|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted December 06, 2011 01:48 AM |
|
|
A US Congressman is seeking to ban abortions that are performed because of the child's race or gender. What makes killing a baby based on its race/gender any more immoral than killing a baby for other reasons that don't pose a risk to the mother?
Clicky
Quote:
Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., an outspoken pro-life advocate, is preparing to do battle again on Capitol Hill.
On Tuesday, he'll chair a House hearing in support of his latest legislative effort, the Prenatal NonDiscrimination Act (PreNDA). The measure would ban abortions done on the basis of gender or race.
"It would simply say that you cannot discriminate against the unborn by subjecting them to an abortion based on their race or sex," Franks says.
____________
Revelation
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 06, 2011 02:19 AM |
|
|
So what exactly keeps the chick who wants to abort the baby cause of race from saying she wants to abort it cause of something else?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Nocturnal
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted December 06, 2011 03:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
A US Congressman is seeking to ban abortions that are performed because of the child's race or gender. What makes killing a baby based on its race/gender any more immoral than killing a baby for other reasons that don't pose a risk to the mother?
There still are living creatures who want an abortion because of the child's race or gender?  Banning that should have come centuries ago. I can even support a ban for these people ever getting a kid as they clearly confuse it with choosing apples from the market.
And to answer your question: neither of them are risky if it's a safe abortion. Actually "Abortion, when performed in the developed world in accordance with local law, is among the safest procedures in medicine." taken from Wikipedia, which some may deny as a source as it was able to being edited by anyone years ago but now has its sources for every sentence put and this specific quotation has sources which are essays written by more than 10 doctors in total. When we come to morality the difference is simple: one of them is truely a disgusting inhumane act whereas the other is not immoral at all.
Of course I find these people who got pregnant because of their carelessness as stupid for not using condoms and day-after pills.
As the most common upheaval about abortion is the fetal pain, one must know there is no accepted truth about when the fetus starts to feel pain but the most common one is before the third trimester. I also am against a late abortion.
But I don't feel anything wrong with an early safe abortion if it's necessary or if the person got pregnant altough she used the precautions. Being also against this kind of abortion would be being against sex done for pleasure which is the majority of the sex. Without these, those children would be children unwanted by their parents and the world would be much more over-populated.
Also, I agree with Baklava. There is no way to stop a person lying.
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 06, 2011 01:56 PM |
|
|
It is not about stopping mothers lying, but create one more law against discrimination, which is never wrong. There will always be ways to work around every law. But not openly.
However such law is "meh", because any mother wishing an abortion will be first questioned on this race problem, even if she did not had it in mind. A "suspicion" law IMO.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 07, 2011 10:58 PM |
|
|
of course you should be able to abort a child if you think it's the wrong gender
it shouldn't be free though, I do not share a lot of "conservative and moral" views but I'm against women abusing abortion and using it as protection etc
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 08, 2011 06:52 AM |
|
|
So you cannot kill a fetus because of its gender or race, but because of your (but not necessary its, see adoption) social/economic situation?
What unspeakable nonsense is that now?
I mean, either it's ok to abort a fetus - then the reason doesn't matter much, does it?
Or it's not, and only in that case COMPELLING reasons would even be relevant, but the question then was, why allow it, if it's not ok in the first place?
If you allow abortion for other than personal danger reasons, themn you have to allow it - within certain bounds - completely, otherwise it amounts to wasting tax money for finding out who is lying, who has other reasons than those allowed and so on.
Legally spoken, if the discrimination stuff suddenly counts for fetusses, doesn't that mean we give them "human status"? And if we do that, how could it be ok, to kill them at all?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 08, 2011 07:32 AM |
|
|
You have to look at it from all possible angles. There are countless countries where having 6 girls consecutively means bankrupt. Probably the law is for immigrants from those countries, I can't see any reason why any occidental mother would want to kill a fetus because its gender.
And race, what means? A black woman married to a black man will ask to abort if the child is black? 
|
|
doddtheslayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted January 05, 2012 09:15 PM |
|
|
Stem Cells
Because its such a long thread i apologize if this has already been touched on.
Regarding stem cell research it is my understanding that the human body not only uses these cells as egg for fetus but that they are also used as a part of the healing process, due to the fact that these are the only cells capable of reproducing any organ tissue in the whole body up to and including the entire fetus.
How else would it be possible otherwise that injured skin is replaced with skin tissue, injured organ tissue is replaced with organ tissue (according to the organ type) etc....
This being the case i don't see that it is necessary to view stem cell research as tampering with an unborn child.
If cells that the body uses as part of the healing process are being used in research that heals people, then they are being used for one of the purposes that they serve anyway.
Any comments please
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted January 06, 2012 12:58 AM |
|
|
Funny thing, recently some high-paid institutions have actually been using synthetic eggs made from reversing the process that turned cells into things like bones, skin, your brain, etc, etc. Funny, because people in the USA protest the use of even these fake cells, even though they are not viable for anything but research. Instead of debating the ethics of using unborn children or some such rubbish (in a modern facility, the cells are artificially inseminated in a container, not taken from the womb or anything...).
No, instead they say that it is unethical to "Play God" and create this artificial, non-viable life. >:/ I do not understand...
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted January 06, 2012 09:04 AM |
|
|
The reason stem cells tend to involve unborn children is because the stem cells in the unborn children are in a different stage than in adults and kids. They are in the proto stage, which are the stage before they have purpose, or at the least roughly so(a actual scientific explaination would say something entirely else... but... its mostly correct for a layman).
Its a bit like recycling vs using raw material. Before you figure out how to recycle in a effective manner, its always easier and more effective to use raw material. The reason such a comparision to stem cell is a bit far fetched is because its has been a long long time since we managed to develop metalcrafting skills enough for such a thing to be a non problem, while with stemcells we still have little to no idea on what is going on yet.
So basically we do stem cell research with the unborn so that we can figure out how to reproduce this with human adults, and the "recycling" of adult materials is still a long behind the unborns stem cells. Once we figure out how to properly do so, we will produce artificial stem cells.
Besides, the only controversy is in some countries.
____________
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted May 22, 2012 11:20 PM |
|
|
Roman Catholic church in the US launches legal assault on Barack Obama's health reforms
Though I'm no catholic, I have to agree with the church's reasoning. Sure being obligated to purchase contraceptives doesn't mean that your forced to use them, but it is very contradictory to encourage something that you, and your religion are firmly against.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2012 09:15 AM |
|
|
The Church has no point at all. In reality there is no difference to taxes. Would you say that the Church should be allowed to withhold taxes, because part of those taxes is used, for example, for sex education?
This is the same thing: employers have to pay part of the "health care", and contraceptives are considered part of that. Why would that be different?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 23, 2012 03:27 PM |
|
|
|
Just as a matter of record, I've never understood why contraceptives are covered by health insurance. Then again, most of the stuff covered by health insurance shouldn't be covered, so there you go.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 23, 2012 04:14 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 16:19, 23 May 2012.
|
Quote:
The Church has no point at all. In reality there is no difference to taxes. Would you say that the Church should be allowed to withhold taxes, because part of those taxes is used, for example, for sex education?
This is the same thing: employers have to pay part of the "health care", and contraceptives are considered part of that. Why would that be different?
Actually, churches are exempt from taxes in the US. Churches are non-profit organizations and furthermore, taxing churches would interfere with freedom of religion. If I give an offering to God through my church Uncle Sam has no business sticking his hand in the offering plate.
The federal government telling me I have to buy a condom, a health insurance policy, a car, beer, or the services of a prostitute is not the equivalent to taxing me. Taxation is for the purpose of funding the federal government so that it can carry out the powers given to it by the people through the Constitution of the US. The federal government mandating that I buy health insurance has nothing to do with those Constitutional duties. Neither does the federal government have the power to dictate what insurance coverage, if any, I chose to offer my employees.
Contraception being absolutely against Catholicism, it is tyrannical of Obama's administration to try to force the Catholic church to offer what it teaches is mortal sin.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2012 06:49 PM |
|
|
Now, now, Elodin, you have to be careful with the dividing line. This lawsuit isn't about the CHURCH:
Quote:
Dozens of the church's largest archdioceses, universities and other affiliated groups sued the Obama administration around the country this week, in one of the largest religious lawsuits in US history.
They argue that the US government is violating the religious freedom of bosses whose faith forbids them from using or approving of birth control.
"They argue that the US government is violating the religious freedom of BOSSES..." - by forcing them to pay for something they do not approve of because their CHURCH tells them so.
Now, what if your church tells you - as a boss - that WAR is the ultimate sin? Would you have a point to pay that percentage less taxes that is spent for WAR?
What if your church tells you, sex education (which includes teaching about the use of contraceptives) is bad?
Do you have case for withholding a percentage of your tax that is covering sex education?
You know what Jesus said, Elodin. Matthew 22:21:
Quote:
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted May 23, 2012 07:47 PM |
|
|
You speak of hypotheticals JJ, please talk of facts, the subject is misty enough without your wild fantasies.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2012 08:19 PM |
|
|
|
That's what a couple of churches actually say - so it's not hypothetical.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 24, 2012 08:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now, now, Elodin, you have to be careful with the dividing line. This lawsuit isn't about the CHURCH:
Now, now, JJ, this is about "the church" (actually it is about ALL RELIGIONS and the freedom of ALL religious people to live out their religious convictions unhindered by a tyranical government.)
And the mandate to buy birth control/abortion coverage for all employees is not a tax. Health insurance is a private commodity/service, not a tax. No portion of an insurance policy is a tax.
LIKE I said, federal taxation is (Constitutionally) for the purpose of funding the federal government to carry out the duties the Constitution mandates the federal government to carry out. Telling religious people they have to buy birth control/child murder coverage for the people who work for them is not a tax. Such coverage does not fund the federal government to carry out the enumerated powers of the federal government.
Quote:
"They argue that the US government is violating the religious freedom of BOSSES..." - by forcing them to pay for something they do not approve of because their CHURCH tells them so.
Catholics believe the pope speaks without doctrinal error when teaching in his official capacity as the pope. I have linked in another thread to the addresses of two different popes, to the teachings of bishops, and the other official Catholic sources of doctrine that state contraception (and of course baby murder) is mortal sin an that knowingly cooperating with such practices is mortal sin.
What you want is for the federal government to extend the middle finger salute and say, "I know you believe it will damn your soul to hell, but I'm going to make you do it anyways." Tyranny.
Only an absolute total, complete, and utter moron would go to work for the Catholic church, knowing its teachings about contraception and baby murder, and then demand that the CC pay for their contraception/abortions.
The federal government has no business at all demanding that any church pay for what the church teaches is sin. The federal government making such a mandate is not imposing a tax when making such a demand.
JJ, the CC in arguing about bosses is arguing for the religious freedoms of religious business owners. Business owners have Constitutional rights too. One such right is freedom of religion.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 24, 2012 09:16 PM |
|
|
Elodin, do you believe the church should be able to discriminate on the basis of religion/race/ethnicity when making hiring decisions (violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964) even if it is morally or philosophically opposed to people of those faiths? Do you believe that religion employers like the Catholic Church should be required to comply with the Family Medical Leave Act? If the Church hires a Jew or a Muslim, should they be required to grant those individuals personal leave on religion holidays (e.g., Hanukkah), even if those holidays are against the teachings of the Church?
Just wondering.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 24, 2012 10:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And the mandate to buy birth control/abortion coverage for all employees is not a tax. Health insurance is a private commodity/service, not a tax. No portion of an insurance policy is a tax.
No, you miss it. Your whole post is missing it, and you don't answer to the point.
If, as a BOSS, that is, as an employer, you HAVE to pay part of the health insurance for your employees, it's not a private commodity - it's the same thing as a law that says you HAVE to pay sales tax.
It's absolutely and completely IMMATERIAL whether you agree or disagree for WHATEVER the reason with the things your employee is doing with the money.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
