forced sterilization, who supported it?

SmarterThanYou said:
it is the same exact thing. it's the legislature forcing someone to do something. period. nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

That's the price of living in a society. There are still wilderness places where people can live with minimum restrictions. A place with no roads will have no speed limits or seat belt laws :)
 
SmarterThanYou said:
give me a sec. there's a highly technical term for the relationship involved here........

oh, parents. that's it.
Click to expand...

So you expect the parents to sell their home? Pay for his care and the parents end up destitute in old age? And then they can't afford medical care. Is that the best solution you can come up with?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
maybe we should all select one supreme emperor, who can then confiscate the entire worlds wealth and then divide it up evenly. then we'll all start over. i like that idea, you?
Click to expand...

I don't particularly care for an emperor, supreme or otherwise. Democracy sounds good though.
 
apple0154 said:
Here we go, again, with comprehnsion. You wrote, "They were deemed by some bureaucrat...." My point is no bureaucrat should be telling any women anything as far as abortion is concerned. Now do you understand? It is the woman's body. She and only she decides what to do with her body.
Click to expand...
Its not her body though, its a human being inside of her body.
 
DamnYankee said:
You're trying to equate Chinese politics with American ones. It's a stupid argument, and fails.
Click to expand...

You just can't show HOW it fails is all.

All you've done ONCE AGAIN is state apple's points are false and blithely dance past them.

Maybe just this once you'll show HOW you arrived at your conclusion...
 
apple0154 said:
Because it is unknown where/when calamity will strike. Before ObamaCare a young man in his early 20s might have skipped health insurance in order to pay for his education. Accident strikes and he's crippled. What do we do with him? Who picks up the tab for his care?
Click to expand...

Who pays for him when can't afford either now?
 
apple0154 said:
So you expect the parents to sell their home? Pay for his care and the parents end up destitute in old age? And then they can't afford medical care. Is that the best solution you can come up with?
Click to expand...
guess they should have done a better job of preparing him to be an adult then, shouldn't they? again, all you are advocating is irresponsibility to prepare because the government will bail you out. that didn't really work out so well for us the last few years, did it?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
You just can't show HOW it fails is all.

All you've done ONCE AGAIN is state apple's points are false and blithely dance past them.

Maybe just this once you'll show HOW you arrived at your conclusion...
Click to expand...

It fails because the same standards don't apply in China as they do here, duh. :D
 
Rana said:
Now, now, Damo, you know there needs to be laws to protect children. There also needs to be laws to protect people from other people. The seat belt law I agree with, it is your decision whether to buckle, the child car seat law, is a good one. It protects children.
Click to expand...

Wow, this paragraph here is chock full of irony. If I were irony deficient I would now be set.

If you wish to sell your own organs, fine, it is just hen you go after other people's, that you have to draw the line.

Speeding laws affect other people, the should be enforced.
Click to expand...
So does abortion. Effect "other people" that is...

When our reckless actions affect others, unfortunately, there have to be law to protect us from others.
Click to expand...
Interesting. What if I include the unborn in my subset of "us"?
 
apple0154 said:
My goodness, the concept of thinking things through is alien to some folks. Speeding, helmets, seatbelts, smoking....all have the very real potential to harm but not kill the individual resulting in society being responsible for their care. Of course, if you don't feel society has an obligation to help the ill and injured then I see your point.
Click to expand...

So does abortion, unless you ignore the survivors, or say fathers... (Survivors while rare, they are real, they exist.)

As for euthanasia I have no objection to it.

Regarding selling organs that's a complex question. Again, what happens if they fall ill after selling an organ. Let's say their remaining kidney starts to fail. Do we, as society, offer dialysis or simply say, "tough luck"? On the other hand let's say a young couple are expecting their first child and the husband/father dies in a traffic accident. Should he have had the right to stipulate in his will that if he dies his organs are to be sold to help support his family?
Click to expand...
Again, what does that matter? It's "his" body...

Back to you. :)
Click to expand...

You didn't answer most of the questions, nor did you "think it through"...
 
SmarterThanYou said:
those laws don't protect other people though. nothing in those laws STOPS anyone from speeding, or not buckling up.
Click to expand...

No, but there are consequences for your breaking the laws and endangering others. Laws against murder don't stop people from committing murder, either but we still need the laws to let people know that if you decide to act there will be consequences.
 
Damocles said:
So does abortion, unless you ignore the survivors, or say fathers... (Survivors while rare, they are real, they exist.)


Again, what does that matter? It's "his" body...



You didn't answer most of the questions, nor did you "think it through"...
Click to expand...


My definition of "people" is different from yours, and I don't debate abortion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top