• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Roe Countdown

When will Roe v Wade be overturned

  • Before 31 December 2020

    Votes: 20 18.3%

  • Before 31 December 2022

    Votes: 27 24.8%

  • Before 31 December 2024

    Votes: 9 8.3%

  • SCOTUS will not pick a case up

    Votes: 16 14.7%

  • SCOTUS will pick it up and decline to overturn

    Votes: 37 33.9%
  • Total voters
    109
Status
Not open for further replies.
I get UTIs often, and I've never done meth. Maybe they're common in meth users because they're common in adult female humans with our shorter urethra?
 
lionking said:
It’s still not manslaughter
Click to expand...

On that I agree, but this does seem like this person either deliberately or through gross negligence caused this termination via doing pins full of meth and I think that should maybe be against the law?
 
Manger Douse said:
Sure, but that study showed that methamphetamine abuse does cause UTIs...
Click to expand...

It does no such thing - read it again, and get back to me if you trouble understanding it.

It looked pretty clear to me - here's the conclusion in its entirety:

Lower urinary tract symptoms were highly prevalent among methamphetamine abusers. Our results imply that pathological dopaminergic mechanisms have a role in methamphetamine associated lower urinary tract symptoms. Moreover, first line anticholinergics and prompt combination with α-blockers conferred the most therapeutic benefit to nonresponders.
Click to expand...

"Prevalent among" and "caused by" are two entirely different things. The study shows a lot of women who use meth get UTIs.

Manger Douse said:
... so I don't know where your "biological impossibility" claim comes from - could you explain it please?
Click to expand...

So, as well as not understanding a simple report, you don't know how the human body works.

Urinary infections are caused by bacteria. If you inhale a substance of any kind, it cannot introduce bacteria into a urinary tract.
 
Manger Douse said:
On that I agree, but this does seem like this person either deliberately or through gross negligence caused this termination via doing pins full of meth and I think that should maybe be against the law?
Click to expand...

Breathtaking.

After 50 years of the War on Drugs failing, while sensible countries show that a health-centric focus actually works, it's great to see someone who still wants to criminalise the victim.

Bravo!
 
Going back to the OP, I'm picking the winner is "before 31/12/2022", because SCOTUS is hearing two cases before the end of the year: https://www.axios.com/supreme-court...ppi-ba807f04-7fbf-4ed4-bb6f-cc17560356da.html

I remain open to the possibility, but I'd stake everything I own on Minnesota's 15-week ban to be upheld, which to all intensive purposes* means Roe has been overturned, because introducing strict limits takes away the choice.

*yes that is deliberate, just in case Tofu reads it
 
The Atheist said:
Going back to the OP, I'm picking the winner is "before 31/12/2022", because SCOTUS is hearing two cases before the end of the year: https://www.axios.com/supreme-court...ppi-ba807f04-7fbf-4ed4-bb6f-cc17560356da.html

I remain open to the possibility, but I'd stake everything I own on MinnesotaMississippi's 15-week ban to be upheld, which to all intensive purposes* means Roe has been overturned, because introducing strict limits takes away the choice.

*yes that is deliberate, just in case Tofu reads it
Click to expand...

Fixed above.
 
Manger Douse said:
Sure, but that study showed that methamphetamine abuse does cause UTIs so I don't know where your "biological impossibility" claim comes from - could you explain it please?
Click to expand...
"Purpose:*We investigate the prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms in a cohort of methamphetamine abusers, and assess the therapeutic efficacy of α-blockers and anticholinergics."

The study does "investigate the prevalence", yes, but not the cause.

It compares the efficacy of a few variations of a therapy/treatment.

It does not even attempt to make the conclusion you've attributed to it. The word cause does not appear in the linked page at all.

I've no idea if meth has any mechanism for cause. My intuition leans more towards the behavioral, environmental, dietary, and other such variables commonly associated with many kinds of addiction. I would even guess this is more true in cultures that view addiction as a personal moral failure than a mental health disorder and thus feature greater emotional/social insecurity, loss of income, and other hardships (which typically only deepen the crisis fueling the perceived need for "escape").
 
Delphic Oracle said:
"Purpose:*We investigate the prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms in a cohort of methamphetamine abusers, and assess the therapeutic efficacy of α-blockers and anticholinergics."

The study does "investigate the prevalence", yes, but not the cause.

It compares the efficacy of a few variations of a therapy/treatment.

It does not even attempt to make the conclusion you've attributed to it. The word cause does not appear in the linked page at all.

I've no idea if meth has any mechanism for cause. My intuition leans more towards the behavioral, environmental, dietary, and other such variables commonly associated with many kinds of addiction. I would even guess this is more true in cultures that view addiction as a personal moral failure than a mental health disorder and thus feature greater emotional/social insecurity, loss of income, and other hardships (which typically only deepen the crisis fueling the perceived need for "escape").
Click to expand...

I mean, there is the whole "meth mouth" thing that is this in a nutshell. People think it is the act of smoking meth, but in reality it is that amphetamines, like several other drugs, reduce saliva plus that meth smokers have poor mental hygiene (and seem to drink Mountain Dew in large amounts) and add that up and not good for the teeth....

If there is a causation here it could be along those lines, which is boring and isn't all that helpful in creating a panic.
 
I recently heard that the Supreme Court will be reviewing the new anti-abortion law that was recently enacted in Texas.

Anyway, I expect that the Supreme Court will invalidate this new law on some sort of technical issue (perhaps that weird enforcement mechanism, the short deadline, the lack of exceptions, etc.) as opposed to using this review as a rationale for an overturn of the famous Roe v. Wade decision.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/28/us/politics/supreme-court-mississippi-abortion-law.html

On Wednesday, when the court hears the most important abortion case in a generation, a central question will be whether the court’s conservative majority is prepared to erase that line. The case concerns a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks, long before fetal viability.

The court could overrule Roe entirely, allowing states to ban abortions at any point. But at least some justices may want to find a way to sustain the Mississippi law without overturning Roe in so many words, requiring them to discard the viability line and replace it with another standard that would allow a cutoff at 15 weeks.
Click to expand...

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk
 
The BBC says:

After two hours of oral arguments, the Roe v Wade precedent that has set a baseline of abortion rights through the US for nearly half a century appears to be in serious jeopardy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59495210

the tenor of questioning by the justices over the course of the morning suggests that there is, at the very least, a five-justice majority willing to uphold Mississippi's ban on all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Chief Justice John Roberts, who is now at the ideological centre of the court, seemed comfortable with such a result which, in and of itself, would constitute a major blow to Roe's first-trimester abortion protections.

That may end up a best-case scenario for abortion-rights supporters at this point, however. Other justices, like Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, displayed an openness to a wholesale reversal of Roe, returning the question of abortion legality to individual states.

That's the outcome anti-abortion activists have been working toward for decades - and today it seems closer than ever to becoming a reality.
Click to expand...
 
Matthew Best said:
https://www.oxygen.com/crime-news/b...-of-manslaughter-over-miscarriage-in-oklahoma

Prosectors in Oklahoma successfully argued to a jury this month that a woman who had a miscarriage was guilty of the manslaughter of her non-viable fetus.

She was sentenced to four years in prison.
Click to expand...

Seems like there's three separate issues here. The first is whether it can be a crime to kill a baby. The second is whether a (non-viable) fetus counts as a baby for the purpose of asking whether a crime has been committed. And the third is whether the mother in this particular case actually did something we'd consider responsible for leading to the death in question.

On the third issue, unless there's something important to the case that I'm missing, it seems like we're looking at a miscarriage of justice.

But it also seems to me like this is something of a red herring. The question of ignorance or negligence leading to death isn't unique to pregnancy, and doesn't really tell us anything new about the ethics of abortion.

The ethics of abortion hinge on the other two questions: Can it be a crime to kill a baby, and does a (non-viable) fetus count as a baby. This case came to trial because Oklahoma law answers yes to both of these questions.
 
Maybe this is the GOPs way of trying to up the birthrate in the U.S. Outlaw abortion and then all these people that don't want to have kids will be FORCED to have kids, should they get pregnant, no matter the circumstances.

All I think is going to happen is if they do overturn Roe you're going to see that problem get worse. No one wants to bring a child into a world where you can't even control your own body and where there's no social safety net. I can't believe people are surprised that my generation and younger are saying "**** that" to having kids. My daughter has already said there's no chance she's having kids. It's just not worth it to her to have offspring.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom