Should Women Be Allowed To Have Babies At Home? - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

should home-births be legal?

1. Yes, home-births should be legal for women.
23
74%
2. No, home-births should not be legal for women.
4
13%
3. Other.
4
13%
#14963129
XogGyux wrote:Exactly!
Again, I still think the point is strong no matter how crazy it might sound. We are talking about morality and freedom of people and the this degree of intrusion by 1 person (again, an embryo/fetus is not even a real person yet either) onto another.



But it could easily be a person by a matter of weeks. None the less we have all have a built bias (hypocrisy) by not being aborted to begin with.
#14963130
Finfinder wrote:But it could easily be a person by a matter of weeks. None the less we have all have a built bias (hypocrisy) by not being aborted to begin with.

That is what the two thoughts experiments that I pointed out tries to explore. The fact that a fetus could be a person does not change the outcome. If mother could have their pregnancies for 18 years and have an adult in her womb it would still not change the outcome. The embryo, fetus or even person's right do not supersede the mother's.
#14963131
XogGyux wrote:That is what the two thoughts experiments that I pointed out tries to explore. The fact that a fetus could be a person does not change the outcome. If mother could have their pregnancies for 18 years and have an adult in her womb it would still not change the outcome. The embryo, fetus or even person's right do not supersede the mother's.


Fair enough but circling back to the the topic the state shouldn't have the right to tell the parents /woman where they can give birth then, correct?
#14963136
Finfinder wrote:mmmm seems like a troll attempt I'll pass.


If that is what you wish to believe.

Canada has no laws limiting abortion because the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) struck down the laws limiting abortion.

And the reasoning the used was very similar to @XogGyux‘s thought experiment about forced kidney donation.

And I also added my own experiences with home births here in Canada.
#14963139
Finfinder wrote:Fair enough but circling back to the the topic the state shouldn't have the right to tell the parents /woman where they can give birth then, correct?

Where? Not really but even more importantly they couldn't even enforce it if they wanted to. Even when parents want to be in the hospital, sometimes it does not happen as such. Deliveries have occurred in the ambulance on the way to the hospital, at home, in the toilet and even reportedly while the parents sleep!.


Furthermore, the evidence that we do have suggests that although in the US the rate of complication is higher in out-of-hospital, the numbers for both in-hospital and out-of-hospital mortality for an otherwise uncomplicated pregnancy to a healthy young woman is so small, that even thinking about legislating on this problem is silly at best.


Let me put it this way. The evidence that I have come across suggests that the rate of complications is twice for out-of-hospital vs in-hospital delivery. To put it in perspective, the rate of cancer for smokers vs non-smoker is somewhere between 30x to 70x more depending on studies and sources, the actual number is really not as important.
Technically speaking, you could have a far better impact on the health of the child by prohibiting (and prosecuting those who fail to adhere) mothers who smoke during pregnancy, drink alcohol during pregnancy, do drugs while in pregnancy. The slippery slope could lead to prosecuting mothers that do not go to their prenatal office visits, or do not take prenatal vitamins, or don't eat a well-balanced diet. Prosecute mothers who are over 35years old?

What about mothers that have epilepsy? Anti-seizure medications are notorious for causing birth defect. What if they get an infection and require antibiotics, some antibiotics are also teratogens.

Whatever the case might be. Until the moment of birth, the mother's rights and freedom should supercede the fetuses and that is how it is now and how it should be until we can figure out a way to take an embryo the minute of fecundation and grow it completely out of the mother. At that point, assuming the procedure to recover the embryo is not significantly painful/dangerous/difficult/inconvenient, then we can start thinking of which rights (if any) the embryo should have. At that point you could potentially prosecute a mother for endangering the fetus by smoking (for instance, if through a simple procedure we can get and grow the fetus out, and we knew that fetus growing outside mother would do better than if the mother continues to smoke). That, of course, introduces new ethical dilemmas, we couldn't possibly grow all potential embryos, after all it is estimated that a large portion of pregnancies end up in spontaneous abortion (probably higher than 50%!) so imagine a scenario where twice the number of humans are born, and the majority of those are actually unwanted by their parents! :eek:
Last edited by XogGyux on 14 Nov 2018 02:13, edited 1 time in total.
#14963144
@XogGyux

For someone who has been on the Forum since the stone age, you sure haven't learned to properly format your fucking posts.

Actual Picture of Me After Reading Your Posts:

Image
#14963149
Victoribus Spolia wrote:@XogGyux

For someone who has been on the Forum since the stone age, you sure haven't learned to properly format your fucking posts.

Actual Picture of Me After Reading Your Posts:

Image

Whats wrong with my format. What do you suggest I do? I am open to suggestions.
#14963151
XogGyux wrote:Whats wrong with my format. What do you suggest I do? I am open to suggestions.


Break up your paragraphs with sections of spacing.

Spacing is your friend.

Continuous text is your enemy.

That is all.

I hope you enjoyed the meme. I love that one. :excited:
#14963159
Pants-of-dog wrote:If that is what you wish to believe.

Canada has no laws limiting abortion because the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) struck down the laws limiting abortion.

And the reasoning the used was very similar to @XogGyux‘s thought experiment about forced kidney donation.

And I also added my own experiences with home births here in Canada.


I have been discussing the hypocrisy between opinions of home birthing as a right and its social acceptance in relation to opinions on abortion.

You left the abortion comment open to interpretation, mundane, and without opinion. For instance we are left to interpret that you support the policy, which over 150 fetuses (reported) were born alive in Canada last year. You said any kind of abortion is legal, that may be a true statement however you did not say it's not an easy proposition in Canada, correct?

XogGyux wrote:Where? Not really but even more importantly they couldn't even enforce it if they wanted to. Even when parents want to be in the hospital, sometimes it does not happen as such. Deliveries have occurred in the ambulance on the way to the hospital, at home, in the toilet and even reportedly while the parents sleep!.
Furthermore, the evidence that we do have suggests that although in the US the rate of complication is higher in out-of-hospital, the numbers for both in-hospital and out-of-hospital mortality for an otherwise uncomplicated pregnancy to a healthy young woman is so small, that even thinking about legislating on this problem is silly at best.
Let me put it this way. The evidence that I have come across suggests that the rate of complications is twice for out-of-hospital vs in-hospital delivery. To put it in perspective, the rate of cancer for smokers vs non-smoker is somewhere between 30x to 70x more depending on studies and sources, the actual number is really not as important.
Technically speaking, you could have a far better impact on the health of the child by prohibiting (and prosecuting those who fail to adhere) mothers who smoke during pregnancy, drink alcohol during pregnancy, do drugs while in pregnancy. The slippery slope could lead to prosecuting mothers that do not go to their prenatal office visits, or do not take prenatal vitamins, or don't eat a well-balanced diet. Prosecute mothers who are over 35years old?
What about mothers that have epilepsy? Anti-seizure medications are notorious for causing birth defect. What if they get an infection and require antibiotics, some antibiotics are also teratogens.
Whatever the case might be. Until the moment of birth, the mother's rights and freedom should supercede the fetuses and that is how it is now and how it should be until we can figure out a way to take an embryo the minute of fecundation and grow it completely out of the mother. At that point, assuming the procedure to recover the embryo is not significantly painful/dangerous/difficult/inconvenient, then we can start thinking of which rights (if any) the embryo should have. At that point you could potentially prosecute a mother for endangering the fetus by smoking (for instance, if through a simple procedure we can get and grow the fetus out, and we knew that fetus growing outside mother would do better than if the mother continues to smoke). That, of course, introduces new ethical dilemmas, we couldn't possibly grow all potential embryos, after all it is estimated that a large portion of pregnancies end up in spontaneous abortion (probably higher than 50%!) so imagine a scenario where twice the number of humans are born, and the majority of those are actually unwanted by their parents! :eek:


I don't want to go on and on but basically I don't think you can say a woman has a choice on abortion but not where they give birth. For that matter the state shouldn't force parents to immunize. I'm looking for consistency. I don't need stats and probabilities because the abortion side of the issue is 100% dead.
#14963162
Finfinder wrote:I have been discussing the hypocrisy between opinions of home birthing as a right and its social acceptance in relation to opinions on abortion.

You left the abortion comment open to interpretation, mundane, and without opinion. For instance we are left to interpret that you support the policy, which over 150 fetuses (reported) were born alive in Canada last year. You said any kind of abortion is legal, that may be a true statement however you did not say it's not an easy proposition in Canada, correct?



I don't want to go on and on but basically I don't think you can say a woman has a choice on abortion but not where they give birth. For that matter the state shouldn't force parents to immunize. I'm looking for consistency. I don't need stats and probabilities because the abortion side of the issue is 100% dead.

I think the woman has a choice on abortion AND where they give birth. I have been saying this all along. I think, that as far as the US is concerned, that the hospital is the safest place to have a baby (this might not be true in other countries with better midwifery support...) but I do support that the woman has the right to decide where to give birth. I would certainly be very very angry and in the right situation I could see myself looking for a divorce were to decide to have a child at home instead of the hospital without having the discussion with me and arriving to a mutual understanding (e.g. I might cave and be OK with it) but it is still, ultimately, 100% the woman's decision and should remain that way until the baby is out of her.

As far as I am aware no state force parents to immunize. I certainly do not support any state that would force parents to immunize. I do think any parent that "chooses" not to immunize their children (with no good reason, there are contraindications to certain vaccinations BTW) is careless, moronic and even if they think they are doing something good for their child, they are not. I do think that public school should not allow children that are not immunized for no good reason (if they cannot receive the vaccine because of a contraindication, this do not apply) and that all private schools should collect data on percentage of non-immunized vs immunized and disclose this data to all parents in an anonymous way (e.g. you don't violate HIPPA) so that prospective parents can make an informed decision. This is a disease control problem and our society has already decided that we can and should indeed interfere with the freedom of some people if it poses a risk to the larger population. For instance, healthcare workers are obligated to report a myriad diseases to the CDC. In some states, you are required to keep a patient in hold (even if it is against their will) for certain diseases. For instance, you cannot discharge a patient with ACTIVE tuberculosis to the streets (you can with latent TB).

Is this consistent enough for you? :D
#14963172
Finfinder wrote:I have been discussing the hypocrisy between opinions of home birthing as a right and its social acceptance in relation to opinions on abortion.


Who cares? Someone can be a hypcrite and still be correct.

And supporting home births and abortion is not hypocritical since both support a woman’s right to choose.

You left the abortion comment open to interpretation, mundane, and without opinion. For instance we are left to interpret that you support the policy, which over 150 fetuses (reported) were born alive in Canada last year. You said any kind of abortion is legal, that may be a true statement however you did not say it's not an easy proposition in Canada, correct?


Is there an argument here?
#14963187
Pants-of-dog wrote:Who cares? Someone can be a hypcrite and still be correct.



Apparently you pretend to care since you chimed in and offered Canada's policies. Do I still call you POD or do you prefer hypcrite?



Pants-of-dog wrote:
And supporting home births and abortion is not hypocritical since both support a woman’s right to choose.

Is there an argument here?


Thanks for offering Canada's policies on home birthing and abortion. I stand by my claim of you trolling since your running away from offering your opinion and answering my questions of your countries abortion policies.

Nighty Night "hypcrite" or POD or whomever you want to be called now. :D
#14963193
Finfinder wrote:Apparently you pretend to care since you chimed in and offered Canada's policies. Do I still call you POD or do you prefer hypcrite?


As long as we agree that a person can be a hypcrite and still be correct.

For example, a person can claim that the theory if evolution is correct, and live life as a Creationist. They would then be a hypocrite, but would still be correct about evolution despite this hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is a moral failing that we all do at some time in our lives. It is not an error in logic.

Thanks for offering Canada's policies on home birthing and abortion. I stand by my claim of you trolling since your running away from offering your opinion and answering my questions of your countries abortion policies.

Nighty Night "hypcrite" or POD or whomever you want to be called now. :D


Sure, as long as we agree that Canada’s policies on abortion and home birth are logicall consistent since both are based on the woman’s right to choose.
#14963206
Pants-of-dog wrote:As long as we agree that a person can be a hypcrite and still be correct.

For example, a person can claim that the theory if evolution is correct, and live life as a Creationist. They would then be a hypocrite, but would still be correct about evolution despite this hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is a moral failing that we all do at some time in our lives. It is not an error in logic.



I was never discussing rite or wrong who was correct or incorrect and moral failings can be illogical. So sure.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure, as long as we agree that Canada’s policies on abortion and home birth are logicall consistent since both are based on the woman’s right to choose.


Its hard to agree with you on an issue when you refuse to offer your opinion despite multiple requests. For instance what is logical about an abortion that produces a living child that is left to die?
#14963253
Finfinder wrote:Its hard to agree with you on an issue when you refuse to offer your opinion despite multiple requests. For instance what is logical about an abortion that produces a living child that is left to die?

Nothing is logical. An abortion, by definition, does not produce a living child. Much less left to die. A provoked abortion can either produce an embryo or a fetus.
Delivery produces a child.
Abortion produces tissue/fetus.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

A new film has been released destroying the offic[…]

Sounds like perfect organized crime material ex[…]

Since you keep insisting on pretending that the I[…]

Commercial foreclosures increase 97% from last ye[…]