GA Dems propose limitations on vasectomies

#126
#126
Headed For Home said:
Hey, you are the one justifying the right to abort by calling the child a parasite. Sounds like a negative connotation to me.

You did not address the issue. When is "it" a child instead of a parasite>
Click to expand...

I did no such thing. Please read it again

and my personal view is that it's no longer a "parasite" when it can live without being connected to the mother (or host if you will). I understand it's still dependent but connected is my qualifier.
 
#127
#127
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...

Even harder to decide. The wide variety of medical advice for pregnant women would impact the fetus' rights constantly.

For example:
One woman is told to exercise, another is put on total bed rest. Neither follows the doctors advice to the letter and the baby develops a congenital condition, can it sue?
 
#130
#130
lawgator1 said:
How about, going left to right, 10-65-25?
Click to expand...

It may in fact, be that much out of balance since the right is where those screaming for reform are, but like I said, I don't have much of a read on what the lefty number is.
 
#132
#132
lawgator1 said:
And that was a retort to the thread title, which makes it a party issue.

I'm just saying that it is really only the hard line folks on either side that want to tie party to this, probably in hopes of strength in numbers.

What would you say? Maybe 80 percent of the American people are okay with the status quo and its the 10 percent on either side trying to make it an issue for the rest of us in every election?
Click to expand...

I would say those percentages were about right concerning American's views on slavery at one point. Still can't figure out why the government might intervene when a majority shares the same general view. Damn shame iyam.
 
#139
#139
Headed For Home said:
The real argument here would seem to be at what point the baby has rights.
Click to expand...

This is a philosophical question. Not a scientific or religious one. That is not to say that people can't use science or religious beliefs to help them in their philosophizing.

It goes hand-in-hand with the real question that all abortions come down to: what is life and more importantly (in reference to abortion) when does life begin?
 
#140
#140
Not a fan of even the "parody" aspect since a vasectomy-abortion comparison isn't just apples to oranges it's like apples to marmosets. The former is something that keeps something (conception) from happening in the first place whereas the latter actively ends something that's already started. There's practically no real comparison to be had here IMO.

I guess the bigger issue is this is really a stunt to try to "make a point" and open up a larger discussion. I suppose that has some merit somewhere but it doesn't change my opinion that it's a lameass comparitive metaphor.
 
#141
#141
hndog609 said:
Not a fan of even the "parody" aspect since a vasectomy-abortion comparison isn't just apples to oranges it's like apples to marmosets. The former is something that keeps something (conception) from happening in the first place whereas the latter actively ends something that's already started. There's practically no real comparison to be had here IMO.

I guess the bigger issue is this is really a stunt to try to "make a point" and open up a larger discussion. I suppose that has some merit somewhere but it doesn't change my opinion that it's a lameass comparitive metaphor.
Click to expand...


The analogy wasn't on the basis of one stopping something from happening versus one ending what had begun, but instead was the level of perceived intrusion.

You can debate whether the intrusion is worth it -- I get it -- but I think they were calling attention to the level of the intrusion more than its consequence.
 
#142
#142
hndog609 said:
Not a fan of even the "parody" aspect since a vasectomy-abortion comparison isn't just apples to oranges it's like apples to marmosets. The former is something that keeps something (conception) from happening in the first place whereas the latter actively ends something that's already started. There's practically no real comparison to be had here IMO.

I guess the bigger issue is this is really a stunt to try to "make a point" and open up a larger discussion. I suppose that has some merit somewhere but it doesn't change my opinion that it's a lameass comparitive metaphor.
Click to expand...

+1
 
#144
#144
volinbham said:
It's like protesting anti-smoking in public laws by advocating anti-farting in public laws.
Click to expand...


No, its like protesting rules that would prevent women from smoking by taking out their lung with a comparison to a proposal that would take away men's mouths.
 
#146
#146
lawgator1 said:
No, its like protesting rules that would prevent women from smoking by taking out their lung with a comparison to a proposal that would take away men's mouths.
Click to expand...

No. The equivalent to vasectomy would getting tubes tied. No one is suggesting that be restricted.

No one is suggesting woman should be barred from producing eggs, engaging in sex or getting pregnant.

Abortion is wholly different than birth control.
 
#147
#147
lawgator1 said:
The analogy wasn't on the basis of one stopping something from happening versus one ending what had begun, but instead was the level of perceived intrusion.

You can debate whether the intrusion is worth it -- I get it -- but I think they were calling attention to the level of the intrusion more than its consequence.
Click to expand...

The intrusion argument doesn't work for me either. The act of getting a vasectomy is not comparable to an abortion. The argument with abortion is that a third party is involved. Where one stands on the issue of what a fetus "is" has no bearing on the fact that a fetus IS involved. Argue in either direction and it diminishes this fact not one jot.

I have stated earlier that I "get" the idea that the point behind all this is a "bring the idea to the table" stunt. I'll reiterate it's an extraordinarily lameass comparative metaphor.
 
#148
#148
lawgator1 said:
No, its like protesting rules that would prevent women from smoking by taking out their lung with a comparison to a proposal that would take away men's mouths.
Click to expand...

Proof that the LSAT does a poor job of testing one's proficiency in logical reasoning.
 
#149
#149
Further proof that whatever these legislators are paid.....it is too much. Waste of time and money.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top