Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ouze wrote:It would appear that the Party of Small Government© is attempting to criminalize a private sector transaction for performing a legal procedure based solely upon [i]suspicion of the patients motivations.

Darn Republicans, trying to prevent people from killing each other.

biccat wrote:

Ouze wrote:It would appear that the Party of Small Government© is attempting to criminalize a private sector transaction for performing a legal procedure based solely upon [i]suspicion of the patients motivations.

Darn Republicans, trying to prevent people from killing each other.

Now you've opened up the can of worms. Is abortion murder? IMO, early term abortions aren't even close to it.

It isn't murder, because murder is defined as criminally guilty homicide.

If anyone doubt it's homicide, then I don't know what to say. But as long as we don't make it into a law, abortion simply isn't murder.

Doesn't mean it's morally advocable. IMO it isn't ; half of the situations (I know of) where a friend of mine got an abortion, they were more terrified about what their father would say than about being able to care about the kid. Which is why I don't put any blame on the would-be-mother, and put it equally to everyone who gives a bad reputation to family as a whole.

I do not believe that women have any more right over the body they carry inside of them then my landlord over me, simply because I am ''in'' his property.

Mr Hyena wrote:It seems somewhat silly to claim Abortion is only ok in certain circumstances.

Killing people is only okay in certain circumstances. So is eating food. Or even breathing!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kovnik Obama wrote:I do not believe that women have any more right over the body they carry inside of them then my landlord over me, simply because I am ''in'' his property.

That's easy for you to say, you're not the one that has to go around carrying a living leech inside of you that you're thereafter obligated to take care of when it comes out, risking your health and even life so that it has a chance to survive and maybe become something human.

But even then.

Your landlord can evict you and give you a two week notice to find a new place to live. Can a pregnant woman "evict" the foetus under your logic?

Melissia wrote:risking your health and even life so that it has a chance to survive and maybe become something human.

Most people I know failed to ever become something human.

Oh look, Republicans include a problematic element in a bill, and Democrats reject it because of that. Fraz posts a story pretending that part Democrats are simply opposed to same sex marriage.

And throughout it all the Earth keeps spinning.


At least this bit was kind of funny;
"Suspension votes are normally used for non-controversial bills, but the GOP-backed bill was clearly controversial. Republicans have occasionally put controversial bills on the suspension calendar in an apparent attempt to show that Democrats oppose certain policies."

What's that? Shenanigans about using procedure rules to prevent a straight up majority vote on an issue? Whatever does that sound like...

Lynata wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There are ill social effects from major gender imbalance which furnish an argument for preventing gender-biased abortions.

Shouldn't they work each other out, though? I recall having read an article where, in many regions of China, it has gotten so far that men have a hard time finding a girl to marry now. Meaning, the value of girls has increased. It's like the economy model of supply and demand. Could well be that, in another 10-20 years when this effect has taken root in people's minds, China's girls become the new boys and its boys become the girls, as far as preference is concerned.

It doesn't help mid-20s men much now that by the time they are in their mid-40s there might be more women of marriagable age around.

The evidence is that incidents of bride-stealing and rape have increased.

Melissia wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:I do not believe that women have any more right over the body they carry inside of them then my landlord over me, simply because I am ''in'' his property.

That's easy for you to say, you're not the one that has to go around carrying a living leech inside of you that you're thereafter obligated to take care of when it comes out, risking your health and even life so that it has a chance to survive and maybe become something human.

I know. I would still have to equally care about my kid, once it is born. I wish there was a way to both respect the wish of the mother not to have her body used like this, and the right of life of the child. Hopefully some day we will have such a mean. Still. If I had a direct responsibility of the life of another being, due to actions of my own, and the exchange were for me to suffer for 9 months, I would do it. I'm not asking for the mother to dedicate herself to raising the kid ; that's what I meant about people giving family a bad name. If my 16 year old daughter were to come to me and say that she was pregnant and that she wanted to keep the baby, I would break in tears and congratulate my kid. I would then pledge myself to raising that kid so that both of them could have the best life I can offer them. If she were to tell me that she didn't want to keep it, I would never dare raise my voice, insult, or in any way, shape or form communicate hostility toward that position. But I would offer to adopt legally the kid. What I reallly, really don't like are the idiots that, when faced with what can equally be a traumatic or wonderful moment in the life of a girl/women, decide to start screaming.

But even then.

Your landlord can evict you and give you a two week notice to find a new place to live. Can a pregnant woman "evict" the foetus under your logic?

My landlord can't evict me if said eviction will likely cause me harm. Maybe you don't have those laws down in the States, but here in Quebec you can only be evicted when you landlord has been informed that a kin will take care of you, and only a few months of the year. No evictions during the white-outs of February, no no. So yeah, it's still pretty sound logic.

I know my position essentially boils down to, "but if people stopped being so mean to each other, we could x, y and z''. But the way I see it, abortion seems to be a pretty huge social problem, not in the sense that it will cause the next recession, but in the sense that there is still a lot of 'mental' and 'cultural' dissonance about it. Here in Quebec, the pro-choice side is completely established ; I admit I will do efforts to avoid discussing it now, because I have lost quite a few potential friends when they discovered, after they insulted the pro-life as if it was all a bunch of redneck bible thumpers, that I looked hurt. Some didn't even bother talking to me after, they just saw that I didn't laugh, or smile, and just assumed I taught they would all burn in hell. People here are about as hostile to it as I would be toward a fascist. When I lived in Alberta, I had to keep silent over the fact that I didn't want to condemn the women or the doctors for 'committing murder' (I got into a few verbal escalations just by trying to say that it isn't technically correct to call it murder, since that's a criminal term which implies criminal law), or even see abortion becomes illegal (which would have some horrendous effects).

I think a shift in social values toward a more 'loose' definition of family could, in the end, render useless abortions. I don't think its likely to happen, but that won't stop me from preaching.

Please watch what you post, basically if there's doubt then don't post it. This includes links to unsuitable sites.

sorry reds8n, once again, I have no idea what I have done "wrong."

Seems people take easy offense to things I post when I provide links to critical opinion and factual information based on the subject matter at hand.

Perhaps I should cease engaging in any posting replies to any topics that might be either controversial, or politcal because there is bound to be disagreement.

Could I ask that in the future, you just edit the parts of my posts that are the problem, and not the entire thing? This way I can somehow figure out what the problem is?

LoneLictor wrote:Now you've opened up the can of worms. Is abortion murder? IMO, early term abortions aren't even close to it.

It's a difficult question, with many possible answers, none more correct or more reasoned than any other. biccat's solution to this challenge is to keep repeating his stance as if it's God's Own Truth.

Ironically feminazis cause girls to die more.

Just leave them to it, eventually the pro-choice crowd will die out

Phototoxin wrote:Ironically feminazis cause girls to die more.

Just leave them to it, eventually the pro-choice crowd will die out

Are you using feminazis in a non-ironic context? And using it inter-changably with 'pro-choice'?

First someone claiming that we don't have enough threads on US politics, and now someone saying feminazis. Oh Dakka, is there anything you won't deliver us?

It's tongue in cheek but also has a ring of truth - with feminists pushing for more access to abortion/birth control its unborn girls who it's mostly used on.

Ultimately I do think that liberals will be 'out bred' by more conservative, 'pro-life' people.

(Also feminazi ≠ pro-choice in my book. Again ironic use, feminists = usually pro-choice, feminazis = men need to be ground into a pulp and used to further the Matriarchy! Heil Vagina!)

Kovnik Obama wrote:My landlord can't evict me if said eviction will likely cause me harm. Maybe you don't have those laws down in the States, but here in Quebec you can only be evicted when you landlord has been informed that a kin will take care of you, and only a few months of the year. No evictions during the white-outs of February, no no. So yeah, it's still pretty sound logic.

We absolutely have no such laws in the states. My family actually was once evicted in NY in January in a snowstorm. cool story bro tags start: But, no, we have no such laws here.

See in the South we would have just wacked the landlord for such unmanly behavior. You Yankess are so uncivilized.

Phototoxin wrote:It's tongue in cheek but also has a ring of truth - with feminists pushing for more access to abortion/birth control its unborn girls on whom it's mostly used.

Fixed your post.

This is interesting in that opens up a lot of squirminy arguments.

*OK based on gender?
*Ok based on handicap?
*Ok based on sexual preference?
*Ok based on that false thing called "race?"

Ouze wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:My landlord can't evict me if said eviction will likely cause me harm. Maybe you don't have those laws down in the States, but here in Quebec you can only be evicted when you landlord has been informed that a kin will take care of you, and only a few months of the year. No evictions during the white-outs of February, no no. So yeah, it's still pretty sound logic.

We absolutely have no such laws in the states. My family actually was once evicted in NY in January in a snowstorm. cool story bro tags start:

Spoiler:

We had a landlord that wanted us gone but we had a few months left on the lease so she couldn't legally kick us out. We had been looking for a new place and hadn't yet found one yet, and she suddenly started having her lawyer go to court over and over again to file eviction notices. They were over nonsense (example: "We had a cat against our lease" when in fact not only did we never own a cat but my brother was allergic to cats; stuff like that) but they caused my mother to have to appear in court to have them quashed; which was the real reason she was doing it: making my mother miss work over and over again. This happened 5 or 6 times. Anyway, this one time she either arranged for "sewer service" or there was just some screwup somewhere and she never got any service, so the landlord won a default. The sheriff turned up, kicked us right the hell out in the snow, changed the locks; and we had to go stay with my aunt for a day or 2 before my mother was able to go to court and get it fixed. Later on (and not much later) it turned out that these were impersonal attentions and my landlord was rapidly descending into schizophrenia.

But, no, we have no such laws here.

Holy crap is this bad. I had my doubts about it, what with all the rumors of dispossessed families having to turn their houses to the bank after the recession, but I thought, since this is to protect against crazy landlords, not crazy banks, the people might still have an right.

But essentially my point remains ; up here, the right of the landlord to exploit his business is balanced against the (more essential) right of everyone to have a home. Because of this, it will often look like the Laws are skewed against the landlords, and they complain that the laws are oppressive. Women that get offended when we say that their right to the control of their body is simply not enough to justify the elimination of another's body are in the same position ; they seem to overreact to the fact that I ask to reexamine the balance of those rights because it's an attack against women's rights. All I ask is to balance it against the right of life that we otherwise normally consider absolute.

But yeah, you guys should definitely adopt those laws against abusive evictions. Here I can rip a new one to any landlord that even just so come knocking at my door without a 24 hour notice.

Frazzled wrote:
1 ) *OK based on gender?
2 ) *Ok based on handicap?
3 ) *Ok based on sexual preference?
4) *Ok based on that false thing called "race?"

1)No. What would that say about your misogyny/machismo if you select your kid amongst others based on sex?
2)I'd say maybe, I think it's hard to answer that one in a vacuum. Depends on the handicap, really. I don't like mercy killings, but I can understand how they could appear the right choice to someone faced with a horrible situation.
3)Hum, how? Like if we identified a gay gene? Again, what would that say about your homophobia if you select your kid amongst others based on that? Those are still your genes ; your responsibility to see to the kid, not try to build him back up.
4)Well yeah that would be the worse of it... A person could justify sleeping with another person ''of a different race'' but not taking care of their own child because of the mix??? The worse is, I bet that exists...

I strongly disapprove of gender based abortion, because as history has shown, once the fad takes off in a given area there can be disastrous consequences.

I define myself as pro-choice, but aborting because of the sex just smacks of wrong.

Frazzled wrote:*OK based on gender?

No. Even pushing aside gender equality issues and ethical matters, this kind of thing is provably bad for society.

Frazzled wrote:*Ok based on sexual preference?

Why should this matter? You don't know what sexuality the potential child will be until at least ten years in to their life, after all. And the parents aren't going to be having sex with the potential child anyway, ideally.

Frazzled wrote:*Ok based on that false thing called "race?"

Not at all. Race is based off of a choice by the parents. And it's also provably bad for society as well.

Frazzled wrote:*Ok based on handicap?

This is a very, VERY complicated issue... after all, do you want to force a potential child to live through having a condition that will cause them to suffer physical pain throughout their life, or a mental condition where they are incapable of actually growing up to become an adult?

KK asked earlier ITT if gender-selective abortion is an issue in the States.

The answer is: only a political issue. And a laughable one at that.

Some time ago, Planned Parenthood noticed women were coming in and asking for gender-selective abortions. The incidence was widespread enough that a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood mentioned in a radio interview their anticipation of a campaign to manufacture evidence that Planned Parenthood provided/encouraged gender-selective abortion. Lo and behold, the "pro-life" activist group called Live Action released a video two days ago purporting to show exactly that. That claim is not actually supported by the video, as you might have already guessed.

The bill in question is a parlor trick, or more particularly an uninspired variation on the same old saw, which the rhetoriticians call false equivalence: Pro-Life = Pro-Woman; Pro-Choice = Anti-Woman.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:*Ok based on sexual preference?

Why should this matter? You don't know what sexuality the potential child will be until at least ten years in to their life, after all. And the parents aren't going to be having sex with the potential child anyway, ideally.

What an odd thing to say.

I don't see how that last bit follows at all.

Melissia wrote:stuff

Just to be clear then...abortion for gender is wrong. Abortion for sexuality (assuming it happens) is wrong. Abortion for race is wrong. And abortion for handicap is a very complicated issue.

But you (apparently, based on previous comments), support abortion if the mother isn't ready to have a child. How is that any different than a mother who isn't ready to have a girl? Or a mother that isn't ready to have a black child? Or a mother that isn't ready to have a gay child?

Frazzled wrote:*Ok based on sexual preference?

Why should this matter? You don't know what sexuality the potential child will be until at least ten years in to their life, after all. And the parents aren't going to be having sex with the potential child anyway, ideally.

Who wo, why facepalm? If homosexuality is genetic, as is now being argued, then guess what - eventually scientists will be able to tell.
So back to the question is it ok for parents to abort fetuses of future homosexual citizens?

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:*OK based on gender?

No. Even pushing aside gender equality issues and ethical matters, this kind of thing is provably bad for society.

Frazzled wrote:*Ok based on sexual preference?

Why should this matter? You don't know what sexuality the potential child will be until at least ten years in to their life, after all. And the parents aren't going to be having sex with the potential child anyway, ideally.

Frazzled wrote:*Ok based on that false thing called "race?"

Not at all. Race is based off of a choice by the parents. And it's also provably bad for society as well.

Frazzled wrote:*Ok based on handicap?

This is a very, VERY complicated issue... after all, do you want to force a potential child to live through having a condition that will cause them to suffer physical pain throughout their life, or a mental condition where they are incapable of actually growing up to become an adult?

Now, should those things be legal then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:stuff

Just to be clear then...abortion for gender is wrong. Abortion for sexuality (assuming it happens) is wrong. Abortion for race is wrong. And abortion for handicap is a very complicated issue.

But you (apparently, based on previous comments), support abortion if the mother isn't ready to have a child. How is that any different than a mother who isn't ready to have a girl? Or a mother that isn't ready to have a black child? Or a mother that isn't ready to have a gay child?

Thats the sticky part isn't it.
The other sticky part of course is...should morally wrong equal illegal?

Before I start getting called pig, evil, swine, blah blah note I'm positing issues of argument. My personal position is quite plain.
You! Off my Planet!
(hey at least ists completely unbiased)

Frazzled wrote:This is interesting in that opens up a lot of squirminy arguments.

*OK based on gender?
*Ok based on handicap?
*Ok based on sexual preference?
*Ok based on that false thing called "race?"

Abortions have already been deemed legal. Trying to impose select limitations on it is really just chipping away at a already court tested and legal precedence. If a woman wants an abortion, its her choice, no matter what factors she used to get to that choice.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Frazzled wrote:This is interesting in that opens up a lot of squirminy arguments.

*OK based on gender?
*Ok based on handicap?
*Ok based on sexual preference?
*Ok based on that false thing called "race?"

Abortions have already been deemed legal. Trying to impose select limitations on it is really just chipping away at a already court tested and legal precedence. If a woman wants an abortion, its her choice, no matter what factors she used to get to that choice.

I didn't say deemed legal. I said SHOULD it be legal? Get with the program Herbert!
Again, are those categories wrong? If they are wrong then should they be illegal?


I'm not pushing a point or agenda (see above I hate you all commentary) I'm exploring the ethical issue.

Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Frazzled wrote:This is interesting in that opens up a lot of squirminy arguments.

*OK based on gender?
*Ok based on handicap?
*Ok based on sexual preference?
*Ok based on that false thing called "race?"

Abortions have already been deemed legal. Trying to impose select limitations on it is really just chipping away at a already court tested and legal precedence. If a woman wants an abortion, its her choice, no matter what factors she used to get to that choice.

I didn't say deemed legal. I said SHOULD it be legal? Get with the program Herbert!
Again, are those categories wrong? If they are wrong then should they be illegal?


I'm not pushing a point or agenda (see above I hate you all commentary) I'm exploring the ethical issue.

Yes they should be legal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
speaking of the ethical side fraz,

what if the mom is on welfare and can not afford all the doctors appointments nor the cost of delivering the baby? nor could said mom afford to raise the kid?
What if the mom already has 11 kids and doesn't want to have another one?

Would you be OK with your taxes being raised to support welfare moms and their kids? so you would have to pay more in taxes for all the baby's clothes, food, housing, and education?

Its all part of the circle of life, if you think all abortions should be illegal for any reason, then you should also be for government programs to help care for all these children.

sirlynchmob wrote:
speaking of the ethical side fraz,


1) what if the mom is on welfare and can not afford all the doctors appointments nor the cost of delivering the baby?
2) nor could said mom afford to raise the kid?
3) What if the mom already has 11 kids and doesn't want to have another one?

4) Would you be OK with your taxes being raised to support welfare moms and their kids? so you would have to pay more in taxes for all the baby's clothes, food, housing, and education?

Its all part of the circle of life, if you think all abortions should be illegal for any reason, then you should also be for government programs to help care for all these children.

1) Hum, you actually mean to say that prenatal medical care isn't covered in the States? WTH kind of backward country are you talking about?
2) Adoption. It's still better than death.
3) Then she should be told how stupid she is for not using that nice little thing called the pill. Again, adoption.
4) I'd be fine with my taxes going to actually raize kids. Thats the single best use I can think of...