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

[MrFun]

Well, the embryo can't drive on its own and does not currently expend significant extra resources such as food, so the tiniest bit of thought would reveal the answer: "no." Still, that's some nice snark.

As a person, should embryos have the right to vote?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Any restriction on abortion in the US is presented as so women who were raped will be forced to die in childbirth.

It is atrocious.

JM

But how would you treat ectopic pregnancy, Jon?

I think you have to accept termination has to be carried out under such circumstances. After that, it's just a numbers game, and arguments over whose drawing of the line is preferable.

[Hauldren Collider]

HC is completely out to lunch about this and three pages later he's still trying to pretend they weren't trying to force women to get a transvaginal ultrasound (vaginal penetration ultrasound) even after he's been show links and quotes multiple times.

Does anyone else find that hilarious after his claims of closely watching Virgina politics and claiming I was wrong about the vaginal penetration mandate? Come on, HC, just man up and admit you were wrong already.

Ok. Quote where it says it must be transvaginal at all stages of pregnancy in the bill, and then I'll concede that I was wrong about it. I'm pretty confident the bill only required AN ULTRASOUND, and that early stages of pregnancy required transvaginal. So tell me where it said that it always had to be transvaginal. Quote it. Then I'll believe you.

I didn't see you quote that anywhere before in the thread.

[Hauldren Collider]

As a person, should embryos have the right to vote?

Children are people and can't vote, fucktard. Felons are people and they can't vote either. Noncitizens are people and can't vote. Do you need any more examples?

[Hauldren Collider]

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.

While a valid point, it's actually irrelevant to the discussion of the idea of whether human rights are limitations on government or entitlements from government. Slaves were seen as something subhuman and rights did not apply them. The scope of rights and the notion of rights are separate discussions.

Regexcellent is correct that the Europeans have it backwards. Their "rights" are actually an expansion of government power and intrusion, a mandate on government to be paternalistic. We take the reverse approach.

[Hauldren Collider]

Here's some fact: Support for abortion rights has remained pretty much constant (with in a very narrow band) since 1975. 51% believe it should be legal under certain circumstances, 26% believe it should be legal under all circumstances, and only 20% believe it should be illegal. I agree with Jon Miller, 20% really is a very small number.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

You need to be more careful here. The reality is that "under certain circumstances" includes a number of corner cases. Most people would agree that in the case of life-threatening pregnancy, abortion is justified. This, however, is somewhat of a canard due to its rarity. If you look at the number of people who consider themselves pro-life and pro-choice, a much better metric of whether people think abortion should be more restricted or less, the numbers are far more fluid, and if I recall correctly, these days people under the age of 30 are substantially more likely to oppose the current looseness of abortion restrictions than those over 30. The pro-abortion crowd is aging and dissipating.

[Elok]

As a person, should embryos have the right to vote?

Should questions like that save you from execution in Texas?

[MRT144]

You need to be more careful here. The reality is that "under certain circumstances" includes a number of corner cases. Most people would agree that in the case of life-threatening pregnancy, abortion is justified. This, however, is somewhat of a canard due to its rarity. If you look at the number of people who consider themselves pro-life and pro-choice, a much better metric of whether people think abortion should be more restricted or less, the numbers are far more fluid, and if I recall correctly, these days people under the age of 30 are substantially more likely to oppose the current looseness of abortion restrictions than those over 30. The pro-abortion crowd is aging and dissipating.

Mostly because we take it for granted and haven't had to deal with the horror that are illegal abortions for some time now.

[Hauldren Collider]

Illegal murder is pretty horrifying, yes. I don't think it's as horrifying as the idea of legal murder though.

I'd be keen on taking the Drake route and assuming it's because Baby Boomers are just horrible people who are thankfully dying out.

[MRT144]

Illegal murder is pretty horrifying, yes. I don't think it's as horrifying as the idea of legal murder though.

You know what I meant.

[Hauldren Collider]

You know what I meant.

Yes, you're right, I was being obtuse. Look, I get that it would be bad for women to be attempting their own abortions, without safety precautions or medical expertise. I get it. But I don't think that's a sufficient excuse for legal abortion.

[regexcellent]

I'm going to answer some things brought up on this page in no particular order (out of laziness since I just took two finals).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/Americans-Split-Along-Pro-Choice-Pro-Life-Lines.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/Generational-Differences-Abortion-Narrow.aspx

Data here suggests that abortion support is going down and that the least support is among the youngest demographic. "Pro-lifers" versus "pro-choicers" are flipping back and forth. Most people believe there should be restrictions on abortions, for instance, that after the 2nd trimester they should not be legal, and that partial birth abortions should not be legal. Concerning partial birth abortions, I only know one person who continued to support them after hearing how it works--the doctor delivers 80% of the baby and sucks his brain out through a tube.

Embryos should not have the right to vote because they're not 18. Debate about whether they are living notwithstanding.

The idea of a parenting certificate is, to me, horrifying; that's a huge expansion of government power in a ridiculously dangerous direction. Kind of like eugenics, really.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The pro-abortion crowd is aging and dissipating.

Do you know what would be the best way of reversing that trend?

A generation of abortion being banned.

[regexcellent]

Do you know what would be the best way of reversing that trend?

A generation of abortion being banned.

It used to be people viewed abortion as a tool of empowering women. That was at the height of the feminist movement. Back then if you had a baby you couldn't also have a career; people wouldn't hire you or they would have you work fewer hours. That's not true today. Advances in women's rights in other areas obviates a lot of the reason people supported abortion back then. That's why today people don't see it so much as a critical women's rights issue. The reasoning behind the pro-abortion movement in the days of Roe v. Wade will not be coming back.

[MRT144]

Yes, you're right, I was being obtuse. Look, I get that it would be bad for women to be attempting their own abortions, without safety precautions or medical expertise. I get it. But I don't think that's a sufficient excuse for legal abortion.

Let me ask you this - if abortions saved the lives of more people in the aggregate, that is reduced the number of infanticide and suicide, would it be worth it? At what point do you think overall harm reduction is worth it?