NEWS: Lorraine Rothman is Dead; Long Live Her Legacy

Uh, not that I want people to die, but if you get yourself into a situation where you know the dangers involved and you end up in hospital, personally I think the people who're suffering illnesses and injuries through no fault of their own should be seen to first.

I'm not saying "let them die"... But I do think if the end result IS death, then it's their own fucking fault.

It's not a hospital's job to punish people for being there; it's their job to treat people.

Yeah, exactly, because a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy should have known that she could get pregnant by having sex, and that it could be a life threatening condition. So if she dies because someone who was the victim of an act of god was treated first, that's her "own fucking fault".

I love it when people get loose with the term hero and heroine.

She is not. A great woman, yes. Heroine? Give me a break.

Pretty sure I was referring to the drugs issue there, sir. The many health problems that come with everyday life activities (sleeping, sex, reading, etc) aren't anyone's fault. I mean, unless you knowingly fuck someone who has an STD without a condom, or something equally daft.

But if you choose to stick a needle in your arm, or pop a pill, that contains a substance that you know could fuck you up severely, and you get hurt or die, then yes, it is your own fucking fault.

please work on your reading comprehension.

here's a hint: when someone uses the phrase "aside from <noun>" it means they're talking about something other than the noun that immediately follows "aside from"

we should never let anyone just die, that's fucking stupid of you to even suggest i would say something like that. if you can't tell the difference between an otherwise healthy person choosing to engage in a dangerous activity (like drinking or taking drugs) and someone experiencing a medical emergency (like cardiac arrest) resulting from having made a choice to engage in a dangerous activity, you may want to slow it down a bit and think some before responding next time.

What the hell does that say?

Look. You see how I made those words bold in the quote? It's an association. You mention "medical emergencies" in your response, challenging her definition of what constitutes one. The only "emergency" she mentioned in her comment was an ectopic pregnancy. Naturally, since you were responding, I assumed you challenged her idea that an ectopic pregnancy was a medical emergency, otherwise why use that quote in that context? I comprehended what you wrote perfectly. You just sucked at writing it.

If you seriously think I was comparing a broken leg to a life-in-balance scenario, then you're slightly daft.

But whatever. Call me heartless, couldn't care less. All I'm saying is that there are a shortage of hospital beds all over the world (particularly in my country), and it's both unfair and pathetic that these vital resources are being take up by fuckwits who need to get their kicks from chemicals.

Like I said, I don't want anyone to die. Even some who probably deserve to. But do I need to accept and have sympathy or empathy for those who die because the engaged in conduct that they knew has a good possibility of harming them? No, I sure as hell do not.

That's A) a naive generalization of people who use drugs or alcohol, which is on a bad day at least 10% of the adult population of the United States, and B) a gross misunderstanding of the impeti for drug consumption. I'll assume you've never touched a drug, and adhere to some bullshit pseudo-hipster "straight edge" health routine for you to have said something as generally misinformed as that. Either that, or Ronald Reagan formulated your opinions on the way the world works. Either way, please reconsider your life. Or perhaps you're just ignorant, which can be easily resolved.

I have a drug addict father.

Yeah, y'know, I tend to stay away from that shit, man. Forgive me for being "naieve".

Yes, well, I hate to say it, but your opinion of drugs has been tainted by personal experience, and your father in no way represents the majority of drug users no matter what the cause for his addiction. I feel bad for you, and really suggest that you should do something about it, but you should stop using it as a tool for tainted anger toward everyone else associated with drugs.

Timothy Leary was an asshole, for the record.

I don't have an issue with people that use drugs. Hey, you do it safely and it enhances your life, fucking go for it. I couldn't care less what you do. My point is that as soon as something like that harms you and starts clogging up the health system, I think those who live their lives safely and healthily are put put out by it. And that sucks.

It also means that if I read that someone was to die of a drug overdose, I'm honestly not that affected by it. Sure, I feel bad for their loved ones, but it was their choice to get into that shit, so cest la vie.

Also, I drink. I think putting me into a category of some angry straight-edge daughter with daddy issues is unfair. That being said, if I was to completely fuck myself up and get alcohol poisoning, I can certainly say that I'd have no problem with being low on the list of life-threatening emergencies at the ER.

I have a lot of respect for her, but the do-it-yourself abortion kits are a little unnerving

my point, the one you keep blowing by in your desire to attack my ideas simply because they're mine, is that i'm making a distinction between a *healthy* person who is making a choice to engage in a dangerous activity and a person who, for whatever reason (through no fault of their own, or because of the choice they just made to engage in a dangerous activity), is experiencing a medical emergency such as a heart attack or an ectopic pregnancy.

to treat someone's poor decision-making as a medical emergency draws needed attention away from those experiencing real medical emergencies. bitchphd doing so in a discussion of female reproductive rights draws attention away from her argument (that i agree with) that women with medical emergencies related to pregnancy should have unfettered access to treatments for those emergencies, including abortion.

simple example:
A) an otherwise healthy woman choosing to have a back-alley abortion because she doesn't want to be pregnant (for whatever reason, valid, invalid, or otherwise)

B) a woman with an ectopic pregnancy

woman A is not experiencing a medical emergency although it's entirely probable that she will be soon, woman B is.

yes, but considerably less unnerving than a government that prevents women from obtaining safe, legal abortions.

"Bitch_PhD thinks more people should know how to perform menstrual extraction."

Yes - that is a start but it should not become an easy form of contraception!
This is a very touchy (pardon the pun) subject and I myself am actually going through with an unplanned pregnancy, but there are 2 sides to the coin.
It is a terrible thing to make abortion illegal and point proven above but to make it into something so casual is not a step in the right direction!

what is there to treat? you can't "treat" a fucking decision

just because someone chooses to take a drug doesn't mean they're automatically going to overdose on that drug. you can treat the overdose, you can't treat the fucking decision.

it seems like you want to argue just for the sake of arguing. i made it plain that i agree with the stance that anyone with a medical emergency should be treated immediately from my very first post, and even reiterated it like two posts ago.

let's make this easy. read the following very carefully:

anyone experiencing a medical emergency needs to be treated immediately.

now can you please stop repeating it as though i'm saying something different?

let me try, again, with a different situation in hopes that this will clarify. i'm a motorcyclist. it's a dangerous activity. just because i choose to ride a motorcycle does not automatically mean i'm suffering from a medical emergency every day that i throw a leg over my bike. i'm just riding to work. me riding to work doesn't require any sort of treatment, as dangerous as it is. if something should go terribly wrong on my way to work and i slam into a guard rail at 65mph, THEN i'd be experiencing a medical emergency that would require treatment.

again, my point is there are enough real medical emergencies that pregnant women experience for which abortion is a legitimate treatment that adding "the very real and ugly fact that women *will* do dangerous and even fatal things to abort unwanted pregnancies" which isn't itself a medical emergency weakens her overall argument and draws attention away from where it ought to be: treating the medical emergencies of pregnant women.