Ireland looks set to repeal the 8th Amendment

[Frelga]

Maternal death rate in the US was 26.4 per 100K live births in 2015 and rising. This doesn't even count deaths from complications of miscarriage. By comparison, the industry with the highest fatal injury rate, fishing, had 23.2 deaths per 100K full time workers.

It seems pretty obvious that the decision about whether to take on something that is more dangerous than any other occupation should be up to the people taking the risk.

BTW, UK is in the second place with an 9.3 maternal deaths per 100K.

Edited to fix the numbers as pointed out by Inanna.

[Inanna]

Frelga, check that post. In one place you’ve said 100K in the other 10K??

[Frelga]

Actually, this is bugging me. The charts on the occupational fatalities are confusing, and I don't have the time to figure them out. Anyone wants to take a stab?

Eta - yes, both are per 100K, thanks Inanna.

[Inanna]

That's a bloody wide difference between 1st and 2nd. And this ranking has to be restricted to the "developed" nations. Right, Frelga? (link?)

And take into account the un-counted fatal miscarriages, preclampsyia deaths, and what not. Producing children probably has the highest mortality rate.

But that's okay, cuz it's a miracle (/sarcasm)

PS: adding "/sarcasm", really kills the effect doesn't it?

[Frelga]

That's a bloody wide difference between 1st and 2nd. And this ranking has to be restricted to the "developed" nations. Right, Frelga? (link?)

And take into account the un-counted fatal miscarriages, preclampsyia deaths, and what not. Producing children probably has the highest mortality rate.

But that's okay, cuz it's a miracle (/sarcasm)

PS: adding "/sarcasm", really kills the effect doesn't it?

https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/52809878 ... oped-world

[Maria]

This US occupational death rate chart would put childbearing in 6th place, if it were counted.

civilian occupations with high death rates.png (86.1 KiB) Viewed 9828 times

edit:
I found it here: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf
edit2: changed number, can't count
edit 3: still can't count

[Frelga]

I was looking at this one, which may be rolling some occupations together (fishing and agriculture, for example).

But still.

[Maria]

Different year, too.

[yovargas]

While I understand and sympathize with the sentiment behind "only women should get a vote", the argument is.... unconvincing. There are lots of things that people get a "vote" on that don't affect them directly. Like straight people getting to vote on gay marriage. Which is fine, even if it sometimes leads to results I don't like. But that's democracy.

I bet that the fishing, logging, and construction industries have lots of rules and regulations around them. I would bet almost none of the people who voted on those regulations worked in fishing, logging, or construction.

[River]

Different year and different categories. Logging isn't on Frelga's chart, for example. Still, it's some pretty healthy perspective. I think part of the problem is there're some pretty gnarly disparities in how the US delivers healthcare, that's for sure. Not just because of insurance and its rules but because of geography. In a rural area the nearest health care facility can be over 30 minutes away and may not even have the right staff for the level of care needed. Where I live, there's a hospital ten minutes away with a level III NICU. And then some states have just let their infrastructure in general go to s***...in some cases literally. Alabama's got a hookworm outbreak.

Regarding pregnancy, as with everything else, those taking on the most risk really should have the most say in how it goes down. If a man wants a baby, he needs to convince his female partner that between the two of them they'll be able to take care of the child and he won't let anything happen to her along the way. I know that disagreements can happen - my husband wasn't all that thrilled when, after two false alarms and a couple weeks of general early labor b.s. I scheduled an induction for my second child. He thought it was dangerous. Never mind it was scheduled for the due date and never mind I was miserable. Then she (the baby) whacked me in a ligament while I was standing in the kitchen, talking to him. My left leg gave. I would have hit the ground if I hadn't been standing next to a counter. It was a solid two or three minutes before I was able to use the leg again. That scared him into taking my side. The induction went just fine.

x-posted with yov.

[Dave_LF]

All stakeholders should get a vote, otherwise the result is tyranny. This is arguably the motivating principle behind democracy. And while it's a somewhat separate matter, to my knowledge not even the weaker notion that those with more at stake should get more votes has been accepted on other issues.

[Frelga]

OK, if the takeaway from my post was that pregnancy is like fishing, then I have concerns.

[Dave_LF]

If it was, you might have more luck convincing men to try it.

[River]

Well, let me put it this way: is it right to coerce someone into doing something dangerous?

[yovargas]

OK, if the takeaway from my post was that pregnancy is like fishing, then I have concerns.

If that was directed at me, it feels like a willful distortion of what I said. I say willful because I know you are intelligent enough to know what I was actually saying.

[Frelga]

It was an exaggeration for effect. The point was that pregnancy is one of the most dangerous experiences a person can undergo, often not by choice. It was not to compare anti-abortion laws to other types of regulation.

[yovargas]

Which isn't really relevant to my point that it is common for people in a democracy to vote about things that do not impact them directly.

[Túrin Turambar]

It’s an interesting question as to whether we should segregate the electorate for any issue. For example, whether only people who pay net tax should get a vote on tax rates and government spending, or whether only people eligible for combat roles in the military should vote on whether we go to war. I can see a lot of problems with those examples, and every other one I can think of, so I’d favour sticking with the principle that everyone gets to vote on everything.

But this is a bit of a moot point as far as abortion and gender goes. There’s not a particularly wide gap between men’s and women’s views. Women are a little more pro-choice on average, but there’s far less of a correlation of a position on abortion with gender than there is with age, religious views, and even geographical location. So even if only women could vote, it's not likely that things would be all that different.

[Impenitent]

Allow me to clarify: in my previous post, my meaning was not that men literally should not be entitled to vote on legislation. I meant simply that the decision is the woman's. Her menfolk and family have the right to a respectful hearing, but no right to dictate or coerce.
I did not mean to disenfranchise Alatar.

Sent from a tiny phone keyboard via Tapatalk - typos inevitable.

[River]

That's where I was going too. Ultimately, family planning decisions ought to belong to the people building the family, with the person taking the greatest burden of risk getting the final say. If men want women to bear their children, they need to persuade women that they'll be good daddies. Lots of things go into the decision to have children but having reason to believe you'll be able to raise them comfortably to adulthood is a factor. If the family situation is precarious or the mate is unreliable, that would be a reason to avoid a pregnancy by any means necessary. But I think the daddies on this board already know that, seeing as from what I've seen on this bard they're all good at it.