The Political Discussion Thread

[Falcon Horus]

I can see exceptions being made where the infant couldn't live anyway, but I would want some sort of medical board review to make the decision if it falls under that category or not.

I think such a board already exists, which is only logical as not every defect leads to an early death or requires constant care.

Genetic screening for birth defects

God you are being pig headed on this.

It's Soulreaver - what else are we to expect?

But then we need to get into the whole "Who decides what counts" HOw do they select it?

Review boards - see above.
There are lists and birth defects have to be reported.

What of men? Should they also not have control over their own bodies?

There are remarkably less laws about restricting men's bodily functions.

Standing on its own merits as an issue, I would vote to legalize Marijuana. It's no worse than booze, and in a lot of ways it is less destructive.

I think it smells bad, but it's no hard drugs.
It probably kills a few braincells here and there, but so does alcohol. In a manner of speaking...

and there's the rub...the baby DOES exist....what in tarnation do you think is inside the womb? a flat screen TV?!

If the clump of cells is considered a baby, will you please stop killing your fishes cause they too could be babies some day, or could have been.

OK so what do people think of this leak of the Panama Papers and so many financial details leaked? And how it shows how many corporations and rich avoid tax?

I'm LOL-ing so hard.
I can imagine all those involved scrambling around to safe face.

So you would be ok with woman A saying disease Z is 'too harsh to raise a kid with, so let's kill it. While woman B says that disease Z is NO harsh and keep the kid?? Which i can see happening..
Which side is right, or should that choice IYO be up to each 'mother' herself??

Both women will have been informed of the consequences of giving birth to a child suffering from disease Z. Doctors will have given them an estimate of the progression and the level of defect. Will the child need constant care and supervision, which will be emotionally, psychologically and physically hard on a lot of people. Then there is the cost on medical bills; medication which is very likely very expensive, restrictions on healthcare insurance. Children usually outlive their parents so what happens after the parents are gone -- longterm thinking (if the child even lives that long).

Plenty of things to think about when a family has to decide how to proceed when they get the devastating news their child will not be a 100% healthy one. Or when the news comes in it's not viable.

Men are often required to get their wife's ok before getting snipped.
So if THEY require the spouses ok, why not the other way around. Or are you one who thinks a man needs a woman's permission, but a woman never needs a mans permission??

Having children or no children is a couple's decision so when a man decides to go in for a snip, but the wife would really like children -- then there's a bit of a problem. But perhaps the solution in such a case is to harvest the sperm and keep it in the freezer until such time the wife is ready to procreate. Or she changes her mind and the sperm can be destroyed when she does.

If you can't see that such a decision is not made lightly, then I question your understanding of either situation, be it a snip or an abortion.

Now, if the woman goes for an abortion without her husband/boyfriend/partner knowing about it, chances are it wasn't his child to begin with.

[Gatefan1976]

Shut up you stupid woman....................

[pookey]

I believe there will be a murder here soon *waits*

[Gatefan1976]

I believe there will be a murder here soon *waits*

[Falcon Horus]

I believe there will be a murder here soon *waits*

Just one more skeleton in that closet.

[SoulReaver]

so when a man decides to go in for a snip, but the wife would really like children -- then there's a bit of a problem.

that's her problem

[Falcon Horus]

that's her problem

There's always the spermbank... Let's see how great the husband will like that after his snip.

[garhkal]

(conflating law & morality now? god conservatives really do value godvernment. must...resist...godwin...) point is if those are the consequences then it shouldn't be illegal in the first place. capice?

How am i conflaiting law and morality, let alone pushing GOD on this??
I am saying IF the law as is say X is wrong (doing something with your own body), and at a later date, we DO the exact same thing with Y (abortion), then why would/should we NOT punish those who break the law?
And since we already DO have other laws that say "Thou shall not do XYZ to thine own body, well in some cases till thee are a legal adult", IF/when the same happens with abortion, why would that all of a sudden be an "Overstep" on a woman's toes?

Yes, I am ok with that. Garhkal. Who bears the pregnancy?
Who must live with the pain of birth?
Who deals with post partum depression?
Who will have to deal with the child if the mother cannot?
I'm sorry, but the answer is the mother to all but the last question (plus several others I have not even mentioned) I think that qualifies them more than pretty much anyone else on the planet.

When we already have seen some women get abortions of kids, just cause it would 'stop them enjoying their party lifestyles' and such, imo that is leading to a very slippery slope of parents (well women), saying "Having This kid nwo will be to harsh on ME, so i will abort it".. Sort of a step towards designer babies (it was not going to be smart enough, it would have a penalty on it from the start and i don't want that)...

There is no law requiring such a thing, so whoever told you that line of junk is........... junk.

I know the Military has it as a 'law' (well regulation), and many places in the civilian sector its just the Doc (or clinic) that has it as a requirement, but that is not the point. It DOES exist, ergo why should a woman have any more right to tell the hubby what he can and can't do with his own nads, but that same man shouldn't have one damn word in, on whether she can or can't abort THEIR baby??

Having children or no children is a couple's decision so when a man decides to go in for a snip, but the wife would really like children

YEs it is a 'decision as a couple they should make'. BUT requiring a guy to have to get his wifes PERMISSION for getting snipped on the one hand, but on the other hand, saying while 'daddy could know about it, its ultimately HER call" is imo setting a double standard.

That's where i am seeing the issue.
If A needs B's ok to do X, all cause "Having kids is a couple's decision"
then B should need A's ok to do something in a similar vein..

[jelgate]

I believe there will be a murder here soon *waits*

If she can't do what the man says, then why should she live?

[Gatefan1976]

How am i conflaiting law and morality, let alone pushing GOD on this??

He means godwins law (the longer an internet discussion goes on, the probability of someone relating the opponents viewpoint to hitler approaches 100%)

When we already have seen some women get abortions of kids, just cause it would 'stop them enjoying their party lifestyles' and such, imo that is leading to a very slippery slope of parents (well women), saying "Having This kid nwo will be to harsh on ME, so i will abort it".. Sort of a step towards designer babies (it was not going to be smart enough, it would have a penalty on it from the start and i don't want that)...

We see situations like this all the time though Garkhal, "some" do it, sure, but not the majority. Do you want to restrict the reasoned choices of the majority simply because some do the wrong thing?
That's not a slippery slope, that's just the way things are in everything.

I know the Military has it as a 'law' (well regulation), and many places in the civilian sector its just the Doc (or clinic) that has it as a requirement, but that is not the point. It DOES exist, ergo why should a woman have any more right to tell the hubby what he can and can't do with his own nads, but that same man shouldn't have one damn word in, on whether she can or can't abort THEIR baby??

Don't you think that if a woman was part of a couple, the doctor would want to talk to the husband as well in the case of an abortion?
Point is, you said it was a law, and it isn't. In fact, the only example of this I could find was a man being asked to provide such a thing by a clinic, he refused and they said "oh, ok" because they can't enforce it in any way, shape or form.

YEs it is a 'decision as a couple they should make'. BUT requiring a guy to have to get his wifes PERMISSION for getting snipped on the one hand, but on the other hand, saying while 'daddy could know about it, its ultimately HER call" is imo setting a double standard.

They can't demand or require any such thing.

[aretood2]

Sure, but our discussions do not make it murder, be it Abortion, or shooting an intruder.
Calling it murder, when it is not defined as such is as much "pie in the sky" thinking as I have done on some issues. The difference being, I generally -ask- a question, people here state Abortion as murder as a fact, and the fact is, it isn't.

Well that's the political side of it. The "it ought to be murder" argument. Thus the debate.

I was merely trying to keep it to the legal aspect tood, nothing else.
As a "moral question" though, would I try to stop a murder if there were no repercussion to me?
Sure, but your question is flawed in of itself because it rests on a false equivalency. If I "truly believed" that religion was the equivalent of mental murder, would I be moral in trying to legislate against it? Am I immoral if I do not? Can I demand that places of worship should not be built within 2000 yards of a school because there may be "bad people" in or going to them? Can I force the closure of existing places of worship because I have created this new law?
Would that be moral?

Not a very viable slippery slope though. I get what you are saying, just that I don't buy your example.

Does that extend to any and all forms of killing, barring in times of war?

There's nothing deeper meant in that statement. We as people would be outraged to hear that some far of thief/killer didn't get punished when he ought to be, not because it impacts us but because it insults our sense of right and wrong.

I think you will find there were other motivating forces besides "moral outrage" just quietly. I also think that you will find that just because the 13th-15th amendments were passed, states took it upon themselves to create local laws to maintain what they viewed as morally correct. Back then, it was the Democrats with the "black laws", today however it is predominantly republican states making laws to push federal laws out to protect "their morality", be it on abortion, or same sex marriage.

And the equal rights act. I mean I can list laws and amendments that were made because they were right, not because of some distant amoral legal matter. Yes it can be/has been bad as well, but everything is a balancing act meant to get to a cushy middle of sorts.

Yes, they are a legitimate consideration, of course they are, but if this were a race, they came in second and are now muttering under their breath that the race was rigged. The race wasn't rigged, popular opinion simply does not support the pro-life position. I'm not telling people to change their views, or not campaign if they feel they must, merely to understand the fact that their opinion is not the one held by most people, and in a democratic place, that's the way it works. Last time I checked the statistics, it was around 19% of people in the US believe there should be no abortion for any reason, and in a "flat" democracy, 19 people out of 100 don't get to choose what the other 81 do just because they don't agree.

But that 19% isn't the only portion that wants to limit abortion in certain scenarios. Sure most other pro-lifers allow for various circumstances. My main beef is how people shut down any sort of conversation without realizing what it is they are asking pro-lifers to do.

Sure, I teach my kids morals, not to lie, not to steal, etc, I teach them societies morals. I don't teach them religious morals however, not even my own because -that- goes against my morals. If they choose to explore a religion, and it's particular moral overlay, then I encourage them to do so with an open mind. My eldest has shown an interest in Christianity, so I have offered to take her to church, or attend scripture classes. That is her choice and I will respect her choice.
As for a sibling, well, I only have a brother, and I'm not gay, so yeah, not all too keen on that. Your point however is incest, and it is perfectly reasonable for someone to not be into that based on purely secular reasoning such as genetic errors in offspring.

None of that contradicts anything. You aren't the only one socializing them either, unless they live in a bubble. And please tell me that genetics isn't the only reason you or atheists would be disgusted by incest. Because, that's called social deviance. No one, no sane person, thinks "Oh, my sister and I could produce bad offspring. So no kissing or sex." It's simple, straight forward automatic disgust that was programed through thought aversion as part of the process of socialization. The motives for that programing are irrelevant, they happened and they are there.

Yes, but socialization can change and adapt to new social paradigms, it's much harder to do with a set of unchanging beliefs.

Over long long periods of time. Not at the individual level. So that point is moot. People convert religions all the time, and they cherry pick too all the time. There is no real difference here.

What about quality of life?
Also, as further qualification, at what stage would you consider the "cut off" point?

There are kids suffering horrible fates but very very few of them would even consider suicide, and here we are deciding that one should not live because life might be hard. Strong debilitating illnesses are one thing, but at some point a line has to be drawn before we kill off a baby simply because he will grow up with a limp.

It's not just being "jargon happy" Tood, it is a flipping fundamental difference!!!
What you are doing by conflating the two is essentially pointing to a store santa claus and yelling out "kiddie fiddler" because he has a child on his knee and knowing -nothing- about that store santa.
In short, you are sitting in judgement of any woman who seeks an abortion, without knowing why they want one, but -demanding- to know their reasoning because "you might object to their reasoning". Women are not children who need other peoples "superior morals" to tell them what to do with their own bodies.

I care not for controling thier bodies, only for the life that is inside of them.

You conveniently ignore the fact that the law, the law that people are trying to get rid of recognizes that after a certain point in the gestational cycle, abortions are no longer "carte blanche" legal (usually 24-26 weeks), that the law recognizes the personhood of a foetus when it be viably sustained outside of the mother unless the mothers life is in danger or it can be proven that the child has a terminal condition.
The other thing that is conveniently ignored is the effect it has on the mother to undergo an abortion at all, at any stage.

That's a pretty good framework. In my opinion that law could be tweaked in a few places. The balancing act as I mentioned. Though to be honest, discussing details at this point would be a bit much. We are, after all, sci fi nerds talking on an inconsequential internet forum.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504

Sure it does, the law can only deter and punish people, it cannot stop someone from doing something they -really- want to do.

You're going to have to help me with that one. All I see are references to the infringer as a distributor, not a recipient.

[SoulReaver]

I am saying IF the law as is say X is wrong (doing something with your own body)

And since we already DO have other laws that say "Thou shall not do XYZ to thine own body, well in some cases till thee are a legal adult"

and what I am saying is such laws are an aberration & shouldn't exist in the first place

[aretood2]

He means godwins law (the longer an internet discussion goes on, the probability of someone relating the opponents viewpoint to hitler approaches 100%)

Your opinions are similar to that of Hitler. I thought we ought to get it out of the way. But the way numbers work, the longer this discussion lasts, the probability of talking about a mouse eating Santa Claus while playing chess with Big Foot approaches 100%. So...anyone?

[jelgate]

I have always thought aretood might be a secret Nazi. Lets sterilize him and those he lovesx

[aretood2]

I have always thought aretood might be a secret Nazi. Lets sterilize him and those he lovesx

You do realize that you are one of those who are loved by me...right?