Fair is fair . . . Georgia Democrats propose an anti-vasectomy bill

[MRT144]

Are you being serious?

I would like Jon Miller to further explain the african american lifestyle that necessitates abortion.

[regexcellent]

Go back and read your own posts ****wit.

Actually, he's right; you didn't contradict him at all.

Surprise, surprise, HC's position is the one based on a lack of any empathy or compassion towards actual living people.

As has been stated in this thread it depends on your definition of living people.

I was surprised to hear Jon being an extremist, but for you its just standard GOP script line isn't it.

I have no idea what the spectrum is like in Euroland, but in the United States there is absolutely nothing extremist about being against abortion.

[Jon Miller]

I would like Jon Miller to further explain the african american lifestyle that necessitates abortion.

I would rather that MRT144 continue to make **** up.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I was warned in Sweden by my friends not to be open about my pro-life stance (they started talking about it, then warned me about pro-life being unacceptable, so I just kept my mouth shut).

JM

[kentonio]

Actually, he's right; you didn't contradict him at all.

Except where he said something that was blatently untrue and I called him on it?

They are (rather, were planning on) mandating an ultrasound. Not a transvaginal ultrasound.

This is not true. In fact its the opposite of true. They most certainly were mandating a transvaginal ultrasound which was why the gov felt the need to come out and say he could not support this.

Ffs, I even quoted the governor directly to reinforce the point..

[MRT144]

I would rather that MRT144 continue to make **** up.

JM

Millions of babies get murdered because african-americans are lied to, and don't realize that they are killing their own children to pay for their lifestyle.

What does this mean?

[regexcellent]

Kentonio, HC DIRECTLY ADDRESSED THAT POINT. As he said, an ULTRASOUND was mandated, and before a certain point in time, that requires a transvaginal ultrasound. What HC was saying is that the purpose was to require an ultrasound, not require that women get something shoved up their vaginas. They can always just wait for the fetus to get larger, then get a transabdominal ultrasound.

[kentonio]

As has been stated in this thread it depends on your definition of living people.

No it doesn't. Both HC and Jon have shown a complete lack of compassion towards living women who choose to have abortions.

I have no idea what the spectrum is like in Euroland, but in the United States there is absolutely nothing extremist about being against abortion.

There are people over here who oppose abortion but anyone who came out with the kind of rabid, extremist stuff we've seen in this thread would be rightly ostracised as a crazy.

Then again, we Europeans tend to find a lot of Americas cultural debates to be rabid, ridiculous and obnoxious.

[regexcellent]

Nobody on the anti-abortion side of this debate has said anything that lacks compassion toward women when held in perspective with the fact that they think they are committing murder. Nobody shows compassion for Timothy McVeigh.

Moreover, the stuff they have said in this thread is significantly calmer than the rhetoric which is regularly thrown around in the public sphere by advocacy groups for both sides. It's been completely within the realm of the mainstream.

[Elok]

I have roughly the same compassion towards a woman who has an elective abortion as I do toward a single mother who, after dealing with a colicky, screaming child for weeks and weeks, finally snaps and shakes the child to death in a frenzy of panic.

Was she under a lot of stress? Yes.
Can I understand why she did what she did? Yes, at least in the abstract.
Do I call her a bad person? No.

Did she do something very, very wrong? Yes.

[kentonio]

Kentonio, HC DIRECTLY ADDRESSED THAT POINT. As he said, an ULTRASOUND was mandated, and before a certain point in time, that requires a transvaginal ultrasound. What HC was saying is that the purpose was to require an ultrasound, not require that women get something shoved up their vaginas. They can always just wait for the fetus to get larger, then get a transabdominal ultrasound.

Are you both just being deliberately stupid? Do you think the governor or Virginia just had to make a last minute change in stance for no reason at all? The reason for the huge uproar was being women were going to be forced to undergo transvaginal ultrasound even when it was not medically necessary. Brought to you by the same sick ****s who also included a passage in the bill requiring the ultrasound to be kept on a womans medical records for 7 years after the abortion. Cute huh..

[MRT144]

I have roughly the same compassion towards a woman who has an elective abortion as I do toward a single mother who, after dealing with a colicky, screaming child for weeks and weeks, finally snaps and shakes the child to death in a frenzy of panic.

Was she under a lot of stress? Yes.
Can I understand why she did what she did? Yes, at least in the abstract.
Do I call her a bad person? No.

Did she do something very, very wrong? Yes.

Except abortions are calculated decisions. No one has a panic frenzy abortion.

[regexcellent]

Yes, I do think so, because the court of public opinion isn't known for its rationality.

xpost

[kentonio]

Nobody on the anti-abortion side of this debate has said anything that lacks compassion toward women when held in perspective with the fact that they think they are committing murder. Nobody shows compassion for Timothy McVeigh.

Moreover, the stuff they have said in this thread is significantly calmer than the rhetoric which is regularly thrown around in the public sphere by advocacy groups for both sides. It's been completely within the realm of the mainstream.

Which just goes to show how sick and twisted the American 'mainstream' is becoming. Its exactly this kind of **** that got Tiller murdered in cold blood by those pro-life terrorists. McVeigh? What the **** is wrong with you.

[regexcellent]

Pro-life activists blow up bombs because they have no other recourse for stopping the killing. It happens because democracy has been subverted by the Supreme Court.

The American mainstream has not become sick and twisted; it just hasn't gotten so ridiculously liberal as the European mainstream.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Pro-life activists blow up bombs because they have no other recourse for stopping the killing.

Violence is the answer?

[kentonio]

Pro-life activists blow up bombs because they have no other recourse for stopping the killing. It happens because democracy has been subverted by the Supreme Court.

Funny how democracy is only ok with you ****ers when it delivers what you want. When it doesn't then its all 'activist judges' and 'democracy subverted' and 'freedom through revolution'. You act like a bunch of ****ing children who scream and shout because you aren't getting what you want. If its not democracy, then why do a majority of Americans support the right to abortion in one form or another?

The American mainstream has not become sick and twisted; it just hasn't gotten so ridiculously liberal as the European mainstream.

People here are treated as human beings who deserve the right to live healthy lives without fear of poverty. America looks ****ing barbaric to a lot of us.

[regexcellent]

Violence becomes the only option when democracy doesn't exist. The reason we don't have violent revolts like in Libya is because we have democracy. The correct answer is to let the democratic institutions decide whether or not abortion should be legal.

[regexcellent]

Europeans have a completely backwards notion of what rights are. They think that rights are something the government is required to provide for you. We think rights are something the government isn't allowed to stop you from doing.

[kentonio]

Violence becomes the only option when democracy doesn't exist. The reason we don't have violent revolts like in Libya is because we have democracy. The correct answer is to let the democratic institutions decide whether or not abortion should be legal.

A majority of people in America believe abortion should be legal. What part of that is so hard to understand?

Europeans have a completely backwards notion of what rights are. They think that rights are something the government is required to provide for you. We think rights are something the government isn't allowed to stop you from doing.

We grew up and realised that letting people fall too far helps noone.

[The Mad Monk]

How can science possibly settle when personhood begins when personhood is a philosophical concept to begin with?

May as well use science to determine when something is pretty.

[MRT144]

Europeans have a completely backwards notion of what rights are. They think that rights are something the government is required to provide for you. We think rights are something the government isn't allowed to stop you from doing.

Except own slaves at the time of ratification. For all our gusto about natural rights, we sure had a ****ed up and stupid way of applying them for the first half of our history, and a sad, foot dragging way of doing the right thing even to this day.

[regexcellent]

A majority of people in America believe abortion should be legal. What part of that is so hard to understand?

First of all, that's not true. A majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal in limited circumstances. Very few Americans think it should be as available as it is now (see Gallup polling on this). Support for abortion is also steadily dropping.

Moreover, even if that were true, it doesn't change the fact that the mechanism by which it is legal is unsatisfactory and leaves no legal recourse for the people who don't like the decision.

EDIT: I should qualify "very few." It's somewhere in the range of, I believe, 20% or so. That's not really very few but whatever.

[MRT144]

First of all, that's not true. A majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal in limited circumstances. Very few Americans think it should be as available as it is now (see Gallup polling on this). Support for abortion is also steadily dropping.

Moreover, even if that were true, it doesn't change the fact that the mechanism by which it is legal is unsatisfactory and leaves no legal recourse for the people who don't like the decision.

That's not unique to just abortion.

[Elok]

Except abortions are calculated decisions. No one has a panic frenzy abortion.

It's not a precise parallel, of course. And some abortions, I'm sure, are purely elective--there's a real choice at work, the woman is perfectly capable of caring for a child and simply chooses not to. But I don't think that is the case in the majority of abortions. More often I believe the "choice" is constrained badly.

I know a woman who, back in the sixties, got pregnant at age seventeen. Now, this was before Roe, and in any case their religious family wouldn't likely have done such a thing. But her father did tell her, in no uncertain terms, that if she didn't give the child up for adoption, she would be disowned and thrown out of the house. Well, what was she supposed to do? She gave her son up. And if the ultimatum had been abortion instead, I don't think her options would have changed much. And she wasn't in too bad shape in the grand scheme of things. Some women are simply too poor to care for the child one way or another.

I might add, though, that stories like the one I just told are the basis for what's been called the feminist argument against abortion: at least some of the time, abortion is not empowering or enabling, but simply another way for women to be controlled by the men in their lives. I don't know how often, but certainly it allows for sexual abuse of minors to be swept under the carpet. How frequently do you think fourteen-year-old girls are escorted to PP by their nervous, twenty-five-year-old "uncles," who pay for the procedure and never get reported to the authorities? Unfortunately, that's the sort of thing that's very hard to collect accurate statistics on. But I bet it happens pretty often.

[MRT144]

It's not a precise parallel, of course. And some abortions, I'm sure, are purely elective--there's a real choice at work, the woman is perfectly capable of caring for a child and simply chooses not to. But I don't think that is the case in the majority of abortions. More often I believe the "choice" is constrained badly.

I know a woman who, back in the sixties, got pregnant at age seventeen. Now, this was before Roe, and in any case their religious family wouldn't likely have done such a thing. But her father did tell her, in no uncertain terms, that if she didn't give the child up for adoption, she would be disowned and thrown out of the house. Well, what was she supposed to do? She gave her son up. And if the ultimatum had been abortion instead, I don't think her options would have changed much. And she wasn't in too bad shape in the grand scheme of things. Some women are simply too poor to care for the child one way or another.

I might add, though, that stories like the one I just told are the basis for what's been called the feminist argument against abortion: at least some of the time, abortion is not empowering or enabling, but simply another way for women to be controlled by the men in their lives. I don't know how often, but certainly it allows for sexual abuse of minors to be swept under the carpet. How frequently do you think fourteen-year-old girls are escorted to PP by their nervous, twenty-five-year-old "uncles," who pay for the procedure and never get reported to the authorities? Unfortunately, that's the sort of thing that's very hard to collect accurate
statistics on. But I bet it happens pretty often.

That some harm is enabled by enabling greater liberty doesn't mean we should suck the liberty baby out of the uterus with a tube.

[Jon Miller]

I have roughly the same compassion towards a woman who has an elective abortion as I do toward a single mother who, after dealing with a colicky, screaming child for weeks and weeks, finally snaps and shakes the child to death in a frenzy of panic.

Was she under a lot of stress? Yes.
Can I understand why she did what she did? Yes, at least in the abstract.
Do I call her a bad person? No.

Did she do something very, very wrong? Yes.

Good post.

Except that I would add to it.

Does she realize what she did was wrong? Probably not.

JM

[Lorizael]

I don't understand why the abortion debate causes such rancor. It's obvious that all humans should be genetically programmed to be sterile from birth with the option for sterility reversal upon receipt of a parenting certificate. In such cases where the sterility fails, fetuses should be removed from the uterus, grown in laboratory settings, and given to individuals with parenting certificates. Alternatively, sterilization can be permanent and new humans can be constructed when necessary and raised by robots.

[Jon Miller]

What does this mean?

It means they were lied to.

The same lie in this thread (the baby is not a person), but a lot more effort is put into convincing african-americans. And others whose children would be undesirable.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I don't understand why the abortion debate causes such rancor. It's obvious that all humans should be genetically programmed to be sterile from birth with the option for sterility reversal upon receipt of a parenting certificate. In such cases where the sterility fails, fetuses should be removed from the uterus, grown in laboratory settings, and given to individuals with parenting certificates. Alternatively, sterilization can be permanent and new humans can be constructed when necessary and raised by robots.

I could actually be OK with that, depending on what was requiredf ro a parenting certificate.

JM