Well, how crazy does a statement have to be before we can say “You said something crazy” ? I don’t know if Curtis means it when he talks about using the military to enforce an abortion ban, restricting interstate travel for pregnant women or speaking favourably about breeding an underclass to use as cannon fodder in future wars, but these are some seriously nutty notions.
I am afraid you misinterpreted my statement; what I meant was that because you are poor doesn’t automatically mean you will stay poor and in the USA one of the best ways to go up the ladder is to get into the military.
However a fetus has potential for life unlike a dead body which will stay dead.
What about caring for the baby or the financial concerns regarding it? Also hypothetically in the future if artificial wombs were to be invented and cheap and ubiquitous and freely provided by the government would you support banning abortion since there no longer any reason to have an abortion (even to save the mother’s life)?
As for the statistics, here is a dissertion on it: http://blackadderiv.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/making-abortion-illegal-reduces-the-abortion-rate/
And so do sperm and eggs, and so does every cell in my body, given cloning. Potential just isn’t that big a deal.
Separate subject.
No. What you seem unable to understand is that I simply don’t consider abortion even slightly immoral. I wouldn’t ban it under any circumstances.
Realistic potential. Sperm cells 99.9999999% of the time will not be fetuses and thus humans and cloning is not feasible yet. However a fetus has a good chance of being born and thus becoming human.
So what?
Well, I’ll take your word for it (though more on this shortly). It’s just in that particular post, you accomplished an entirely comical fascist triple play, and I really did laugh as I read it:
-
Use the army to enforce the laws, and not in the sense of protecting civil rights as the troops in the sixties did when they escorted black students into schools to protect them from local whites and local law enforcement who was not only disinterested in protecting the blacks, but in many cases would eagerly have helped attack them.
-
Regulating and restricting the movements of a class of citizens within the country, with the attendant image of state-border security guards (or soldiers) demanding that woman show their “papers” or, not inconceivably, take pregnancy tests before leaving and after returning.
-
The working classes must keep breeding to keep the war machine fed.
Sure, it’s possible to work your way out of poverty in the U.S. What should be obvious, though, is that this is a lot easier if you don’t have more kids than you can afford. If working your way out of poverty is considered a good thing, it’s counter-productive to put laws in place that will stymie this process.
I don’t even think it was that strict prior to Roe. What were the penalties if you were found to have had an illegal abortion – if any? (I’m assuming it wasn’t jail time!)
If my memory is correct, it was the provider who got jailed. There were floating clinics that moved around providing abortions and then closing down before the cops found out about them. The usually were less about revenue than principle, although some fly by night operators botched up a lot of abortions and charged a ton of money. You paid up front. It was ugly times and they would come back if the anti abortion group got their way. You can not legislate your morality on others. If you do not believe in abortion, don’t have one. But saying I don’t believe in abortion ,so you should not have one is overstepping your bounds.
When it was legalized , the Supreme Court said ,“Through English and American common law and statutes, the unborn have never been recognized as persons in the “whole sense”, and are not entitled to the rights of life enumerated in the 14th Amendment.”
Right – I know so many people who ARE anti-abortion, but are pro-choice at the same time.
What if the fetus has an underlying medical condition that cuts the chances of survival significantly? Is the mother now entitled to say, “Eh, bastards gonna die anyway, pith him,” or is this somehow different?
It’s protecting the fetuses’ right to live which would be a civil right.
It’s already happened under the Mann Act and various other laws checking for firearms and so on so what’s so wrong about this?
If you really financially can’t afford a child you can safely abandon him outside a firehouse.
Just because Nature kills a baby does not mean we humans have an excuse.
No one’s killing any babies.
First, you have to PROVE that fetuses have civil rights. (Which, currently, they do NOT)
Excuse me? Try HIPAA. Try major invasion of privacy. Try Fifth Amendment. You know the words “probable cause?” You can’t just search someone’s body like that even if you think they’re a murder suspect, Curtis! Not without a warrant. You know, the whole, “innocent until proven guilty?” What you’re suggesting is a MAJOR Constitutional violation, and would turn this nation into a police state.
I’ll be goddamned before I take a pregnancy test just to leave the fucking state/country!
BTW, how about some cites for exactly WHAT the Mann Act requires.
They have strong potential to be human thus they have the right to live.
Mann Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Act
If it is a right, it’s in conflict with the rights of another person who is not a potential human, but an actual human. Assigning priority isn’t exactly a tough decision.
Because the Mann act is a license for prosecutors to hassle people who are harming no-one. You seriously want to give a government official the right to demand a pregnancy test?
Or in a dumpster. In any case, figure half of those who abort instead leave their newborns at firestations. What do you plan to do with 500,000 foundlings?
“Something” doesn’t count.
How about affording a pregnancy, childbirth, and recovery? I’m curious what shiny, happy, feel-good solution you have for that.
According to who? You? The law? Once again, you haven’t proven this, Curtis. Only your opinion.
The Mann Act does not say what you think it says. There is no mention of armed border guards. (or indeed, any at all.) NONE of what you’ve stated (checking for papers, searches, etc) has occurred under the Mann Act. Unless you’re seriously saying it should be amended to add a manditory pregnancy test before leaving the state? That’s what you’re suggesting, no?
Hell, anytime I’ve travelled from one state to another, all I see is a sign saying, “Welcome to the State of Such and Such!”
And again, how are you going to get around the following:
-Probable Cause
sigh
Hmm a person’s right to kill for convenience or the right to live; it ain’t a tough decision but the other way around.
If it goes through proper legal procedures, yes.
Well they don’t, do they, so if that problem comes up solve it than.
Saying that blacks shouldn’t be enslaved is a matter of opinion also and so is murder is wrong. However it’s the right opinion for a civilized society to maintain order and freedom.
Than what about the various border checks which search for weapons, smuggle goods, and so on?
Correct, but not the way you mean. Since only one party is a person, it’s quite clear that the woman’s desires are morally paramount.
:rolleyes: They don’t because people like YOU haven’t gotten their way. You are trying to create that problem, then saying “just solve it” to your victims.
Except, it’s your side that is against order and freedom. It’s your side that is cruel, oppressive and barbaric.