Dems reject ban on gender-selective abortion.

[Teallaura]

The US Supreme court has held that abortion is NOT an absolute legal right (it is not now nor will it ever be a moral right). Ergo, government does in fact have a right and arguably a duty to regulate conditions under which abortion is or is not permissible. We normally see this in the infamous 'rape/incest; life of the mother; serious defect' mantra. Putting aside the obvious moral repugnance, sex selective abortion is in point of fact a social ill and one quite capable of becoming a serious problem for others within and without the particular community that practices it. Those reasons alone are sufficient to incur regulation - that it is unlikely to be pervasive is a non-issue. We have hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations, ordinances and even laws against things that affect few people (snake handling and esoteric building codes coming immediately to mind).

The obvious fact that all abortion is morally wrong and should be illegal doesn't preclude legislating against immediately vulnerable segments - if we're lucky, we save a few girls while we work toward final abolition and since it took so very little legislative time, the 'wasting time' argument is foolishness. Moreover, such legislation does have a 'chipping away' effect - it becomes harder for the public to view abortion as some legal absolute and changing public will can, and likely will, speed up changing abortion laws, in Court or in Congress. This plus outweighs the tiny amount of legislative time 'wasted'.

The comparison to so called 'thought crimes' is unwarranted. There are a number of laws which permit X for one reason but preclude it for other reasons - in other words, why you want to do X bears on its legality. Self-defense and zoning laws both fall under this rubric. Society, via government, has an interest in not letting groups slaughter their daughters in utero if for no other reason than the self same groups end up violating other laws, especially assault and kidnapping, in years to come as they find no suitable wives (i.e. breathing) within their communities and in desperation turn elsewhere. The problem occurs rampantly in China, India and a surprisingly large section of the former Soviet Union in and around the Ukraine so exercising a 'no tolerance' policy in order to prevent similar problems here in the future (no matter now non-pervasive) is perfectly reasonable.

Now, were these the only reasons the Republicans tried to enact the legislation? Of course not. But if the Democrats wanna have political egg all over their faces from the sheer hypocrisy of saying Republicans have a 'war on women' but it's okay to kill girls just for being girls, then I for one have no issue with the Republicans setting them up to do it. Minor political maneuvering, major political stupidity - golly, politicians being politicians! Who'da thunk it?

[Sparko]

No, it is not. If you forced a woman whose father raped and impregnated her to have the baby, you'd be morally wrong to do so. One morning after pill would take care of that problem with no baby being hurt.

I just demonstrated it's not so black and white, which is all I wanted to do. Don't insinuate I'm for eugenics or any of that fundamentalist crap. Stay on topic please. It's not entirely right and not entirely wrong, is it?

No the morning after pill doesn't take care of the problem. It just adds a possible murder on top of a rape.

[Whag]

No the morning after pill doesn't take care of the problem. It just adds a possible murder on top of a rape.

If the death of the zygote is equivalent to murder, you have a lot of scientific justification to do. I know a family affected by incestuous rape, and I also know what that reaps. Be careful to call things only black and white.

Take for example car accidents. Car accidents are caused by a variety of human judgment factors, so science has developed a technology to virtually eliminate commuter (and some commercial) vehicle accidents through artificially intelligent driving. To a very significant degree, you'll see manual driving restrictions in the near future. This would be to achieve an end most of us would agree was favorable: the virtual elimination of car-related maiming and death, which affects everyone from babies to old people. That will result in people who like driving and personal autonomy crying about a lack of choice and possibly the destruction of rights. To an extent, they'd have a point.

Therefore, it's no so black and white. Whether you're discussing the saving of lives through automated driving or the saving of lives by banning the morning after pill, morality is not so black and white. That's my only point and you can start any time in demonstrating otherwise. This will be an interesting exchange of ideas because it's ultimately about moral fluidity, and what's the need to get so worked up over that which we all know is true? There are shades of grey in morality.

[Sparko]

If the death of the zygote is equivalent to murder, you have a lot of scientific justification to do. I know a family affected by incestuous rape, and I also know what that reaps. Be careful to call things only black and white.

Take for example car accidents. Car accidents are caused by a variety of human judgment factors, so science has developed a technology to virtually eliminate commuter (and some commercial) vehicle accidents through artificially intelligent driving. To a very significant degree, you'll see manual driving restrictions in the near future. This would be to achieve an end most of us would agree was favorable: the virtual elimination of car-related maiming and death, which affects everyone from babies to old people. That will result in people who like driving and personal autonomy crying about a lack of choice and possibly the destruction of rights. To an extent, they'd have a point.

Therefore, it's no so black and white. Whether you're discussing the saving of lives through automated driving or the saving of lives by banning the morning after pill, morality is not so black and white. That's my only point and you can start any time in demonstrating otherwise. This will be an interesting exchange of ideas because it's ultimately about moral fluidity, and what's the need to get so worked up over that which we all know is true? There are shades of grey in morality.

Let's see, car ACCIDENT compared to PURPOSEFUL ending of an innocent life. Hmm. Nope. I don't see the comparison. One is an accident, one is murder. Now, if someone took a car and purposefully ran over someone and killed them, then you might have a valid comparison.

[Bill the Cat]

If the death of the zygote is equivalent to murder, you have a lot of scientific justification to do. I know a family affected by incestuous rape, and I also know what that reaps. Be careful to call things only black and white.

Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb

The major hypocrisy in the above public law is the identity of the one killing the "unborn child".

[Whag]

Let's see, car ACCIDENT compared to PURPOSEFUL ending of an innocent life. Hmm. Nope. I don't see the comparison. One is an accident, one is murder. Now, if someone took a car and purposefully ran over someone and killed them, then you might have a valid comparison.

Few comparative issues are exactly parallel. The point is that there are moral grays, and I already pointed out one, which invalidates dizzle's claim that this is entirely black and white. Abortion isn't that cut and dried. If the supreme court took away your right to commute autonomously to work to prevent tens of thousands of traffic deaths, that would be a morally gray issue. An incest rape victim can choose whether she wants to carry her father's baby to term, and that's why this is a moral gray. You would not force her to give birth, would you?

[Sparko]

Few comparative issues are exactly parallel. The point is that there are moral grays, and I already pointed out one, which invalidates dizzle's claim that this is entirely black and white. Abortion isn't that cut and dried. If the supreme court took away your right to commute autonomously to work to prevent tens of thousands of traffic deaths, that would be a morally gray issue. An incest rape victim can choose whether she wants to carry her father's baby to term, and that's why this is a moral gray. You would not force her to give birth, would you?

I wasn't arguing about "moral grays" I was debating your claim that taking the morning after pill after an incestuous rape would "take care of that problem"

It does nothing to take care of the problem. The rape still happened and will not go away. All that is accomplished is the potential death of an innocent human if she was pregnant. And the intentional killing of an innocent human being is murder. Your further example of someone being killed unintentionally in a car accident does not compare in any way.

What exactly did the baby do to deserve being killed? What crime did it commit? It is a victim of the rape as much as the woman was. Would you kill the woman to "take care of that problem?" - after all that way she would not have to suffer the consequences of the rape.

[Whag]

What exactly did the baby do to deserve being killed?.

You have really conservative views on abortion. You're right, In your moral community, zygotes are babies and birth control is illicit. I can't change your mind about moral grays existing no matter what I say. You seem too dead set on viewing is as so black and white that even birth control is a sin.

[Sparko]

You have really conservative views on abortion. You're right, In your moral community, zygotes are babies and birth control is illicit. I can't change your mind about moral grays existing no matter what I say. You seem too dead set on viewing is as so black and white that even birth control is a sin.

You didn't answer my questions. Are you afraid to?


What exactly did the baby (or zygote to you) do to deserve being killed?

What crime did it commit?

It is a victim of the rape as much as the woman was. Would you kill the woman to "take care of that problem?"


What if I told you I was the child of a rape? Would you tell me that I had no right to exist? that the rape was my fault? That I should have been killed?

[Cerebrum123]

You have really conservative views on abortion. You're right, In your moral community, zygotes are babies and birth control is illicit. I can't change your mind about moral grays existing no matter what I say. You seem too dead set on viewing is as so black and white that even birth control is a sin.

A fertilized egg is different than either a sperm or ovum alone, and to destroy it is the same as murder. Most birth control methods PREVENT fertilization from happening in the first place, and therefore would not be murder.

[Bill the Cat]

...zygotes are babies

No. We understand that zygote and baby are two terms used in human growth and development. The only difference between them is the stage of development. Biology understands that a zygote is a unique member of our species just as much as an adult is.

[Whag]

What exactly did the baby (or zygote to you) do to deserve being killed?

Nothing. What exactly did the baby do to deserve being brought into existence in such a way? What did the mother do to deserve bearing her father's child? What did David's baby do to deserve a prolonged illness and death?

I also like to refer to God's conquests and William Lane Craig's apologia that all babies go to Heaven. In the case of those poor pagan babies, they did nothing to deserve being killed in war. Therefore, incest babies go to Heaven bypassing hell completely and there's precedent for killing innocent babies when tough decisions must be made (as in the case of those conquests). At least in the case of the morning after pill, the zygote doesn't feel anything.

It is a victim of the rape as much as the woman was. Would you kill the woman to "take care of that problem?"

If she decides to kill herself, that's her decision. She defines the scope of the problem and makes the decisions, so my killing her or her fetus is irrelevant. Whether she feels emotionally strong enough to carry the baby to term or if she doesn't, it's not our decision.

What if I told you I was the child of a rape? Would you tell me that I had no right to exist? that the rape was my fault? That I should have been killed?

Of course not. But if your mom got pregnant through horrifying circumstances, I would not have the right to tell her she couldn't take the morning after pill. You'd tell a woman who was impregnated by her father she'd have to carry it to term? Don't be afraid of answering that question.

I reiterate, I'm arguing abortion isn't a black and white issue except for with extremists (usually the ones who think birth control is evil). Dizzle said it was either right or wrong.

[Sparko]

Nothing.

exactly. Nothing. Which means it doesn't deserve to be killed because of the crime of another person. It is a victim also.

What exactly did the baby do to deserve being brought into existence in such a way?

Since when is being born a curse?

What did the mother do to deserve bearing her father's child?

She is a victim too. but killing her child doesn't alleviate the crime commited against her. It just piles on another crime: this time SHE is the perpetrator. If someone beats you up, what good does it do for you to take that out on someone else and beat them up?

I also like to refer to God's conquests and William Lane Craig's apologia that all babies go to Heaven. In the case of those poor pagan babies, they did nothing to deserve being killed in war. Therefore, incest babies go to Heaven bypassing hell completely and there's precedent for killing innocent babies when tough decisions must be made (as in the case of those conquests). At least in the case of the morning after pill, the zygote doesn't feel anything.

You didn't just suggest that killing an innocent child is OK just because it goes to heaven did you? That is not what WLC was suggesting in the least.

You are morally reprehensible, whag.

If she decides to kill herself, that's her decision. She defines the scope of the problem and makes the decisions, so my killing her or her fetus is irrelevant. Whether she feels emotionally strong enough to carry the baby to term or if she doesn't, it's not our decision.

I didn't say she killed herself. I said would it be OK to kill her? What would give anyone the right to kill her? Nothing. Just like there is nothing that give her the right to kill an unborn baby, whether she is carrying it or not.

Of course not. But if your mom got pregnant through horrifying circumstances, I would not have the right to tell her she couldn't take the morning after pill. You'd tell a woman who was impregnated by her father she'd have to carry it to term? Don't be afraid of answering that question.

I am not afraid of answering that question you moron. I have already answered it. Yes she should have to carry the baby to term. The baby did not do anything wrong. You already admitted that. It is a victim and letting her kill it just makes her a murderer. It is a separate human life from hers. She has no right to end it.

I reiterate, I'm arguing abortion isn't a black and white issue except for with extremists (usually the ones who think birth control is evil). Dizzle said it was either right or wrong.

So we are the extremists for wanting to err on the side of innocent life, and I suppose that makes you the norm because you couldn't give a crap whether an innocent life is snuffed out or not. Right. You really are a morally repugnant individual, whag.

[Whag]

exactly. Nothing. Which means it doesn't deserve to be killed because of the crime of another person. It is a victim also.


Since when is being born a curse?

She is a victim too. but killing her child doesn't alleviate the crime commited against her. It just piles on another crime: this time SHE is the perpetrator. If someone beats you up, what good does it do for you to take that out on someone else and beat them up?



You didn't just suggest that killing an innocent child is OK just because it goes to heaven did you? That is not what WLC was suggesting in the least.

You are morally reprehensible, whag.




I didn't say she killed herself. I said would it be OK to kill her? What would give anyone the right to kill her? Nothing. Just like there is nothing that give her the right to kill an unborn baby, whether she is carrying it or not.




I am not afraid of answering that question you moron. I have already answered it. Yes she should have to carry the baby to term. The baby did not do anything wrong. You already admitted that. It is a victim and letting her kill it just makes her a murderer. It is a separate human life from hers. She has no right to end it.



So we are the extremists for wanting to err on the side of innocent life, and I suppose that makes you the norm because you couldn't give a crap whether an innocent life is snuffed out or not. Right. You really are a morally repugnant individual, whag.

Oh that's a surprise. In addition to being self-righteous you're also stupid.

[Seasanctuary]

Putting aside the obvious moral repugnance, sex selective abortion is in point of fact a social ill and one quite capable of becoming a serious problem for others within and without the particular community that practices it. Those reasons alone are sufficient to incur regulation - that it is unlikely to be pervasive is a non-issue.

Sex selection only becomes an issue if it's widespread and imbalanced overall.

We have hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations, ordinances and even laws against things that affect few people (snake handling and esoteric building codes coming immediately to mind).

Because those things cause harm as rare occurrences. Sex selection does not.