Abortion bill pass in Kentucky

[tyr_13]

The worst of the new Pokémon.

Totally lazy design too. It just looks like a coat-hanger.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I thought that was obvious. I wasn't talking about buying a Toyota.

I just object to what I call "branding".

Rather than saying one supports a woman's right to choose an abortion, it gets conveniently truncated to just a woman's right to choose. This allows one to paint the opposition as being anti-choice in general, by not stating the object of that choice.

Similarly, calling oneself "Pro-Life" tries to paint the opposition as anti-life. Equally disingenuous.

Anyway, I don't think it's by accident that abortion rights advocates avoid the use of the word abortion when they define their positions as "Pro-Choice".

 

[fuelair]

I just object to what I call "branding".

Rather than saying one supports a woman's right to choose an abortion, it gets conveniently truncated to just a woman's right to choose. This allows one to paint the opposition as being anti-choice in general, by not stating the object of that choice.

Similarly, calling oneself "Pro-Life" tries to paint the opposition as anti-life. Equally disingenuous.

Anyway, I don't think it's by accident that abortion rights advocates avoid the use of the word abortion when they define their positions as "Pro-Choice".

I don't!!! But, then I have supported the right to abortion since 5th or 6th grade when I first learned about same (not in school!!! Read well above my age.).

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Zorach v. Clauson, 1952. Essentially a case about the Establishment Clause in the Constitution. From the syllabus:


Chris's quote is from William Douglas's opinion:


You'll note that the actual thrust of the quote (and the rest of the opinion) is that government as established in the Constitution is neutral toward religion, but that that neutrality doesn't mean it must be its enemy. There's no implication in the opinion that specifically "Christian principles" are favored in our institutions or embodied in the Constitution; in fact, quite the opposite.

Thank you for providing Fast Eddie B with the case and opinion in my absence.

I think the opinion boiled down to "We the people, believe in a Supreme Being and our institutions likewise presuppose this, but we don't force others to. And, we're not gonna stop believing in a Supreme Being simply because you don't."

Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

He also seems to not understand what secular means.

Maybe you'll find it within your heart filled with good intention to explain it to me. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

As I argued earlier, it's actually the "right to choose", and up to which point you still have that right.

Or how about:

"The right to choose to kill another human without going to jail for it"

A little more truth and a little less deception is what's required. Snowflake terms applied to a murderous act just don't do it justice. Let's call it what it is.

Everyone has the "right to choose" whether to take a life or not. It's the ease by which taking a life is viewed and the get out of jail free part that are upsetting so many Bible thumpers.

Abortion is currently legal though. I wonder if we can put a new law on the books that allows a mother to kill her child up until it's one year old instead?

Better you think? The morality of the one is no different than the other.

Chris B.

 

[marplots]

Better you think? The morality of the one is no different than the other.

Chris B.

That's the way to go. If you let people know it's immoral they'll quit doing it. It doesn't matter if it's legal then. We don't need any laws making it illegal if no one does it anyhow.

I'm actually a bit surprised no one has hit on this solution already.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

So who's ponying up to pay for the children of parents who are in no way financially capable of supporting them?

Those who want to be in the "not me" camp, please kindly accept that your opinion on what other people do in such circumstances has lost all validity.

 

[marplots]

So who's ponying up to pay for the children of parents who are in no way financially capable of supporting them?

Whomever and whatever they do now.

Those who want to be in the "not me" camp, please kindly accept that your opinion on what other people do in such circumstances has lost all validity.

That doesn't make sense. Unless you think moral judgements are dependent on the willingness to pay for the consequences? Is there a name for that moral theory?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

So who's ponying up to pay for the children of parents who are in no way financially capable of supporting them?

Those who want to be in the "not me" camp, please kindly accept that your opinion on what other people do in such circumstances has lost all validity.

http://www.adoptuskids.org/

Adoption is a very viable solution. I have a good friend that he and his wife had to travel to China to adopt. He certainly would have been tickled pink to be at the top of the list of waiting parents here in the US.

It's not often US children have to wait to be adopted, there are many families waiting when the opportunity arises. Any stay in foster care is usually quite brief while the adoptive parents are approved.

Literally, the days of Orphanages has been over for quite some time now in the US. My friend and his wife were so moved by the children in that Chinese orphanage, they ended up adopting 3 instead of 1.

Chris B.

 

[Belz...]

Or how about:

"The right to choose to kill another human without going to jail for it"

A little more truth and a little less deception is what's required. Snowflake terms applied to a murderous act just don't do it justice. Let's call it what it is.

That only works if you assume that everyone agrees with your premise. An unviable foetus isn't a person.

 

[twinstead]

That only works if you assume that everyone agrees with your premise. An unviable foetus isn't a person.

Yes, This debate isn't about if it's moral to kill babies. It's about when does that life begin. And as long as there's disagreement, I'll need to let the people involved decide what's best for them and keep out of it.

 

[C_Felix]

Really? OK, well let me try that. I'll pull some money out of the cash drawer here at the store...

[IMGW=600]https://www.dropbox.com/s/uq16nl738a31t2h/2017-01-09%2011.48.38.jpg?dl=1[/IMGW]

huh...nothing much there..maybe the back?

[IMGW=600]https://www.dropbox.com/s/yncm8udlv4repfs/2017-01-09%2011.50.44.jpg?dl=1[/IMGW]

Nope. Nothing about being founded on Christian principles there!

I hope you know the red seal is special and therefore, that bill is special.


================

ALSO...

Going back to the point of this thread:


https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/9/protests_erupt_in_kentucky_after_gop


I wonder what the "emergency" was.

 

[Reheat]

That's the way to go. If you let people know it's immoral they'll quit doing it. It doesn't matter if it's legal then. We don't need any laws making it illegal if no one does it anyhow.

I'm actually a bit surprised no one has hit on this solution already.

That's a very good point. What do other cultures much older than the US believe. Maybe that's a good place to look. Anyone know?

 

[surrogate]

China is a blue state?

Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Google, & Apple are all headquartered in California. Microsoft is in Washington. They own the designs and patents. It is irrelevant where the products are fabricated.

 

[marplots]

http://www.adoptuskids.org/

Adoption is a very viable solution. I have a good friend that he and his wife had to travel to China to adopt. He certainly would have been tickled pink to be at the top of the list of waiting parents here in the US.

It's not often US children have to wait to be adopted, there are many families waiting when the opportunity arises. Any stay in foster care is usually quite brief while the adoptive parents are approved.

Literally, the days of Orphanages has been over for quite some time now in the US. My friend and his wife were so moved by the children in that Chinese orphanage, they ended up adopting 3 instead of 1.

Chris B.

Supply and demand. If you disallow abortion we'll be right back to the bad old days when you couldn't trade a newborn for a cup of coffee. Hardly a week would go by without some squalling tyke left on the steps of a library somewhere.

It's gonna be hard to argue that a problem remedied by abortion means we can abandon abortion as the solution without reintroducing the same problem.

 

[Spock Jenkins]

At this point, I just hope everyone can agree that societies goal should be to make sure this happens as seldom as possible.

Meaning people have access to education, information, and healthcare that prevents them from being in a position to feel like that is their only alternative. Whether it be they are financially secure enough to raise an unexpected child, or that they make choices that prevent being in that position in the first place.

 

[uke2se]

At this point, I just hope everyone can agree that societies goal should be to make sure this happens as seldom as possible.

Meaning people have access to education, information, and healthcare that prevents them from being in a position to feel like that is their only alternative. Whether it be they are financially secure enough to raise an unexpected child, or that they make choices that prevent being in that position in the first place.

I agree with this. It should happen rarely, and shouldn't be a willy-nilly decision. However, it should still be a decision made by the woman, in consultation with her doctor.

 

[marplots]

At this point, I just hope everyone can agree that societies goal should be to make sure this happens as seldom as possible.

Why? If there's no moral taint abortion just becomes something someone wants to do. Like gardening or owning a dog. A kind of elective surgery.

 

[Spock Jenkins]

I also believe hurdles to adoption should be minimal.

They'll let anyone have a kid. We just deal with the fallout later. So let's let anyone adopt a kid, and deal with the fallout later. What's with all the background checks, etc.? I'd say most people who want a kid on purpose have at least some redeeming qualities, as minimal as they might be. And it gives the child at least a fighting chance.

Okay - so convicted felons (for certain crimes) are out.

And, if I'm adopting a child per arrangement with a birth mother - I should be able to cover her prenatal healthcare under my insurance policy. If my own wife were expecting, she'd be covered.