Honestly, what goes through your mind when you make such asinine posts? As little as you care about how finals feels about this, I'm willing to bet even less people care about how you feel about how she feels. This is a law targeted directly at women, so, women everywhere are probably a little extra special pissed about it. Her gender supersedes her nationality on the identity scale, as well it should.
You are misunderstanding (or I wasn't clearly explaining) what I meant by potential collective impact. I mean me driving my car is probably not going to cause cancer in other people, but collectively all of the people who drive cars may cause cancer in people. The impact of collective action. If I deny insurance to someone or poison someone I am individually killing them, even if I am also doing it to 20,000 other people. That is the inverse of what I am talking about.
If it is not "life" to the mother, then it wouldn't matter how many sonograms they see. The fact that you are so vehemently opposed to this shows that it may be a much closer call to many of these mothers than you would like to admit. You are not opposed to this because it is a forced procedure. You are opposed to this because it may be effective. You mention that it is a forced procedure. I have no problem with that because it is as invasive as taking your blood pressure.
Incorrect on every single count. I expect better of you than this, frankly. Projecting what you wish were my motivations onto me is way, way below you. And you know what is the most insulting about this? You make it seem like I'm on "team abortion", or some such nonsense. As if I personally get some satisfaction in every abortion performed, and I begrudge any woman for not aborting their child. Contrary to what you think, I am not a some simpleton that values ideological line-towing over the common good. I oppose this law because it infringes on a person's rights (including ours by making it a public expenditure), and if you give them an inch, they will ask for a foot. We've seen it time and time again. The state should be no more involved in encouraging people to get abortions as they are involved in discouraging them from getting an abortion, zero.
I had the privilege of being at a halfway house. It was an assigned volunteer task---kinda an oxymoron, but that's high school for you. The people there were beautiful, all in their own way. Maybe if you set arbitrary limits on them, they would all fail. but each were capable of things most people could not do. all of them were compassionate and gentle people who radiated positive energy. sometimes, I thought they made quite a bit more sense than some "normal" people. which is just to say---society's snap judgments on people and the stupid ways we judge people sometimes can be so...frustrating. for me, a plain-looking mother who commits all of her energy to giving a chance to a misjudged Down Syndrome kid is much more beautiful than a supermodel who could give less of a two s*** about anything besides her image. unfortunate that for most people, that probably won't be the case. hell, even me, really, I can talk the talk, but if you show me pictures or try to introduce me to the two... well, what can I say, screw biological instinct i guess (good to hear about the kid having fun)
I would partially agree - except that there is also a cost factor. Who's paying for these sonograms? That's another reason to be against this. The other problem - and this switched me from being on the fence about this not being all that big a deal to being staunchly opposed - is that these aren't the non-invasive "oh let's go look at our baby!" sonograms we normally think about. These are invasive vaginal probe sonograms.
I don't see how regulating collective action to save life is different from regulating individual action to save life---the only difference I can see is that only a strong government could do so, but of course I am ideologically biased. I guess you could also say that "hey, if I don't do it, well then it won't matter, because everyone else still will.", and argue that individuals are less responsible and should therefore not be punished---but for me that's a cop-out. I hate to bring out the old hope and change crap, but yes, "you must be the change you seek in this world.". If everyone thinks that the collective consequences of all of our actions are the fault of someone else, nothing would ever get done. sadly, this is largely the reality of our world---and the tragedy of the commons.
I disagree with you here. I don't think the problem is the state being involved with discouraging abortions, it's really the way they're getting involved. Rather than providing education and support they're playing the fear card. The government should be involved in educating the public on negative behaviors... drug use, drinking, unwanted pregnancy, etc. An abortion is a terrible option but it should be a legal one and trying to shame a woman into having an unwanted child is so disgusting. I can't believe some pig came up with this nonsense.
I don't see how providing education and support constitute encouraging or discouraging anything, provided that education/support isn't obviously biased or something. If people ask for it, give them the plain, unbiased information about their options, tools, and resources. Every option should be on a level playing field from the eyes of the state, as the decision itself should be made as wholly from the heart of the child bearer as possible.
I'm on board with you on things like drug use and alcohol---but abortion involves two lives. yes, you can "lawyer" it away and say a fetus isn't a life and etc., but ultimately, what could have been a life has been ended without a chance. now, i'm not being judgmental about this. people have their reasons. if a condom broke on me, I'd probably go nuts, so I can't blame people for not wanting to think about it too much. but---an abortion is truly something I would expect the government to pull out all the full stops to inform/discourage (of course, while leaving it legal). That also includes education.
Exactly and great post. I don't think anyone actually wants more abortions and the goal should be finding a way to make it so that people don't feel they need to get them. I have no idea how effective this law will be in reducing abortions but rather than reducing the cause of why people have abortions, unplanned pregnancy, this seems more about shaming women who consider having an abortion. Its about trying to make them feel guilty about what is already a trying a situation rather than finding ways to help them with taking a pregnancy to term and then help them to raise that child. Also regarding Down Syndrome and other children with birth defects many politicians who are against abortion and decry people aborting children with birth defects will still propose cutting funding for special needs children and other programs to help raise and educate children with birth defects. So while moralists call those who choose to abort because of something like Down Syndrome "cowards" will also push to make it much harder to raise a Down Syndrome child. I understand that there are many who are against abortion who also believe and do what they can to try to reduce unplanned pregnancy and also to help raise special needs children but there are many who don't. There are many who seem more interested in using shame, fear and bans to prevent abortions rather than try to address the causes.
Eh? Abortion is a negative behavior. Educating someone on unwanted pregnancy and abortion is obviously to prevent that behavior not be neutral about it. We don't educate people not to drink and drive as a neutral party not interested in the choice they make, we do it to stop people from drinking and driving.
It's a little more than "lawyering", it's "scienceing" it away. For example, what we harvested for stem cells (remember when everybody went apescat over that and how we banned the most promising form of medical research for the better part of a decade?) is actually smaller than the brain of a housefly... all of that needless suffering over the arithmetic of life/souls... which, boils down to, in the end, someone imposing their interpretation of an immaterial concept onto someone else... and I don't know about you, but when we reach that point, I'd rather err on the side of freedom than on imposing my will onto others. I maintain that people should be as active as they possibly can in supporting people carrying their children to term (and in raising them ! ! ! !), but don't legislate it onto them.
Seriously? I had missed that, which makes this law even more an assault on personal liberty than I had previously believed. I can't imagine this holding up in the Supreme Court, even one as radical as the majority on the Roberts court. And none of this is remotely like taking your blood pressure, which is done with your consent.
Not always. Educating someone on unwanted pregnancy, yes. Educating someone on abortion, no. Not unless you're "educating" them with videos of mangled fetuses, or some other such propaganda. Not applicable here. Having an abortion is not equivalent to drunk driving.
This isn't imposing anybody's will on anyone. And harvesting stem cells (a scientific process designed with a beneficial end result) is a whole lot different than aborting a baby. now, given how legislators usually have an agenda with these items, that might be a concern in the future however, as it stands now, I don't see how this is any different from educating about abortions. Implicitly too, you're acknowledging that abortion is an inherently negative process---which it well kinda is. they're merely just describing the "child/fetus/object" that will undergo the procedure, which they'd probably do in education anyways---how will you educate about abortion without describing what abortion is? unless you sugar-coat everything. abortion is a nasty and ugly affair, even if you're objective that will transmit through.
Yes, it most certainly is. Especially in the context of your post on what life is, and how we should treat the unborn. I'm very aware of that. I use that as an example to illustrate the complexity of the issue, as well as the problems that arise when you start going down the "where life begins" slippery slope. That caused us a world of hurt with stem cells, and it may once again cause us a world of hurt in regards to abortions. You bet your sweet a** it is Education is fine. Forcing it on people is not. If they want the information, give it to them, or in this case, let them pay for it. Don't push it on them. Or in this case, in them. Nope. See two replies above.
