Don't get me started on Dalit oppression.
Did someone say Dalek impression?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if there's a right or wrong absolute in this complex issue, but it is nice that the doctors and family are on the same side here. In the other story from the states I think the big issue was the quality of life for the developing fetus which I don't think is a worry here.
Can't say I followed the Texas case all that closely so I don't know if it was corroborated, but dude claimed being kept plugged in while brain-dead was against her expressed wishes. If true, keeping her alive as an incubator seems pretty near to absolutely wrong to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Texas: No Medicaid expansion for the indigent and living, life support for the brain-dead and pregnant.
Although, for the sake of full disclosure, NH isn't expanding Medicaid either.
Down with Obamacare!
For free, quality health care for all!
Vive le Galt!
We've had dozens of cases where people were thought to be brain dead or in unrecoverable comas but amazingly made full recoveries, but for every one of these miracles there's probably hundreds of cases were the doctors were right.
Don't conflate "brain dead" with "unrecoverable comas."
My understanding is that there are no recorded cases anywhere in the medical literature of recovery from "brain death."
We've had dozens of cases where people were thought to be brain dead or in unrecoverable comas but amazingly made full recoveries, but for every one of these miracles there's probably hundreds of cases were the doctors were right.Don't conflate "brain dead" with "unrecoverable comas."
My understanding is that there are no recorded cases anywhere in the medical literature of recovery from "brain death."
I'm pretty sure we've had at least one braindead PotUS.
Early eighties, Britishiznoid anarchist punk collective Crass make feminist album and later record joke song that...
Well, you can see for yourself.
Roughly a decade later, across the pond, young Doodlebug has his mind blown.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, yes the hospital was wrong.
They weren't doing it out of concern for the fetus, or because the doctors had a different opinion on the viability of the pregnancy or the woman's chances of recovery or anything.
They did it because some d-bags in the Texas legislature decided to ratchet up things on the whole personhood tactic while simultaneously continuing to strip womens rights by making a pregnant woman nothing more than an incubator.
Well I can't comment on the whole politics of this case (I do realize that this is Texas though and big parts of it are pretty backwater) I can say that if I were the woman and I thought my child had a good chance of survival and a normal life that I'd have wanted them to do anything possible to save it. The two major differences in these tragic stories, this one and the one out of Canada, is that in Canada we have a fetus that has a good chance of survival and a normal life and we have family members and doctors in agreement over what the late mother would have wanted. While I think politics might have come into play here I don't think that it was entirely a political move.
Also I agree that the Texas hospital made the wrong decision and that they shouldn't have put the family through this but I really don't think this is an entirely black and white scenario.
That's the UK. The U.S. probably has much, much tighter standards of what constitutes brain death. In no small part because of the massive internal movement towards trying to keep people alive for their maximum natural lifespan.
Of course, being dead doesn't stop people from getting elected; just ask Missouri about the dead senator they elected once.
We've had dozens of cases where people were thought to be brain dead or in unrecoverable comas but amazingly made full recoveries, but for every one of these miracles there's probably hundreds of cases were the doctors were right.Don't conflate "brain dead" with "unrecoverable comas."
My understanding is that there are no recorded cases anywhere in the medical literature of recovery from "brain death."
I don't know, I typed brain death recovery into google and got this as the first result:
'Miracle recovery' of teen declared brain dead by four doctors
Now you could argue that he wasn't given the proper diagnosis . . .
I don't need to. The article you cited (but evidently didn't read) made that point explicitly.
"Remarkably, he detected faint brain waves indicating Steven had a slim chance of recovery and medics decided to attempt to bring him out of his coma."
In other words, the medical experts acknowledge at that point that he wasn't brain dead.
That's not relevant in the Texas case. No one, not even the hospital, has ever argued that the diagnosis of brain death might be incorrect. Brain dead is dead, and no one has ever recovered from that.
with another quick google I see that there's a lawsuit claiming that 1 in five "brain dead" patients are still alive.
Equivocation. The article says that 1 in 5 brain dead patients are ALIVE, that is they have a heart beat. Your argument is that the patients are diagnosed as "brain dead" but are not brain dead. ENORMOUS difference.
Equivocation. You are swapping your definition of alive with the articles, still.
Here
, said the scientific literature does not support the criteria for ‘brain death’ and ‘cardiac death’ as being real death. “Although it may be ethical to remove vital organs from these patients, we believe that the reason it is ethical cannot convincingly be that the donors are dead,” the article said.
Big Controversy Sweeps Facebook and Feminists
Confession time:
I don't think I have ever voluntarily listened to a Beyonce song. Until recently, I'm not sure I had ever heard a Beyonce song.
Another confession:
I had never seen What's Love Got To Do With It?
So, woah, Jay-Z, wtf?!?
Also, OHWFA!!!
Also, I don't care what anyone says, I still like Woody Allen.
China's Female Millionaires are in a Matchmaking Frenzy
Kinda old, but still fascinating.
This is my favorite Beyonce song.
It's not just you.
So, I forget what it's called when a couple makes a list of the people that each partner are allowed to "cheat" with, but, as of yesterday, my local comrades' list goes:
Her: Sexy Putin
On the one hand, it's a silly, failed, copy of M.I.A.
Otoh, OHWFA!
MIA tho. Now THATS a woman.
Was enjoying that video in Gamer Talk of the nude woman writhing in d20s and I realized that I never took a Womans Studies course, so I don't understand "objectification" theory. Like, at all.
So, I looked it up on wikipedia and found that there are quite a few views on it from a variety of feminist perspectives. (I, of course, am not a feminist.)
I'm sure I'll have hours of fun looking all these people up:
"While the concept of sexual objectification is important within feminist theory, ideas vary widely on what constitutes sexual objectification and what are the ethical implications of such objectification. Some feminists such as Naomi Wolf find the concept of physical attractiveness itself to be problematic,[33] with some radical feminists being opposed to any evaluation of another person's sexual attractiveness based on physical characteristics. John Stoltenberg goes so far as to condemn as wrongfully objectifying any sexual fantasy that involves visualization of a woman.[34]
"Radical feminists view objectification as playing a central role in reducing women to what they refer to as the 'sex class'. While some feminists view mass media in societies that they argue are patriarchal to be objectifying, they often focus on pornography as playing an egregious role in habituating men to objectify women.[35] Other feminists, particularly those identified with sex-positive feminism, take a different view of sexual objectification and see it as a problem when it is not counterbalanced by women's sense of their own sexual subjectivity.[citation needed]
"Some social conservatives have taken up aspects of the feminist critique of sexual objectification. In their view however, the increase in the sexual objectification of both sexes in Western culture is one of the negative legacies of the sexual revolution.[36][37][38][39][40] These critics, notably Wendy Shalit, advocate a return to pre-sexual revolution standards of sexual morality, which Shalit refers to as a 'return to modesty', as an antidote to sexual objectification.[37][41]
"Others contest feminist claims about the objectification of women. Camille Paglia holds that 'Turning people into sex objects is one of the specialties of our species.' In her view, objectification is closely tied to (and may even be identical with) the highest human faculties toward conceptualization and aesthetics.[42] Individualist feminist Wendy McElroy says, given that 'objectification' of women means to make women into sexual objects; it is meaningless because, 'sexual objects', taken literally, means nothing because inanimate objects do not have sexuality. She continues that women are their bodies as well as their minds and souls, and so focusing on a single aspect should not be 'degrading'.[43]"
Individualist feminist Wendy McElroy says, given that 'objectification' of women means to make women into sexual objects; it is meaningless because, 'sexual objects', taken literally, means nothing because inanimate objects do not have sexuality.
I found that statement to completely misrepresent the English construction of the phrase. "Utilitarian object" doesn't represent the object's desires or modes of thoughts, it expresses the human interpretation of the objects purpose and usefulness. Saying something is a "sexual object" is not an expression of the object's desires, but rather an imposition by the speaker of their interpretation onto the object (or a description of someone's interpretation more often in this case).
Literally, it would mean an object used for sex. There are inanimate objects used for sex.
As for porn, I'm of the mind that context matters. In a free and equal society, pornography wouldn't be a big deal. I think the industry itself has probably improved quite a bit, particularly with the advent of the internet. It hasn't been exactly a great equalizer, but it has forced some of the larger companies to treat their employees better, if they don't, they can just start a website and make money on their own, though this mostly applies to more established performers.
Slut shaming is still a real thing and female porn stars aren't really taken seriously outside of the porn industry. Though it's harder and harder, many still try to conceal their profession from family. Using fake names and concealing identity as much as possible is the norm.
Of course people choose to go into porn. Young kids with only a high school diploma and no job experience don't exactly have a lot of opportunities to make several thousand dollars a week. You offer enough money, you'll get people to do just about anything, regardless of the consequences to them.
Individualist feminist Wendy McElroy says, given that 'objectification' of women means to make women into sexual objects; it is meaningless because, 'sexual objects', taken literally, means nothing because inanimate objects do not have sexuality.I found that statement to completely misrepresent the English construction of the phrase. "Utilitarian object" doesn't represent the object's desires or modes of thoughts, it expresses the human interpretation of the objects purpose and usefulness. Saying something is a "sexual object" is not an expression of the object's desires, but rather an imposition by the speaker of their interpretation onto the object (or a description of someone's interpretation more often in this case).
Literally, it would mean an object used for sex. There are inanimate objects used for sex.
As for porn, I'm of the mind that context matters. In a free and equal society, pornography wouldn't be a big deal. I think the industry itself has probably improved quite a bit, particularly with the advent of the internet. It hasn't been exactly a great equalizer, but it has forced some of the larger companies to treat their employees better, if they don't, they can just start a website and make money on their own, though this mostly applies to more established performers.
Slut shaming is still a real thing and female porn stars aren't really taken seriously outside of the porn industry. Though it's harder and harder, many still try to conceal their profession from family. Using fake names and concealing identity as much as possible is the norm.
Of course people choose to go into porn. Young kids with only a high school diploma and no job experience don't exactly have a lot of opportunities to make several thousand dollars a week. You offer enough money, you'll get people to do just about anything, regardless of the consequences to them.
Fify
|
"While the concept of sexual objectification is important within feminist theory, ideas vary widely on what constitutes sexual objectification and what are the ethical implications of such objectification. Some feminists such as Naomi Wolf find the concept of physical attractiveness itself to be problematic,[33] with some radical feminists being opposed to any evaluation of another person's sexual attractiveness based on physical characteristics. John Stoltenberg goes so far as to condemn as wrongfully objectifying any sexual fantasy that involves visualization of a woman.[34]"
See, I identify as a "feminist" pretty much. Insofar as I believe in equal rights, lack of cultural sexual dimorphism, and the right for people to choose what happens to their bodies.
But really? Attraction to others based on physical appearance is ethically wrong? Fantasy with visual imagery of women is wrong?
Who are these people? And how do they expect a sexually reproducing species to propagate if these ethical concepts are applied?
What exactly is cultural sexual dimorphism?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm guessing that the whole attracted to beauty is morally wrong crowd is made up of ... how shall I put it ... aesthetically challenged individuals.
What exactly is cultural sexual dimorphism?
From Swinging Single: Representing Sexuality in the 1960s, "The new sexuality is regulated, in part, by the articulation of a cultural sexual dimorphism, in which masculine and feminine remain distinct categories."
Basically, culture is learned -- and there's no reason, in theory, that any particular sphere or type of learning should be restricted to men, or to women. No physical barrier or obstruction keeps women from learning how to fly helicopters or men from learning how to bake wedding cakes.
The barrier that keeps women from flying helicopters (90% of Army helicopter pilots are men) is therefore cultural.
I'm guessing that the whole attracted to beauty is morally wrong crowd is made up of ... how shall I put it ... aesthetically challenged individuals.
Naomi Wolf was/is (depending on how much you like women in their 50s) actually pretty hawt.
In the same book that she put forward the extreme position that beauty is problematic, she also put forward the theory that looking at skinny models in Cosmo or whatever cause anorexia.
Whether that's extreme feminism or basic feminism I'll let the people who've already admitted they've never read a feminist book but know all about it decide.
The barrier that keeps women from flying helicopters (90% of Army helicopter pilots are men) is therefore cultural.