California democrats kill bill to outlaw sex-selective abortion

[nehalem256]

That's fine. Similarly, I don't think you should be able to enforce your will on people's private medical decisions. I'm not trying to troll you or anything, but if someone wanted to get an abortion purely recreationally, just to see what it felt like, that's their right to do.

But if the state wants to ban you recreationally drinking 20oz sodas(even if you just want to see what it feels like) that is perfectly all right?

Hypocritespy strikes again!

My cup. My choice.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

I can never, ever agree with that. You shouldn't be able to destroy your child for any reason you want. And certainly not because you wanted a healthy child, and got a healthy child, but didn't get a healthy female child.

Not even if it is dead?

A pre week 25 fetus is as brain dead as any born brain dead human being and this is a clinical definition of death.

I note that you are calling it a child which is just you using an emotional bat to swipe at others with, if you were right 80% of all children would never be born (not counting abortion, just miscarriage) and every single woman who has ever had an intermittent bleeding when on BC has murdered her child (the egg got fertilized but it couldn't attatch because of the BC).

All you have is emotional whining without a single fact to base it on.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

But if the state wants to ban you recreationally drinking 20oz sodas(even if you just want to see what it feels like) that is perfectly all right?

Hypocritespy strikes again!

My cup. My choice.

You truly are an idiot, why didn't you go with a banned drug instead? Those are ACTUALLY illegal.

 

[nehalem256]

That's commerce.

She should be able to have a kidney removed if she wants to.

So by that argument if you pay for an abortion that would be considered commerce and therefore abortion for pay could be restricted under the commerce clause. :awe:

 

[Atreus21]

Passing laws that are un-enforceable is stupid. This proposed legislation would have been un-enforceable and was therefore bad legislation and deserved to fail.

That's the only plausible argument I can think of here. How are we to determine the intent of someone to abort because of sex-selection? I can't quite resolve that. Perhaps it might be illegal to perform an amniocentesis to determine sex solely for the decision of whether or not to abort. That's the only way to determine sex early anyway.

 

[nehalem256]

You truly are an idiot, why didn't you go with a banned drug instead? Those are ACTUALLY illegal.

Because banning 20oz sodas is even more absurd. NYC actually did ban 20oz sodas. Eskimospy was supportive of this move.

It was just luckily struck down by the courts.

 

[brandonb]

Sure. The state has a right to choose whether or not you get to drive a car at all, so the idea that they couldn't say you had to wear a seatbelt while doing it is most certainly deserving of a /boggle.

So other people (which the state is) have determined what you can or cannot do with your body because they determined that something was "a privilege"? So isn't that in conflict of complete control over your body?

If that is the case, don't recognize these "privileges", and I'm going to pull out my "God Given Right" card which trumps state laws, and exercise my ability to have complete control over my body. I can do this too.

 

[TerryMathews]

if someone wanted to get an abortion purely recreationally, just to see what it felt like, that's their right to do.

What other procedures do people have a right to recreationally?

Lobotomy?
Aortic bypass?
Severing the optic nerve?

Make whatever argument you want go defend abortion, but arguing it on the basis that people (or women) have an intrinsic right to any medical procedure or a universal right to their own body is a stupid one.

Hell, here's a simple one. You cannot get eye glasses over a certain strength without a prescription. Isn't it my right to get -5.00 glasses if I want them, even if I only really need -3.00?

 

[TerryMathews]

That's commerce.

She should be able to have a kidney removed if she wants to.

Bullshit. Find me a case, any case, where someone had a perfectly good organ removed for no reason (recreationally).

 

[TerryMathews]

So by that argument if you pay for an abortion that would be considered commerce and therefore abortion for pay could be restricted under the commerce clause. :awe:

Zing.

 

[sandorski]

To me the bill creates a foot-in-the-door opportunity for the authorities to regulate and restrict abortion, and to prosecute abortion practitioners. I can't imagine there is a huge problem with people selectively aborting based on gender anyway. I would strongly oppose this bill if it arose where I live.

Yup. There's also the issue of how does one ascertain the motivation for the Abortion. Women shouldn't even have to give a reason.

 

[Atreus21]

Yup. There's also the issue of how does one ascertain the motivation for the Abortion. Women shouldn't even have to give a reason.

Well, that's kind of what I said in my last post.

After 2 kids and one on the way, I've learned that there are two ways to determine the child's sex: At about 16 weeks via ultrasound, or earlier than that via amniocentesis. At some point, if a woman wanted to abort the child before 16 weeks if it was, say, a boy, she would have to get an amniocentesis, which to my knowledge doctors frown on because it's risky. They would certainly ask her why.

 

[justoh]

Would have been news if california democrats didn't kill a bill trying to place irrational limits on abortion.

Wrong section? Shouldn't this go in olds? hahaha

 

[nehalem256]

Well, that's kind of what I said in my last post.

After 2 kids and one on the way, I've learned that there are two ways to determine the child's sex: At about 16 weeks via ultrasound, or earlier than that via amniocentesis.

I would imagine that this would be pretty good evidence. I would think that most women getting an abortion wouldn't want to get an ultrasound done.

So if a woman just suddenly wanted to get an abortion after an ultrasound showed a perfectly healthy girl I wonder what could be the reason? :hmm:

 

[fskimospy]

So by that argument if you pay for an abortion that would be considered commerce and therefore abortion for pay could be restricted under the commerce clause. :awe:

Untrue. SCOTUS has explicitly protected the right to abortion as part of the right to privacy, which means the state has a high bar to pass before restricting it. The right to sell organs does not have such a protection.

How many times do you need to be told the same things?

 

[fskimospy]

Bullshit. Find me a case, any case, where someone had a perfectly good organ removed for no reason (recreationally).

That's irrelevant. People have a right to do so if they wish, that doesn't mean that people often do it.

Constitutional right to abortion. No constitutional right to organ sales. There's no way around this.

 

[Atreus21]

I would imagine that this would be pretty good evidence. I would think that most women getting an abortion wouldn't want to get an ultrasound done.

Well, at least in my case, my wife' OBGYN required an ultrasound around 16 weeks anyway to check for anatomy being in good shape. This was where we determined the child's sex.

So if a woman just suddenly wanted to get an abortion after an ultrasound showed a perfectly healthy girl I wonder what could be the reason? :hmm:

I can understand the appeal that her reasons are her own, but I have a hard time accepting them, especially if it's that late in the pregnancy. Perhaps if the doctor suspects, he or she should voice the specific question, "Are you pursuing an abortion because of the child's gender?" She could always lie, but perhaps the physician could render his or her own judgment.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Again, no one answered this, did the bill make exclusions for children where the parents have a gender specific genetic disorder?

Some of them are so severe that it's recommended practice.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Well, at least in my case, my wife' OBGYN required an ultrasound around 16 weeks anyway to check for anatomy being in good shape. This was where we determined the child's sex.



I can understand the appeal that her reasons are her own, but I have a hard time accepting them, especially if it's that late in the pregnancy. Perhaps if the doctor suspects, he or she should voice the specific question, "Are you pursuing an abortion because of the child's gender?" She could always lie, but perhaps the physician could render his or her own judgment.

And if the physician was against abortion he could render his own judgement that every single female looking for an abortion did so only because of the gender of the child.

For someone like yourself i don't see how it would make any difference what reason there was for the abortion, be it gender, rape or what have you you would always be against it, right?

 

[Atreus21]

Again, no one answered this, did the bill make exclusions for children where the parents have a gender specific genetic disorder?

Some of them are so severe that it's recommended practice.

I don't think the bill did, to the extent I deciphered legalese correctly.

However, this was not the defense the democrats offered for their decision to kill it.

 

[fskimospy]

But if the state wants to ban you recreationally drinking 20oz sodas(even if you just want to see what it feels like) that is perfectly all right?

Hypocritespy strikes again!

My cup. My choice.

The state doesn't ban you from drinking 20oz sodas. I already told you I had one just the other day.

Don't you ever get tired of looking stupid?

 

[Atreus21]

And if the physician was against abortion he could render his own judgement that every single female looking for an abortion did so only because of the gender of the child.

Or the converse.

For someone like yourself i don't see how it would make any difference what reason there was for the abortion, be it gender, rape or what have you you would always be against it, right?

I can stomach a rape victim getting an abortion. I can't stomach a woman who wanted a child and got a child, but killed it because it was the wrong gender.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

I don't have a problem with abortion in general, I suppose. I can buy the clump of cells argument for early term abortions. By the time you can tell gender it is far more than a clump of cells. That is second trimester and it has fingers, toes, a brain and nervous system.

 

[fskimospy]

What other procedures do people have a right to recreationally?

Lobotomy?
Aortic bypass?
Severing the optic nerve?

Make whatever argument you want go defend abortion, but arguing it on the basis that people (or women) have an intrinsic right to any medical procedure or a universal right to their own body is a stupid one.

Hell, here's a simple one. You cannot get eye glasses over a certain strength without a prescription. Isn't it my right to get -5.00 glasses if I want them, even if I only really need -3.00?

You realize I am a fan of legalized physician assisted suicide, right? Guess what my answers to all of those things are.

Your body. It's the only thing in this world we truly own. Do what you want with it.

 

[nehalem256]

The state doesn't ban you from drinking 20oz sodas. I already told you I had one just the other day.

NYC tried to do just that

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2249172

You participated in the thread. You were supportive of Bloomberg trying to do it.