What's new
By:
Filters

Abortion Bills in the South

One Brow said:
Yes, that would be my position. The government should not force A to stay connected. How about you?
Click to expand...

I'm torn, to be honest. I don't like the idea of government forcing anyone to do anything. This extends beyond just what they can do with their body, but also their time, money, etc. In this case, as well as pregnant women, A and B have a symbiotic relationship. How do you define when one person's body ends and another starts?

Also, starting down the road of "the government can't force anyone to do anything with their body" is a dangerous road of logic. Can the government intervene if someone is trying to commit suicide? Require immunizations to enroll in school? Prohibit physical altercations between two willing participants? Wear a seat belt? I don't have the answer of when it's okay for the government to intervene. I think most people would say that in some instances it is appropriate.
 
One Brow said:
Yes, that would be my position. The government should not force A to stay connected. How about you?
Click to expand...

The government should not force B into death. They committed no heinous crime

But damn, what a decision. Glad it’s not me making it. Pulling the plug on my dad was hard enough.
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
Which point? Whether or not party A or B has any rights?
Click to expand...

The major point is that A and B are both fully alive and recognized citizens with a voice. It’s not a grey area on is twin B even a person yet.

Fetus/unborn children don’t have a voice and the “when life begins” debate is hotly contested. This isn’t the case with Twin b
 
Stoked said:
The government should not force B into death.
Click to expand...

In this scenario, the government is not forcing anything. They are giving A the right to make a choice, presumably with their own body. The choice is on person A to make the decision, which consequently will determine if B lives or dies.

I think the point of the though exercise was about what government can or cannot force someone to do with their body, even if it impacts someone else. It's not a perfect analogy for abortion.
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
I'm torn, to be honest. I don't like the idea of government forcing anyone to do anything. This extends beyond just what they can do with their body, but also their time, money, etc. In this case, as well as pregnant women, A and B have a symbiotic relationship. How do you define when one person's body ends and another starts?

Also, starting down the road of "the government can't force anyone to do anything with their body" is a dangerous road of logic. Can the government intervene if someone is trying to commit suicide? Require immunizations to enroll in school? Prohibit physical altercations between two willing participants? Wear a seat belt? I don't have the answer of when it's okay for the government to intervene. I think most people would say that in some instances it is appropriate.
Click to expand...

I think that the answer to all of your questions in this paragraph should be no.
I think suicide should be legal, I don't think I should have to wear a seatbelt, I think if 2 guys both want to duke it out then they should be allowed too, I don't think vaccinations should be required (though I think you are stupid of you don't get your kids vaccinated).

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Last edited:
fishonjazz said:
I think that the answer to all of your questions in this paragraph should be no.
I think suicide should be legal, I don't think I should have to wear a seatbelt, I think if 2 guys both want to duke it out then they should be allowed too, I don't think vaccinations should be required (though I think you are stupid of you don't get your kids vaccinated).
Click to expand...

I find three of those (suicide, seat belts, fighting) difficult to take an unqualified position on; so many caveats are possible. However, regarding vaccinations, there is the possibility of spreading disease on the one hand, and for those who truly oppose vaccination, the possibility of homeschooling on the other. While I would not support forced vaccinations, I strongly support it as a requirement for school attendance.
 
One Brow said:
I find three of those (suicide, seat belts, fighting) difficult to take an unqualified position on; so many caveats are possible. However, regarding vaccinations, there is the possibility of spreading disease on the one hand, and for those who truly oppose vaccination, the possibility of homeschooling on the other. While I would not support forced vaccinations, I strongly support it as a requirement for school attendance.
Click to expand...
Ya the vaccinations one is the toughest for me. I would not be upset if that was mandated or, like you said, at least mandated for public school attendance.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Stars Fan said:
But viability is really a question of technology. Viability is based in part on what support systems are available to the fetus after exit from the womb. That is why these new bills are trying to force the Supreme Court to rule on the heart beat issue. If they can get the courts to recognize a fetus with a heart beat as a individual with rights, it could change everything. There is no guarantee the court will hear the cases though. More than likely this will stretch through the election cycle. Look for a spin that Dems are baby killers, chock full of anecdotes of late term abortions, and "viable" fetuses (feti?) being snuffed out, with the focus on the consequences of unwanted pregnancies, rather than the irresponsible ejaculations that caused them.
Click to expand...
True, but like I said, every sperm or egg has the potential for life, so does that mean we have to pass laws against masturbation or even nocturnal emissions?
 
Eenie-Meenie said:
True, but like I said, every sperm or egg has the potential for life, so does that mean we have to pass laws against masturbation or even nocturnal emissions?
Click to expand...
We should probably monitor women 24/7 just in case they miscarry unknowingly and make sure they didn't inadvertently engage in any behavior that could have endangered that precious life.
 
Eenie-Meenie said:
True, but like I said, every sperm or egg has the potential for life, so does that mean we have to pass laws against masturbation or even nocturnal emissions?
Click to expand...

No.
I think that until an egg has been fertilized it is just an egg. Sperm likewise is just an extension of the male...not new life. Not all eggs get fertilized, they pass through the monthly cycle unaltered, and the vast majority of sperm cells do not reach an egg to fertilize it. So separately an egg and a sperm cell are no more than pieces of the individual female and male. Only once joined do they have potential...so no preventative measures should be considered as threatening to the potential life.

The viability question, IMO, covers only fertilized eggs. As to when that egg develops into a sentient being is up for debate. I think the emphasis on what happens after fertilization is misplaced, and more discussion is needed on preventing unwanted fertilization. (See JazzGal's post for a great, thought provoking, discussion of who bears the responsibility and who the consequences of unwanted fertilization.) The Right is trying to move the determination of viability to the left, i.e. earlier in pregnancy, to limit the access to abortion, which they view as a moral wrong. However, many of these same groups or individuals also oppose free or easy access to preventative measures provided by Planned Parenthood (or other public agencies) and sex education. I think they are getting the cart before the horse. Let's give people (both genders) the knowledge (sex ed) and access to birth control to reduce the unwanted pregnancies. Until then, we should leave it up to those who bear the consequences, namely the women, to decide if and when an abortion is an option. It seems hypocritical at best for a bunch of men to decide for a bunch of women that they should bear the consequences for the (as Jazzgal says) irresponsible ejaculations of a bunch of men.
 
Stars Fan said:
No.
I think that until an egg has been fertilized it is just an egg. Sperm likewise is just an extension of the male...not new life.
Click to expand...

Well, you're certainly allowed to think whatever you want. However, biologically, every ovum and sperm is a distinct haploid life form, taking part in the haploid-diploid life cycle of all sexually reproducing beings on earth. Sometimes the haploid cycle takes longer than the diploid cycle, in our population the diploid cycle is longer, but either way they are distinct life forms.
 
One Brow said:
Well, you're certainly allowed to think whatever you want. However, biologically, every ovum and sperm is a distinct haploid life form, taking part in the haploid-diploid life cycle of all sexually reproducing beings on earth. Sometimes the haploid cycle takes longer than the diploid cycle, in our population the diploid cycle is longer, but either way they are distinct life forms.
Click to expand...

C'mon Loid, you don't hap to be a dip about it. You are confusing me with science!

 
Last edited:
Eenie-Meenie said:
True, but like I said, every sperm or egg has the potential for life, so does that mean we have to pass laws against masturbation or even nocturnal emissions?
Click to expand...

The LDS Church as 'laws' against masturburation. Not that they've had much effect other than to make lots and lots of boys/girls, men/women feel very, very guilty for engaging in a pleasurable, natural, and harmless expression of their sexuality.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
The LDS Church as 'laws' against masturburation. Not that they've had much effect other than to make lots and lots of boys/girls, men/women feel very, very guilty for engaging in a pleasurable, natural, and harmless expression of their sexuality.
Click to expand...
All it did for me was make me very comfortable with lying to authority figures lol
 
Lets call this as it is. It is based on religious beliefs and thus it should never make into laws unless it is a religion based state. To me it is a step back into medieval ages, shame on Alabama and other states for forcing such idiotic laws.
 
MVP said:
Lets call this as it is. It is based on religious beliefs and thus it should never make into laws unless it is a religion based state. To me it is a step back into medieval ages, shame on Alabama and other states for forcing such idiotic laws.
Click to expand...

But if republicans didn’t make laws like these, what red meat would they throw at their brainless base? That’s the whole perverted point about the Christian Right movement in the Republican Party. The party uses religious and identity politics to keep the base engaged while the actual politicians further the agenda of their donor class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top