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

[regexcellent]

Since it doesn't do that, the question is moot, isn't it?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

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.

Are you a parent?

[MRT144]

Since it doesn't do that, the question is moot, isn't it?

What if the rate spiked after outlawing abortion.

[Hauldren Collider]

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?

First I'd like to know what makes you believe that this hypothesis is true. I don't believe it is. Reducing infanticide doesn't count, by the way. The entire principal of banning abortions is that it isn't different from infanticide.

Are you a parent?

He doesn't have to be. There are plenty of parents on both sides of the debate, and plenty with careers. Do you think being a parent makes you special here?

This is no different than saying "are you a woman?" and declaring that only women can have an opinion on abortion.

[MRT144]

First I'd like to know what makes you believe that this hypothesis is true. I don't believe it is. Reducing infanticide doesn't count, by the way. The entire principal of banning abortions is that it isn't different from infanticide.

I don't know if the hypothesis is true. I'm asking, if it was shown that rates increased after the banning of abortions, would that change your opinion one way or another.

[Hauldren Collider]

I don't know if the hypothesis is true. I'm asking, if it was shown that rates increased after the banning of abortions, would that change your opinion one way or another.

If the number of suicides went up and the number of infanticides didn't go down, yes, I would reconsider. Not necessarily reverse my view, but reconsider.

[regexcellent]

The answer then would presumably be to enforce infanticide laws.

[MRT144]

The answer then would presumably be to enforce infanticide laws.

Law enforcing turtles all the way down.

[Lorizael]

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.

Parenting is quite possibly one of the most important and difficult tasks a human being can attempt, yet we allow anyone to do it. We require people to learn how to drive before we let them to do that, yet we require nothing at all of prospective parents. We regulate who can and can't adopt a child stridently, yet those that wish to have a child by natural means face no regulation at all. Exactly what kind of sense does that make?

[MRT144]

Parenting is quite possibly one of the most important and difficult tasks a human being can attempt, yet we allow anyone to do it. We require people to learn how to drive before we let them to do that, yet we require nothing at all of prospective parents. We regulate who can and can't adopt a child stridently, yet those that wish to have a child by natural means face no regulation at all. Exactly what kind of sense does that make?

Perfect sense if you believe in natural rights but demand severe and draconian laws and punishment for non rights issues.

[Dinner]

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.

No, any way you slice it their careers get harmed. If she works part time then you can kiss management (and the resulting pay raises) good bye, she won't always be able to work flex time or from home so eventually that will come to a head as well and she'll also damage her climb up the corporate ladder, while if she takes time off her earns will be less for life plus she'll have out of date skills which will make her less employable.

[Dinner]

Since it doesn't do that, the question is moot, isn't it?

He has a point. All those young dirt poor mothers forced to have children against their will would no doubt raise poor kids, normally in single family homes, and when those kids hit their teenage years crime would start going up. Yes, including violent crime.

So the man has a point even if you don't like his point.

[MrFun]

Children are people and can't vote, fucktard.

Ah, but don't many youth rights activists argue that teenagers should have right to vote?

[Hauldren Collider]

Ah, but don't many youth rights activists argue that teenagers should have right to vote?

Only if they're incredibly stupid. Also, seriously, do you think anyone is actually suggesting that infants should be allowed to vote?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

He doesn't have to be. There are plenty of parents on both sides of the debate, and plenty with careers. Do you think being a parent makes you special here?

Yes, but that's not relevant to this discussion.

The reason for asking revolves around awareness of the cost of raising children. It's easy to claim kids are no career barrier, but I'm afraid I know too many single parents who can't afford to work full-time to place much faith in that.

Is expense a valid reason to have an abortion? I suggest it is. Your mileage may vary.