Posts by Betty Bennett10

urbansailor68 said:Sure, it's killing someone, but you're at least preserving one life instead of two...

I’m still not entirely sure I follow your logic here: are you saying an abortion is only justifiable when both the mother and the fetus are at risk—essentially, when continuing the pregnancy would result in two deaths and stopping it saves the mother? (I have to admit, I struggle to even conceive of a medical scenario where that actually plays out)

What happens if a woman develops something like cancer during her pregnancy, and she requires treatment that would inevitably damage or terminate the pregnancy? In a case like that, would an abortion be considered justified?

urbansailor68 said:Exactly.

In instances involving fetal malformations or pregnancies resulting from sexual assault, I don't see it as a justifiable exception.

It’s a more logically consistent position than what most people hold, I suppose. Though, if you’re operating under the premise that an abortion is murder, then you’re essentially equating the unborn—whether embryo or fetus—with a born person. You’re effectively placing the life of the fetus on the exact same plane as the woman carrying it, which means their lives are equally "important." By that logic, even if the mother's own life were at risk, an abortion would still be considered murder.

urbansailor68 said:Medical abortions are a necessity when a woman's life is on the line, but that isn't the specific issue being debated here.

So, what is your stance then—is an abortion only justifiable if it’s a matter of survival for the mother? Where do you draw the line regarding fetal malformations, or perhaps cases where the pregnancy is the direct result of sexual assault?

Sarah Long said:I’m not so sure; it isn't exactly a harmless procedure, which is why I thought about having someone monitor you for a few nights... when an abortion is performed for medical reasons, they keep you under 24/7 supervision and stay right by your side constantly...
1,400? That sounds more reasonable, though $200 is still quite a bit... wait, is that actually legal here in the States? (Just asking since I'm not entirely sure)

It's legal, though I fail to see what would be gained by making abortions more expensive. In my view, a dilation and evacuation up to twelve weeks is a fairly straightforward procedure.

Sarah Long said:I honestly think abortion is such a sensitive subject that I’m not entirely sure what my own stance would be... but what strikes me as interesting about the whole thing is how these procedures actually play out over here in the States (though I highly doubt they're rare)... I’ve heard stories where it’s just like $200, you stay overnight and then it's over? It all feels somewhat cheap and incredibly clinical to me... plus, you have to imagine if you end up with some angry doctor or a nurse who is fiercely Pro-Life, like a real old-school type, they might just try to 🤔 you mentally until the very end.

An abortion costs roughly $467, and I'm not even certain people are kept overnight—why exactly do you think that's a bad thing? Are you suggesting it should cost more, or that patients ought to be required to stay in the hospital longer?

Melissa Cruz2 said:I’m honestly at a loss here too. I suppose I’m hesitant to make any assumptions about their mental state, as they don't seem to be dealing with anything particularly severe psychologically. But honestly, damn it, you look at the three-year-old you already have and then you just go ahead with an abortion; you should be fully aware that one day, that child is going to grow into a three-year-old just like the one currently running around the house. It feels incredibly irresponsible.

That wasn't really my angle, though. I can certainly see how a woman who already has a child might find herself in the exact same dead-end situation as a younger girl—where getting an abortion doesn't feel like a massive hurdle—but I still believe there’s a higher expectation of responsibility when you're a mature woman.

Melissa Cruz2 said:One doctor I spoke with mentioned that the vast majority of women seeking abortions are actually older—women who are already married or in long-term relationships and have children, essentially feeling like they've just hit a run of bad luck.
If those statistics hold any weight, then women following that specific life pattern should... well, I won't go so far as to say they deserve blame, but there’s an undeniable level of responsibility there that simply doesn't apply to a sixteen-year-old girl.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for a ban!

Yes, that is unfortunately the reality—there's this common misconception that most abortions are performed by teenagers, but the data tells a different story. It's a sad fact that abortion is far too often used as a primary method of contraception. 😢The question is, what else can be done when faced with those circumstances? I don't have a simple answer, but I am firmly in favor of legal access because the alternatives are significantly worse.

I suspect this boils down to one specific issue—though I haven't looked into the latest research lately, so I can't say with absolute certainty—that the actual absorption rate of calcium is quite problematic. It seems that for individuals with a genuine genetic predisposition toward osteoporosis, medical professionals generally recommend sticking to supplements because they offer a much more predictable level of efficacy. In my view, whenever a doctor suggests ramping up your intake of a particular vitamin or mineral, they are essentially pointing you toward dietary supplements; it is far too unreliable to assume you can hit those necessary levels through diet alone, whereas a healthy individual might have a bit more leeway.

Slow down just a second—I’ve actually been dwelling on this exact same thing constantly. It’s something that genuinely fascinates me, and I honestly wish someone would just sit down and give me a straight answer once and for all. You can find calcium in just about any green vegetable, whether it's broccoli or kale, and then you have things like sesame seeds, algae, or even certain beans and whole grains.

I can’t quite recall who brought up supplements 😕 earlier in this thread, but what I find truly puzzling is why milk is constantly pushed as the gold standard for calcium intake when there are plenty of other dietary sources available. It seems to me that the entire friction between dairy proponents and skeptics boils down to one specific argument—aside from the vague claims about milk being inherently unhealthy—which is whether the body actually absorbs calcium efficiently from dairy at all. One side insists it's the most bioavailable source, while the other argues the absorption rate is negligible. Naturally, the conversation always drifts toward osteoporosis, leading critics to make the bold assertion that consuming milk is actually a contributing factor to bone density loss.

To be clear, I don't view milk as some kind of toxic substance, but I am firmly of the opinion that modern American diets rely far too heavily on dairy products.

driftinggull13 said:Betty Bennett10 said earlier:
"I wouldn't say drinking a liter of milk a day is advisable—especially not from such a young age."

Either I've completely misread this, or you're contradicting yourself.
Betty Bennett10 claims there's absolutely nothing wrong with milk and nothing excessive about it, insisting it’s one of the healthiest foods out there. Sure, you can find substitutes for everything, but what's the point?

Hmm, I'm not entirely sure I follow your logic. Perhaps you're reacting to my comment about 'from a young age'—that was actually a bit of a joke, though it depends on how one defines 'young.' If we're talking about a newborn, then no, drinking a liter of milk a day is certainly not recommended; typically, cow's milk isn't suggested at all until a child reaches their first birthday.

And from what I understand, even for children older than a year, two servings of dairy a day are usually recommended—which would be roughly two glasses, though kids are specifically advised to stick to whole milk.

As for whether milk is healthy—well, people have vastly different opinions than yours. Critics of dairy blame it for everything from acne to prostate cancer 😁, but I really wouldn't venture into an argument over that, simply because I lack the professional expertise to weigh in.

However, I can't quite agree with the notion that there's nothing excessive in milk. There are calories and fats involved, which become an issue if you consume too much of it. No food exists that can be consumed in unlimited quantities while remaining healthy.

When I question whether milk is a necessity as a calcium source, I'm not talking about finding dairy substitutes, but rather looking at other plant-based sources of calcium. What remains a mystery to me is whether milk is truly superior to other calcium-rich foods, and if so, why.

My take is that those two cups a day are really just about hitting your calcium targets through milk consumption—though, honestly, how much fat you can get away with in your dairy probably depends on the rest of your diet and what else you’re putting on your plate.

And who says I’m talking about an organism in its peak growth phase? 😕

It’s entirely possible you’ve come to some different conclusions, but based on the standard nutritional guidelines I’ve encountered for adults, two glasses of milk a day is the recommendation, which would be roughly half a liter, just as rustymoose54 mentioned.

driftinggull13 said:Why not?

It just feels like an excessive amount of fat to be consuming on a daily basis.

I find myself wondering if dairy products shouldn't ideally match the calcium levels found in standard milk 😕

(Then again, we have to consider that both milk and most dairy goods undergo a process of calcium fortification after the fact)

That said, I wouldn't exactly go so far as to suggest that chugging a quart of milk every single day is a wise move—certainly not without some serious hesitation😁

shadowgardener12 said:someone looking at osteoporosis risks.

😕 and besides—even if we assume milk is some indispensable fountain of calcium (which is a pretty dubious claim to begin with), Kate Martin76 only mentioned she doesn't like milk, not that she avoids all dairy products entirely.

I have to admit, even that half-liter amount you mentioned before doesn't strike me as particularly massive; it just seems to me that people in this country consume far more dairy than they used to.

I don't personally view milk as some sort of villainous food for a healthy adult, and frankly, most of the criticism leveled against it seems directed at people dealing with specific health issues rather than those who are actually fit. For instance, my doctor advised me to cut out dairy entirely due to certain estrogen-dependent fibroids—but from what I’ve read, that supposed "link" might only truly apply to mass-produced industrial milk that’s likely spiked with hormones.

Still, I find myself wondering about the actual nutritional value of milk, specifically regarding how indispensable it really is as a source of calcium, or if we can easily find better alternatives.

Even back when everyone kept cows on their own property, they couldn't dream of producing the sheer volume of milk we see coming out of industrial dairy farms today—you only have to look at any local grocery store to see the proof. Every single supermarket is packed with massive refrigerated aisles overflowing with dairy products: milk, yogurt, cheeses, ice cream, puddings—it’s an endless supply of dairy goods consumed in staggering quantities. Honestly, who could ever have afforded that kind of variety and abundance in the past?

John Booth said:I wonder what people actually ate back in the day. Meat was probably treated as a luxury reserved for Sundays, while most other days were just centered around milk and dairy products like cream or cheese.

It’s highly unlikely they had this kind of massive, industrial-scale milk production that we see everywhere today.🙄

True, though it’s a bit much to wrap my head around the fact that we’ve likely never consumed this much dairy in our lives as we do today.