenient brevity.

Medicaid provides medical assistances for certain types of low-income individuals. Medicaid pays medical bills with funds from federal, state, and local taxes. Patients with Medicaid may sometimes be responsible for making a small co-payment for services, but they don’t often have to pay anything for services.

Medicaid assistance is often confused with Medicare, but the two are different programs. Medicare is a type of health insurance for individuals over 65 and those under 65 with certain disabilities. The eligibility requirements for Medicaid and Medicare are different.

Having a low income is not the sole requirement for receiving Medicaid assistance. There are many people who are poor, with incomes below the poverty level, who do not meet Medicaid requirements because they do not fit within the designated eligibility groups.

Generally these groups of people can receive Medicaid assistance:
Pregnant women and children under 6 with family income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level. Based on 2009 Federal Poverty Guidelines, a family of two would need an income less than $19, 378 to qualify for Medicaid assistance.
Children ages 6 to 19 qualify with a family income at or below the federal poverty level.
Adults who take care of children under age 18.
Individuals who receive Supplemental Security Income
Teenagers up to age 21 who are living on their own
People who are over 65, blind or disabled

Some individuals who do not meet the income requirements may still receive Medicaid benefits because they are medically-needy. The following states have medically needy Medicaid programs:
Arkansas California
Connecticut the District of Columbia
Florida Georgia
Hawaii Iowa
Kansas Kentucky
Louisiana Maine
Maryland Massachusetts
Michigan Minnesota
Montana Nebraska
New Hampshire New Jersey
New York North Carolina
North Dakota Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico Rhode Island
Tennessee Texas
Utah Vermont
Virginia Washington
West Virginia Wisconsin

If you do not live in a state with a medically-needy program and you do not meet the income requirements, you may not qualify for Medicaid.

In general, you must be a U.S. citizen to qualify for Medicaid. Legal immigrants may be able to qualify in certain circumstances. Illegal immigrants who would otherwise qualify for Medicare may be able to receive Medicaid assistance in emergency situations only.

Medicaid coverage can be retroactively applied up to 3 months before the application was made as long as you were Medicaid eligible for coverage during that period. So, if you incurred medical bills before you applied for Medicaid, you may be able to have those bills covered as long as you make your Medicaid application within the specified time frame.

Since Medicaid eligibility varies by state, it’s difficult to list all the groups and categories of people who qualify for Medicaid assistance.

http://www.themoneyalert.com/medicaideligibility.html

Original Medicare is run by the federal government and provides Part A and Part B coverage. Part D can be added to help reduce the cost of prescription drugs. There are some gaps in Part A and Part B Medicare coverage that may be filled with Medicare Supplement Insurance, which is a private insurance plan that helps may for medical expenses that aren’t covered by Medicare. If you enroll in such a plan, you’ll be subject to an extra insurance premium.

Medicare Part A coverage hospital care. Part A is free for most people who paid Medicare taxes. There may be a cost for those who were self-employed or didn’t work when they were younger. Medicare Part B covers doctors’ services, outpatient care, and some preventive services. Most people will pay $96.40 for Part B coverage. However, those with personal income over $85,000 and household income over $170,000 will pay higher premiums. Medicare Part D lowers the cost of prescription drugs. Part D plans have varying monthly premiums and annual deductibles.

CHIP = Children's Health Insurance Program. Children began receiving insurance through CHIP in 1997 and the program helped states expand health care coverage to over 5 million of the nation's uninsured children. The program was reauthorized on February 4, 2009, when the President signed into law the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA or Public Law 111-3). CHIPRA finances the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) through FY 2013. It will preserve coverage for the millions of children who rely on CHIP today and provides the resources for States to reach millions of additional uninsured children.

The Children's Health Insurance Program is jointly financed by the Federal and State governments and is administered by the States. Within broad Federal guidelines, each State determines the design of its program, eligibility groups, benefit packages, payment levels for coverage, and administrative and operating procedures. CHIP provides a capped amount of funds to States on a matching basis. Federal payments under title XXI to States are based on State expenditures under approved plans effective on or after October 1, 1997.
FOOD STAMPS: Anyone who resents this "luxury" that some people resort to in order to eat, should read the history of the program. BTW, they are no longer the "food stamps" of the depression era program; it's now 'Supplemental Nutrition Assistance'. The program started in May of 1939 with the intent of disposing of surplus commodities which had been purchased by the Agriculture Department to support farmers.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legis.../about.htm

The 2008 farm bill (H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) was enacted May 22, 2008 through an override of the President’s veto. The new law increased the commitment to Federal food assistance programs by more than $10 billion over the next 10 years. In efforts to fight stigma, the law changed the name of the Federal program to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP as of Oct. 1, 2008, and changed the name of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. States maintained flexibility to name the program on their own but were encouraged to change the name to SNAP or another alternate name. In fact, more than ten States had already changed the names of their programs by this time.

Significantly, the 2008 Farm Bill also institutionalized priorities that FNS had focused on for many years including strengthening integrity; simplifying administration; maintaining State flexibility; improving health through nutrition education; and improving access.

Benefits were augmented for most households on Oct. 1, 2008, due to the increase in the minimum benefit and standard deduction and elimination of the cap on the deduction for child care expenses. The new law also expanded eligibility by indexing the asset limits to inflation and excluding combat pay, and most retirement and education accounts as countable resources. The law modernized the program by acknowledging EBT as the standard issuance vehicle and de-obligating coupons one year from enactment. The Farm Bill also provided $20 million in mandatory funding for a project to test point-of-purchase incentives for healthful foods and authorized appropriations for other similar projects.


The only people who really understand the eligibility requirements are social work specialists working for USDA, local government or the Social Security Administration.
Reply
#22
My 2 cents, It seems that people that want a baby get all excited and giddy about "having a baby" when it is discovered the women is expecting, or you see a pregnant women and may ask "boy or girl". Our language suggests that life starts very early. It is mostly irresponsible people that look at pregnancy differently. A women's right to choose should be limited to contraception or other procedures that affect just her. You don't get pardoned for murder and you shouldn't get pardoned in sorts for unwantingly getting knocked up, both are life sentences. Guys, sit on the fence because they want get out of their own bad choices, but if he wants to be a dad different story. People herald the awful circumstances when things go wrong with a baby to justify unlimited abortions, but abortion shouldn't be an easy get of jail card. Allot of people need to put on big boy britches and deal.

Try to look at the two sides of those wanting a baby; then its life. Then those not wanting a baby; then its a fetus. I say, always err on the side of caution and life. Same with old people love them till they pass. Because when we totally lose respect for the start of life, euthanasia is next and then maybe it will be your life someone else is considering ending and much like the baby you will not a have a voice then. So, fight for life now because you might be saving your own or children's later.
Reply
#23
Well, I gotta get those stem cells from somewhere..



In the vast majority of abortions, the situation is essentially a pile of irresponsibility. People refusing to accept the consequences of their actions. But it is what it is.
Capitalist (+++) Leader
Religious (+++)
Intellectual (++)
Nationalist (++)
Militarist (+)
Communist (-)
Environmentalist (--)
Loyalist (--)
Reply
#24
I think that people should be allowed to make their own decisions and NOT be judged for their decision. If they want an abortion, they have their reasons, if you like them or not.
Reply
#25
(20-01-2012, 05:52 PM)roetherManuella Wrote: I think that people should be allowed to make their own decisions and NOT be judged for their decision. If they want an abortion, they have their reasons, if you like them or not.
I perfectly agree with you. What a woman does with her body is up to her, as long as it's not a form of birth control. If she is raped, incest, or life threatening to her or her unborn child, she has that choice in-spite peoples objections. This is just common sense.
Reply
#26
Sure, sure. But your statements like a lot of simple opinions doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. At 39 weeks, go ahead and abort? No? It's her body then, too. Where do you draw a line?
Reply
#27
(27-01-2012, 03:39 AM)Baltic Trader Wrote: Sure, sure. But your statements like a lot of simple opinions doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. At 39 weeks, go ahead and abort? No? It's her body then, too. Where do you draw a line?
In the US it is illegal to abort after the first trimester unless life threatens the mother or baby. A decision best left to doctors. When I made my “simple opinion” I was speaking of the choice to abort early. Most woman make this choice early on in their pregnancy, as apposed to later.

I have noticed on many forums that discuss this issue, it is usually the men that have a lot of opinions on the matter, and object the most toward abortions. I believe this is an issue that deserves the woman’s point of view. We don’t endure 9 months of this blessing, or curse depending on the woman’s point of view. It shouldn’t be us to decide, or judge.

I don’t see Roe Vs. Wade being overturned in my lifetime. As long as the woman in question abides by their state laws as to when they can abort a pregnancy, I’m satisfied with that, as long as it’s not used as a birth control method by promiscuous woman.
Reply
#28
First trimester? Not true,
Reply
#29
(28-01-2012, 03:56 AM)Baltic Trader Wrote: First trimester? Not true,
Each state has it’s own set of trigger laws. A woman can have an abortion in the first trimester with no questions asked (in most states). After that a woman has to show cause (hardship, medical, or mental), and approved by a physician or psychiatrist. You just don’t walk in after 3 months, and say “I want an abortion” (in most states). There is more to this than what “Wiki” puts out.

My basic point is that a woman should have the right to abort within a set period of time. My only personal exceptions as I stated before is the convenience of a “birth control method”. If she falls within hardship, incest, medical, mental, or rape, she should be able to have one without us judging her. There may be other circumstances I would have, but these are my most prevalent ones.

Reply
#30
(28-01-2012, 04:28 PM)The Debater! Wrote: ... My basic point is that a woman should have the right to abort within a set period of time. My only personal exceptions as I stated before is the convenience of a “birth control method”. ...

O.K. We understand your position. I think we also understand that Wiki provides only part of the information about the various state laws. It lacks an analysis of the legislative basis for the variations.

Legislative basis is simply the arguments about the specific statute. It does not necessarily cover the philosophical reason. Some people look to theology for the basis of their reasoning on this subject ; others take a different line of reasoning for a basis.

The complex web of U.S. statute law is useless as a base for moral understanding because it is so intermeshed with the pronouncements of Christian theologians as to be logically confounded.

You disallow something called "birth control" as a reason for use by a "promiscuous" woman. Why? How do those terms set limits on a woman's control of her own body?

You also say a woman has to act within a set time limit. That means in your view her control of her own body at a time certain is no longer hers. Since the fetus is unable to speak for itself, who is your logical agent to speak for it?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)