Since this is Texas Abortion Law Freakout Friday, I ask, though do not insist, that abortion related posts be entered on one of the specific entries here on that topic.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Ethics Alarms 
Can anyone explain the kerfuffle over ivermectin? It appears to be prescribed for humans to treat parasites such as head lice. It’s being studied by the FDA as a possible treatment for SARS in clinical studies. It is also used in veterinary applications for heart worm. Why is this drug’s being looked at for other applications so controversial?
https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/ivermectin-treat-covid-19-coronavirus-3535912/
Because the people looking at it are generally the people not taking the shot. There is only one true prevention and no treatment for this plague, and anyone who tries to look at alternative cures is dumb and evil. (says the person wearing a necklace of healing crystals).
Hah. Crystals are good. Just ask my son’s mother in law!
But it’s being tested as a therapeutic drug to combat the SARS resulting from Covid. Just not sure why it’s been weaponized as a wedge item.
“Just not sure why it’s been weaponized as a wedge item.”
Supposedly, they fear some people have tried, or will try, using veterinary ivermectin to treat themselves. I don’t know how often, if at all, this has actually occurred.
I think it’s sort of like the “Trump said to drink bleach” meme. It’s meant to disparage those on the right by implying that they are the ones suggesting or doing this, ignorant rednecks that they are. Again, I don’t know if there’s any proof of this. The same implication has been made about vaccinations, although the stats say that typically democrat-voting demographics are those with the worst vax rates. For all we know, the ivermectin thing is “barbershop” scuttlebutt circulating among various dems’ constituencies.
Saw a report in the Daily Mail that hospitals in some red state (Oklahoma?) are over-run with people being treated for overdosing on their cattle drugs. Hmm.
If I had to live in Oklahoma, I might be tempted to take cattle drugs.
Seriously, though, if it’s really a rural issue (which would make sense…that’s where the cows and horses are), even though there might well be a significant overlap of that population and Trump supporters, I would guess it’s location/occupation/opportunity that drives that type of drug use. Correlation =/= causation.
Here’s the article:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9956023/Rural-Oklahoma-hospitals-overwhelmed-people-overdosing-ivermectin.html
The beginning reads a little like a now woke Onion article or an msnbc story. There are so many people in ERs for ivermectin overdoses gunshot victims can’t get into the ERs! Hilarious. What a perfect view of Oklahoma. Non stop gunfire and people taking care of livestock when they’re not shot.
The entire report seems to be based on the observations of a single physician.
Is it the media bashing Joe Rogan’s fault? It is my understanding he used this medicine prescribed under the care of a physician. Although who knows? Ben Shapiro mentioned it in his podcast Friday.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/laughingindisbelief/2021/09/joe-rogan-loses-spotify-deal-and-millions-due-to-ivermectin/
Candace Owens was denied a COVID test. The details are murky, but many people (I read through some Facebook comments and an article giving some comments) are praising the person who refused to administer the test. Owens posted the e-mails to prove she was denied.
Liberals are literally losing their minds.
It seems that they believed her stance on vaxing was helping to create/further a public health risk. Ironic, then, that their response was to deny her a service that would, by their own metrics, help counter that risk for her and others.
I thought the same thing. If you think she may have COVID, why wouldn’t you test her if you think COVID is the plague?
The Supreme Court of the United States needs to definitively rule on when human life as we know it begins which will “permanently” solve the all the moral issues contained within the abortion and anti-abortion arguments for the foreseeable future. Of course this kind of proposed ruling won’t satisfy the religious zealots and nothing short of an outright ban will solve it for them.
WHEN IS “ABORTION” NOT IMMORAL?
P.S. I’ve been away for a while and probably will be here off on on for a little while, there has been some unexpected family issues to deal with.
So few things are ever expected. Good luck Steve.
Ah, Life. Good luck on whatever it is, Steve. I have a bit of that going on right now myself…
Post-term self-abortion ethics? A follow-up on Jack’s post of 8/15/21 concerning people suiciding off of bridges & etc., particularly the architectural attraction “The Vessel” in Hudson Yards.
Recently came across this one, certainly a prime candidate for such use. The Ruyi bridge, opened in china last year: Initially, many thought it must have been a manipulated photo.
Re: the new Texas law.
You would think Republicans should be very leery of encouraging the use of nuisance lawsuits to further an agenda. That’s certainly a two-edged sword.
While having supplied our enemies with tons of firearms and munitions in Afghanistan, the Biden administration and its congressional slimeballs are again working to restrict firearms ownership for Americans. They’re again pushing to repeal the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act”, which shields lawful firearms commerce from being held liable for criminal use of their products, and being sued out of business. Failing that, they’re looking at work-arounds that would give states leeway to allow such suits…Take notice, those supporting Texas’ move. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/08/05/gun-violence-white-house-state-ags-huddle-accountability/5496100001/
Since it’s related: Further showing more concern with disarming Americans than the “Tolly Bon”, and working mostly in the media shadows, SloJo is also imposing a ban on the importation of Russian ammunition, a significant source for civilians in this period of short supplies. The risible justification for this? To apply “sanctions on the Russian Federation over its use of a “Novichok” nerve agent in the August 2020 poisoning of Russian opposition figure Aleksey Navalny.”
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210822/biden-administration-bans-importation-of-russian-ammunition
We are going to hear lots of outrage over this bill, but little about the facts. Former OAN reporter Liz Wheeler (the wife of an M.D.) provides some clarity and some facts. If you just want to watch just the part about the new Texas law, skip to time 14:42 and watch to time 29:00.
https://rumble.com/vlzn1x-overturn-roe-it-may-be-sooner-than-you-think-ep.-44.html
A quick internet search informs me that there are over 400,000 unwanted or neglected children living in foster care in the United States right now. Why do we want policies creating more unwanted and/or neglected children? Pro life advocates are quick to point out that there are people lined up take newborns, but yet they don’t seem to want the over 400,000 children who are desperate for homes right now. They also don’t seem to want babies born with special medical needs who often end up in foster care.
No one seems to care that most girls and women who seek abortions do so out of desperation: poverty, abuse, fear. I have never met a woman who celebrated the fact that she had one, but I have met many who were grateful that it was available — either for one of the reasons I listed above or because of a birth control failure. All of these women I know went on to have children with partners at a later time, when they were financially able to care for a child and were in a safe and stable relationship. If the initial abortion had not happened, their lives most likely would have gone down a different path and these other children would have never come into being — children who have the benefit of a stable and loving home.
Most pro-life advocates are interested in the life being brought into this world, but do little for mothers long term (and the majority of the time, the fathers are not around) to provide economic and educational resources. Single mothers are being committed to poverty, as are their children, this is a never-ending loop. Of course, the State should not force eugenics or sterilization on our poor or mentally challenged population, but we do have decades of statistics showing the effects of number of children on our lower classes. Why do we insist on policies to exacerbate this problem?
Let’s also not gloss over the risk to maternal health. Just in my own friend circle, I have friends who have had serious pregnancy complications — myself included. Not to be overly dramatic, but I and my first child easily could have died due to a serious case of eclampsia — but for the fact that I have excellent (and expensive) insurance. I have another friend who has been disabled for five years, and will be for the rest of her life due to pregnancy complications. She lives in constant pain. The risk of maternal death to Black mothers (even among high income Black mothers) is significantly higher compared to white mothers.
The “freak out” as Jack has labelled it, is justified. As always, this abortion law is a method to control women’s bodies and our futures. The law is so very clever in that the effect will be for most legitimate providers to close up shop, leaving Texas residents to figure out the money and travel to another state in order to receive an abortion before the point of viability or turn to illegitimate providers. Given that many women who are seeking abortions lack these resources, the law will result in countless more unwanted children. For me, this is an easy call — bringing in an unwanted child into this world is more horrific than destroying a fetus (pre-viability).
I think this law will eventually be struck down because it is bonkers, but other states will follow suit until it is.
How about a law that allows a private citizen to bring a cause of action against the father of any child that is aborted? The doctor will do a paternity test on the cells and the alleged father, of course, can dispute that evidence in court and obtain attorney’s fees and costs if he prevails. But, if not, he owes a $10,000 to the complaining party and the other party’s fees and costs. Sounds insane doesn’t it? Would you have a freak-out Friday if this law were passed in California? But gosh, all men need to do to avoid unwanted pregnancies is to have vasectomies or wear a condom each and every time they have sex. Why can’t they take on this personal responsibility? And this seems a whole lot easier than the increased societal and actual cost of hundreds of thousands of more unwanted children every year. The added benefit of such a policy for both pro-life and pro-choice advocates is that we can put aside the “what is a baby” question because there never would have been a pregnancy in the first place unless the “father” failed to take appropriate personal responsibility. In fact, while I think my proposed law is ridiculous, it sure does make a lot more sense than the asinine Texas one in effect.
Still Spartan wrote, “A quick internet search informs me that there are over 400,000 unwanted or neglected children living in foster care in the United States right now. Why do we want policies creating more unwanted and/or neglected children?”
Interesting “logic”.
You seem to approve of killing a completely defenseless human being because there are 400,000 unwanted or neglected children living in foster care in the USA? The Jews across Europe were also unwanted in the 1930’s and 1940’s. I’ve heard that Conservatives are unwanted in the minds of extreme progressives.
So, do we just kill any human being that’s “unwanted”?
With logic like yours you might want to be really careful not to piss off your children making you unwanted in your senior years.
Still Spartan,
I view your justification arguments supporting abortion as unethical rationalizations.
Still Spartan wrote, “For me, this is an easy call — bringing in an unwanted child into this world is more horrific than destroying a fetus (pre-viability).”
What’s truly horrific is your easy call opinion that just because a completely helpless human being child is “unwanted” it should be fair game to just kill it. This kind of demented immorality is really sick.
Fetus: an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
There’s always the option of selling the unwanted kids in foster care as veal. They’d be locally sourced, milk fed, and organic!
It would have to be done swiftly….
I was pondering that they should be birthed, then raised by the government for a few years, then sold as servants, farmhands, cooks – you know, General purpose laborers. Make some money, stimulate the economy. If their lives are worth so little, a lifetime of slavery would be an improvement for society, and surely slavery is better than death, correct?
We could put them in the public school systems, to be sure that the children were properly repulsed by the idea of freedom.
It is actually extremely difficult to adopt a child out of foster care because most of the time those children were removed from living family members who either abused or neglected them. The parents either cannot or will not provide a safe, stable environment, but don’t want anyone else doing so either. I have known several families who fostered children, and attempted to adopt them. In every one of those cases, the biological parents suddenly developed a swift interest in getting their children back. The children were yanked out of the safe, loving foster environment where the foster parents had requested to adopt, and returned to the parents who abused and neglected them.
In one case, a couple I know was fostering a 6 year old boy and 7 year old girl who had been removed from their biological mother because the mother had allowed her boyfriend to sexually abuse the little girl. The couple had the children for about 6 months before filing an adoption request. 2 weeks later the state removed the kids from their care, and returned both children to their mother because she promised she had broken up with the boyfriend and would not allow him around the children anymore. That was all it took. Previous to the adoption request, she had shown no interest in getting her children back, or of leaving the man who molested her young daughter.
A quick google search is not sufficient for understanding the myriad of destructive and stupid laws surrounding the adoption of children from foster care. I agree that the foster care system is a horrific mess, but the government’s inability to run a program that adequately protects children is not an excuse for murder. It is a good reason to vote out the government and demand better child protection laws. There should be far fewer cases where good parents have their children taken away for stupid or leftist reasons, and a lot more cases where parental rights are stripped due to abuse and extreme neglect.
I’m making this another Comment of the Day, SS, but a few comments:
1. My son was an unwanted child brought into the world. I haven’t asked him, but I’m pretty sure he thinks it was the right thing to do.
2. “They also don’t seem to want babies born with special medical needs who often end up in foster care.” Want to kill them too, do you?
3. “Most pro-life advocates are interested in the life being brought into this world, but do little for mothers long term (and the majority of the time, the fathers are not around) to provide economic and educational resources. Single mothers are being committed to poverty, as are their children, this is a never-ending loop.”
If you can’t afford children, don’t do things that will make you have children. Special support for the mothers who have been raped is a perfectly reasonable policy. Otherwise, you make a life, you don’t get to kill it, so factor that in to your planning. All sorts of irresponsible conduct has disastrous consequences, and that’s supposed to discourage irresponsible conduct.
4.”As always, this abortion law is a method to control women’s bodies and our futures.” Wait, you said a few sentences earlier that the law’s advocates are “interested in the life being brought into this world.” You were right the first time. That’s sloppy advocacy, SS—you need to hang around here more and outside the bubble that lets such doubletalk pass for logic.
6. I recall that you previously described abortion as a necessary evil. I don’t see that in this comment. See? Sticking in your bubble isn’t healthy.
I think much of women’s thinking on abortion boils down to thinking and feeling “there’s more where that one came from.” Maybe I’d feel the same way if I had to deal with ejecting eggs every month.
As heated as the issue of abortion is, the masses need to decide soon, because the ethical and moral issues with artificial wombs are just around the corner.
I am actually really concerned at the idea of creating a human without any parents to protect it. Very sci fi, that.
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/01/17/artificial-wombs-could-create-seismic-shifts-in-the-debate-over-abortion-reproductive-rights/
The unmitigated ferocity of women insisting upon their absolute right to obtain abortions on demand makes me wonder what Greek mythology has to say on the subject. Any classicists out there? I just think this touches some really deep nerve in women’s psyches that is beyond comprehension. It’s almost archetypal. The obverse of motherhood and nurturing. I wonder what Joseph Campbell had to say on this.
Well, keep in mind Greek myths are full of women being raped by Gods to give birth to heroes. The you have Oedipus being left to death by exposure to avoid a prophecy, where the issue seems to be the avoiding the prophecy rather than the killing a kid.
But I think the former is what causes the psychological underpinnings. Men have always had some control over trying to or trying not to have a kid; if they want a kid and a woman doesn’t, they can rape her. If they want to try to avoid kids, they can pull out. Then, if they don’t want to care for a kid, they can wander off.
I’m talking about purely primitive options; obviously we’ve done our best to mitigate all of these things with greater or lesser success. But on a psychological level, pregnancy is the great vulnerability of women, in the same way lack of certainty of paternity is the vulnerability of men (which has also been cause throughout history of extreme measures to lessen the threat, and might explain some anti-social behaviors even with modern advances.)
Just to add, the paternity issue has always been so pervasive that it’s the source of the “they want to control our bodies!” deflection. For much of history, and in many cultures today, that was absolutely, 100% true, and it stems from men being obsessed with making sure the baby is theirs.
So, both genders have their issues on a species level.
In an earlier post, a commenter made a comment about ethnic diversity in fiction.
One genre where this makes perfect sense is fiction about future humanity exploring the stars, whether as part of the United Earth Space Fleets or the Terran Imperial Star Armada. It makes sense they would recruit crewmen from all over Earth,.
In fact, as about half of humanity is of Asian descent, roughly half of these starship crews should be of Asian descent.