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

[Jon Miller]

BTW, I don't consider silly laws to help the matter either (like the one discussed in this thread).

I favor a ban on late term abortions (we can start with a ban on ones in the third trimester), where the mother does not face an immediate threat to her life.

We can then, as a society, work from there.

JM

[kentonio]

It is used.

Also the school system and family planning groups.

JM
(I have heard the words, from the pulpit, of "sacred right of choice")

How would school or family planning groups cause a lower rate of contraceptive use? I think it's significant however that black church attendance trends about 7% higher than white church attendance in the US.

I think that murder is offensive. There is nothing that excuses the murder of innocents, sorry.

I do get a bit riled up about this. I have said my piece. Maybe better if I disengage now.

JM

Probably better if we both do, but I'd just finish by saying that having a total moral objection to abortion is understandable when it conflicts with your beliefs, but there is a difference between being a moral objector and demonizing women for it. The latter can cause huge damage to extremely vulnerable women, and that's not a positive way to go about gathering sympathy for your position.

[giblets]

Millions of babies get murdered because african-americans are lied to, and don't realize that they are killing their own children to pay for their lifestyle.

Are you being serious?

[Jon Miller]

How would school or family planning groups cause a lower rate of contraceptive use? I think it's significant however that black church attendance trends about 7% higher than white church attendance in the US.

Probably better if we both do, but I'd just finish by saying that having a total moral objection to abortion is understandable when it conflicts with your beliefs, but there is a difference between being a moral objector and demonizing women for it. The latter can cause huge damage to extremely vulnerable women, and that's not a positive way to go about gathering sympathy for your position.

I wouldn't be relaxed about slavery or genocide either. Why should I be relaxed about this?

And I mostly am 'relaxed' about this, I only make a 'stink' about it once or so a year. Mostly I just close my lips and be silent.

I actually have recently favored black churches over white churches in general. Praise and worship are generally more emphasized and there is a wonderful spirit in the church body, often, due to this.

JM

[kentonio]

I wouldn't be relaxed about slavery or genocide either. Why should I be relaxed about this?

And I mostly am 'relaxed' about this, I only make a 'stink' about it once or so a year. Mostly I just close my lips and be silent.

I never asked that you be relaxed, just that you be a little sensitive to women who are usually already under intense psychological pressure. They don't need to be made to feel any worse by anyone else.

[Jon Miller]

Why not?

Some of the slave holders I am sure felt a lot of psychological pressure.

Making the feel worse is exactly what would be the right choice.

It is how you get a change of behavior away from the selfish one.

JM

[kentonio]

Why not?

Some of the slave holders I am sure felt a lot of psychological pressure.

Making the feel worse is exactly what would be the right choice.

It is how you get a change of behavior away from the selfish one.

JM

You genuinely just compared vulnerable women to selfish racist slave holders..?

Wow..

[Jon Miller]

I am sure some of the slave holders were vulnerable?

JM

[PLATO]

PLATO and regexcellent, you guys do not understand. According to your reasoning, it is fine to kill babies even after birth

JM

Jon, I am afraid that you don't understand "reasoning" if you feel this way.

The issue here, as far as legislation and government involvement, is clearly tied to the governments responsibility to protect people. This is the main reason that we have any law.

The debate is really on, what defines a person.

Certainly a woman has the right to do with her body as she pleases. However, when another person becomes involved then their is also a responsibility. Women do not have a right to kill another person...no one does (except of course as mandated by legislarion...i.e. execution, etc...).

I am not attempting to set or debate any point of where a fetus becomes a person. You have mentioned the beginning of brainwave activity...that seems as good a definition that anyone here has proposed. Is brainwave activity what makes something into someone? I don't know...I am not qualified to make that answer.

Clearly, the argument that a woman should be able to do what she wishes at anytime during her pregnancy is not correct eithier. As I have said before, the fetus is not significantly different 5 minutes before it is born. At some point, a woman must respect the right of the person within her.

The debate is when does something that starts out as two single cells merging become a person...clearly this is at somepoint during a pregnancy. Equally clearly is a woman's right to choose what happens to her body as long as it does not abridge the rights of another...clearly any person has equal protection under the law. Should we discriminate because that person is unborn? If so, who else should we discriminate against?

The debate about when a fetus becomes a person has no real scientific answer right now. Clearly government has a responsibility to protect the rights of all involved. Until there is an answer that all can accept, it will continue to be an evolving process...as it should be.

[Elok]

If genetic testing comes, how many millions would be murdered due to having a gene which is correlated with homosexuality?

An interesting question, though the latest study I heard of (some time ago) was that it was correlated with hormone surges in utero, rather than any specific gene. Be that as it may, it's likely that it will be possible, within my lifetime, to test a baby in utero to find out if it will grow up attracted to the same sex. And there is precedent for what you describe; there are a lot fewer people with Down's Syndrome today than there "should" be.

However, DS was removed from the population, along with its carriers, as a result of a directed eugenic drive to destroy it. The test was not only developed, but recommended to large numbers of expectant mothers. I don't know if the same thing would be done in the case of a hypothetical "gay test," since the argument used to justify DS-pruning was economical: these retarded kids cost society a massive amount of money while contributing barely anything (IMO, this is pretty much the only area where the abortion issue is genuinely comparable to the Holocaust, BTW; the Nazis used the same ghoulish argument for their retarded-liquidation schemes). By contrast the main argument against homosexuality is based on pure dislike. And most of the people who dislike gays also dislike abortion. Most folks wouldn't dread raising a gay kid nearly as much as they would dread raising a child with Down's.

Now, it could still happen, but the test would need to become a routine matter first. It could simply be phrased as "giving the woman more information," or some such, I suppose.

[Hauldren Collider]

Congratulations on being wrong in the 123,232,321th thread in a row.

Care to explain how that contradicts anything I said, ******?

And I just want to say...John Miller . I agree with everything you've written here. Bravo.

[PLATO]

I would just like to see Republicans who are genuinely in favor of a less intrusive government.

Me too! Just as I would like to see Democrats that are geniunely in favor of less intrusive government!

As a matter of a fact, I would like to vote for any party that is in favor of less intrusive government!

[Jon Miller]

I am not attempting to set or debate any point of where a fetus becomes a person. You have mentioned the beginning of brainwave activity...that seems as good a definition that anyone here has proposed. Is brainwave activity what makes something into someone? I don't know...I am not qualified to make that answer.

Clearly, the argument that a woman should be able to do what she wishes at anytime during her pregnancy is not correct eithier. As I have said before, the fetus is not significantly different 5 minutes before it is born. At some point, a woman must respect the right of the person within her.

The debate is when does something that starts out as two single cells merging become a person...clearly this is at somepoint during a pregnancy. Equally clearly is a woman's right to choose what happens to her body as long as it does not abridge the rights of another...clearly any person has equal protection under the law. Should we discriminate because that person is unborn? If so, who else should we discriminate against?

The debate about when a fetus becomes a person has no real scientific answer right now. Clearly government has a responsibility to protect the rights of all involved. Until there is an answer that all can accept, it will continue to be an evolving process...as it should be.

Science already has provided enough information. More than enough information.

Science can't decide that an African is a person or a Jew or a baby. That is something for society to decide.

Scientifically, the baby in the second trimester is the exact same as some who are considered as a living person now. The only difference is in one case no breath has been taken while in the other a breath has been taken.

You are listening to peoples excuses.

They don't want to place any limits on abortion because it would inconvenience them or the political group they identify with are against any limits.

JM

[giblets]

You genuinely just compared vulnerable women to selfish racist slave holders..?

Wow..

Even though some people think they should be enslaved to a fetus.

[Hauldren Collider]

Even though some people think they should be responsible for their children.

FTFY