forced sterilization, who supported it?

Rana said:
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.
Click to expand...

is murder a victimless crime? no, it actually has a victim. Is driving without your seatbelt on a victimless crime? well hell yes, there is no victim here. so why make a criminal out of someone that doesn't have a victim?
 
Rana said:
Yeah, we know how often that happens in reality.
Click to expand...

maybe in your neck of the woods, they let you and yours run around willy nilly with no responsibility whatsoever, but there are consequences for actions where I live, good or bad. you should try it sometime, but i'm guessing that responsibility probably terrifies you.
 
Rana said:
Now, you are going to not like this, but I feel if people wish to take their lives it should be their option. I think it is foolish to make it a crime. I also believe, now more than ever, in assisted suicide. I would like people to get help for their suicidal thoughts, but in the end, if they wish to take their own lives, they should be allowed to do so. I also do not think it is sin to take ones life.
Click to expand...

Are you also willing to let women make the decision if they want to prosecute an abusive husband or not?
It is their decision to stay, knowing that they're going to be slapped around.
 
Damocles said:
If such is the case then you should be against several other laws:

1. Helmet laws.
2. laws against smoking in bars.
3. Laws requiring an age limit on smoking (those kids can decide what to do with their bodies when it comes to killing their spawn, they should be able to decide to smoke).
4. Laws requiring an age limit on drinking. (pretty much any age limit law should be thrown out if it has to do with their body, all people, including the mentally and emotionally unprepared can decide all things pertaining to their body, even if it involves a second party.)
5. All laws against selling organs.
6. Euthanasia laws.
7. Speeding laws.
8. Seatbelt laws.
...

What are your views on each of these? If you are for any of them, you are a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

No on Helmet laws, BUT if you are injured due to your lack of a helmet, your insurance company, provided it is in the contract, should be allowed to NOT cover your injuries.

Smoking in bars should be up to the owner. If the public doesn't like it, they can go elsewhere.

Smoking laws for children below the age of majority should be enforced. Kids do not have the ability to make those sort of decisions for themselves. It is the same reason we don't let kids enter into contracts, have sex, etc. However, drinking, smoking, sex, drugs and rock and roll should be available for all persons 18 and older.

Drinking, see above.

Selling organs. I have two kidneys so if both are healthy I should be allowed to sell one to the highest bidder.

You In Asia - No one has the right to tell me I must suffer a debilitating illness and suffer until I die of natural painful causes.

Speeding laws. I actually think speeding laws are for the most part for no other reason that to collect revenues. People should, and do drive for the most part a reasonable speed everywhere. If you get in an accident and it was found that you were driving to fast for the conditions you should have to pay for the damages. It would for the most part regulate itself.

Seatbelt laws. Do away with them. But as with helmet laws, if you are in an accident and it can be proven that a seatbelt would have saved you from injury, insurance should not have to pay any damages above what would have been avoidable if you WERE wearing a seatbelt.

Abortion does stop a life. In most instances it is NOTHING more than mechanistic life. 61.8% abortions are performed in the first 9 weeks, and the fetus does not know it is alive nor does it feel pain. Only 1.5% of all abortions are performed after the 20th week. [1]
 
Socrtease said:
No on Helmet laws, BUT if you are injured due to your lack of a helmet, your insurance company, provided it is in the contract, should be allowed to NOT cover your injuries.

Smoking in bars should be up to the owner. If the public doesn't like it, they can go elsewhere.

Smoking laws for children below the age of majority should be enforced. Kids do not have the ability to make those sort of decisions for themselves. It is the same reason we don't let kids enter into contracts, have sex, etc. However, drinking, smoking, sex, drugs and rock and roll should be available for all persons 18 and older.

Drinking, see above.

Selling organs. I have two kidneys so if both are healthy I should be allowed to sell one to the highest bidder.

You In Asia - No one has the right to tell me I must suffer a debilitating illness and suffer until I die of natural painful causes.

Speeding laws. I actually think speeding laws are for the most part for no other reason that to collect revenues. People should, and do drive for the most part a reasonable speed everywhere. If you get in an accident and it was found that you were driving to fast for the conditions you should have to pay for the damages. It would for the most part regulate itself.

Seatbelt laws. Do away with them. But as with helmet laws, if you are in an accident and it can be proven that a seatbelt would have saved you from injury, insurance should not have to pay any damages above what would have been avoidable if you WERE wearing a seatbelt.

Abortion does stop a life. In most instances it is NOTHING more than mechanistic life. 61.8% abortions are performed in the first 9 weeks, and the fetus does not know it is alive nor does it feel pain. Only 1.5% of all abortions are performed after the 20th week. [1]
Click to expand...

Interesting.....by your logic, the insurance co. can just about do whatever they want concerning helmets and seat belts.....

How about denying you coverage because you didn't exercise enough.....or ate too much....or didn't look both ways....or knowingly walked on ice....or didn't tie your shoe laces tight enough, or wore you pants too long.....etc.....

Same logic can apply.......
And excusing abortion because todays science thinks a fetus can't feel pain at 9 weeks ?.....how about we just anesthetize the baby at 8 months and suck his brains out....
no pain there either......

Yeah....its interesting....
 
SmarterThanYou said:
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?
Click to expand...

Greed usually results in a downfall.
 
Damocles said:
So does abortion, unless you ignore the survivors, or say fathers... (Survivors while rare, they are real, they exist.)
Click to expand...

What harm is done to the father? His body isn't involved and he certainly does not have authority over a woman's body.

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

To whom are you referring; the living person who sells an organ or the dead person?

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

I did answer the questions. Which answers are you having difficulty understanding?
 
apple0154 said:
Human beings do not live inside other human beings. You're being absurd.
Click to expand...
Ok, saying that the fetus is not a human being is completely ignoring the genetic facts. From the MOMENT of fertilization the blastocyst is indeed a human. It has all 23 fully formed chromosomes. To argue any different is intellectually dishonest. Every bit as dishonest as claiming that the blastocyst is exactly the same as a child in being, or a child one minute before birth, or a child at 7 months of gestation. At some point the state has an absolute interest in preserving the future life. Both sides have got to get away from the dishonest discourse they engage in. A woman taking the rape pill is not the same as a woman killing her baby through abuse. But the pro-choice side MUST stop trying to pretend that life, as mechanistic as it is, does not occur at conception. It makes them look ghoulish.
 
bravo said:
Interesting.....by your logic, the insurance co. can just about do whatever they want concerning helmets and seat belts.....

How about denying you coverage because you didn't exercise enough.....or ate too much....or didn't look both ways....or knowingly walked on ice....or didn't tie your shoe laces tight enough, or wore you pants too long.....etc.....

Same logic can apply.......
And excusing abortion because todays science thinks a fetus can't feel pain at 9 weeks ?.....how about we just anesthetize the baby at 8 months and suck his brains out....
no pain there either......

Yeah....its interesting....
Click to expand...
Science does not THINK that a 9 week old fetus cannot feel pain, they KNOW it. The brain is not developed enough. Simple neurology. Your comparing a 9 week old fetus to an 8 month old fetus is intellectually dishonest. You rely solely on simple emotionalism to prop up your argument. At some point the interest of the fetus going to term outweighs the woman's desire to no have a child. But as I have proved, abortions at 8 months are as rare as abortions at 9 weeks or less are common.
 
apple0154 said:
What harm is done to the father? His body isn't involved and he certainly does not have authority over a woman's body.
Click to expand...

This is, what did Socrtease say?, ghoulish. Often there is a very real grief at the death of a child.

To whom are you referring; the living person who sells an organ or the dead person?
Click to expand...
Either. It is theirs.

I did answer the questions. Which answers are you having difficulty understanding?
Click to expand...
You answered less than half the questions, most of which you spent trying to create a socialized victimization that doesn't exist. Society does not "have to" pay for your stupid decisions.
 
We now live in a country where if a man wants his child, he has no voice. If a man does NOT want his child, he has no voice. If the woman does not want her child, she can abort. If a woman does want her child, then a man, whether he wants it or not is stuck paying for it for 18 years. Women have cried, justly, for equal rights for 2 centuries. Yet when it comes to procreation they want to be more equal than men. This is a sticky subject for me. I don't want men having complete veto power over a woman's right to choose. What I want, is a legal mechanism, whereby if the man agrees in writing that he will adopt the child thereby absolving the woman of any financial or legal responsibility that she give birth to the child, which is 50% his anyway. I think he should even agree to pay all medical bills related to the birth of the child as consideration, IF he truly wants the child. This still makes the woman more equal, because absent another man willing to adopt a child, no state allows a man to absolve himself of financial responsibility.
 
Socrtease said:
We now live in a country where if a man wants his child, he has no voice. If a man does NOT want his child, he has no voice. If the woman does not want her child, she can abort. If a woman does want her child, then a man, whether he wants it or not is stuck paying for it for 18 years. Women have cried, justly, for equal rights for 2 centuries. Yet when it comes to procreation they want to be more equal than men. This is a sticky subject for me. I don't want men having complete veto power over a woman's right to choose. What I want, is a legal mechanism, whereby if the man agrees in writing that he will adopt the child thereby absolving the woman of any financial or legal responsibility that she give birth to the child, which is 50% his anyway. I think he should even agree to pay all medical bills related to the birth of the child as consideration, IF he truly wants the child. This still makes the woman more equal, because absent another man willing to adopt a child, no state allows a man to absolve himself of financial responsibility.
Click to expand...

What I want, is a legal mechanism, whereby if the man agrees in writing that he will adopt the child thereby absolving the woman of any financial or legal responsibility that she give birth to the child, which is 50% his anyway

And? What then? The courts will force her to have the child? Yeah, that's not going to happen. Don't worry, this isn't a big problem. Yes, we all hear about the case where the father wants the child and is begging the woman not to abort - but this is not the norm. Quite the contrary.

And we didn't "Cry" for equal rights Soc - we fought for and won em. We're still fighting. No tears. I swear. :)
 
Socrtease said:
Ok, saying that the fetus is not a human being is completely ignoring the genetic facts. From the MOMENT of fertilization the blastocyst is indeed a human. It has all 23 fully formed chromosomes. To argue any different is intellectually dishonest. Every bit as dishonest as claiming that the blastocyst is exactly the same as a child in being, or a child one minute before birth, or a child at 7 months of gestation. At some point the state has an absolute interest in preserving the future life. Both sides have got to get away from the dishonest discourse they engage in. A woman taking the rape pill is not the same as a woman killing her baby through abuse. But the pro-choice side MUST stop trying to pretend that life, as mechanistic as it is, does not occur at conception. It makes them look ghoulish.
Click to expand...

Your post reads like someone is stuttering. LOL

Anyway, the problem is evaluating a human being using only DNA as the criteria. Using that method ONLY means an acorn is an oak tree and that doesn't make any more sense than saying a fertilized egg is a chicken. (People who live on farms still eat the occasional fertilized egg.)

It depends on what criteria we use. For example, there are numerous fruits but saying something is a fruit and is good for you is not necessarily the truth. One is cautioned against eating grapefruit while taking certain medication. That doesn't mean the person can not eat any fruit. The point being we often have to use a number of factors in order to classify something.

Near the end of life we use brain wave and other indicators to determine if one is alive. Technically, with the aid of medical devices that person is alive. They are carrying on bodily functions, their skin is regenerating, etc. However, we draw a line.

Then we have certain accepted customs/rules that say every human being is an individual. The individuality of our bodies is sacred. Then there are things that require an exact date of birth. If we want to be fair someone born, say, two months premature should have to wait until they are 18 years and two months old before voting and 65 years plus two months before collecting SS.

That set aside we come to, what is to me, the devil in the details. How far do we go if a fetus is considered a human being? We have laws, in certain jurisdictions, that prohibit adults smoking in cars in which there are children. Makes perfect sense just as prohibiting a pregnant woman from smoking makes perfect sense assuming a fetus is a human being. We know smoking results in carcinogens travelling through the blood. Are they passing through the placenta to the fetus?

What about nourishment? If authorities saw a child malnourished they wouldn't think twice about removing the child from the parent. If a doctor determines the fetus is too small due to the mother not eating properly what actions do we take, as a society? We can't remove the fetus so our alternatives are limited to taking action to ensure the woman eats properly.

Then there's activities. People would look on in horror if a woman went down a ski slope with an infant strapped to her back or stomach. Can anyone justify a pregnant woman on a ski slope
jeopardizing the life of another human being?

Ridiculous scenarios? Absurd concerns? There was a time when smoking was permitted in hospital rooms, of all places! Fifty years ago, if someone had said smoking would be banned in bars reaction was probably the same as we see today when someone says behavior detrimental to a fetus would be prohibited.

It all boils down to unintended consequences. Classifying a fetus as a human being will strip women of rights, many which are not readily apparent.

All that said we haven't even touched on back-street abortions and the literal millions of neglected and abused children who will enter the world. Some posters have suggested making adoption easier. Others have suggested support/social programs for new mothers. Perhaps before any legislation is passed to curtail abortion it might be a good idea to put programs in place and prepare for the inevitable adjustments that would have to be made.

Over one million abortions per year. Even if a fraction of those live births ended up not wanted by the biological mother we would see hundreds of thousands of Children institutionalized over the years. Hundreds of thousands of women bearing children they do not want. We have to find another solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top