GA Dems propose limitations on vasectomies

#78
#78
volinbham said:
Seriously on the last part? (Disclaimer - I don't believe God is throwing miscarriages at people).

Not sure what you mean by "personally decided upon point".

Final clarification - I don't consider abortion murder but clearly an unborn child is different than sperm. Further, the notion that an unborn child goes from zero rights to full human rights in the moment it pops out of the vag doesn't fly with me either.
Click to expand...

sorry just my view. I don't see how people can justify the difference in a higher being ending a pregnancy at 12wks and a Dr doing it (well, except for having a choice in the matter).

the point up to where I view abortion as acceptable was decided on by me. However the difference is I'm not sure I can justify imposing that on other people (still a fight in my head). I view rights starting before the child is born but that is a personal one
 
#79
#79
KiffinKiller said:
the same omnipotent being who requires our worship and punishes us to hell?
Click to expand...

Even if that is true I'm objecting to the word used to describe the action. Murder is human on human.

Further if God on human RE: miscarriage in murder than abortion has to be murder since the victim is the same and we've already equated God and man as perp.
 
#82
#82
utvolpj said:
sorry just my view. I don't see how people can justify the difference in a higher being ending a pregnancy at 12wks and a Dr doing it (well, except for having a choice in the matter).

the point up to where I view abortion as acceptable was decided on by me. However the difference is I'm not sure I can justify imposing that on other people (still a fight in my head). I view rights starting before the child is born but that is a personal one
Click to expand...

There are no clear answers. I'm uneasy though with the notion that each individual can determine when the unborn gets rights. On the other hand I understand the personal choice angle and there is a difference between born and unborn.

Given what you've said above it sounds like you would not be against someone aborting an 8 month old unborn child if they decided themselves it was still okay?
 
#85
#85
volinbham said:
Given what you've said above it sounds like you would not be against someone aborting an 8 month old unborn child if they decided themselves it was still okay?
Click to expand...

personally I'm absolutely against it but I struggle with whether I would want it regulated. I do know if you could live with it for 8mos, view the ultrasound and still go through with it then you are probably a heartless bastage.
 
#86
#86
volinbham said:
There are no clear answers. I'm uneasy though with the notion that each individual can determine when the unborn gets rights. On the other hand I understand the personal choice angle and there is a difference between born and unborn.

Given what you've said above it sounds like you would not be against someone aborting an 8 month old unborn child if they decided themselves it was still okay?
Click to expand...

That's why I'm not sure I see the issue with a law that sets the line at 20 weeks. They have to err on the liberal side of viability. And one would think that any decisions that need to be made could be taken care of by then.
 
#87
#87
utvolpj said:
personally I'm absolutely against it but I struggle with whether I would want it regulated. I do know if you could live with it for 8mos, view the ultrasound and still go through with it then you are probably a heartless bastage.
Click to expand...

This is kind of where I am.

In the absence of clear boundaries, I fall on the side of non-regulation.
 
#88
#88
Just a general thought question:

If there were a test that showed brain activity had begun would that be a sufficient cut-off point?

More broadly, is there any scientific evidence that would suffice to say "life" has begun?
 
#89
#89
GAVol said:
That's why I'm not sure I see the issue with a law that sets the line at 20 weeks. They have to err on the liberal side of viability. And one would think that any decisions that need to be made could be taken care of by then.
Click to expand...

rjd970 said:
This is kind of where I am.

In the absence of clear boundaries, I fall on the side of non-regulation.
Click to expand...


What was it Ron Paul said last night? I am paraphrasing, but something like:

"That's the difference between Republicans and Democrats. When we see a problem we try to solve it, they try to regulate it."

Once again, the stark dichotomy between the libertarian side and the religious side of the GOP rears its ugly head. For so many Republicans, its all about decrying government action, EXCEPT when its action you like.
 
#91
#91
volinbham said:
Just a general thought question:

If there were a test that showed brain activity had begun would that be a sufficient cut-off point?

More broadly, is there any scientific evidence that would suffice to say "life" has begun?
Click to expand...

not IMO because you still fail to account for many things that could still come up. What if you see brain activity (or defined "life") but then something like a nuchal scan reveals major chromosomal abnormalities?

I know I don't have the answer to even my own questions but to unequivocally say "any action after conception is murder" is just not a possibility in my book
 
#92
#92
Everyone seems to get the idea illustrated by the fist to the nose. Your right to do your own thing (fist) ends where another's nose begins. The real argument here would seem to be at what point the baby has rights. The issue is not the woman's body ( even though many like to argue from this premise), but rather the child's body. The woman is not amputating a digit. She is destroying the body of the child.
 
#93
#93
lawgator1 said:
What was it Ron Paul said last night? I am paraphrasing, but something like:

"That's the difference between Republicans and Democrats. When we see a problem we try to solve it, they try to regulate it."

Once again, the stark dichotomy between the libertarian side and the religious side of the GOP rears its ugly head. For so many Republicans, its all about decrying government action, EXCEPT when its action you like.
Click to expand...

Whats ugly about it? My personal view is that somewhere near the end of the second trimester a fetus becomes viable, so we should protect it at some point. That's not exactly a controversial view. In fact, I'd bet that a majority of Democrats are somewhere in the neighborhood of that position; just a matter of what week they pick.
 
#94
#94
All I see are a bunch of R's sitting around talking. I wanna know what LG thinks of his Georgia brethren.
 
#95
#95
Headed For Home said:
Everyone seems to get the idea illustrated by the fist to the nose. Your right to do your own thing (fist) ends where another's nose begins. The real argument here would seem to be at what point the baby has rights. The issue is not the woman's body ( even though many like to argue from this premise), but rather the child's body. The woman is not amputating a digit. She is destroying the body of the child.
Click to expand...

that "child" is basically a parasite. (some would say that extends well past birth but I'm not there...yet)
 
#96
#96
utvolpj said:
not IMO because you still fail to account for many things that could still come up. What if you see brain activity (or defined "life") but then something like a nuchal scan reveals major chromosomal abnormalities?

I know I don't have the answer to even my own questions but to unequivocally say "any action after conception is murder" is just not a possibility in my book
Click to expand...

On the latter I agree. Likewise, I cannot unequivocally say any point up to birth there is no life and no rights.

I don't know the answer. It's a balancing of rights; host and baby. I believe the balance favors the host particularly at early stages but things begin to even a bit as the fetus progresses. Even right before birth the edge goes to the host in cases of the host's health. I just cannot buy the notion that the fetus; especially late term, has no rights and can be discarded at the whim of the host.
 
#97
#97
GAVol said:
Whats ugly about it? My personal view is that somewhere near the end of the second trimester a fetus becomes viable, so we should protect it at some point. That's not exactly a controversial view. In fact, I'd bet that a majority of Democrats are somewhere in the neighborhood of that position; just a matter of what week they pick.
Click to expand...

Isnt it obvious, you are white, conservative and.......live in the south.
 
#98
#98
GAVol said:
Whats ugly about it? My personal view is that somewhere near the end of the second trimester a fetus becomes viable, so we should protect it at some point. That's not exactly a controversial view. In fact, I'd bet that a majority of Democrats are somewhere in the neighborhood of that position; just a matter of what week they pick.
Click to expand...

It is if you are an R - an evil, racist, poor-hatin', hypocritical R. If you are a D it's a well-reasoned and nuanced view of the world.
 
#99
#99
nbakerld said:
All I see are a bunch of R's sitting around talking. I wanna know what LG thinks of his Georgia brethren.
Click to expand...


Obviously, their proposal is a stunt, designed to call attention to the fact that the Republicans are trying to control women's reproductive systems.

Republicans introduce weird crap all the time in state legislatures and even the Congress to make a statement. Both parties do it, its common.

I am a bit surprised you need help understanding what is going on.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top