LawTalkers - Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Nope. It's an acceptably legal choice and despite the fact that I have thought through what I think from this vantage point, that I would do I don't judge others based on those choices (I do advocate a change in the law, which is different than judging others). I had another friend where the diagnosis of catastrophic genetic disorders came late in the second trimester and they had a partial birth abortion. It was a tragic and difficult event for them, and I was and still am sympathetic and supportive.

Under your law, what would the penalty be, and on whom would it fall?

Penske_Account

07-20-2005 03:24 PM

Here it comes...

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Look, you start leaking, you die, unless you can clean up your own leaks or get some sucker like dtb to do it by pretending you are a beloved family pet.

Hmmmm, then I guess the long term care industry and medicare and medicaid reimbursements for the same are a myth. Right?

SEC_Chick

07-20-2005 03:24 PM

Here it comes...

Quote:

Originally posted by nononono
Trisomy (at least one of them), too, probably.

The thing about amnio and cvs is that the chance of miscarriage due to the procedure is about the same rate as defects are confirmed by the procedures. Mr. Chick and I have been discussing how much screening we'll have done. Unfortunately, the non invasive ones like neuchal transleucency (ultrasound) and triple screen (maternal blood test), etc. have an extremely high rate of false positives. Since we won't have amnio or cvs due to the risk, and we definitely won't terminate the pregnancy in the event of a problem, the issue is does the chance for peace of mind from a negative outweigh the freaking out we'll do if it's positive (since we won't do more invasive testing to be certain). In the event that there is a problem, would you rather have the opportunity to read up on the condition and possible resources, or have a stress-free pregnancy at the price of having a freak-out and being unprepared at birth.

Penske_Account

07-20-2005 03:25 PM

Here it comes...

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Under your law, what would the penalty be, and on whom would it fall?

Penalty for what?

Penske_Account

07-20-2005 03:26 PM

Here it comes...

Quote:

Originally posted by SEC_Chick
In the event that there is a problem, would you rather have the opportunity to read up on the condition and possible resources, or have a stress-free pregnancy at the price of having a freak-out and being unprepared at birth.

I would want to read up. I think my wife would too but I am not positive.

Penske_Account

07-20-2005 03:28 PM

This is interesting.....

Sources say that Roberts is married to the former Executive Vice President of Feminists for Life.

Assuming he is married to a woman, this does not make sense. Didn't Sebby say that there are no pro-life woman?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

07-20-2005 03:28 PM

Here it comes...

Quote:

Originally posted by nononono
Okay, yes, like I said, memory is fuzzy. But my recollection is that at the initial screen you get a probability - 1 in 200 I think is "normal," but once you do the amnio they are actually looking at the chromosomes to see if a or b is missing/damaged/extra. A lot of people choose not to do an amnio, due to the risks (pretty much the 1/200 chance of an issue, across all OBs, which is why the "line" is often at that 1/200 mark), but instead will make a choice to keep moving forward based on that. Interestingly, I've had conversations with a lot of people who say they won't do the amnio/don't want to know because they intend to keep the baby. In my mind, whatever you're going to do with it, don't you want to know, at least to be ready for what you may be facing? I've never gotten a good answer to that.

I've never quite understood the calculus here.

There's a risk that amnio will cause a miscarriage (I think it's ~1/300, but whatever). And there's a risk of birth defects (increasing with mom's age). When that risk is less than 1/300, then amnio is indicated.

But it's not a sensible comparison because it fails to acknowledge the costs of error. For example, I might value the cost of having a trisomic baby as even higher than losing a baby to miscarriage. (Or it might be the other way around) But the risk-risk comparison doesn't incorporate that at all. So I might be willing to take a 1/300 risk of miscarriage, just to ensure a 1/1000 chance that amutant won't be born.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

07-20-2005 03:29 PM

This is interesting.....

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Didn't Sebby say that there are no pro-life woman?

No, slave said there are no republican-voting women. So, I think Roberts is screwed--he's got a traitor in the house (two if you count the daughter).

ltl/fb

07-20-2005 03:31 PM

Here it comes...

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Hmmmm, then I guess the long term care industry and medicare and medicaid reimbursements for the same are a myth. Right?

That's getting some sucker to clean up after you. And why Medicare is going bankrupt.

Ooooh, we can foist our disabled children on the state -- relinquish custody. Medicaid can cover. Nifty.

Sidd Finch

07-20-2005 03:38 PM

Here it comes...

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Or, perhaps you and liberal friends pushed the state of Florida to kill her against her wishes, which no one really knows. In the aftermath of the Schiavo thing I voiced my desire to be kept alive at all costs. My wife (I suspect fearing a long potential waiting period for the multi-million dollar insurance payment) dislikes and disagrees with my position. Assuming I have since neglected to get a living will and I go into a persistent vegetative state today and she goes to court to pull the plug and says (lying-she was a demo before I turned her so she has bad tendencies) "oh yes, he told me he would want to die", and then gets her sister to similarly lie and say, "I heard it too", notwithstanding that my parents and siblings testify that I would want to be kept alive, the State sanctions my murder based on fraud.

Which is essentially what happened in the Schiavo case. At least accept responsibility for what your revel in.

eta: funny carrot joke by the way. I bet her family would find that hilarious

No one knows? So this is one of those questions a court just can't assess, and therefore we have to keep the woman alive in a vegetable state so you and your right-wing friends can get together at church and celebrate how you've done something just soooo valuable?

Let me guess -- you believe her husband killed her. Right? That would be true Penske-think. (Sorry for the oxymoron.)

And the carrot joke is just for your benefit, asshole. But please -- let's not pretend that you or anyone else gave a shit about her family. Or are husbands not families to you people?

Penske_Account

07-20-2005 03:38 PM

This is interesting.....

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
No, slave said there are no republican-voting women. So, I think Roberts is screwed--he's got a traitor in the house (two if you count the daughter).

My wife votes Republican (except for the couple of times she voted for Perot). I fill out and mail the absentee ballot so I am sure about this.

Penske_Account

07-20-2005 03:41 PM

Here it comes...

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
That's getting some sucker to clean up after you. And why Medicare is going bankrupt.

Ooooh, we can foist our disabled children on the state -- relinquish custody. Medicaid can cover. Nifty.

If the programs are there and the patients are eligible why should they be denied? Isn't the point of them to assist the poor and elderly who cannot otherwise afford health care?

Sidd Finch

07-20-2005 03:41 PM

Here it comes...

Quote:

So it was okay for your friends to pull their baby out and crush its head, but not okay to let Terry Schiavo die a natural death consistent with what she wanted?

I guess suffering only matters when its your friends.

nononono

07-20-2005 03:41 PM

Here it comes...

Quote:

Originally posted by SEC_Chick
The thing about amnio and cvs is that the chance of miscarriage due to the procedure is about the same rate as defects are confirmed by the procedures. Mr. Chick and I have been discussing how much screening we'll have done. Unfortunately, the non invasive ones like neuchal transleucency (ultrasound) and triple screen (maternal blood test), etc. have an extremely high rate of false positives. Since we won't have amnio or cvs due to the risk, and we definitely won't terminate the pregnancy in the event of a problem, the issue is does the chance for peace of mind from a negative outweigh the freaking out we'll do if it's positive (since we won't do more invasive testing to be certain). In the event that there is a problem, would you rather have the opportunity to read up on the condition and possible resources, or have a stress-free pregnancy at the price of having a freak-out and being unprepared at birth.

FYI, the rate of miscarriage/issues with an amnio is probably far lower for your ob than the 1/200 - it will vary by experience and skill level of the giver. And no, amnio gives you a pretty-close-to definitive answer on most of the conditions screened for.

Me, I chose to have the information - whatever the choice, I would want to be prepared. If it's a baby with serious problems, I would not want to scramble post-birth when I'm just trying to get used to the baby itself.

nononono

07-20-2005 03:47 PM

Here it comes...

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I've never quite understood the calculus here.

There's a risk that amnio will cause a miscarriage (I think it's ~1/300, but whatever). And there's a risk of birth defects (increasing with mom's age). When that risk is less than 1/300, then amnio is indicated.

But it's not a sensible comparison because it fails to acknowledge the costs of error. For example, I might value the cost of having a trisomic baby as even higher than losing a baby to miscarriage. (Or it might be the other way around) But the risk-risk comparison doesn't incorporate that at all. So I might be willing to take a 1/300 risk of miscarriage, just to ensure a 1/1000 chance that amutant won't be born.

But amnio is always a *choice*. Some go by the numbers, but most do a qualitative analysis weighing what you say, as well as other concerns.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:24 PM.

Page 312 of 334

312

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page