phuqueue wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2024 9:28 am
Noting that there are "thousands of abortions performed in the US" every day and that therefore anti-abortion laws are no obstacle to doctors performing medically-necessary abortions is impressively stupid. The vast majority of those abortions are performed in states where they are permitted. It's not like Texas is handing out life-saving abortions to anybody who needs them. Texas is just letting people like Josseli Barnica die instead (and so are other states, like Georgia). And while that particular article notes that Josseli was "one of at least two" Texan women to die when doctors denied emergency care, and those with more sociopathic tendencies might try to argue that only two is "not the norm," "not widespread," or whatever other language you might employ to minimize a young mother's entirely preventable death, we have also seen in general that maternal mortality has skyrocketed in Texas since the imposition of the abortion ban. Meanwhile, Idaho is being sued over precisely the issue that mean is highlighting, that nobody knows what the fuck it actually means to say that an abortion is medically necessary. None of the plaintiffs in that case died -- luckily they were each in good enough condition, both physically and financially, to travel to another state to receive the care they needed that doctors in Idaho denied them. And it seems -- and I am just as shocked by this as you are! -- that the risk of higher malpractice insurance premiums just isn't enough to outweigh the threat of a 99-year prison sentence and $100,000 fine.
In the cases you mentioned, it does appear that the doctors had valid medical reasons to perform the abortions but may have acted overly cautiously. Do some states need to clarify their laws to prevent this kind of situation in the future? Addressing these gaps would be beneficial. These cases don't necessarily reflect abortion laws endangering mothers' lives but rather instances that may involve medical misjudgment or malpractice. Anytime you change laws, there will be unintended consequences that will need to addressed.
By the way, there were actually more abortions in 2023 than in any year since 2012, despite recent legislative changes.
Yeah I guess killing people is just the price we have to pay while we work some of the kinks out, no need to get too worked up about it or anything.
DColeKC wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2024 8:57 am
As for trans issues, I believe we have a more straightforward approach. Biologically, there are two sexes, and we’ve traditionally structured sports, changing rooms, and bathrooms around these distinctions for reasons of fairness, privacy, and safety. People should be free to identify however they choose, but certain rules tied to biological sex—such as in sports—remain important for fairness. Preventing men from competing in women’s sports, for example, is a clear and practical measure.
It may not be a perfect solution, but without clear guidelines, this issue is likely to grow more complex over time.
For somebody who claims to advocate for "science-based policies," the fact that you think "biological sex" is so cut and dry suggests a distinct lack of familiarity with the science. Here is just one very high level introduction to the real complexities of "biological sex."
And BTW, misgendering trans athletes as "men competing in women's sports" is not really the level of respect that you previously claimed to have for trans people's identities.
The issue with some proponents of trans issues is the expectation that others must accept a single viewpoint, often from specific academic circles, as the definitive truth, while disregarding decades of established biological science. Scientifically, biological sex is typically categorized by physical and genetic traits, such as chromosomes (XX for females, XY for males), reproductive organs, and secondary sex characteristics. While not entirely binary due to rare intersex variations affecting a very small percentage of the population, biological sex is generally well-defined.
However, subjective feelings should not be equated with scientific facts. When it comes to children, feeling that they were meant to be another sex is not a sufficient basis for making life-altering medical decisions at an age when they are still developing. Feelings are not science - They are subjective experiences, science can investigate their causes, impacts, and mechanisms. However, emotions don’t override objective facts, they are one aspect of human experience that science seeks to understand rather than absolute indicators of truth or reality. "I don't feel comfortable in my own body" isn't grounds for a person getting a new body, we don't treat other similar issues like this and I''m not entirely sure why this issues is different.
Furthermore, there’s often an implication that people who don't use specific terms are being disrespectful. For example, when I refer to "men competing in women's sports," I am speaking from a scientific perspective, acknowledging that a biological male's sex is immutable, regardless of surgeries or hormone treatments. If "trans women competing in women's sports" is considered a more respectful term, I’m open to using it; however, I don't believe it should be mandatory to adjust language simply because some have determined it to be the "right" or "more respectful" way to phrase things.
Hmm, I guess, let me try this once more:
phuqueue wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2024 11:05 am
For somebody who claims to advocate for "science-based policies," the fact that you think "biological sex" is so cut and dry suggests a distinct lack of familiarity with the science. Here is just one very high level introduction to the real complexities of "biological sex."
And BTW, misgendering trans athletes as "men competing in women's sports" is not really the level of respect that you previously claimed to have for trans people's identities.
