Results 31 to 40 of 42
-
06-22-2007 #31
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Location
- Bay Area, CA
- Posts
- 3,105
^
Well fine then,
Let your kid have his smegma then.....see if I care.
lol
-
06-22-2007 #32
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Posts
- 108
Thanks for taking that quote completely out of context, jackass.
Like I said, the matter is a public health concern. I'm not talking about America, I am talking about countries with drastic maternal/infant mortality problems. Not only that, but in both cases - that of tubal ligation and that of male circumcision - informing patients/guardians is frequently enough to obtain consent. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the population remains uninformed. Like I said before, I'm not talking about dragging patients into a hospital, strapping them to a table, and tying their tubes. But I do support mandated postpartum ligations in cases of 3rd, 4th, etc child birth on site because statistically, by not doing so, a mother becomes an increasing danger to herself and to future children. Furthermore, policy mandates do not mean that voluntary tubal ligations do not exist. Frankly, if she wants to continue to endanger her life and the lives of her future children, she doesn't have to go to the hospital. She doesn't have to be a part of society if she so chooses.
Hell, Indian mothers are ~ 159 times more likely to die during childbirth over their lifetime than American mothers. Infant and maternal mortality risks only rise with each passing childbirth. But more important than any debate over public health vs. civil rights...the issue goes much deeper than an individual's right to refuse a medical procedure. Tubal ligation is probably the only realistic way to curb child birth in places where women are property, raped by men as they please. An overwhelming number of births are not planned or even desired. Wholly uninformed about voluntary tubal ligation, now a woman must be forced to give birth? To suffer the abnormally high maternal mortality rates?
"The whole shitty place can fall off into the ocean for all I care."
Btw, you're a fucking ignorant asshole.
sometimes it feels like shame...less than two shades away from kindness.
-
06-22-2007 #33Originally Posted by LOCpunks
Willfull exposure laws exist in at least 28 states now.
Disclosure and condom use IS required by law in cases of HIV.
I am talking in terms of developing countries with epidemical levels of disease.
And you keep using these drastic examples of "mutilation"...We are talking about simple circumcision, in places with HIV epidemics and hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people who don't even know what HIV is or what condoms are used for.
As much as you seem to deny it, we live in a socially responsible society. Public health MUST, in some cases, supercede individual rights. if you want to live in an anarchic society where the government and social entities have no bearing on your life, go to it. I'd be happy to live there.
Out of curiousity, where do you stand on court-ordered medication? Should society be put at risk because of a pathological psychotic w/ a history of violent crime and his right to refuse medication?
The child's input should be considered... to use a "less drastic" example; what if the minor's parents are Christian scientists who do not believe in doctors and are not willing to "allow" their child to receive their shots, treatments when sick and so on. What if the child wants said treatments, should the child be forced by the state to subject to the parents religious medical views until she/he turns 18? We have seen what happens when groups do not get their kids the shots they need based on religious objection; polio outbreaks for instance... sometimes ignoring a child's medical opinions can be just as much of a risk to the health of the public.
Furthermore, I view the matter as the right of informed parents, and support a system where parents are informed on site at birth.
I question the vagueness of any legislation which says the patient must be "informed" before she can make consent... some states have used such terminology to restrict women's reproductive rights and/or to bully women seeking procedures relating to reproductive rights into not having the procedure... and I take great issue to that.
There are obviously cases where a circumcision shouldn't be performed, whether it is a religious basis or what have you
I am simply saying that circumcision needs to be done at a far higher volume in places where HIV and STI (which obviously aid HIV transmission) epidemics exist.
parents have an obligation to act in their child's best interest.
...I am well aware of India's positions on forced sterilization. I have a feeling YOU are not aware of the maternal mortality rates at birth.
Sure mindsets don't change over night, but going down the road of rights violations to achieve an ideal state of existance will do nothing but harm in the long run. Simply put you can't save everyone, and if it costs millions of lives for people to get it into their brains and psychies that "I need to do ___" then it takes millions of lives for that to happen.
Do I care? Sure I care, but I am not about support any idea which involved generalized across the board forced sterilizations... we all know how such programs are judged by history, how many such good intentioned programs must we expierence globally before we care about the methods in which we go about our quest for a better world?
As to forcing girls to get their tubes tied... I would have to say that there was a time in Europe when a good intentioned Eugenics program was unveiled as a governmental run program aimed at perfecting humanity- to remove all its flaws, genetic conditions/illnesses and other such problems.
It cost the continent 6.5 million lives (that we know about) and forcefully sterilized countless portions of the population. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
-
06-22-2007 #34
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Posts
- 108
Originally Posted by SarahG
But you're missing a big part of that- I will repeat it and put it in bold "in cases of HIV." That means condom use isn't required by law as a blanket policy- it means protection is required by law whenever the people involved in the sex act *know* that this is a case involving HIV. It also means no such legal requirement exists for people who know they are both clean. I am not proposing people stop using protection by any means, I am just saying to require it across the board without care to consent or circumstance is idiocy at best and unneeded over regulation at worst.
I don't care what place/region/etc you are talking about, if your principle is true it should hold true across the board in other settings. It shouldn't matter rather you are in India or NYC or Utah.
There is a huge difference between anarchy and libertarian- my personal philosophy is that governmental powers, actions and duties should be as little as practical, that doesn't mean there is no governmental system, that doesn't mean there are no duties for said governments to perform... BUT that does NOT mean that governments should have a blank check whenever "public safety" is at risk, most ESPECIALLY when it involves forced medical procedures, sterilization and other such issues.
That is totally unrelated; if someone is mentally ill (say paranoid schizophrenic) and they are ordered by a court to take their psy medications then they are unable to consent and can not become able to consent.. (you don't outgrow being schizophrenic)
And since you feel that every medical decision must be made by the minor, what of the countless medical procedures that may be necessary early on in life? Appendectomies, laparoscopies, lithotomies, etc.? The parent has no right to alter the child’s body, but the child is too young to understand/consent! But without these procedures, the child could endure serious complications and death. What then? Surely you would allow the parents to consent to these medical procedures, right? But if so, you are contradicting everything you have been saying here. You can’t have it both ways.
Sure mindsets don't change over night, but going down the road of rights violations to achieve an ideal state of existance will do nothing but harm in the long run. Simply put you can't save everyone, and if it costs millions of lives for people to get it into their brains and psychies that "I need to do ___" then it takes millions of lives for that to happen.
As to forcing girls to get their tubes tied... I would have to say that there was a time in Europe when a good intentioned Eugenics program was unveiled as a governmental run program aimed at perfecting humanity- to remove all its flaws, genetic conditions/illnesses and other such problems.
It cost the continent 6.5 million lives (that we know about) and forcefully sterilized countless portions of the population. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
sometimes it feels like shame...less than two shades away from kindness.
-
06-23-2007 #35
The comparisons between circumcision and gender related plastic surgery at birth are rather hysterical. There's a grand canyon sized difference between "snipping the tip" of an obviously male baby, and performing plastic surgery and/or genital mutilation on a newborn of indeterminate sex to either "make them male" or "make them female"
I was raised Roman Catholic, as were most of my friends. All of us were circumcised as infants, and not one of us ever got the neurotic notion that our parents "mutilated us without our consent" Plain and simply, there's nothing wrong with it.
Also, in the event I ever have a son (I already have a daughter), he will most certainly be circumcised.
I also have to say that I get a huge kick out the fact that circumcision has been performed on millions of healthy baby males in our planets history, and yet in the last 30 years it has morphed from a normal routine procedure to some horrific form of torture and mutilation. Get a grip.
Here's a tip, before you concern yourself with western doctors performing routine circumcisions, let's take care of the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation in Africa (which, unlike circumcision, is real and actual mutilation, and done for no other reason than sheer ignorance)
Success lies not in being the best, but in doing your best.
-
06-23-2007 #36
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- The United States of kiss-my-ass
- Posts
- 8,004
Originally Posted by ARMANIXXX
http://www.hungangels.com/board/view...=21884&start=0
"I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity." - Poe
-
06-23-2007 #37Originally Posted by LOCpunks
If the patient/parent chooses not to waive his/her rights and consent, they cannot receive medical assistance at the hospital. I am not talking about circumcising every living body, but if you want to use socially-funded hospitals, you should have to adhere to social regulations as they pertain to public health.
I understand it is not a “blanket statement,” I was simply responding to your comment, “Should people be required to wear condoms?” Obviously, this example is not on the same level as the one we are talking about, but at the same time, it does relate. U.S. states require condom use/disclosure as an individual responsibility for HIV+ people. In a place where condom use is not only uncommon, but rejected by many, and HIV infection is rampant, that individual responsibility is moot. Many would argue that the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the government and public health institutes.
Aka the main difference between the American and Chinese judicial systems is that in America, the system is setup so that it will rather let 100 guilty citizens go free then send one innocent citizen to imprisonment. In China it is the opposite (preferring to have 100 innocents be imprisoned rather than let one guilty citizen free). I would have no problem if say, India went and somehow punished someone for going and spreading aids threw refusing to use protection after legislation is brought up, notified to the people and enforced requiring it for cases where parties to a sexual act know they have aids.
I do not find the idea of taking the whole population of India and subjecting them to things based on HIV spread under such laws, even when said citizens had not been found to have taken part in such an action even if the statistics implies more were committing said crime then were being punished for it.
As I said earlier, Indian mothers are ~ 159 times more likely to die during childbirth over their life than American mothers. What is to be done about it? Hell, the vast majority of Indian women have very few, if any, places to seek tubal ligations and other birth control methods.
Your last thought here is telling "have very few, if any, places to seek tubal ligations and other birth control methods"- again, that should be explored most definitely before any proposal that involves the government forcing said procedures upon the population or part of the population therein.
and you know what? No libertarian society exists or has ever existed.
Have you ever read the Turner thesis? The history of political philosophy during the American 19th century went over the fact that the libertarian perspective was mainstream based on geography and population, the extremes between the libertarians and what were originally called the antifederalists were dependent (in terms of being mainstream) based on this relationship and we see the effects of such to this day. Before you say "ah, but that is part of the country and not the whole country" I will remind you that you said society- and any country that is large enough or diverse enough internally has different societies within it. The roman republic and empire alike had many societies inside their country (and its territories) and they even had their own rules, regulations and what not based on those differences.
We live in a federalist republic.
Paranoid schizophrenia (which is actually the very disease I had in mind) IS NOT an incapacitating disease.
If a patient with this condition has a history of hurting people when off medication and is ordered to go on their medications as a result this is not a consent issue. I had a relative who had this disease and since he had no record of being harmful to him or others when off his meds, no one cared nor forced him to do otherwise and thus he was able to consent (when well) not to take his medication. When he was off his medication he was not of sound mind to the point of being able to consent to anything; but in terms of his medication he would go threw cycles where when he was on it, and when he was not on it. When he was not on it he would just sit in his study all day designing perpetual motion machines ("free energy") for all the time he was awake and was as harmless as someone can be (sane or otherwise).
what of the countless medical procedures that may be necessary early on in life?
Going and doing an elective/optional procedure that can wait a few years is a whole other can of worms. Likewise for procedures where the patient is going to die either way and treatment decisions effect the quality of life for the patient's last days alive.
Sure there are risks with anything and everything, including surgeries but I don't see the logic behind refusing a kid to have emergency surgery on say, a open gash in their stomach based on the possibility that a complication would occur and kill the patient... I mean come on, I could walk out my door and be struck and killed by lightning, hit by a bus- whatever- but that isn't enough to go "you know what, I am just going to stay in my room because it is safer" (of course, even that maynot be true; there is always building fires, CO poisoning etc... but now I am going off on tangents).
This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with race purification.
The eugenics expirament known as the Holocaust (per the 1950s-onward use of the term, Holocaust was a more general term prior to WW2 and in fact has its origins in the Great War but this is not something in the scope of this thread) was not created by the Germans solely to kill off all the gypsies, gays and Jews in Europe by any means. Only an American K-12 history course would give you that impression.
The German expirament was also aimed at perfecting humanity threw eugenics from a nonrace perspective.
Think of it this way: List ALL the genetic conditions, genetically linked conditions and think of how much better humanity would be if we did away with all those conditions? Eugenics, incl in the German project was aimed at sterilizing people who had such "defects" that way such conditions would become a mere part of history... people would be healthier, with lower health costs, illnesses and death stats because of all the genetic based diseases et al that would be taken out of existance (this is really what eugenics is all about at its core- it was never intended to be a racist concept, it was just perverted by the Germans... and it is the general theory behind most breeding systems for animals, plants etc).
Do you know what was required per German law in order to marry let alone reproduce? It wasn't specific to race for this reason.
If eugenics per specifically these types of conditions were properly carried out globally, it would save lives, probably more lives than mortality statistic pertaining to India (not to trivialize their plight). So why don't we impose such a project? After all, based on your comments I assume all you care about are the statistics and any rights that are trampled along the way are just collateral damage out of concern to the public health.
And yet I would at least hope that most of the people here would be opposed to a global eugenics project forced upon the global populations- regardless how many millions of lives it would save. At the end of the day, public health risk/concern merely is not enough to justify certain intrusions (forced sterilization being one of them).
-
06-23-2007 #38
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Posts
- 460
Originally Posted by biguy4tvtscd
-
06-23-2007 #39
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Posts
- 108
Sorry guys, I know this has been dragged out far too long, but...once you start, it's hard to stop. This will be my last post here. Unless somebody says something really ridiculous.
Originally Posted by SarahG
And at what level would mortality statistics have to reach compared to the United States in order for such actions to be mandated? So it is 159x in India... would you still be proposing this if it were 100x? 50x? 20x? Less?
Your last thought here is telling "have very few, if any, places to seek tubal ligations and other birth control methods"- again, that should be explored most definitely before any proposal that involves the government forcing said procedures upon the population or part of the population therein.
It is if the patient is refusing to take medication, which is what your example was about. Thus going off their meds is not an action they can consent to do when ordered by the courts based on risk to themselves or others.
That just isn't true. From American history, America as under the articles of the confederation was a libertarian society from a federal standpoint. Many territories were libertarian societies before they were forced to be changed during the road to statehood.
And what does that have to do with libertarianism? It doesn't, at all. You're talking about the structure of the system whereas i am talking about the duties and conduct of said system. A federalist republic could be or could not be libertarianistic and still be a federalist republic. The fact that you have this confused shows me you really have no idea what I am talking about.
If it is a procedure/treatment/etc required for the patient to survive and doing said procedure will "cure them" I don't see what the issue would be in just doing the procedure.
Going and doing an elective/optional procedure that can wait a few years is a whole other can of worms. Likewise for procedures where the patient is going to die either way and treatment decisions effect the quality of life for the patient's last days alive.
It sure as hell does.
...
The German expirament was also aimed at perfecting humanity threw eugenics from a nonrace perspective.
...
If eugenics per specifically these types of conditions were properly carried out globally, it would save lives, probably more lives than mortality statistic pertaining to India (not to trivialize their plight). So why don't we impose such a project? After all, based on your comments I assume all you care about are the statistics and any rights that are trampled along the way are just collateral damage out of concern to the public health
Originally Posted by biguy4tvtscd
sometimes it feels like shame...less than two shades away from kindness.
-
06-23-2007 #40
I may be an asshole yes agreed and unquestionably, but I am far from being ignorant and I know for a *fact* my friend that I am smarter then you, heh.