#ethical treatment

[nerdykeith]

This article, while it probably has good intentions, sort of gets this the wrong way around. The point should be, you don't NEED animal products to have a balanced and healthy diet. A plant based diet does in fact have all the nutrients you could need.

In addition to this veganism is a lifestyle promoting and supporting the ethical treatment of all animal life and promoting a philosophy that pledges to cause the least amount of harm as practically possible to all animals. 

The author of this article totally and completely misses the point of veganism. Uses manipulative langue to shift the goal posts, as an attempt to make veganism seem unnecessary. Let me tell you, it is far from unnecessary. It is a necessary step for the environment, long term optimal health and the well being of animals.

[skeleton-bat]

I literally fucking can't with these people I just can't why do they exist

Also of course they're fucking polish only European people would act like this smh

No word on the flat faces animals no word on me being in strikes for black rights or whatever.

God I hate these types of bitches so fucking much I wish I could just see them irl so I can punch them.

[aalt-ctrl-del]

I am working on a "pro-choice" document for information and materials to assist with the movement of reproduction rights, and there are things on the narrative regarding the pro-choice movement I want to shift the perception of because the old narrative does fill constricted and outdated.

Constrictive in that it settles that promoting 'abortion' in unwanted pregnancies. A narrative that many '''''pro-lifers'''' latch onto, and is their only default. It's not the strongest counter argument, but it inserts negative connotations. As well, every person should have the right to cancel an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy for whatever reason. HIPPA should come foremost and protect that right.

Outdated in that is beyond the Roe V Wade timeline, wherein through scientific advancements, we know more about development through trimesters, the evolution process of a zygote (fuk them btw) and the fetus, and complications that can arise through the trimesters - OBYN doctors have better equipment for identifying a healthy fetus, for managing complications to preserve the fetus, and what to do when that fetus fails - what the body does with the material, and what becomes of that material. A "Stonebaby" or "reabsorption".

All pretty heavy stuff that ''''''pro-lifers'''' can't really comprehend.

There is also the misconception of "when life begins" as by scientific definition, life does not begin in the fetus until at least the 3 trimester. This date is important, because it is when the fetus is more likely to survive without life support - i.e., a preemie birth is no quite a miscarriage, but the 'birthed' fetus has the highest probability of survival without medical intervention. A preemie 'dropped' in the 2 trimester (3-4 months) has no chance of survival, this is still an underdeveloped fetus and requires oxygen feeding tools, and other specialized equipment to keep the fetus stable if not alive - even in those cases, the chance of survival is so low. In some cases, the doctors will allow the fetus to pass, since the mountain of complications that can come about are monumental, and the 'birthed' child is forever tethered to the medical service industry for their quality of life - which is denied by '''''pro-lifers'''''.

There is also the argument of humane treatment, or choice to 'self-terminate' that can be argued for fetus.

There is the whole and debate on quality of life for those already living, such as in the struggle of the dying process - terminally ill individuals. I want to add here that the process of hospice treatment and care for terminally ill, can endure for months, if not years. And it is a hot debate, because people ask about the ethical demands of allowing someone to end their life, when this process should be undertaken - when it is clear recovery is not possible, and the quality of life is in acute decline.

What does this have to do with a hypothetical human? A lot. Human biology is complicated, messy, and horrendous when it comes down to the process of conceiving a fetus. We have already seen the texas authoritarian government in heated pursuit of women with missed periods, women who need follow-up care following a miscarriage, and prosecutions - there is a critical lack of scientific comprehension from the governments part, in that those like abbot and private citizens do not understand the relationship between the biological functions of a living person and a zygote or zygotes - that the body itself WILL HAVE BEEF with the hypothetical human and decide to terminate naturally, if that zygote or fetus poses a threat or is not a viable cluster of cells.

It's all interesting stuff.

And what does that have to do with the quality of life and right to "self-terminate" or in this case, terminate the pregnancy. It falls under the persons choice to terminate an unwanted or nonviable pregnancy, in the privacy of a medical facility aimed at protecting the rights and fundamentals of those patients, and providing essential care in all situations, in an impartial environment. So if someone is told that the fetus has complications that will make the hypothetical child nonviable following birth, or other issues which will diminish or plateau a critical lack of life and quality to living, then the pregnant person is fully equipped to make the best and most humane decision for the child, if they wanted that child. Or if they wanted to continue the pregnancy, and care that this may require. A "wait and see" situation without threat of undermining the pause, because it goes beyond the marker for 'abortion", and which will leave the choice to the individual regardless unrealistic constraints.

This as well falls into the quality of life and critical plateau, in a situation where a person who is pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy, can decide that this is not the time for that - because situations in their environment and beyond their control and will disrupt the pregnancy - harm the fetus - or wherein bringing this hypothetical human into their home environment will not be safe; i.e., the environment is toxic, they live with hostile, and unstable individuals, the pregnant person has work full time and no assistance to provide care to the child - in the case of medical or food, or even shelter. A situation where resources divided between the child and its birther is not applicable, and one or the other must perish - usually the child.

A lot of complications which devalue and endanger the life of a child, and which results in a high infant fatality rate. Talk to a pediatrician who deals with "shaken babies" and you will immediately become pro-choicer.

Or if you have no soul and no morals, continue to be this delusional weirdo who gets off on taking care vulnerable individuals.

All of this cycles back to the human anatomy and biological process of forming the zygote, and all the drama that entails. Due to the """pro-lifers""" fixation with micromanaging a process that is both dangerous and life-threatening, to all those involved - the pregnant individual and zygote-fetus. Wherein some essential medications may become unavailable to the individual due to pregnancy or the chance of pregnancy - which falls into state management of rights and what medications can be allowed to a certain demographic, inducing violation of rights and freedoms. Which in turn endangers a pregnancy and those involved, based on medial issues the pregnant individual suffers (and a reason not to get pregnant).

"Well just don't have sex!" Again, a violation of basic human rights and privacy. None of this is anyone's business, aside from those involved. Stop state managing, stop with the authoritarian governing. You're supposed to be the "people of freedoms".

All of this narrative boils down to what is safe and humane to the individuals involved. In the medical field, there come tough choices which require technical training and an expertise into that field, in order to preserve the life and health, to the best of the physicians ability. Such elements are not really explored fully in the "pro-choice" movement, which - though it does outline the narrative fully - has an underlying distraction because of a negative perception that is "choice" versus "life", wherein the ideal of 'choice' is far more complex, involved, and messy (seriously, fuk zygotes).

Pro-choice should not be a single ideal of 'choice', it should be the inclusion of the practice of humane care and preservation of the individuals involved. It should be the acknowledgment that even in the medial field, despite the best efforts from the best doctors, the limitations and situations are beyond our control - in short, shit happens. This is a matter of "save all the babies" - as in the case of '''''pro-lifers''''''' wherein the narrative is ignorant, biased, and riddled with judgment for the persons involved. Whereas in the case of the "pro-choice" movement, difficult information is presented, and those involved make difficult choices to the best of their ability. The HUMANE choices, with intent for quality of life, and the idea that next time, better can be done.

If a person suffers multiple miscarriages, that they are not then ridiculed or prosecuted for "crimes" that are beyond their control. That this person - if they so choose - will retain the right to continue the pursuit of conceiving and bearing their own child.

That if someone is told that their fetus has no heartbeat, or the spine is exposed and the head is malformed, that when any complication arises that would either endanger the person pregnant, the fetus - that it can be canceled at any time, thus the process of healing and trying again, will be within reach. Or if a pregnancy results in the degradation of the pregnant individuals health, causes seizures, that a hormonal imbalance or multitude of other health issues arise from the current pregnancy - can be met with a choice to terminate - regardless who is in danger from the pregnancy. That if someone sees their future is bleak and they feel their life is in danger, for any reason, that terminating an unwanted condition can be within reach, and can be conducted in safety and privacy.

"Pro-lifers" want the preservation of judging and controlling other peoples bodies, with the stakes so high - it is a malicious cruelty these people relish in. It is their call to action and narrative. The concept of "all life is precious" is only spouted by these individuals, thus that ''''pro-lifers''''' can torture and mock those that they deem lesser. There is no kindness nor compassion among this group, there is only superiority.

Though I express that the "pro-choice" narrative needs fresh posturing in modern times, it should press upon that "choice" is conducted with the best information, with the best intentions, and with an ideal of humane and ethical pursuit. These values are not easy to meet, but they are the best argument. That the Hippocratic Oath will be upheld to the best of the abilities of the physician and the individuals involved. This narrative does not include ignorant and short lived Senators or Congressional representatives to the state, but should only involve the individuals with years if not decades of training.

[alwaysbewoke]

[trans-xianxian]

"wearing leather/fur or eating animal products is unethical" SHUT UP SHUT UP WE ARE PART OF THE ECOSYSTEM!!!!

[welcometoteyvat]

arlecchino's official title is "father" when house of hearth members refer to her ......... please just one chance please please

[aevris]

starting to see content scraper “hourly [mammal]” accounts pop back up here that post a bunch of pictures of wild animals being kept as pets. go back from whence ye came, twitter filth

[allthoseotherworlds]

(Note: I am going to apply real-world ethics to a fictional story! I am doing this on purpose because I'm curious about how to solve the ethical dilemma. I am aware it doesn't have to be this deep.)

I keep trying to figure out what I would do, hypothetically, if I was the Doctor, to keep from being unethical to my companions or at least to avoid the things people commonly call the Doctor out for when it comes to companions.

Suggestions welcome!

The rules I am considering are the following:

1. You have to assume that there will be danger, no matter how careful you are in selecting your trips. Something will inevitably happen sooner or later to turn it into a Doctor Who episode. Even if you try to settle down and stop travelling, the plot will find you

2. You can't isolate yourself forever. Think of every time you've had an anxiety- induced urge to never talk to other people again, and now imagine you can live for thousands of years. It's not happening

3. Anything that causes the Doctor to stop existing is off the table, so no eternal chameleon circuit allowed

4. Let's also assume travelling with other time lords is also not an option - whether because Gallifrey is gone or because you find each other insufferable is unknown

With that in mind, I'm curious to see people's potential solutions to the following problems:

1. How to travel with people, which inherently puts them in danger, without it being unethical to them or to their families

2. How to stop travelling with people without it leading to resentment and anger on their part when they run into you years later

3. Optional bonus problem: how to make up for treatment of past companions as depicted in what passes for canon

[giantkillerjack]

The cool thing about a horror movie that takes place in a mental hospital and, shockingly, actually turns out to be on the side of mentally ill people is that it avoids all the common disgusting pitfalls of mocking, demonizing, and infantilizing mentally ill people.

The downside is

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

[It's much scarier.]

[devilsskettle]

just saw someone call horrorstör by grady hendrix “cozy horror” i’m sorry but in what world. you have to be so removed from the reality of what working retail is like to be like hehe cozy horror because it takes place in haunted ikea :) also like. was it so super cozy when that girl gets possessed and starts choking on her own snot lol like some of the shit he describes in this book is so vile so please explain to me what part of the book is cozy

[searchingwardrobes]

DOG LOVERS! Please, please do NOT buy a "blue," "silver," "Isabella" or "hairless" dachshund. These are not "rare" coats, these are dogs suffering from a disease called color dilution alopecia. It leads to hair loss and painful skin rashes, lesions, and sores. There's no cure.

Reputable breeders will not breed a dog with cda. Sadly, this is becoming a new, trendy "designer" dog because people think the blue-coated puppies are cute and unique. You can find these puppies for sale online for hundreds of dollars more than a dachshund with a standard coat.

Please spread the word! No puppies should be bred to suffer just for a trend.

You can read more about it here.

[nando161mando]

It's called "having a job"

[dreamsofalife]

There is no way to ethically source human bones and anyone who says otherwise is trying to get you to shut up and buy their stuff, probably looted from an impoverished country if not illegally or unethically taken from a lab.

[daedrabela]

i think that man genuinely poisoned my mind

[string-cheese-cake]

Nobody asked but white supremacy is the reason why white women are obsessed with true crime.

So when chattel slavery was becoming cemented in the United States and other European areas, the idea of biological race and racial hierarchy emerged to justify the generational enslavement of Africans and the genocide of indigenous people. Africans and other non-whites were labeled as less developed, more susceptible to their "primal urges" and committing sex crimes and therefore needed to be controlled by white men. Specifically to protect white women.

White supremacy is typically framed as necessary to 'protect' (read: control) white women, the mothers of the next generation of whites. They must be protected from "sexually voracious black men" (read: miscegenation and mixed race children). So white supremacy operates on the myth that white women are constantly under threat of sexual violence and must be protected by white men.

That myth becomes baked into the public consciousness, many unaware of the origin or even that the idea is there. It even becomes less racially based, but there is still a common belief that white women are inherently vulnerable to violent crime. Especially among white women. To be fair, it's difficult to not internalize an idea that you are not exactly aware of but is still seeped in every interaction and bit of advice. Don't wander off, don't talk to strangers, don't go out alone or late at night, cover your body, hold your keys between your fingers, take self defense, watch your drink, don't be under the influence. Your body is soft and valuable and delicate and you must protect it.

This idea of vulnerability is reinforced in the news media, which chooses to focus on stories which fit this particular narrative of white women's vulnerability. Missing white women syndrome. This subconscious belief has saturated society. White women develop an outsized fear of death by violent crime. So what do they do? They embrace it. They eat up stories of families like theirs and the deaths of women like them.

It's been suggested that experiencing that fear of violence in the controlled environment true crime provides can be cathartic, somewhat like watching a horror film. There is also a sense of justice and closure felt when the perpetrator of that crime is punished.

In conclusion; White women love true crime because it's a coping mechanism for their deeply embedded fear of violence which was established and is upheld by white supremacy.

[ivygorgon]

AN OPEN LETTER to THE PRESIDENT & U.S. CONGRESS; STATE GOVERNORS & LEGISLATURES

Say NO to Loony-Bins: Immediate Action Required for Inpatient Psychiatric Care

2 so far! Help us get to 5 signers!

The current model of inpatient psychiatric care, which primarily focuses on safety and crisis stabilization, falls short in promoting sustained recovery. The prevalent emphasis on ultrashort lengths of stay often overlooks the need for comprehensive treatment plans.

A proposed model of care advocates for rapid diagnosis, goal-setting, and treatment modalities before initiating treatment, organized into three distinct phases: assessment, implementation, and resolution. This approach emphasizes individualized treatment and active patient involvement in treatment planning, addressing critical psychosocial aspects that are frequently neglected.

As we strive to reform the mental health care system, it's imperative to prioritize effective, recovery-oriented treatment strategies. This includes ensuring patient comfort and preferences are accommodated within reason. Considering patient preferences, like comfort items (such as safe stuffed animals; Share-Bears, if you will) and rescue medications (like melatonin,) is essential to upholding rigorous standards of care and safety.

Let's advocate for reforms that enhance patient-centered practices while adhering to established treatment guidelines and advancing recovery-oriented care.

Say no to “loony-bins;” those archaic relics that should be relegated to the distant past.

📱 Text SIGN PWORPV to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW IVYPETITIONS to 50409

💘 Q'u lach' shughu deshni da. 🏹 "What I say is true" in Dena'ina Qenaga