Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Atlantic"
channel.
-
18
-
16
-
+ Jay you equate a fetus of 3 or 4 months to a human being. They are not humans, they do not have personhood, law and medicine does not consider a fetus with 3 or 4 months to be a human. (the tiny form at 3 months starts to resemble the look of the human body, the heart starts beating, the nervous system starts developing - BUT that does not make it a human). - Do you eat meat or drink milk ? Then animals are killed for you that are more sentient than a fetus with 3 or 4 months.
So it is not "abuse" or "murdering" a child - there is no child - only a being that would become a human infant if the woman decides to carry the pregnancy to term.
Many people have religious spiritual beliefs that the potential human counts as human right from the moment when egg and sperm unite. That means a cell formation of 2, 4, 8, 16 can be considered as human. (The Catholic Church did not always have that stance - in former times it counted as human when the mother could feel movements).
Let me add that I get nervous about late term abortions. When a country handles early abortions in a reasonable manner, the late term abortions will be restricted to medical necessity. In the U.S. they are a tiny proportion (maybe 2 %).
The procedure seems to be brutal (I watched a video of a doctor who performed them and described them).
Even if there a severe disabilites and the later child would suffer or not live long outside the womb - I would not want the fetus to suffer when the pregnancy is ended prematurely and with an abortion (with 6 months they can feel pain, likely earliery - I do not know if they sedate in such cases).
it seems that some defects can only be detected with 5 months into the pregnancy.
Or the mother's life is in danger and the pregnancy is in the 6th month. (With extreme medical care some children did survive with 5 or 5,5 months. 6 months into the pregnancy is the threshold where a prematurely born infant has some chances for survival. It gets better with 7 months.
The threshold to viability is a grey area - most nations have a limit of 3 - 4 months for legal abortions - during that time survival outside the womb is impossible - to avoid ethical grey areas. Later abortions need medical justification.
I read a story where a woman - a midwife - got the prognosis that the child would be so severely disabled that it would die. Everyone expected her to abort - but she decided to carry the pregnancy to term. The girl died a few hours after being born in her arms. While I respect the dignity of her decision very much - not every woman might have the strength.
And what if the child would live but be highly disabled - needing 24/7 medical attention or parental care. WHO is going to pay for it, who is going to help the parents ? - and WHO is going to force the parents to shoulder that burden ?
What is to become of the rest of the family (including the other children) when their parents are burdened with such care because someone else made the decision for them that they have to continue such a pregnancy.
They can of course hand over the disabled child to the authorities - do you imagine the disabled child will be well taken care of in the publicly funded system ??
In the U.S. not even regular citizens have healthcareoor get intense care (for the elderly or disabled) if they do not have enough money. And the U.S. also does not take care of mentally ill persons, that is why so many end up in the prison system (they are locked up, likely abused by other inmates, but still not taken care of)
There also do not have enough programs for persons with less severe disabilites (like Down Syndrome). That is true for the U.S. but also for many other wealthy nations. Many could live independent and hold an easy part time job - with some assistance. What is to become of such persons when their parents die ? If they have sibling they cannot pursue their career and marriage decisions - because they have to stick around their disabled sibling.
11
-
10
-
So to everyone that is (rightfully) critical of the Chinese government. All the other wealthy, developed nations acted in the SAME manner (with a few notable exceptions). While they had the major advantage of MORE warning, more information, longer time to snap out of denial and to prepare, and with DRASTIC warning examples (China and Italy).
Given the advantages all other nations had compared with China - they did badly
Some did MUCH WORSE than China - among the walthy nations: the U.S. and the U.K.
I am sure Trump would also lock up doctors, who state facts that he finds incovenient for his reelection or may spell doom for the economic outlook - if only he had that option or could get away with it.
It is bad enough that he fires the experts, and that the few like Dr. Fauci (highly respected authorities in their field) have to bite their tongue and have to politely and cautiously handle the tantrum-prone Toddler-in-chief.
I guess Dr. Fauci can well do w/o the job - but if he speaks his mind , who is going to inject a little bit of sanity into the Trump admain handling of the corona crisis ? It is his patriotic duty to suffer politely the living example of Dunning Kruger effect, to get along with the moron-in-chief as best as he possibly can.
The hesistance of China to shut down the economy (as long as they could assume "this is not as bad, after all we pulled it off in 2002 / 2003 as well, that could be contained with some effort") is somewhat understandable.
If they had reacted correctly some regions in China would have had major economic fallout - and the world would have been spared (or danger would lurk under the surface, if the virus remains existent, and with the long incumabion time and unfortunate features, it is not likely to vanish completely (like SARS-CoV-1).
The rich nations would remain as clueless, blissfully ignorant and cavalier. We (the global population) had a LOT of warning shots since 1997 / 1998. We were just lucky - so far.
The attempts to develop a vaccine for SARS-CoV-1 from 2002 (we just about dodged a bullet then) were stopped after they successfully reigned it in.
"Only2 Asian countries had severe problems. Canada imported it, but they could stop it. Likely SARS-CoV-1 was not quite as infectious, or the incubation time is more favorable to detect it, or people are only spreading it when they have symptoms, that helps to restrict spreading as soon as decisive action is taken.
Point is: if you have made the investment to have a fully tested vaccine (even if it seems to be stranded costs) there is a good chance that it does not take as long to develop a vaccine for the next mutation (like SARS-CoV-2 of 2019).
We might have the prospect to get a vaccine FAST not in 12 months if we are really lucky (or 18 - 24 months).
SARS-CoV-1 has vanished, and as soon as the threat of an epidemic / pandemic was banned, they couldn't come up with the money to continue the work. Scientists would have told them to, but it is politicians that allocate funding.
Trump cut the budgets of CDC and undermined the Ebola task force that Obama had installed after 2013. Trump fired those people - of course he did - and he asked for more CDC cuts when laying down his wishes for the next budget. That was before the crisis broke.
Likely the local government (Wuhan) was hesistant, hoped it would be manageable, did not want to spoil the upcoming New Year festivities.
Culturally: the most important holiday in China.
It is like Christmas and Thanksgiving merged. Calling that off because a potential epidemic ? Likely it wasn't that bad anyway.
And of course that would have been bad for business as well. (It was bad anyway, and more so).
8
-
7
-
7
-
I cannot imagine if the U.S. had been "nation zero" or the first major nation to catch it AFTER China. Trump's response was horrible, inept, stupid, favoring corporations (instead of kicking them to do what was needed and FAST, never mind the maximum profit).
Even with all the information and time advantages the U.S. had.
Trump did restrict Chinese coming to the U.S. - I guess from China, not sure if people with a Chinese passprot coming in from Europe or Canada had a problem.
But no mandatory quarantine for U.S. citizens returning - so that was political grandstanding and not a rational policy informed by scientific advice.
His usual resentment, political games (meant for his base /voters) and the intention to be caught "doing somethiny, anything" informed his decision. So while the decision was correct it did not come from the right mindset and information, thus he dropped the ball on everything else. Incl. OTHER travel bans.
IF Trump thought those Chinese nationals could carry the virus, then he obviously had to worry about ALL persons coming from China (never mind the passport). Trump a little later got advice to also restrict travel from Europe - he did NOT stick with that, even though THEN more dire information was available. Economic interests prevailed.
So the U.S. got it from Europe (likely also Italy) instead of China. considering how fast and easy it spreads, that meant only a few days !
Iceland had MANDATORY quarantines, they applied it to people returning from Italy and the Austrian (criminally negligent) skiing regions. Ieland assessed the situation in Austria better then the locals (they tested tourists immediately after they had landed and 2 were positive). In Iceland they nibbed it in the bud.
Then they expanded the mandatory quarantine to ALL persons returning to the island.
NOW they do intense testing, some social distancing, and are doing VERY well with that, w/o complete shutdown of the economy.
Trump did not mind putting a travel ban on CHINESE travellers (meaning with a Chinese passport), because it suits him, to stick it to China (trade war, riling up sentiment for his reelection).
And then there is UK, US countries with populist right wingers that did too little too late while following foolish advice (that happened to be aligned with what is good for biz, it can't be THAT bad, can't it.
Must have to do something with a tabloid, right wing press (and tV stations) owned by billionaires. The Murdoch effect that dumbs down the population and props up the likes of Trump and Boris Johnson. In Australia (Murdoch originated from there) they have that to, there seems to be an element of good sense in these countries that helps a little bit. Although their stupid right wingers also manage to win elections and get cover regarding the lack of climate change policies even with the devastating wildfires.
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
That said: Italy dropped the ball WITH the example of China (they had a lot of people coming back to Italy from China. Their neighbour countries likely got it from Italy. Affluent skiers spread it in the skiing locations in Italy, France, Spain, Austria, Switzerland, Germany.
The Austrian skiing regions (Chinese tourists or people from Italy spreading it) also dropped the ball (and worse), in complete denial, did not report that an infectious disease had shown with staff in the aprés ski bars (they are mandated to do that whenever there is the suspicion even).
Then they quarantied a whole region (with the often foreign tourists).
After some time they LET those (often wealthy) foreigners leave, they had to give the promise that they would return (drive) home irectly and self quarantine.
They kept a firm lock on the locals, and a better tab on Austrian citizens if they were allowed to return to their home state, region.
Looks like many foreign tourists didn't do it, at least that is alleged from staff operating other skiing regions (lifts, hotels). But that these tourists continued their vacation in a skiing destination that had not yet been locked down.
The next release was managed better by the Austrian government, this time the cars drove in a convoy, and police escorted them to the border.
The other European neighbours of Italy dragged their feet, they too ignored the
example of China (this is far away, "what happens in China stays in China") AND first also of Italy, but at some point they - like China, like Italy - jumped into action.
The only saving grace: these skiing tourists tended to be younger and healthy people, so less casualties. And until these younger healthy infected had started to spread the infection among the normal (less favorably selected) population their governments FINALLY had realized what they had at hands.
That means they could have an eye on the risky group of tourists coming from certain regions. Those tourists (after all wealthy or middle class, and often educated persons) then had at least the good sense to self report.
Italy was less lucky: they have Chinese workers, tourists, students, all importing it in January when they came back from the holiday / family reunion of the Chinese New Year.
Sightseeing is good at that time of the year, mild weather, very nice if it is sunny. The Carneval in Venice attracts the masses.
In Italy they also have on average an older population that tends to hug and kiss for a greeting.
And they have fewer ICU or hospital beds per 1000 people than the wealthy neighbours surrounding them. Still more than the U.S.
So Italy was the unlucky "nation zero" in Europe. Also a mistake: only reacting per province, large city - so the affluent fled Milano (went to Rome) and spread the virus even more. If you do a lockdown you must make sure people can't leave (like the dictatorship did with Wuhan) or you have to lock down the whole country.
I have no doubt that the other European governments would have dropped the ball as badly had they been first to figure it out. Many reacted badly as is. They just were lucky to have the drastic example of Italy.
China is far away. With former epidemics and pandemics, Europe and the U.S. had been lucky - so far. (While China did suffer, so they SHOULD have learned)
Taiwan, Hongkong, Singapore, South Korea had been burned before. Their current wisdom and good leadership came at a price.
When neighbour country Italy started to get really into trouble - then the neighbour countries finally, finally started to learn from example Italy and not having to make ALL the bad experiences themselves.
4
-
3
-
2
-
+ Michelle No one can "provide" the alternative to have a child (or another child). The counselor is not going to be there for mother and child (children) in 6 moths, 3 years, 12 years. - Having a child means being at least 18 years responsible - with all the demands on energy, sleep, health, money, space (housing), adjustments in work, income, etc.
That is not something that another person can make much easier.
Women KNOW they could have the child - and usually they have a pretty good idea what that means.
Now, a scared young woman with a supportive non judgemental family might overcome her first shock. And decide that she is going to have the child. Usually that means she would be talking to her mother and discuss it with her. No need for strangers to tell her how she should lead her life. And if she does not have a support network and is young - back to square one - the stranger that gives advice is not going to be there for her the next 18 years.
And if the woman has more life experience, you do not need to counsel her, she knows what she would get having a child (and that is assuming that the child would be healthy and have no developmental difficulties).
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@Francesca-oc3go No one was shot in China because of Co-Vid-19. People were forced ! to undergo a temperature check and suspects were required to undergo a test. So that was authoritarian if you will. They had to coerce some people to go to the field / provisory hospitals (if need be with the police) if they tested positive, but most went along.
On the other hand the government provided care, food, toilets, clean beds and heating, people had books and their phones. They brought in doctors and nurses and equipment from other parts of the country. So once they did react, they did it right.
The patients / those who tested positive just had to stay put for 14 days or until not contagious anymore (So no home quarantine, I guess many people live in close quarters, the Chinese avoided that trap).
needless to say: All of that free of charge. I assume many New Yorkers would not have minded if the U.S. government had provided that.
And I think in italy with mulitgenerational households it would have been easier to
btw, the police in Italy or Germany or Austria would do the same if a person is not cooperative and a danger for society (like ignoring quarantine).
Remember when a nurse coming back from Africa fighting ebola was held against her will at a tent in a parking lot of the U.S. airport. It was a panic / publicity stunt of Republicans a few days before an election (in 2013).
She had worked for Doctors w/o Borders. of course she was not a carrier to the best of their knowledge, or she would have stayed in Africa. Of course they had guidelines for a voluntary quarantine in her home. She appealed the courts and won the freedom to self-quarantine, they had to let her go one day later. So she and her partner (who joined her in the quarantine) went on a bike ride - no contact with other persons - with the police cars and the media in tow. Police to make sure that she behaved and did quarantine right.
The staff of Doctors w/o borders is not overpaid. They had considerable risks and hardships. Not only the risk to get infected, the nuisance of a third world medical system and logistics, the harrowing stories. Also the POLITICAL risks, some of these healthcare workers were abducted or killed by rebel groups / insurgents / criminals.
So ... the assumption was that she would not be willing or informed or motivated enough to do the right thing when back in a first world country. Police forced her (she did not make a scene and they did not rough her up). But she was held in a tent in the cold season, of course no toilet in the tent, those idiots could at least have rented a camper with all the comforts for their election tough on ebola / scare stunt.
1
-
1
-
1