Jump to content

US Politics


Thorgi Duke of Frisbee
 Share

  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. Death Penalty

    • Yay
    • Nay
    • Case-by-case
    • I judge from afar in my death penalty-less country


Recommended Posts

Actually what is currently available as far as sexual health and contraceptives go in US?

 

As I am aware...

 

Condoms and diaphragms are available without a prescription. Hormonal contraception ("the pill") and emergency contraception (Plan B or the "morning after" pill) is available without a prescription to those over 18, and with a prescription to those under.

 

Intrauterine devices require a minor medical procedure to place, so that would require a doctor visit.

 

There's also the gender-specific sterilization surgeries, and of course the various behavioral methods.

Edited by SixTwoSixFour
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually what is currently available as far as sexual health and contraceptives go in US?

 

It's available if you can afford it. (Yes, most people can afford condoms.)

 

*Edit* - @6264: you always need a prescription for "the pill". Not sure about Plan B.

Edited by TheMightyEthan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Edit* - @6264: you always need a prescription for "the pill". Not sure about Plan B.

 

Ah, my mistake. My research didn't indicate one way or the other for the pill, so I guessed, like a bad scientist. For Plan B, however, I am certain that you can obtain it without a prescription if you are over 18.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, and really you might as well not need one. As long as you're at least 18 you just say to your doctor "I want to be on the pill" and the doctor's like "okay" (unless there's actually some medical reason why you shouldn't be, but I don't know what that reason might be).

 

*Edit* - under 18 it's basically the same except some (most?) states require parental consent, just like any other medical treatment.

Edited by TheMightyEthan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm suggesting that you would still think killing someone cause they're sterile is wrong, and would say that this is something your society should not allow, because you place value on the fact that it's a conscious being regardless of sterility, and so you should not kill that being without its consent. Similarly, pro-life people place value that something is human (defined by whatever criteria they define it by, I'm currently going with "completed genome"), and say that you should therefore not kill it. They disagree with your assertion that it's only the mother's body in question, it's also the child's. And while you make a different value judgment than them about what should be protected neither value judgment can be said to be objectively right or wrong.

 

The point I was making is that sure science can tell us when something happens, but it's philosophy that tells us why we should care about that thing. Your philosophy is that consciousness is what's important (or actually that's mine, but you seemed to agree with me...), theirs is that the fact that it's a separate genetic human entity is what's important, but it's all just philosophy, it's not objectively verifiable.

And my suggestion to that is they can adopt the fetus if they want it. If they think it's alive they can have it. Bring a cot along to an abortion clinic and take that mass of tissue child home. They're free to have that belief that it's alive and I won't get in the way of that, I'll even facilitate them adopting a fetus. Problem is science rather strongly disagrees with them on the whole "is it alive" thing. Believe what you want, doesn't make it true.

 

I'm still however unsure on the purpose of mentioning a sterile person.

 

Actually what is currently available as far as sexual health and contraceptives go in US?

As I am aware...

 

Condoms and diaphragms are available without a prescription. Hormonal contraception ("the pill") and emergency contraception (Plan B or the "morning after" pill) is available without a prescription to those over 18, and with a prescription to those under.

 

Intrauterine devices require a minor medical procedure to place, so that would require a doctor visit.

 

There's also the gender-specific sterilization surgeries, and of course the various behavioral methods.

I meant as in what is available on the state. What will the state pay for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm suggesting that you would still think killing someone cause they're sterile is wrong, and would say that this is something your society should not allow, because you place value on the fact that it's a conscious being regardless of sterility, and so you should not kill that being without its consent. Similarly, pro-life people place value that something is human (defined by whatever criteria they define it by, I'm currently going with "completed genome"), and say that you should therefore not kill it. They disagree with your assertion that it's only the mother's body in question, it's also the child's. And while you make a different value judgment than them about what should be protected neither value judgment can be said to be objectively right or wrong.

 

The point I was making is that sure science can tell us when something happens, but it's philosophy that tells us why we should care about that thing. Your philosophy is that consciousness is what's important (or actually that's mine, but you seemed to agree with me...), theirs is that the fact that it's a separate genetic human entity is what's important, but it's all just philosophy, it's not objectively verifiable.

And my suggestion to that is they can adopt the fetus if they want it. If they think it's alive they can have it. Bring a cot along to an abortion clinic and take that mass of tissue child home. They're free to have that belief that it's alive and I won't get in the way of that, I'll even facilitate them adopting a fetus. Problem is science rather strongly disagrees with them on the whole "is it alive" thing. Believe what you want, doesn't make it true.

 

I'm still however unsure on the purpose of mentioning a sterile person.

 

That depends on how you define "alive". If "alive" means "able to live independently" then it's not alive, but "science" doesn't decide what the definition is. Saying "they can adopt it after it's already been killed" doesn't really solve the problem. :P

 

The sterile person thing was just the first thing I thought of to have the hypothetical society be okay with killing that you would not be okay with killing. It could just as easily have been people over 40 or everyone with blue eyes, the specific thing wasn't important.

 

I meant as in what is available on the state. What will the state pay for?

 

In most states, nothing. (If you're low income enough to be on Medicaid that might cover the pill, I don't know. And some places give out free condoms, but those tend to be private organizations.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Follow-up: If there were a way to transplant a fetus from one woman to another without killing it/harming it significantly I'm sure most pro-life people would be absolutely fine with that. Though you'd still have to be able to find someone to take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@6264, we need to fix the broken adoption system. Fo sho.

 

@Johnny, you don't see how the statement "You're meddling in other people's lives, possibly destroying all plans for the future someone has." cuts both ways? By definition that's what abortion is. Also, clearly the subject of when life begins is debatebale as we're currently debating it.

 

@Dean, sure it costs the state tons of money to have the Baby Moses law but I'm fairly certain everyone prefers paying taxes for that to keep babies out of dumpsters. I know I do.

 

To all the people who say "stuff happens, babies aren't planned". Take responsibility for your actions. If you got hammered and slept with a nobody and got pregrnant that's still your choice. If you have sex with a condom you're gambling that it'll keep you from getting pregnant. Still your choice, still your actions. Again, aside from rape, it's always your choice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all the people who say "stuff happens, babies aren't planned". Take responsibility for your actions. If you got hammered and slept with a nobody and got pregrnant that's still your choice. If you have sex with a condom you're gambling that it'll keep you from getting pregnant. Still your choice, still your actions. Again, aside from rape, it's always your choice.

 

Man, I'm an asexual and that sounds completely unreasonable to me.

 

Sex is part of human life, it just is. People are built to want sex, people are built to have sex, and to just say "don't ever have sex" is a stupid, impractical, head-in-the-clouds solution.

Edited by SixTwoSixFour
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, clearly the subject of when life begins is debatebale as we're currently debating it.

Just because you're trying to argue it doesn't make it strictly speaking open for debate. I could try arguing that the earth is flat, and if I did I'd hopefully be called on my bullshit like I'm calling you on yours.

 

you don't see how the statement "You're meddling in other people's lives, possibly destroying all plans for the future someone has." cuts both ways? By definition that's what abortion is.

 

As I said, the difference is that you're meddling based on nothing but religious or semi-religious bullcrap. You are allowed to keep your beliefs, but they do not trump science in real world issues. You can't push your personal beliefs onto other people's lives like they were facts.

 

To all the people who say "stuff happens, babies aren't planned". Take responsibility for your actions. If you got hammered and slept with a nobody and got pregrnant that's still your choice. If you have sex with a condom you're gambling that it'll keep you from getting pregnant. Still your choice, still your actions. Again, aside from rape, it's always your choice.

 

This is completely bonkers. Are you expecting people to not have sex at all? That's not going to happen. Ever. Humans do not work like that.

Furthermore, a broken condom is about as much of a choice as getting raped is...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That depends on how you define "alive". If "alive" means "able to live independently" then it's not alive, but "science" doesn't decide what the definition is. Saying "they can adopt it after it's already been killed" doesn't really solve the problem. :P

Cannot kill that which has no life. It's a lump of tissue, it requires the host mother in order to continue growth and development. Without the host this processes ceases.

 

 

I meant as in what is available on the state. What will the state pay for?

 

In most states, nothing. (If you're low income enough to be on Medicaid that might cover the pill, I don't know. And some places give out free condoms, but those tend to be private organizations.)

Maybe something worth getting on top of then? Something has to give somewhere down the line. Why is it that people would seemingly much rather fund a child to be raised in the foster care system than some pills and tubes of rubber?

e.g:

 

@Dean, sure it costs the state tons of money to have the Baby Moses law but I'm fairly certain everyone prefers paying taxes for that to keep babies out of dumpsters. I know I do.

 

To all the people who say "stuff happens, babies aren't planned". Take responsibility for your actions. If you got hammered and slept with a nobody and got pregrnant that's still your choice. If you have sex with a condom you're gambling that it'll keep you from getting pregnant. Still your choice, still your actions. Again, aside from rape, it's always your choice.

So basically never have sex? Or have anal sex! (the one that's hugely known for being miles safer...). This isn't helped by the above information that there's not much in the way of free contraceptive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it downright bizarre that so many people care so much about what is basically a non-person (argue sentience all you want, but until the late stages of pregnancies it's not a human) but as soon as the kid is actually born and dumped into the foster care system everyone stops giving a shit.

 

Even more interesting, how people are so adamant in preventing the abortion of a non-person so that it can become a member of the foster care system. Not just not giving a shit, but actually working to ensure that they spend their lives in that broken system.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In most states, nothing. (If you're low income enough to be on Medicaid that might cover the pill, I don't know. And some places give out free condoms, but those tend to be private organizations.)

 

Maybe something worth getting on top of then? Something has to give somewhere down the line. Why is it that people would seemingly much rather fund a child to be raised in the foster care system than some pills and tubes of rubber?

 

Oh I totally agree we need to give more funding to measures that prevent pregnancy and are more realistic than just saying "don't have sex." Teenagers have been having sex since the beginning of time, you're not going to stop that with some PSAs and one required class in high school. Hell, you wouldn't stop it if all of school was devoted to getting them to not have sex, short of keeping them physically separated and supervised at all times, 24/7. And that's not even addressing adults...

 

Also, since my stance may have gotten muddled: I'm pro-choice (at least early-term), I just acknowledge that that's a value judgment and like any value judgment is not objectively verifiable as being correct or incorrect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yant, do you a woman should have a child that is a product of rape?

 

Yes, two wrongs do not make a right.

 

@6264 and Jack: I said it a ways back. I know a lot of people who would love to adopt but can't. My brother in-law just adopted his neice who's mother is a drug addict. You guys are passing judgment on perceptions of people not on actual people. Your comments are nothing but prejudicial.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@6264 and Jack: I said it a ways back. I know a lot of people who would love to adopt but can't. My brother in-law just adopted his neice who's mother is a drug addict. You guys are passing judgment on perceptions of people not on actual people. Your comments are nothing but prejudicial.

 

It's wonderful that you know people who want to adopt. No sarcasm, that's a really great thing. The reality is, they can't adopt. Fees, regulations, the process, the adoption system is busted. So it's great that there are people that are willing, but until there's a way for that desire and willingness to produce something, it's just a nice sentiment and nothing more. We're dealing with the real world, and in the real world, there are far too many kids unadopted, there are far too many foster kids being mistreated, and it's just a goddamn mess. It's not prejudicial to say that throwing more people into a broken system is irresponsible.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yant, do you a woman should have a child that is a product of rape?

 

Yes, two wrongs do not make a right.

I'd imagine you wouldn't feel the same way if that actually happened to you. It's rather unfair to the victim to force them to carry the result of something so horrid.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you're trying to argue it doesn't make it strictly speaking open for debate. I could try arguing that the earth is flat, and if I did I'd hopefully be called on my bullshit like I'm calling you on yours.

 

Sorry, but the "I'm right and you're talking bullshit" is not exactly proving your point. How can you authoritatively prove that at conception one does not have a soul. It is not something that can be proved or disproved by scientific methods. You are making a leap of faith in saying that it has no soul. Yante is making a leap of faith saying it does.

 

 

As I said, the difference is that you're meddling based on nothing but religious or semi-religious bullcrap. You are allowed to keep your beliefs, but they do not trump science in real world issues. You can't push your personal beliefs onto other people's lives like they were facts.

 

Again, can science prove that the fetus is not alive? It's not a question of science but a question of morals and ethics. You've been very open about your faith and it does not give you the right to be an ass and refer to Yant's faith as "bullcrap."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's wonderful that you know people who want to adopt. No sarcasm, that's a really great thing. The reality is, they can't adopt. Fees, regulations, the process, the adoption system is busted. So it's great that there are people that are willing, but until there's a way for that desire and willingness to produce something, it's just a nice sentiment and nothing more. We're dealing with the real world, and in the real world, there are far too many kids unadopted, there are far too many foster kids being mistreated, and it's just a goddamn mess. It's not prejudicial to say that throwing more people into a broken system is irresponsible.

 

It's prejudicial to say that people who are anti-abortion are unwilling to adopt or take care of children who would be up for adoption if abortion were illegal. "people are so adamant in preventing the abortion of a non-person so that it can become a member of the foster care system"

 

"people care so much about what is basically a non-person (argue sentience all you want, but until the late stages of pregnancies it's not a human) but as soon as the kid is actually born and dumped into the foster care system everyone stops giving a shit."

 

You're basing these statements on what? Just because a kid is born and put up for adoption doesn't mean that pro-lifers stop caring about them.

 

Or are you saying terminating a life is okay because it prevents "throwing more people into a broken system"? Is this going back to quality of life? Do you want to answer my previous quesitons on quality of life?

 

@Dukeofpwn, nothing is fair about being a rape victim. Are you saying that aborting the baby will make that person's life somehow better?

Edited by Yantelope V2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you're trying to argue it doesn't make it strictly speaking open for debate. I could try arguing that the earth is flat, and if I did I'd hopefully be called on my bullshit like I'm calling you on yours.

 

Sorry, but the "I'm right and you're talking bullshit" is not exactly proving your point. How can you authoritatively prove that at conception one does not have a soul. It is not something that can be proved or disproved by scientific methods. You are making a leap of faith in saying that it has no soul. Yante is making a leap of faith saying it does.

 

 

As I said, the difference is that you're meddling based on nothing but religious or semi-religious bullcrap. You are allowed to keep your beliefs, but they do not trump science in real world issues. You can't push your personal beliefs onto other people's lives like they were facts.

 

Again, can science prove that the fetus is not alive? It's not a question of science but a question of morals and ethics. You've been very open about your faith and it does not give you the right to be an ass and refer to Yant's faith as "bullcrap."

 

Well, Battra, can religion prove that souls even exist? Didn't think so. We're at an impasse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about an individual's willingness to adopt. I'm talking about we as a collective people caring so little about giving the foster care system the serious overhaul that it desperately needs. I've heard all sorts of public outrage and demands for legislation about abortion, and comparatively so very little of the same for an issue that, frankly, needs the attention far more. If people want to argue that every zygote has a right to life, they should first demand to improve the life a lot of them would be born into. For so many people to prioritize the former over the latter is insane to me. Hell, many people still see "adoption" as a four letter word.

 

And on the rape issue, I'm just speaking from my own personal belief here, but I find the notion of forcing a rape victim to have a rape child against her will utterly monstrous. I feel as strongly about that as pro-life people do about women having abortions at all.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dukeofpwn, nothing is fair about being a rape victim. Are you saying that aborting the baby will make that person's life somehow better?

It won't make their life worse like the baby will, that's for sure.

 

It's comments like this which break my heart. I hate that people look at babies as if they were nothing but burdens. We put so much value on careers and money and free time and videogames and we place so little value on human life or the joy of parenthood. I said before that parenthood is about sacrifice, it really is, so is love and marriage and most of the very best things in life.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but the "I'm right and you're talking bullshit" is not exactly proving your point. How can you authoritatively prove that at conception one does not have a soul. It is not something that can be proved or disproved by scientific methods. You are making a leap of faith in saying that it has no soul. Yante is making a leap of faith saying it does.

I have not said a word about souls. Are you deliberately trying to put words in my mouth, or are you just illiterate? Please point out where in my argument I am making a leap of faith, if you can.

 

Again, can science prove that the fetus is not alive? It's not a question of science but a question of morals and ethics. You've been very open about your faith and it does not give you the right to be an ass and refer to Yant's faith as "bullcrap."

I am not arguing that a fetus is not alive. I am arguing that it is very much alive, but so was the sperm. And so is cancer cells, like Dean earlier pointed out. It is not a question of morals or ethics whether something is alive or not. That can be objectively determined. Whether you value that life, however, is a question of moral and ethics.

 

I am however arguing that the fetus is not what we'd call conscious. Which, as far as I know, is correct according to the current knowledge of science.

 

 

@Dukeofpwn, nothing is fair about being a rape victim. Are you saying that aborting the baby will make that person's life somehow better?

No, aborting the resulting fetus will not make the horrible act of rape go away. Keeping it, however, is putting an incredibly unfair responsibility upon the victim's shoulders, and that child could forever be a reminder of the time she was raped. While abortion does not magically make it better, keeping the child could make it much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...