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

[Elok]

I don't see how the situation with sick children changes if they are before birth or 5 years after birth.

It still can't be used to justify the murder of innocents.

"Oh, my life will change and I will be unable to go out as much if I have a child, better abort!"

JM

You're really not doing yourself any favors with arguments like these...

[kentonio]

It was definitely right for the nonNazi Germans to not say anything!



That is always what causes change in society. Not saying anything, keeping your head down, going with the flow.

Black people should have never tried for civil rights. What if they'd alienated whites and then they'd never have gotten what they wanted!

It's actually funny watching you guys try and claim a moral parallel with the civil rights movement and the holocaust when we've already seen what happens when you get your way. Women end up assuming a subservient position in society, millions of women resort to back street abortions, and the pain and misery is endless.

If you think women will ever allow a return to those times, you need to put down the crack pipe.

[Elok]

Wait. The back-alley abortion problem, I grant you. But how do women "end up assuming a subservient position" from illegal abortion? Unless you're defining subservience as "having less autonomy on reproductive health."

[kentonio]

Wait. The back-alley abortion problem, I grant you. But how do women "end up assuming a subservient position" from illegal abortion? Unless you're defining subservience as "having less autonomy on reproductive health."

When you remove womens right to control their own body, then you are relegating their position in society. Any time a woman gets pregnant, she is forced to spend nine months carrying that child or go outside the law to get rid of it. Men face nothing even vaguely comparable, and so do not find their careers and lives being changed against their will.

[Jon Miller]

You're really not doing yourself any favors with arguments like these...

Doesn't change the fact that there is more truth to them than Laz's.

JM

[Elok]

Ken, I would say that amounts to a relative disadvantage, not "subservience." Subservience, to me, implies that women are being made to serve men somehow.

Doesn't change the fact that there is more truth to them than Laz's.

JM

You realize that's pretty much the same argument Kid uses for doing things like lining up the site's atheists and telling them they're all bad people, right? "My arguments are correct (at least to me), therefore I am correct in employing them!"

[kentonio]

Ken, I would say that amounts to a relative disadvantage, not "subservience." Subservience, to me, implies that women are being made to serve men somehow.

By serving as baby carriers for men regardless of their own wishes? Yeah I'd call that subservient.

[Elok]

By serving as baby carriers for men regardless of their own wishes? Yeah I'd call that subservient.

I'd call it an overly-dramatized account of basic biology. They're not carrying the babies "for" anyone in particular. Theoretically you could say they're carrying them "for" themselves, or their genes.

You might just as well say the present system makes men subservient; a woman can decide to abort, but a man can't. Aren't men being FORCED to support children they might not have chosen to have if they were given an option? Aren't they being reduced to involuntary money supplies for women?

[kentonio]

I'd call it an overly-dramatized account of basic biology. They're not carrying the babies "for" anyone in particular. Theoretically you could say they're carrying them "for" themselves, or their genes.

How can you say they're carrying for themselves if they don't want to? Its not overdramatic, its just accurate. They're being forced to use their body as an incubator against their will.

You might just as well say the present system makes men subservient; a woman can decide to abort, but a man can't. Aren't men being FORCED to support children they might not have chosen to have if they were given an option? Aren't they being reduced to involuntary money supplies for women?

I've had a few interesting debates with people about exactly that. I think the consensus was that yes its not fair on men, but the alternative is worse (ie forcing women to carry babies they don't want).

[Elok]

How can you say they're carrying for themselves if they don't want to? Its not overdramatic, its just accurate. They're being forced to use their body as an incubator against their will.

Fine, but being required by law to do something you don't want to do does not, by itself, render you subservient to anyone (except the government). Certainly not in any way that's even vaguely comparable to the genuine subservience black people were reduced to in the US. I really can't see how normal biological function is supposed to be some kind of tyranny just because we've invented a technological means of subverting it.

I've had a few interesting debates with people about exactly that. I think the consensus was that yes its not fair on men, but the alternative is worse (ie forcing women to carry babies they don't want).

How about if the man goes before a judge and says "I wanted to abort this child, but she refused. This is against my wishes and I renounce my obligation to pay for child support?"

[kentonio]

Fine, but being required by law to do something you don't want to do does not, by itself, render you subservient to anyone (except the government).

I disagree when it involves physical and potentially life threatening changes to your body.

How about if the man goes before a judge and says "I wanted to abort this child, but she refused. This is against my wishes and I renounce my obligation to pay for child support?"

I don't know to be honest. Its such a difficult subject, and as soon as you land on a solution that sounds reasonable, theres usually an example that can smash your reasonable ideas to peices. I'm genuinely grateful I don't have to make those kind of decisions.

[Guynemer]

You know, if we all just followed my grand plan--contraceptives in the water supply--this entire argument would be avoided.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I don't see how the situation with sick children changes if they are before birth or 5 years after birth.

Well, first of all you need to bear in mind that you're talking to someone firmly in favour of euthanasia after birth in certain circumstances, so let's not get overly fixated on the whole "emerged from the womb" deal.

The problem is that you're trying to over-simplify a very complex issue of medical jurisprudence, and are struggling with your own position, let alone anyone else's. You're pro-life, but in favour of abortion in life-threatening cases. That's still a vague position, of course- how life-threatening does it need to be? What circumstances can alter the decision?

My own position is that I'd allow termination on any grounds up until the point where, on the balance of probability, the unborn child could survive birth. At that point, I consider the rights of the child to come into play. Beyond that point, I'm still fine with terminations in cases where serious medical conditions would afford the child no acceptable quality of life.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Doesn't change the fact that there is more truth to them than Laz's.

JM

I'm not lying. Nor are you.

[Hauldren Collider]

You know, if we all just followed my grand plan--contraceptives in the water supply--this entire argument would be avoided.

And in a generation, no one to make the arguments at all!

[Guynemer]

And in a generation, no one to make the arguments at all!

True enough, but the second part of my plan is that you can get the antidote provided you pass a very stringent psychological profiling.

[Elok]

I disagree when it involves physical and potentially life threatening changes to your body.

If there are life-threatening consequences involved, very few people will insist on the mother going through with it.

I don't know to be honest. Its such a difficult subject, and as soon as you land on a solution that sounds reasonable, theres usually an example that can smash your reasonable ideas to peices. I'm genuinely grateful I don't have to make those kind of decisions.

I think the whole argument--why should I have the kid, why should I support a kid if I didn't want to refrain from aborting it--is a symptom of our infatuation with individual rights being carried just a smidge too far. I mean, yeah, she's pregnant when she didn't want to be pregnant, and that's bad. But she's also undergoing a perfectly normal, routine function of human biology which has happened several trillion times already, so why are we flapping our hands and talking about it like it's a big cosmic injustice and the whole universe is out to screw her over?

Her individual choice may be very intimate, but it has serious and far-reaching consequences, as evidenced by the widespread problem of sex-selective abortions, or the targeted elimination of Down's Syndrome. Even if you ignore the child's livelihood entirely, which is generally case, mom isn't the only one affected by her decision. It has enormous demographic repercussions on a long-term, aggregate scale.

Of course, you could say the same thing about whether or not to have sex in the first place, etc. But as it happens, almost nobody today decides, over the long term, to not have sex. Some of them are married/in long-term relationships, some are not; I don't know the ratio. I think it's fair to say that our culture tends to glorify no-strings attached sex--which, I'm sure, is fun. But sex is never really no-strings attached, unless you're gay or sterile and you're certain your partner has no VD (and that's assuming no emotional issues). Sex exists for the primary purpose of procreation. That purpose can be thwarted to a very large extent, but nothing can completely stop it. Abortion exists to seal up that little crack. And so we act like it's a BFD when the seal is denied and we can't completely escape responsibility for the choices we make (with the obvious exception of rape, etc., which is a more complex issue).

That, I submit to you, is carrying individuality a little too far. If you're not prepared to accept even the slightest risk of becoming a parent, you shouldn't be having sex, one way or another. And certainly the child should not be the one to suffer for your recklessness. Of course, I'm arguing this from a purely moral and theoretical standpoint. Public policy is likely to prove depressingly intransigent, the more so because people and groups like the RCC can't fathom the separation of church and state.

[Hauldren Collider]

True enough, but the second part of my plan is that you can get the antidote provided you pass a very stringent psychological profiling.

Gonna have Heraclitus back you up on your plan?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think the whole argument--why should I have the kid, why should I support a kid if I didn't want to refrain from aborting it--is a symptom of our infatuation with individual rights being carried just a smidge too far. I mean, yeah, she's pregnant when she didn't want to be pregnant, and that's bad. But she's also undergoing a perfectly normal, routine function of human biology which has happened several trillion times already, so why are we flapping our hands and talking about it like it's a big cosmic injustice and the whole universe is out to screw her over?

Her individual choice may be very intimate, but it has serious and far-reaching consequences, as evidenced by the widespread problem of sex-selective abortions, or the targeted elimination of Down's Syndrome. Even if you ignore the child's livelihood entirely, which is generally case, mom isn't the only one affected by her decision. It has enormous demographic repercussions on a long-term, aggregate scale.

Of course, you could say the same thing about whether or not to have sex in the first place, etc. But as it happens, almost nobody today decides, over the long term, to not have sex. Some of them are married/in long-term relationships, some are not; I don't know the ratio. I think it's fair to say that our culture tends to glorify no-strings attached sex--which, I'm sure, is fun. But sex is never really no-strings attached, unless you're gay or sterile and you're certain your partner has no VD (and that's assuming no emotional issues). Sex exists for the primary purpose of procreation. That purpose can be thwarted to a very large extent, but nothing can completely stop it. Abortion exists to seal up that little crack. And so we act like it's a BFD when the seal is denied and we can't completely escape responsibility for the choices we make (with the obvious exception of rape, etc., which is a more complex issue).

That, I submit to you, is carrying individuality a little too far. If you're not prepared to accept even the slightest risk of becoming a parent, you shouldn't be having sex, one way or another. And certainly the child should not be the one to suffer for your recklessness. Of course, I'm arguing this from a purely moral and theoretical standpoint. Public policy is likely to prove depressingly intransigent, the more so because people and groups like the RCC can't fathom the separation of church and state.

Wonderfully said and I don't have a quibble with this. I have recently been struggling as well with the concept that our post-enlightenment Western thought seems to value individuality a little too much and most of all in the US, where individuality is considered paramount. Though my struggles have been not all that much in the social sphere, but more economically speaking. We (I guess I speak for the US as that is what I know) are so quick to call individuality when it applies to capitalism, than even people starving matters not a whit if we are "free" to make money. Of course, this spills over into all sorts of different spheres.

[DaShi]

No surprise that you two would embrace such medieval thinking.

[regexcellent]

It's actually funny watching you guys try and claim a moral parallel with the civil rights movement and the holocaust when we've already seen what happens when you get your way. Women end up assuming a subservient position in society, millions of women resort to back street abortions, and the pain and misery is endless.

If you think women will ever allow a return to those times, you need to put down the crack pipe.

There are lots and lots of women who are against abortion. If you take the notion that abortion is murder, then banning it seems completely reasonable. How hard is this to understand?

EVEN IF women were to wind up in a subservient position due to lack of access to abortion, which they wouldn't, banning it would still be a good idea, on the notion that it's murder. This is not hard to understand.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No surprise that you two would embrace such medieval thinking.

Should I now accuse you of Randian thought that comes with hyperindividuality (Nietszchian is too complimentary )?

[DaShi]

Sure, go for it, you always make assumptions about what other people believe and then attack them for it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[DaShi]

You're boringly predictable.

Blah blah, I actually criticized a statement that you made blah blah, you attacked me for disagreeing with it.

Basically, your debate style is this:

"He disagrees with me! He's Hitler! Hey everyone! I found Hitler!"

This is why I have no respect for you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm sure that is how I sound in your mind, but that's not exactly the same thing as reality now is it?

(or is a jocular comparison to Rand just that bad to you?)

[kentonio]

There are lots and lots of women who are against abortion. If you take the notion that abortion is murder, then banning it seems completely reasonable. How hard is this to understand?

There are many examples of those same women then having abortions themselves on the quiet. Funnily enough people tend to be most against things until they're in that situation themselves.

EVEN IF women were to wind up in a subservient position due to lack of access to abortion, which they wouldn't, banning it would still be a good idea, on the notion that it's murder. This is not hard to understand.

Easy for you to say as you'd be one of the dominant gender then. Try running that line of argument past some women and see if you come away with your balls intact.

[DaShi]

That, I submit to you, is carrying individuality a little too far. If you're not prepared to accept even the slightest risk of becoming a parent, you shouldn't be having sex, one way or another. And certainly the child should not be the one to suffer for your recklessness. Of course, I'm arguing this from a purely moral and theoretical standpoint. Public policy is likely to prove depressingly intransigent, the more so because people and groups like the RCC can't fathom the separation of church and state.

Your entire argument is based on hyperbole. You've placed any act of individuality as an act too far. The end result is to destroy individual choice altogether because they have consequences. There's no nuance here. It's the same as those arguing that all abortions are murder and thus must be stopped by any means necessary.

[DaShi]

I'm sure that is how I sound in your mind, but that's not exactly the same thing as reality now is it?

(or is a jocular comparison to Rand just that bad to you?)

Are you denying that you attempted to apply unattributed characteristics to me (those you expressedly portrayed as negative) that are not supported by any statements I've thus made in this thread?

If not, please show your work.

[Hauldren Collider]

Easy for you to say as you'd be one of the dominant gender then. Try running that line of argument past some women and see if you come away with your balls intact.

Tried it, balls secure inside my scrotum, firmly attached to my crotch.