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

[Elok]

We can and do observe that the entity begins to react to external stimulus at some point while in the womb.

My knee reacts to being hit with a hammer. That doesn't mean there was thought involved in the process. Nor, if it were, would it be indicative of any thought process we are bound to respect.

[notyoueither]

Actually, were your knee not to respond you might be on the road to termination as a living entity since response to pain and reflexes are used to gauge braindeath.

You are trying valiently though.

[Elok]

What are the anti-abortionists hoping to accomplish? Let's say Roe v. Wade gets overturned (slightly more likely than Nazis returning from the moon) and Virginia bans abortion. Big ****ing deal, women will just travel to Maryland to get their abortions.

Suppose post-birth infanticide were legal in MD but not VA. BFD, women would just drive their kids over the border to kill them and dump their bodies in the incinerator. Ergo, VA should have no law against it at all. Is that how it works?

We effectively euthanise some people who have no brain activity. We have been doing that prior to euthanasia being legal in some parts of Europe.

Well, yes, because said people have no brain activity due to their brains dying. The condition, in that case, is permanent. They're never going to do anything but sit, drool and stare. In most pregnancies, this is not the case, and I have no objection to abortions in the rare cases where it is. My problem is that you're looking at the stage they're presently at in isolation, speculating on thoughts and feelings they might be having, and proposing that you should make those speculations the basis of law. Never mind the larger process, only their present state counts. Which is kinda like making it legal to waste somebody, provided s/he is asleep and therefore not totally conscious.

I'm looking for the bright line between unfertilised egg and newborn.

You won't find any other than fertilization, which turns it from two distinct cells from two different people into a unified individual with its own identity. There's no bright line between one stage of pregnancy and another any more than there's a bright line between "baby" and "toddler." Yes, you can say what a baby is and what a toddler is, but you can't pinpoint one exact moment where it ceases to be the one and becomes the other, because growth is a continuous, gradual process in and out of the womb. The icky slimy little thing that looks like a bacterium isn't swapped out for the eight-months variant that looks like a wizened, but still vaguely cute, Roswell alien. They're the same critter.

I'm certain that an entity that is capable of life outside of the womb should be legally protected. I do not agree that a fertilised egg should be.

The absense of a brain puts an entity a long way the wrong side of the bright line for providing legal and moral protection I am looking for.

Yes, but why? Because you're projecting thoughts and feelings onto a being which is unlikely to have either (at least, in any meaningful way--it will eventually acquire "feelings" in the sense that it will thrash around while the doctor is killing it)? How is this whole thought process grounded in anything but projections and sentiment?

[giblets]

Suppose post-birth infanticide were legal in MD but not VA. BFD, women would just drive their kids over the border to kill them and dump their bodies in the incinerator. Ergo, VA should have no law against it at all. Is that how it works?

They could make it illegal if they want, but if MD doesn't it won't do much good.

[Elok]

Actually, were your knee not to respond you might be on the road to termination as a living entity since response to pain and reflexes are used to gauge braindeath.

You are trying valiently though.

Thank you for your condescension. Am I to take it that totally thoughtless, reflexive reactions are what make us human?

[Elok]

They could make it illegal if they want, but if MD doesn't it won't do much good.

And this is true of almost every other law, too. I would prefer a nationwide ban, but giving states back the right to decide what kind of crap they don't want in their own borders sounds like a good first step.

[giblets]

And this is true of almost every other law, too. I would prefer a nationwide ban, but giving states back the right to decide what kind of crap they don't want in their own borders sounds like a good first step.

But it's just a first step, and the next steps (a constitutional amendment?) won't happen.

[DaShi]

I certainly hope not. It would be social chaos.

[Dinner]

The crime rate would go through the roof too especially since most of the people who are anti-choice are also against social programs for the poor. The love fetuses but hate real live children.

[DaShi]

It would guarantee a permanent underclass that would drag down all social resources.

[giblets]

The crime rate would go through the roof too especially since most of the people who are anti-choice are also against social programs for the poor. The love fetuses but hate real live children.

They typically want laws restricting homosexual couples from adopting, of course.

[Elok]

I am all for encouraging homosexual couples to adopt, and support social programs as the budget allows. If you want to make more room for them by scrapping some tanks and other invade-brown-people-to-teach-them-our-values gear, fine by me. I'm a moderate, not a conservative. Anyway,

But it's just a first step, and the next steps (a constitutional amendment?) won't happen.

By your logic, every state would say, "welp, it's illegal in the next state, why bother?" and it would be legal everywhere. I know that's what you want, but it makes no sense from our perspective.

BTW, what counts as a "brain" for abortion purposes? Two neurons? Eight? Thirty-two? A couple of thousand? None of those will allow for anything even approaching awareness AFAIK, but provided they're inside the skull or what will later turn into it, you could call them a brain.

[Kidlicious]

The crime rate would go through the roof too especially since most of the people who are anti-choice are also against social programs for the poor. The love fetuses but hate real live children.

So people on welfare don't commit crimes? What a crock of ****?!

[Dinner]

I don't think anyone here thought you personally believed such things but many anti-choice people are very far right and do.

[Elok]

I don't think anyone here thought you personally believed such things but many anti-choice people are very far right and do.

I know regexcewotsit calls you pro-abortion, but I'm civil about such things and call you pro-choice. If you could return the favor, that'd be super. Anyway, yeah, the pro-life movement is basically its own worst enemy at this point. "No abortion, no birth control" is like "no gun violence, free assault rifle on completing rehab."