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!