You rhetoric has notably bypassed the point of my comment.
Sen. Tuberville has stated that the 'life begins at conception' doctrine is about needing more children, not what is ethical, or constitutional, regardless of whether people can no longer access IVF, or women die because of high risk pregnancies.
I'm trying to get at the root of the motive(s) when unqualified politicians are making blanket medical decisions for women and medical staff.
I think Tuberville just let the cat out of the bag. Perhaps you could explain why you think that's constitutional.
That is wildly different from my experience of talking to women who have had abortions for all different reasons.
I don't think there's a white, bearded man in the sky.
My comment was a dig at one specific religion being used to make legal rulings with dire consequences for women.
Especially in a country where more than one religion, or non-religion exists, the justice system should be secular.
I beg to differ.
There is at least one instance of a live ectopic birth (Jane Ingram) and sometimes embryos survive until 12-13 weeks which could lead to the death of the mother if the law regarding live embryos is strngently applied.
Also, just like the emotional attachment to the smashed vials of embryos in this story, parents may grieve horribly for lost/aborted 'children' that have implanted ectopically.
If Savita Halappanavar can be allowed to die in agony in Ireland because medics could still hear her much wanted baby's heart beat until it was too late, then the 'life begins at conception' brigade can escalate beyond IVF extrauterine wrongful death suits to include ectopic pregnancies and IUD's, both of which potentially involve destroying live embryos.
Would you be okay with one of YOUR children being carried, birthed and raised by some unknown person, or persons? What if they were child abusers, or had babies to sell into slavery? Could you be a defendant in a RICO case as a result of giving your few cells away if that resulting child is harmed?
How about you and your rapist's child becoming your lover when they're in their 20's and you're in your 30's?
Or maybe marrying a sibling without realising?
All this because some muppet eager to execute a 17 year old child in a cruel and unusual way thinks that an embryo consisting of a few cells is more of a child and has more human rights.
Personally, I think it's difficult enough for youngsters in this age of blended families. They can be left wondering if they're sitting next to their half-sibling in school without knowing as it is. Try keeping track of 8, or 9 unused IVF embryos from one donor source, or ones futuristically transplanted from one mother to another and you're heading for feck-upsville.
And how many women would choose to carry a child that was going to die and likely kill them as a way of getting around abortion?
Not to mention how to get to that stage of transplant technology without risking an unlawful death charge in the process of perfecting the technique.
I don't think there's going to be any moving towards utopia with laws that are based in the idea that women are expendable if the Christian god sees fit to unleash a hideous, preventable death on them, such as when a pregnancy is ectopic.
Yeah, it would interesting to know why the woman found the nursery and why she picked up the vials. There appears to be no plea of mitigating circumstances as yet, but I'd wager she wasn't entirely emotionally healthy at the time.
We don't know the details of the unlocked door, either. All we know is that the door was unlocked and the clinic hasn't been sued, at least yet. Maybe it's just easier to sue the most vulnerable person, or maybe it's more difficult to feel anger towards the clinic that is your only chance of having biological children. Maybe the couples struck a deal with the clinic that now can't be fulfilled.
The two couples who lost the two embryos each were suing for money damages, but again we don't know the details of the viability of the lost embryos, how many embryos that they had in storage, how many successful, or unsuccessful implantations they had.
Given the cost of IVF, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that an element of any award would include enough money to go through the process again. That bit I understand.
It's difficult to imagine, however, whatever the backstory, how a ruling could be made without definitive premises, or seemingly without regard for the potentially devastating consequences. Likewise with overturning Roe vs Wade.
It's interesting that within your empathy you view the embryos as children.
It's difficult not to, but how rational is that?
Presumably in many cases, parents have to separate themselves from their stored embryos when they cease to have treatment for whatever reason.
Well, I'm interested in what you have found and it's not just about preaching to the choir.
It's about understanding the context of such a profound ruling and how it might be confronted with sound argument.
For surely it needs confronting.
The link below is the lengthy ruling that I'm only a fraction of the way through. If the link doesn't work and you want to read it, I'll try and find another source for you.
The ruling came about after a patient went through an unlocked door in an IVF clinic and tried to pick up some vials. As they were cryogenically frozen, the patient experienced freezer burn, dropped the vials and therefore destroyed the embryos within, leading to a wrongful death civil suit by two sets of parents.
It was only when I started reading the ruling that the irony hit me: those parents who sued for wrongful death must now either use all their frozen embryos, or donate them to other parents. If unused embryos are destroyed then they too will be subject to a wrongful death suit.
I'm assume that embryos in a cryogenic state are likely to have some sort of shelf life. Should the embryos become unviable having been frozen for an extended period, would the parents, the clinicians, the receptionist, the cleaners, the porters, etc. also be liable for wrongful death under the RICO statute?
If I find more on the bible verses, that I think might have something to do with humans having the image of god on their face I'll let you know.
I've been pondering over your blog since you first wrote it, wondering how I might reply.
At 38 years old, I'm guessing most women in your age range have children. Children should be the priority in adult relationships, that stands to reason.
That doesn't mean a family can't work around illness, or different abilities.
What would put me off is your suicidal feelings with respect to being single. It creates a situation where a potential family is responsible for your entire existence and if things don't work out, that you might put children through the trauma of your suicide.
No mum wants their children traumatised and as a sensitive sounding chap, I'm sure you'll understand that.
That means the first hurdle you have is dealing with your despondency. Other people have said it on this blog: we all need to find ways of being comfortable on our own before we enter into a relationship in order to be in a position where we can contribute to that relationship.
Perhaps, as others have suggested, you might start with googling for an epileptic society, or maybe free counselling services if you can't access those that charge.
Families don't just require financial support, they require emotional, practical and domestic support. Can you cook and clean? Can you decorate, or take on DIY projects? Can you help with homework? Can you emotionally support family members who have had a bad day, or are going through challenging times? Can you walk, or use public transport to run errands? Can you stand around a freezing, or boiling hot playing field cheering on kids playing sports? Can you repair loved to death teddy bears?
Maybe write a list of all the skills you have to offer a family, whether that's a family of two (you and a partner), or of three plus members.
Then maybe ask, can you learn, or improve on the skills you need to be a family man? Can you extend your repertoire of skills? Can you volunteer to support other adults, or children for the practice and your own wellbeing??
I'm sure it probably sounds overwhelming, but anything you do to move towards your goal is likely to be fulfilling if you take the time to congratulate yourself for your achievements.
Talking of which, well done for reaching out with this blog. That took courage and it's a big step forward towards your goals.
I was thinking more of the Muslim American citizens being drawn by Trump's cultural sensitivity.
Besides, if Trump wins, this might be the last time they get to vote. He didn't manage to strip Muslim Americans of their citizenship the last time, but now he knows he needs to scrap the constitution and the Separation of Powers to get his own way.
If we agree there is at least one circumstance where abortion is acceptable/necessary and we agree that society can't force a woman to have an abortion even if the pregnancy is likely to be fatal for that mother, then abortion should be a decision made between a woman and those who are medically qualified. The rest of us don't know the details and circumstances.
Politicians making remote blanket decisions is not only inappropriate, but it has ramifications: In Alabama where the state Supreme Court ruled that a fertilised ovum is a human being, fertility clinics have shut down to avoid murder charges. There is also the question of whether women who use IUD's could be charged and imprisoned.
I should have said in my earlier comment (the IUD reminded me) that no contraceptive is 100% effective. More than 1%, that's more than 1 in 100 pregnancies occur despite people behaving responsibly.
One of the implant contraceptives that doctors were pushing here about 15 years ago was an epic fail. It was mostly youngsters who who were caught out, many of whom were utterly unsupported when it came to being parents too soon.
I'm with Gabor Maté on the subject of addiction - it's not naughty, it's a self-medication response to personal trauma.
The original failure is likely not protecting children who become addicted to things as adults and don't have the skills to look after their own children.
Perhaps it's our personal responsibility to educate ourselves about addiction before bad mouthing others.
Perhaps, as you said, the greatest failure is in society not supporting those whom society has already failed.
All this has sparked a memory of using a vending machine in the 80's and experiencing the steep learning curve that was attempting to retrieve my ghastly beverage from the primitive robot. It seemed like a good idea in a moment of dehydrated madness, but in my defence, I was young and foolish.
Everyone was having difficulty, but as I drank my tea with no milk I suspect the flimsy plastic cup was particularly hot and flexible. It was like trying to negotiate a plastic bag of pyroclastic debris - the slightest pressure and the cup started to collapse shooting an inferno over my hands.
I think this must have been very shortly after the rigid, heat transfer-reducing polystyrene cup was banned for poking holes in the ozone with it's CFC's.
I seem to remember some old hand advising me after the fact that I should have used two cups, one inside the other for some small semblance of rigidity and to create a double wall protection from the heat. I think I eventually managed this perilous feat of engineering only to find that the creeping meniscus-forming double rim was the perfect mechanism for dribbling down my chin and scalding my chest.
If my memory serves me correctly, the profit-maximising flimsy plastic cup was found to be less profitable (and less environmentally friendly) because a minimum of two cups was being used by each customer. Thus, the plastic-lined rigid paper cup, the corrugated cardboard heat sleeve and no doubt other incarnations betwixt were modifications borne of providing a take-away vessel that was actually fit for purpose.
The UK disposable cup evolution may, or may not have been influenced by the aforementioned litigation on the grounds of Parliament not wanting we Brits to get big ideas from you brash Americans. As if we'd be so vulgar as to complain.
The obvious solution is that customers bring their own reusable travel cup. The problem with that, however, is the number of people who think it's okay not to wash their economically viable, environmentally friendly and heat-safe solution between uses, even if it looks like they're in the middle of a two month project to reinvent penicillin. Furthermore, people withdrawing from caffeine are sometimes prone to extreme café rage and are rarely open to explanations of European food hygiene law, the mechanics of cross-contamination and the responsibility an outlet has to other less revolting customers.
I'm pretty sure the original cited litigation was successful because of the combination of excessively hot liquid served in a barely thermo-set plastic bag with a dodgy lid and no warning that human beings were not a point of consideration in McDonald's business model.
Complaints of the bleedin' obvious with respect to hot liquids being hot, belies the irony of not being able to get a grip on the combination of muppet-like failures that has arisen out of exchanging one's own palatable refreshments for out-sourced ecological time bomb muck that surely falls foul of the Geneva Conventions.
There are lots of rights in the constitution and the Statute of Limitations is old news.
Throwing words out is not a rationale, nor an explanation.
It was rape, not an affair.
You can't polish a turd no matter how hard you try. You just end up stinking as bad.
Roberta Kaplan can go ahead with the process of collecting the $83M+ if it's not held in escrow, or on bond for the purposes of appealing the award. If by some strange occurrence Team Trump should find new evidence (or even less likely some ingenious technicality to argue) and overturn the adjudication of rape from the first trial, then Trump would have to sue Carroll for his money back.
If Trump has lied about the amount of ready cash he has (surely not!) then his world may unravel very quickly.
I can't remember who said that the judiciary are playing chess, whilst Trump plays hide'n'seek, but I'm pretty sure Trump has been boxed in, unless he can raise half a billion+ from a GoFundMe attempt in a matter of weeks/days.
I think he's got a couple of hundred thousand in the first enthusiastic rush to donate. Even with a couple of hundred thousand (if that) from the Never Surrender high top sneakers, I have a sneaking feeling Trump is in the process of surrendering, just like he had to when he was arrested multiple times.
Meanwhile, a US judge has just released Alexander Smirnoff despite his admission that he fabricated the information about the Biden's, he has high level ties with Russian intelligence, he has two passports, he lied about only having $2,500 when his girlfriend has an $8M stash...but it's okay, Smirnoff has an ankle monitor on.
It's notable that you're contending the amount of the Disgorgement Order, but not disputing the adjudicated persistent fraud.
Have you got any calculations for that, Conrad, or is it just a gut reaction to the enormity of the award?
Only I don't think, "Golly, that's a whopper!" is grounds for appeal, neither is, "S'not fair!"
I'm not sure openly campaigning on the promise to put a loathsome fraud in his rightful place is grounds to appeal adjudicated fraud, either.
If James had brought charges frivolously, that would be different, but given the evidence was so compelling one charge was adjudicated by summary judgement and the other seven successfully tried, your attempt at claiming victimisation is moot.
I was prescribed vitamin D some time ago, and whilst I acknowledge I was moderately to severely deficient post-lockdown illness and isolation, I didn't much appreciate the remedy.
It was to the point where I was wondering why people snort illegal, addictive and expensive stimulants when they can just pop down to their local Holland & Barrett for a packet of gummies.
You know the way horses instinctively nibble the herbs they need from the hedgerow? I reckon when I crave a plate of peas several days in a row and woe betide anyone who stands between me and the petite pois, there's probably good reason for it.
If I can't handle a few crumbs grated off a supplement without experiencing insomnia, or some other side effect for three days afterwards, there's probably a reason for that, too.
It's perhaps worth noting that whilst we have something of a B12 deficiency epidemic here in Wales, I'm not one of them despite my plant based diet.
First off, it's not Trump's money. That's the point of a Disgorgement Order.
Trump engorged himself and his business empire through fraud; the law allows for disgorgement.
The thing is, Trump's claims of being a multi-billionaire are largely based upon his assets. If he sells a property he'll have to pay capital gains tax, transfer costs, any mortgage on the property, etc.
Anything brand based might be difficult to shift, like his 7.79 million shares in his media outlet, given there are already companies backing away from any association with the Trump name.
The $5M+ held on bond will go to E. Jean Carroll assuming Trump's appeal flops.
The remaining $500M+ might not get paid in full even if Barbara Jones puts the Trump Organisation into liquidation, but as there'll be taxes going back into the state and federal coffers, maybe that will make up for it in a round-about way.
I don't suppose E. Jean Carroll will see much of the $83M+ except, assuming Trump can't, or won't stump up the amount plus interest to appeal, she can start the process of collecting the award in 17 days time. There may be some advantage for her in the timing and amount given Trump stated to the court that he has $400M cash.
Not that getting the money was the point: the size of the defamation award was to shut Trump up, which it did.
I don't know how accurate this is because very occasionally the source I got this from makes errors, but apparently, the gold Trump sneakers haven't been made yet and the sales address is a unit on some obscure industrial estate.
I guess the pair Trump had at the Sneaker Con was a sample pair and possibly the same pair he autographed and auctioned off for $9,000.
Apparently on the website for said sneakers, Trump claims they're sold out at $400 a pop.
It might not be a case of not getting paid, so much as not getting what they've paid for.
online now!jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,996)
RE: America is no longer offering liberty and justice for all.
Genetic, or intergenerational trauma?Did you watch the Gabor Maté video I posted?