Bimmerpost
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
BIMMERPOST Universal Forums Off-Topic Discussions Board Politics/Religion Anyone on this forum an OB/GYN?

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      06-24-2019, 10:25 PM   #23
1MOREMOD
2018 track days - 0 ridge 1:52:24 pacific 1:33:30
1MOREMOD's Avatar
United_States
8300
Rep
21,499
Posts

Drives: Race car->
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: check your mirrors

iTrader: (5)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKSixer View Post
I'm busy for a while and THIS happens?

UncleWede , 1MOREMOD have you guys been drinking the entire time?!?!!
I cant read good
Appreciate 1
MKSixer12798.00

      06-24-2019, 10:29 PM   #24
NickyC
Major General
NickyC's Avatar
4215
Rep
5,097
Posts

Drives: YMB M4, has a roof though. :(
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Somewhere I don't want to be

iTrader: (16)

wtf
Appreciate 0
      06-24-2019, 10:31 PM   #25
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
7137
Rep
6,971
Posts

Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickyC View Post
wtf
You have enough time inOT to know (better?)
Appreciate 1
NickyC4215.00

      06-25-2019, 08:32 AM   #26
Joekerr
Is Joe King
Joekerr's Avatar
4149
Rep
1,583
Posts

Drives: 2012 300C SRT8
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto, ON

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
It really is a hypothetical question. Here is my thought process on the abortion debate:

We seem to be faced with two options; pro life and pro choice. My problem with these two options is that they both have merit. The pro life argument seems to come from a good place, killing babies is bad, seems logical. The part of the pro choice argument where a women should have the right to choose whether she wants to be pregnant or not, definitely has merit. So in trying to reconcile these conflicting viewpoints I thought that maybe there was a third option or a middle ground where you can avoid the "killing" of abortion while preserving the woman's right to make a choice as to whether to be pregnant or not. The idea i came up with is an alternative to abortion, inducing a pregnancy. If the baby is old enough to survive outside of the womb then it's a saved life. Babies can go into foster care and potentially adopted. Mother gets to stop being pregnant if that's what she chooses. With medical advances the gestational age at which survival is possible will continually get lower. Entire idea is predicated on the possibility of preterm labor induction. That's why I asked.
I appreciate the additional backstory, it helps me understand a little more about why you are asking.

I agree that there are continual advancements in the medical field which are really quite amazing, and which can save a preemie. I confess I don't have a whole lot of knowledge on the subject of these new advances, which an OBGYN would have. But I wonder / would like to know, whether while these advances can technically save a life, do they put the baby at a deficit compared to a full term baby? It is my suspicion that they might, but I do not know.

If so, then it seems unfair to that person to induce them early as the mother is then choosing to forever impact the life of this child because she is saying her choice to not be pregnant for another 3 months and go through labour is more important than the baby's choice to have an even playing field with all peers and not have a deficit. I would say suck up those three months and deal with it, because they chose to have sex, and that is a known outcome that can happen when you have sex.

Sex is a great thing, don't get me wrong. But I'm terrified that my vasectomy somehow reverses itself each and every time - I've had my kids, I'm happy, not looking for anymore. But if somehow we become pregnant again, abortion isn't even a consideration. We're having the kid and we'll love him/her and we understand that this could happen.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lups View Post
he's Canadian. By international law we all must worship him and all other products of the country.
Appreciate 0
      06-25-2019, 08:35 AM   #27
DonaldPump
Colonel
DonaldPump's Avatar
3654
Rep
2,628
Posts

Drives: 13' E92 BSM 335i 6MT
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Boulder, CO

iTrader: (0)

Killing a defenseless baby has no merit.

/thread
__________________
2013 BSM Coral Red E92 335i 6MT M-Sport

Squat - 345 - Bench - 275 - Deadlift - 465 - BW - 180
Appreciate 0
      06-25-2019, 08:38 AM   #28
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
301
Posts

Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonaldPump View Post
Killing a defenseless baby has no merit.

/thread
Agreed, and I don't think I claimed anything to the contrary.
Appreciate 0
      06-25-2019, 08:47 AM   #29
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
301
Posts

Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joekerr View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
It really is a hypothetical question. Here is my thought process on the abortion debate:

We seem to be faced with two options; pro life and pro choice. My problem with these two options is that they both have merit. The pro life argument seems to come from a good place, killing babies is bad, seems logical. The part of the pro choice argument where a women should have the right to choose whether she wants to be pregnant or not, definitely has merit. So in trying to reconcile these conflicting viewpoints I thought that maybe there was a third option or a middle ground where you can avoid the "killing" of abortion while preserving the woman's right to make a choice as to whether to be pregnant or not. The idea i came up with is an alternative to abortion, inducing a pregnancy. If the baby is old enough to survive outside of the womb then it's a saved life. Babies can go into foster care and potentially adopted. Mother gets to stop being pregnant if that's what she chooses. With medical advances the gestational age at which survival is possible will continually get lower. Entire idea is predicated on the possibility of preterm labor induction. That's why I asked.
I appreciate the additional backstory, it helps me understand a little more about why you are asking.

I agree that there are continual advancements in the medical field which are really quite amazing, and which can save a preemie. I confess I don't have a whole lot of knowledge on the subject of these new advances, which an OBGYN would have. But I wonder / would like to know, whether while these advances can technically save a life, do they put the baby at a deficit compared to a full term baby? It is my suspicion that they might, but I do not know.

If so, then it seems unfair to that person to induce them early as the mother is then choosing to forever impact the life of this child because she is saying her choice to not be pregnant for another 3 months and go through labour is more important than the baby's choice to have an even playing field with all peers and not have a deficit. I would say suck up those three months and deal with it, because they chose to have sex, and that is a known outcome that can happen when you have sex.

Sex is a great thing, don't get me wrong. But I'm terrified that my vasectomy somehow reverses itself each and every time - I've had my kids, I'm happy, not looking for anymore. But if somehow we become pregnant again, abortion isn't even a consideration. We're having the kid and we'll love him/her and we understand that this could happen.
The probability of preterm birth related complications is dependent on the gestational age at preterm delivery, as far as I understand, anyway. So the earlier the higher the likelihood for complications.

It's obvious that full term is better and forcing people to carry to term against their will will prevent these complications. Conversely, allowing people to get abortions is a guaranteed death sentence. The question is whether this idea would be an acceptable middle ground for both sides to come to rather than each side sticking to their "my way or the highway" viewpoints and being stuck in perpetual battle.
Appreciate 0
      06-25-2019, 08:50 AM   #30
DonaldPump
Colonel
DonaldPump's Avatar
3654
Rep
2,628
Posts

Drives: 13' E92 BSM 335i 6MT
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Boulder, CO

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Agreed, and I don't think I claimed anything to the contrary.
I see what you're trying to do here, I just don't believe you will find the middle ground you're looking for. Abortion is fairly black and white.

I'm pro-choice myself:

1. Abstinence
2. Contraception
3. Adoption
4. Motherhood
__________________
2013 BSM Coral Red E92 335i 6MT M-Sport

Squat - 345 - Bench - 275 - Deadlift - 465 - BW - 180
Appreciate 2
Joekerr4148.50
MKSixer12798.00

      06-25-2019, 08:54 AM   #31
Joekerr
Is Joe King
Joekerr's Avatar
4149
Rep
1,583
Posts

Drives: 2012 300C SRT8
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto, ON

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonaldPump View Post
I see what you're trying to do here, I just don't believe you will find the middle ground you're looking for. Abortion is fairly black and white.

I'm pro-choice myself:

1. Abstinence
2. Contraception
3. Adoption
4. Motherhood
Choices are legit.

I'm going to laugh when Lups reads through this thread and winces at all the "poison" I've been spreading. It's an entertaining battle. Funny enough, she's not too far off from my point of view as to preferred choices, we just differ on whether abortion should be in the list of choices or not.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lups View Post
he's Canadian. By international law we all must worship him and all other products of the country.
Appreciate 2
DonaldPump3654.00
Run Silent9359.00

      06-25-2019, 09:09 AM   #32
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
301
Posts

Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonaldPump View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Agreed, and I don't think I claimed anything to the contrary.
I see what you're trying to do here, I just don't believe you will find the middle ground you're looking for. Abortion is fairly black and white.

I'm pro-choice myself:

1. Abstinence
2. Contraception
3. Adoption
4. Motherhood
Yea look I'm not completely disagreeing with you... your viewpoint, in a hypothetical sense, is completely legitimate, but in a pragmatic way, there are too many exceptions to this:

1. Rape
2. Incestual rape
3. Non-functioning contraception
4. Birth defects
5. Breakup/divorce during pregnancy
6. People's right to make choices and change their minds.

All of these cases can result in situations of unwanted pregnancies. I believe in the sovereignty of the individual, I don't believe one life can infringe on another. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, forcing her to stay pregnant is an infringement on her life and is morally reprehensible. Also, killing a baby is equally morally reprehensible. This is the only idea I could come up with that maintains individual sovereignty, while mitigating the whole baby murder thing.
Appreciate 0
      06-25-2019, 09:23 AM   #33
G35POPPEDMYCHERRY
Colonel
G35POPPEDMYCHERRY's Avatar
No_Country
1700
Rep
2,145
Posts

Drives: Totaled Toyota Celica :((
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Trenton, NJ

iTrader: (0)

this is such a wild ass question to ask on the internet. no offense OP but this is the epitome of toxic internet culture.
Appreciate 1
MKSixer12798.00

      06-25-2019, 09:34 AM   #34
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
301
Posts

Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by G35POPPEDMYCHERRY View Post
this is such a wild ass question to ask on the internet. no offense OP but this is the epitome of toxic internet culture.
Lol wut? Please explain?
Appreciate 0
      06-25-2019, 09:42 AM   #35
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
7137
Rep
6,971
Posts

Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, forcing her to stay pregnant is an infringement on her life and is morally reprehensible. Also, killing a baby is equally morally reprehensible.
For many of us who participate in the discussion, they are nowhere near equal. We don't assign the errors of the parent to the child in any legal format I can think of. Even in the case of rape (regardless of the nature) that results in pregnancy, the error of the FATHER doesn't require the death of the child.

Our society "infringes" on the life of individuals all the time. It's an acceptable price to pay to be part of society. Simple ones include jury duty, health insurance, taxes. And none of those infringements result in the death of another, the ultimate infringement.
Appreciate 2
MKSixer12798.00
Run Silent9359.00

      06-25-2019, 09:46 AM   #36
G35POPPEDMYCHERRY
Colonel
G35POPPEDMYCHERRY's Avatar
No_Country
1700
Rep
2,145
Posts

Drives: Totaled Toyota Celica :((
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Trenton, NJ

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Lol wut? Please explain?
oh sorry though you were actually looking for medical advice in a political forum .
Appreciate 1
Genieman192.00

      06-25-2019, 10:00 AM   #37
Joekerr
Is Joe King
Joekerr's Avatar
4149
Rep
1,583
Posts

Drives: 2012 300C SRT8
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto, ON

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Yea look I'm not completely disagreeing with you... your viewpoint, in a hypothetical sense, is completely legitimate, but in a pragmatic way, there are too many exceptions to this:

1. Rape
2. Incestual rape
3. Non-functioning contraception
4. Birth defects
5. Breakup/divorce during pregnancy
6. People's right to make choices and change their minds.

All of these cases can result in situations of unwanted pregnancies. I believe in the sovereignty of the individual, I don't believe one life can infringe on another. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, forcing her to stay pregnant is an infringement on her life and is morally reprehensible. Also, killing a baby is equally morally reprehensible. This is the only idea I could come up with that maintains individual sovereignty, while mitigating the whole baby murder thing.
I'm entertained by your questions, and I commend you for trying to think of a middle ground. I'm not sure there is one though.

Think of it this way - using your own words:

You say that one life cannot infringe upon another - leaving you with the quandary of a baby infringing upon a mother's life by forcing her to carry to term, or a mother infringing on a baby's life by murdering it. And then you look to see if maybe there is a middle ground between the two positions - that's what you've been doing right?

But as you noted before, and it tends to agree with my guess on the subject as well, the earlier you induce, the more risk for complications and deficits to the baby (and vice versa - closer to term, less likely for complications to the baby). Let's assume this is true for a moment, even though we don't absolutely know this yet (but past experience seems to indicate it to be so)

If true, then a mother choosing not to be pregnant early on in her pregnancy (and therefore being induced early) is infringing upon the baby's life because you are exposing said baby to a higher risk of complications and deficits, some of which they may never recover from.

And conversely, if you set a minimum gestational period to try to avoid these complications, then you are in your words infringing on the mother's life forcing her to carry till this time.

Either way, still infringement.

Question is - which is the worse infringement? Forcing a woman to carry to term for at most 9 months of her life out of X number of years....or taking all the years away from a child by killing it. I know which one I think is the worse infringement.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lups View Post
he's Canadian. By international law we all must worship him and all other products of the country.
Appreciate 1
Run Silent9359.00

      06-25-2019, 10:17 AM   #38
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
301
Posts

Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
For many of us who participate in the discussion, they are nowhere near equal. We don't assign the errors of the parent to the child in any legal format I can think of. Even in the case of rape (regardless of the nature) that results in pregnancy, the error of the FATHER doesn't require the death of the child.

Our society "infringes" on the life of individuals all the time. It's an acceptable price to pay to be part of society. Simple ones include jury duty, health insurance, taxes. And none of those infringements result in the death of another, the ultimate infringement.
Ok, fair enough, I acknowledge poor word choice using "equally." "Also" would have been a better word without subjectively qualifying their relative importance. The infringements you've mentioned are financial/tax burdens, as opposed to physical and psychological burdens, and are therefore not "equal" comparisons as well.

Having said that, it feels like you're trying to argue with me as though my stance is pro-abortion, and it's not.

Pro-choice viewpoints are inline with the preservation of the sovereignty of individual choices at the expense of preservation of life. Pro-life viewpoints are inline with preservation of life at the expense of the sovereignty of an individual to make a personal decision about their life. My idea, if feasible, bridges the gap, and preserves life AND preserves an individual's sovereignty.
Appreciate 0
      06-25-2019, 10:31 AM   #39
hooligan_COLD
Space Shuttle Door Gunner
hooligan_COLD's Avatar
3031
Rep
2,757
Posts

Drives: '15 X1 35i M Sport
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Back in the Mitten

iTrader: (0)

How is inducing a "pre-term" birth any different from the mother carrying the baby to term and then birthing, exactly?
Appreciate 0
      06-25-2019, 10:34 AM   #40
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
301
Posts

Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joekerr View Post
I'm entertained by your questions, and I commend you for trying to think of a middle ground. I'm not sure there is one though.

Think of it this way - using your own words:

You say that one life cannot infringe upon another - leaving you with the quandary of a baby infringing upon a mother's life by forcing her to carry to term, or a mother infringing on a baby's life by murdering it. And then you look to see if maybe there is a middle ground between the two positions - that's what you've been doing right?

But as you noted before, and it tends to agree with my guess on the subject as well, the earlier you induce, the more risk for complications and deficits to the baby (and vice versa - closer to term, less likely for complications to the baby). Let's assume this is true for a moment, even though we don't absolutely know this yet (but past experience seems to indicate it to be so)

If true, then a mother choosing not to be pregnant early on in her pregnancy (and therefore being induced early) is infringing upon the baby's life because you are exposing said baby to a higher risk of complications and deficits, some of which they may never recover from.

And conversely, if you set a minimum gestational period to try to avoid these complications, then you are in your words infringing on the mother's life forcing her to carry till this time.

Either way, still infringement.

Question is - which is the worse infringement? Forcing a woman to carry to term for at most 9 months of her life out of X number of years....or taking all the years away from a child by killing it. I know which one I think is the worse infringement.
I don't disagree with your points. Let me give you an analogous situation and get your thoughts:

You are diagnosed with a kidney disease that will eventually kill you, I am the only person on the planet who is a blood/DNA match who can donate a kidney to you to save your life. The infringement of an organ donation on me is much lower than the infringement on you if I do nothing. Should I be legally required to donate my kidney to you? And, if I choose not to donate my kidney to you, should it be considered murder or me killing you? What if it's not a one time organ donation procedure, but a continuous infringement. What if it's a blood disease and they have to hook you up to me with hoses so that your blood could flow through my liver to be filtered, and we have to stay connected or you die, do I have the right to refuse that even if it leads to your eventual death?

Admittedly, my idea doesn't eliminate all possible negative outcomes and infringements, but (I think anyway) that it lessens the total amount of infringement to all parties more than the pro-life and pro choice stances do individually.
Appreciate 0
      06-25-2019, 10:38 AM   #41
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
301
Posts

Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan_COLD View Post
How is inducing a "pre-term" birth any different from the mother carrying the baby to term and then birthing, exactly?
Do you mean from a medical procedure standpoint? I'm not 100% sure and would love some OB/GYN input, but I think it's the same procedure, you just give birth to the child. The main difference is that you can elect to do so at the point that you decide you don't want to be pregnant which can be a significant amount of time before your due date. It gives the mother, who decides she doesn't want to be pregnant, an option other than abortion to end her pregnancy, but the option is not a certain death sentence to the child.
Appreciate 0
      06-25-2019, 10:41 AM   #42
MKSixer
Major General
MKSixer's Avatar
12798
Rep
6,592
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW i8, E63 M6, 328d
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Southeast United States

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 M4 GTS (Allotted)  [0.00]
2013 BMW 328d  [0.00]
2007 BMW M6  [5.00]
2015 BMW i8  [5.00]
There is no such thing as the, "Sovereignty of the Individual", in a society. These are mutually exclusive concepts.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtodd_fl View Post
Hell, I get random sausage attacks when I go anywhere.

@[Nyet. Not Russian Hacker](contact:368080)
Ask me hacker question. Hacker question I get answer.
Appreciate 0
      06-25-2019, 10:43 AM   #43
hooligan_COLD
Space Shuttle Door Gunner
hooligan_COLD's Avatar
3031
Rep
2,757
Posts

Drives: '15 X1 35i M Sport
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Back in the Mitten

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Do you mean from a medical procedure standpoint? I'm not 100% sure and would love some OB/GYN input, but I think it's the same procedure, you just give birth to the child. The main difference is that you can elect to do so at the point that you decide you don't want to be pregnant which can be a significant amount of time before your due date. It gives the mother, who decides she doesn't want to be pregnant, an option other than abortion to end her pregnancy, but the option is not a certain death sentence to the child.
That's what I thought you were driving at. I'm not sure how many pregnancies are terminated simply due to the fact that the mother "doesn't want to be pregnant" for another 4 or 5 months.
Appreciate 0
      06-25-2019, 10:49 AM   #44
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
301
Posts

Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKSixer View Post
There is no such thing as the, "Sovereignty of the Individual", in a society. These are mutually exclusive concepts.
Societal needs over individual liberties.... Sounds very... Soviet...
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:49 PM.




g20
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST