“Less sensitive”? I did not mean to imply that. If anything, just the opposite. It’s sensitive to all kinds of hormones during the adolescent phase, and not just the ones governing maternal feelings. Imagine putting gasoline, kerosene and Ovaltine in all the same time.
I’m not sure I follow. My understanding is - and take my word with a grain of salt, since I’m no expert - that cells have spaces in the membrane which are designed to receive specific hormones. This is like putting gasoline into a car in the sense that it is necessary to start a chain reaction. Receptor sites are dissimilar to the gas inlet of a car in that there are millions of them on each cell, with hundreds of known types, and all of them work concurrently. If you’re imagining different kinds of hormones, there are different receptors for each. You won’t be pouring ‘gasoline, kerosene, and Ovaltine’ into the same ‘inlet’. And unlike a normal machine, each receptor starts its own chain reaction. Hormones aren’t fuel, they don’t go into a tank. The cell has its own power sources within. The cell won’t slow down because it’s working on multiple things at once - it just increases its metabolism.
~Max
If hormones were as dependably deterministic as you seem to imply, there would be no mothers killing their babies. But it happens…all the time.
Whatever you think I’m saying, that’s not it. We aren’t even close to understanding the biology behind a decision to kill, if such an understanding is even possible. Secrets of the human mind, and all that jazz. My understanding of the relationship between hormones during pregnancy and maternal behavior is heuristic, not deterministic.
Unlike the relationship between being pregnant and hormone production, which I understand to be deterministic. I.e. if you are pregnant and not producing hormones, you have (or your unborn child has) some sort of physiological disorder. Also unlike the relationship between hormones and uterine contractions, which I understand to be deterministic.
~Max
Tell me you don’t understand women and have never had a serious romantic relationship and regard women as an alien species across a gulf of detached dispassion without telling me etc.
What you are not taking into account is that all of us have brains that are constantly being flooded by chemicals and hormones in response to outside stimuli, and that those hormone and chemicals are what informs our actions and thought processes. This isn’t something that just happens to pregnant women.
For example, as I read your posts, my brain is being flooded by hormones and chemicals that make me want to punch my fist through the nearest solid object.
What next, are you going to claim that rape is OK because upon penetration a woman’s brain will be flooded by chemicals that make her want it? Or that if your Republican friends succeed in taking away my Social Security, the money I’ve earned, that the lack of food will cause my brain to produce hormones that make me accept hunger without discomfort?
Fuck you and your mansplaining, you juvenile twit.
Don’t be ridiculous. Evolution will see to it that you either thrive or your weak genes are removed from the gene pool. Republicans are a lot like facts in that respect: they don’t care about your feelings. Not unlike sociopaths, really. Which is why it’s so ironic that Republicans don’t seem to care about facts either. Even the intelligent sociopath will care about facts.
So Republicans must be stupid sociopaths. QED.
On that note, Max_S sure does seem to have a very Republican frame of mind…
Acknowledged. Wikipedia cited a study correlating increased oxytocin concentrations when interacting with women who first interact with other people’s children. The Atlantic article cites a second study concerning it’s presence in men.
People produce various hormones all the time. That does not detract from my point, which is
A) that the biological and neurological processes associated with pregnancy and birth encourage maternal protective behavior, and
B) due to this and other reasons (argued previously), the state is justified in allowing minors to unilaterally consent to medical decisions concerning their own children’s health.
~Max
Rest assured, I don’t think either of these things.
~Max
But once it becomes the law (the social security thing), you’ll feel obliged to explain how the state might have a perfectly good reason for it, right?
B does not follow from A. Even if the minors are looking out for the best for their children (because of hormones or whatever), that doesn’t mean they are mature enough to do so. In fact, the judge decided that she’s not mature enough to decide to have a minor medical procedure on herself – how can she possibly be trusted to make potentially major ones?
If I even see a bill, I’d feel obligated to evaluate for myself if it is justified before I can say I have an informed opinion on it.
~Max
Back when I cited the statute, I believe I quoted the exception of a judge rules the new mother incompetent. This is all a question about defaults, as someone wrote upthread. In law as in software, defaults are important. A pregnant minor is assumed, by default, to be too immature to decide if her pregnancy should or should not be aborted. The law also implies (and many parents believe) she is incompetent to consent to sex. But the fact is, she is pregnant. By default, she will carry the pregnancy to term.
The state has a few different justifications for that which I argued at length in this thread. At least one of which even I personally find immoral.
But once this sixteen year old gives birth, she is no longer considered incompetent by default. In the eyes of the law, if she shows the court the first kid’s birth certificate, she is allowed (before 15 weeks) to have an abortion to prevent a second, no questions asked. When she’s in the hospital, if there’s a problem with her baby, she is assumed competent to consent to a heart procedure or any other treatment.
Is the state justified in changing the presumption of competence, even when it is not strictly true that every woman who gives birth is competent to make decisions, and attached enough to make decisions in the best interests of the child?
I think the answer is yes. You can imagine an edge case to the edge case - a minor who has a baby and wants it dead and will abuse her power of consent/nomconsent to achieve that goal - and the state won’t necessarily catch that with this approach. But we have other ways to protect the child, namely the physicians who are subject to disciplinary action for plainly malicious medical treatment, i.e. the partial birth abortion ban, etc.
~Max
First, to be totally clear, I’m not arguing what the law says, I’m arguing what it should be (and what the judge should do), so quoting the statute is a waste of time with your interactions with me.
Second, why is the state justified in changing the presumption of competence? Pregnancy, birth, and infant healthcare all often involve major medical decisions, whereas having an abortion is a minor medical decision. If the judge says that the minor is not competent to make that minor decision, then the passing of 8 months or whatever shouldn’t change that finding.
I still don’t think your study proves “A”, not at all. The factor you are missing is that presumably all the women in the study wanted a child and were therefore predisposed to bond with it. Can you prove that the oxytocin “rush” was the cause of the desire to pair bond? It could also be that the act of pair-bonding with a wanted child was the cause of the oxytocin spike, and if you repeated the study with women than gave birth against their wishes you’d come up with zero.
Hormones inform our experiences, sometimes profoundly, but they don’t install thoughts in our heads.
Sex is also associated with oxytocin spikes that increase pair bonding, but there’s no indication that such a spike happens if the sex is forced. It’s seems more likely to me that rape would increase vasopressin levels, vasopressin being the Yang to oxytocin’s Yen, a hormone that is associated with tribalism, jealousy and paranoia towards strangers.
Remember, correlation does not equal causation.
Sorry, I was trying to clarify what I am actually defending here.
That may be your personal belief (mine too) but in the eyes of the law, abortions are grave medical decisions. Because the state treats them as grave medical decisions, and has the plenary authority to do so. We regulate abortions as seriously, or more seriously, as we do opiates and end of life care.
~Max
I don’t know why you’re bothering to defend these terrible Florida laws if you don’t even agree with them. We’re not here arguing in front of a judge, we’re here ranting about these terrible Florida laws and judges, and their terrible consequences.
Forcing a child to give birth is a grave medical decision.
That hormone is associated with maternal behavior, not desire. Desires are intangible, unquantifiable - they can never be measured objectively. The best you can do is ask people how they feel.
Pregnancy itself regulates oxytocin.
Summary: pregnancy causes hormones that change a woman’s brain, which hormones and affected regions are associated with maternal behavior.
Vasopressin is another hormone associated with pregnancy and maternal behaviors. Same studies.
~Max
I direct you to
~Max