|
Cythereal posted:And there have been proposals at the state level to do exactly this. The rabbit hole on punishing women here can go as deep as you want. There's a paper published in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law back in 2013 about no fewer than 413 forced interventions and coercion applied to pregnant women between 1973 and 2005, including details on 5 such cases. And this was before the 2009 case which ordered a woman to be confined to her bed and obey all of her doctor's orders (including giving up smoking) to preserve the life of her unborn child. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Dec 2, 2015 |
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
Cythereal posted:And there have been proposals to make women who have miscarriages guilty of murder. I can't imagine a situation more likely to result in a real-life reenactment of "Falling Down". Your wife/partner just lost a pregnancy, she's almost certainly depressed out of her gourd over it, and now the state wants to try her for murder?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Okay, so if I have this right: Not quite right, there was a popular belief posted in several studies that plan b (and other forms of oral contraceptive) can thin the uterine wall making it inhospitable to implantation by a blastocyte. This is intuitive; the hormones that these pills contain do have action on the endometrium of the uterus and the normal action of these hormones are to either prepare the uterus for implantation or to prepare to develop into a state where it can prepare for implantation. Recent research evidence has actually shown, though, that plan b (levonorgestrel EC) has no effect on the endometrium and even more recent research is suggesting that it also has no effect on the quality of cervical mucus or penetration of the spermatozoa in the uterine cavity (which is the other mechanism of action you described above. The ONLY role that plan b has been demonstrated to have is to inhibit ovulation. The fact that it can prevent implantation or prevent fertilization have been historically proposed but these mechanisms of action have not been shown to be accurate. This also means that if Plan B is administered too close to ovulation, it is completely ineffective because, as I said, these other mechanisms of action do not take place. This is premised on very recent research, though, and you'll still find a lot of people (even doctors) repeating the belief that plan b prevents implantation or inhibits fertilization. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the American FDA have both gone on record to state that plan B and OCPs are explicitly not abortifacients.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 08:47
|
|
|
Serrath posted:Not quite right, there was a popular belief posted in several studies that plan b (and other forms of oral contraceptive) can thin the uterine wall making it inhospitable to implantation by a blastocyte. This is intuitive; the hormones that these pills contain do have action on the endometrium of the uterus and the normal action of these hormones are to either prepare the uterus for implantation or to prepare to develop into a state where it can prepare for implantation. Recent research evidence has actually shown, though, that plan b (levonorgestrel EC) has no effect on the endometrium and even more recent research is suggesting that it also has no effect on the quality of cervical mucus or penetration of the spermatozoa in the uterine cavity (which is the other mechanism of action you described above. But what if I BELIEVE they cause abortions?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
NATO is expanding by inviting Montenegro. Isn't the regional situation around there tenuous still?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:But what if I BELIEVE they cause abortions? Then you're perfectly allowed to ban their use if it violates your personal beliefs to let them be used.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:The rabbit hole on punishing women here can go as deep as you want. There's a paper published in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law back in 2013 about no fewer than 413 forced interventions and coercion applied to pregnant women between 1973 and 2005, including details on 5 such cases. And this was before the 2009 case which ordered a woman to be confined to her bed and obey all of her doctor's orders (including giving up smoking) to preserve the life of her unborn child. The ones where an addict gets pregnant are the worst. Pregnancy is not a cure to addiction. And throwing a pregnant addict in jail is a really bad idea. Jails aren't equipped to provide adequate maternal medicine and cold turkey withdrawal can trigger miscarriages. Then there are the edge cases, like this Alabama woman who took a single Valium late term that had no ill effects on her child whatsoever. http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/when_the_womb_is_a_crime_scene.html quote:
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 09:04
|
|
|
Good god. How does stuff like this happen? And can the victims of this have their cases retried / sue the officers involved?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Good god. How does stuff like this happen? And can the victims of this have their cases retried / sue the officers involved? How detailed do you want? This is a snake whose head is in the present and whose tail is a couple centuries in the past. The end of reconstruction brought a violent reprisal and a spiteful return of as much of the prior social order as could be had with slavery being outlawed. They could no longer own people, but they have ever since been bound and determined to keep their prior possessions (and the descendants thereof) from enjoying full participation and equal treatment in society. Nearly every racial advancement (especially prior to the 70s) has been over dead bodies and beaten ideologues of the south, and this is just another rear-guard attempt by the same poisonous filth that shelled fort sumter 151 years ago. They know they likely won't face consequences from the legal system or reciprocity from the peers of their victims, and they act accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
Serrath posted:Not quite right, there was a popular belief posted in several studies that plan b (and other forms of oral contraceptive) can thin the uterine wall making it inhospitable to implantation by a blastocyte. This is intuitive; the hormones that these pills contain do have action on the endometrium of the uterus and the normal action of these hormones are to either prepare the uterus for implantation or to prepare to develop into a state where it can prepare for implantation. Recent research evidence has actually shown, though, that plan b (levonorgestrel EC) has no effect on the endometrium and even more recent research is suggesting that it also has no effect on the quality of cervical mucus or penetration of the spermatozoa in the uterine cavity (which is the other mechanism of action you described above. Thanks for this good post. The info on this is all over the place, as you've mentioned, so I think I understand better now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 09:55
|
|
|
A Bag of Milk posted:Thanks for this good post. The info on this is all over the place, as you've mentioned, so I think I understand better now. Yeah, the best research evidence has only emerged in the last couple years. A good review from 2012 can be found here: https://www.cedarville.edu/~/media/Files/PDF/Center-for-Bioethics/abortifacientem.pdf (it's a medical paper but I don't think it's too difficult of a read) but our understanding has evolved even further since 2012. The fact is the FDA historically listed one of the mechanisms of action of levonorgestrel as changes to the endometrium so it wasn't some fringe belief; I'm not surprised that there are a sizable number of people who still presume this old model is accurate though I do feel that practicing doctors have an obligation to keep their knowledge current with respect to these sorts of medications, particularly medications that carry with it a messy ethical burden.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:NATO is expanding by inviting Montenegro. Isn't the regional situation around there tenuous still? Not really, especially in the case of Montenegro which peacefully became independent in 2006 after a nationwide referendum. They have some really minor border disputes with neighboring countries, including Kosovo, but it's nothing serious or violent and NATO membership requires that really major disputes be settled before joining. Serbia is unlikely to be pleased though. Domestically in Montenegro it's somewhat more complicated as NATO did bomb them during the Kosovo War, and a lot of the opposition is anti-NATO (but not all of them), and there have been recent violent protests calling for the government to resign and hold early elections. So this development may be an issue within Montenegro especially if the government doesn't hold a referendum as many have demanded. Macedonia and Bosnia & Herzegovina are supposed to be next, I think. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:This must be an issue of conservative word play at work here, cause don't right-wingers constantly bitch about birth control pills? That was one of the reasons they went after Sandra Fluke so hard. I think the whole thing falls flat on its face as a seriously absurd attempt at reframing the issue because: What liberals are even complaining about conservatives wanting to ban birth control pills? The only things I've ever heard is that liberals complain about access to birth control being so lovely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Well the conservatives were complaining about a corporation being forced to pay for a prescription plan for birth control because Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
I thought it wasn't even that. Like they didn't want birth control to be in the plan which would allow the employees to get access to the bargained price and thus would have to pay full retail which is much more. So really "their money" wasn't going to buy birth control pills they just dislike the idea of women having sexual agency but being a cheap rear end religious bigot is more politically acceptable than being an open sexist. It also raises the alarming idea that by paying into an insurance plan you get to dictate what sort of things other users get to have access to. I really don't like skateboards so anyone that gets injured using one shouldn't get medical care ON MY DIME because they should just have been responsible and not done something so dangerous in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
big, if truequote:The Pentagon’s inspector general is also currently investigating claims that intelligence reports about ISIS were selectively edited or glossed over to paint a rosier picture of the U.S. effort against the group. If investigators determine that politics colored American intelligence, the blowback for the Obama administration could be disastrous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:What liberals are even complaining about conservatives wanting to ban birth control pills? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pxyzAjk72U
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
"We don't want to ban birth control we just want to make sure that any pharmacist can decide not to sell you birth control if they feel like it and employers can refuse to provide coverage for it if they want and we'll call women sluts if they use it and we'll tell schoolchildren that it doesn't work."
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
Woah, could you imagine if Obama manipulated intel for political reasons? It'd be like what every previous president did, but I'm angry when he does it for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
It's still not good, if it's true. But that guy has been a "long time critic of Obama and GWB's mideast policy" so he could just have an axe to grind. We'll have to see if the story has legs. I guess this is the thing that will have everyone talking. Latest national poll: Trump 27%, Rubio 17%, Cruz 16%, Carson 16% zoux fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Dec 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
I was angry when the Bush II administration did it. I'll also be angry if it turns out this administration did it. What's your point? That because a thing has been done before it is A-OK?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Loucks posted:I was angry when the Bush II administration did it. I'll also be angry if it turns out this administration did it. What's your point? That because a thing has been done before it is A-OK? Humans have a tendency to see what they want to see so its not exactly that simple.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
When GWB lied about a war, it cost millions of lives. Obama underselling ISIS to the American public hardly rises to the same level. And then it raises the question of what we should've done differently. Bombing the hell out of ISIS sounds good now, but a major bombing campaign in Iraq/Syria in 2012 wouldn't have been supported by a majority of Americans on the left or right wing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Interesting poll on motherjones, Something like 42% of Democrats would be less likely to vote democratic and 16% more likely to vote with Hillary Clinton as the nominee, 41% no difference. For Bernie Sanders, it's 32% less likely, %27 more likely, 41% no difference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Radish posted:I thought it wasn't even that. Like they didn't want birth control to be in the plan which would allow the employees to get access to the bargained price and thus would have to pay full retail which is much more. So really "their money" wasn't going to buy birth control pills they just dislike the idea of women having sexual agency but being a cheap rear end religious bigot is more politically acceptable than being an open sexist. I'd be surprised if these idiots were smart enough to be that conniving.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
It's funny to me how generals think the President is somehow obligated to do anything with their intelligence besides exactly what he pleases.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:When GWB lied about a war, it cost millions of lives Cite that he knowingly lied please
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
greatn posted:Interesting poll on motherjones, So is this poll claiming that registered Democrats would be more likely to vote for the Republican candidate if Hillary wins the nomination? This GOP Congressional candidate and Iowa state senator thinks that we should use capital punishment to curb immigration quote:Reached by phone, Chelgren told The Associated Press that his comments came during a broader conversation about terrorism and border control. Chelgren stressed he was talking specifically about immigrants with felony convictions trying to re-enter the U.S. illegally with further criminal intent. I'm from Des Moines and I say kill em all. zoux fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Dec 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Cite that he knowingly lied please  George W. Bush posted:We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them. Or maybe he bumbled into a war, Mr. Magoo style. Tripped and fell, said "oh deary me" and killed a million Iraqi civilians. But of course unless I can find a quote from W himself saying "I totally lied like the lying liar I am" you'll just say we can't really know that the Bush admin wasn't just outright incompetent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Cite that he knowingly lied please Yellowcake during the State of the Union?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Cite that he knowingly lied please here you go
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I'd be surprised if these idiots were smart enough to be that conniving. The people at the top of these schemes are definitely that smart. The dumbasses in the middle and down just think they don't want to play for slut pills but the guys that are starting these movements know exactly what is up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Cite that he knowingly lied please
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:How detailed do you want? This is a snake whose head is in the present and whose tail is a couple centuries in the past. The end of reconstruction brought a violent reprisal and a spiteful return of as much of the prior social order as could be had with slavery being outlawed. They could no longer own people, but they have ever since been bound and determined to keep their prior possessions (and the descendants thereof) from enjoying full participation and equal treatment in society. Nearly every racial advancement (especially prior to the 70s) has been over dead bodies and beaten ideologues of the south, and this is just another rear-guard attempt by the same poisonous filth that shelled fort sumter 151 years ago. They know they likely won't face consequences from the legal system or reciprocity from the peers of their victims, and they act accordingly. Hypothetically, if the Union and the Confederacy remained split as two separate countries to this day, would their relationship to each other be like India and Pakistan's today (ie highly poisonous and antagonistic)?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
I stared into the abyss of a Donald Trump related CNN comment section, and leave it bewildered. What is the appeal of being a mean spirited rear end in a top hat? Worse, taking pride in being "un-PC", which really only translates to kicking people who are already down? Secondly, where do they get this poo poo? It's not in the bible to be that way. It's not in children's programming. Hell, most media in general has some sort of "don't be a raging rear end in a top hat" vibe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Hypothetically, if the Union and the Confederacy remained split as two separate countries to this day, would their relationship to each other be like India and Pakistan's today (ie highly poisonous and antagonistic)? We'd probably be on different sides in WW2, so pretty much everything would change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Cite that he knowingly lied please http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html That entire speech is a lie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:What is the appeal of being a mean spirited rear end in a top hat? Worse, taking pride in being "un-PC", which really only translates to kicking people who are already down? Because people think it's a shield that protects them from criticism when they express racist as gently caress or otherwise socially unacceptable opinions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:We'd probably be on different sides in WW2, so pretty much everything would change. On the other hand, we'd probably be on different sides in WW1. Germany would be Zimmerman telegramming whoever wasn't friendly with the Allies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
The South has poo poo tons of oil so that would make things really interesting. Well I guess it would depend on where California and the other west states filtered out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 16:07
|
|