California democrats kill bill to outlaw sex-selective abortion

[nehalem256]

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.

So some medical procedures are protected and some are not.

Sound like a hypocrisy to me.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

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.

Thank you.

I don't actually care about the Democrats, i just asked because in some nations it was made illegal to have selective sex abortions but it got overturned because it didn't take into account that the parents could be carriers of a gender specific genetic disorder.

 

[cyclohexane]

Is there an exception for sex-linked diseases? (Hemophilia, muscular dystrophy, etc)

 

[Atreus21]

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.

By ultrasound, yes.

You can determine the gender at any point by amniocentesis, though that's dangerous.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

You're a dumbass. Restricting cup sizes in selected good establishments in no way prevents people from drinking 20oz or more of soda. There is no limit whatsoever to how much soda you can put in your body.

All you need to do to understand this is have basic reading comprehension. In fact you could almost do the math on your fingers and toes.

The idea that you're trying to equate the sale of cup sizes to controlling your own body is so dumb it's actually funny. Again, don't you get tired of looking stupid all the time?

 

[Atreus21]

Is there an exception for sex-linked diseases? (Hemophilia, muscular dystrophy, etc)

There is not.

 

[brandonb]

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

You didn't respond to my last question but you keep hammering away on this. Where does it say in our constitution we can reproduce at all? So is it a right or a privilege?

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Or the converse.

Which would be equally illegal and probable I suppose. It makes it a horrid law.

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.

You can stomach murdering children if it makes a woman feel better for one reason but not for another?

That makes absolutely zero sense. If i actually believed that abortion was the taking of a human life i would have no limits on it, murdering an innocent child is never ok.

 

[fleshconsumed]

I don't see how this law can be enforced. All a woman has to do is say "no, this abortion is not gender specific". So, on one hand, you can't enforce this anyway, on the other hand, like Don Vito Corleone has said, this bill opens a backdoor to restricting and prosecuting abortion in general. Therefore, as much as I dislike the idea of gender specific abortion, I think this is a bad law.

 

[nehalem256]

You're a dumbass. Restricting cup sizes in selected good establishments in no way prevents people from drinking 20oz or more of soda. There is no limit whatsoever to how much soda you can put in your body.

So by that logic restricting abortions to facilities that meet certain requirements in no way restricts you from getting an abortion.:thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

You didn't respond to my last question but you keep hammering away on this. Where does it say in our constitution we can reproduce at all? So is it a right or a privilege?

Skinner v. Oklahoma.

 

[Atreus21]

Which would be equally illegal and probable I suppose. It makes it a horrid law.

You can stomach murdering children if it makes a woman feel better for one reason but not for another?

I can stomach abortion to the extent the woman had no say in the act of getting pregnant. She was forced to conceive against her will. We should remediate (why does Anandtech think remediate isn't a word?) that to as great a degree as possible, up to and including killing the child she conceived.

That makes absolutely zero sense. If i actually believed that abortion was the taking of a human life i would have no limits on it, murdering an innocent child is never ok.

Sometimes even the innocent must necessarily suffer.

That's an argument I've wrestled with with no resolution. In the end, I can't resolve forcing a woman to live with a child she didn't have a willing hand in creating. When a woman is impregnated from rape, 90% of the arguments in favor of abortion are finally reasonable.

We'd be a much more humane, though imperfect society if we disallowed abortions to all except those whose lives were threatened from child-birth, and those who conceived a child in rape. It would be a step back toward civilization.

 

[fskimospy]

So by that logic restricting abortions to facilities that meet certain requirements in no way restricts you from getting an abortion.:thumbsup:

It depends on what those restrictions are. Some are constitutional, some aren't.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

You didn't respond to my last question but you keep hammering away on this. Where does it say in our constitution we can reproduce at all? So is it a right or a privilege?

It is a right.

It hasn't always been a right, there was a time when forced sterilization for the unwanteds was common practice. In 1972 in the case of Eisenstadt v. Bird it was declared that “the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted government intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision to bear or beget a child”.

You do understand that the constitution doesn't make any mention of a lot of things that are considered rights, right? Under the umbrella of the Constitution things that are not specifically declared human rights can be legally interpreted as human rights.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Why can't anyone in this country compromise? Make abortion legal through 5 months for rape, incest, or medical reasons that may affect the mother. Make abortion leagal through 2 months for all other reasons. Call it a day.

 

[fskimospy]

I still can't possibly wrap my head around the rape exception. Being raped is no excuse for murdering a child, if that's what you believe abortion is.

Changing your view on whether or not abortion is legal based around who is at 'fault' for a pregnancy seems like that makes anti choice legislation a lot more about punishing women than protecting life.

 

[Atreus21]

Why can't anyone in this country compromise? Make abortion legal through 5 months for rape, incest, or medical reasons that may affect the mother. Make abortion leagal through 2 months for all other reasons. Call it a day.

I'd certainly agree with that. NARAL and PP would faint at the audacity of even suggesting it.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

I can stomach abortion to the extent the woman had no say in the act of getting pregnant. She was forced to conceive against her will. We should remediate (why does Anandtech think remediate isn't a word?) that to as great a degree as possible, up to and including killing the child she conceived.

So basically you don't even believe that this is about killing children? You just want the whore to pay the price for having the gall to have sex?

Because that is what you are saying, you are removing all of the emotional garbage and instead you are proclaiming that if she didn't want to have sex she shouldn't suffer the punishment of having to carry the child. But if the dirty whore wanted sex she has to pay for that.

Sometimes even the innocent must necessarily suffer.

That's an argument I've wrestled with with no resolution. In the end, I can't resolve forcing a woman to live with a child she didn't have a willing hand in creating. When a woman is impregnated from rape, 90% of the arguments in favor of abortion are finally reasonable.

We'd be a much more humane, though imperfect society if we disallowed abortions to all except those whose lives were threatened from child-birth, and those who conceived a child in rape. It would be a step back toward civilization.

See above, you are nothing but a hypocritical pretend-to-be Christian without an ounce of honesty and without an iota of common sense.

 

[nehalem256]

I still can't possibly wrap my head around the rape exception. Being raped is no excuse for murdering a child, if that's what you believe abortion is.

Changing your view on whether or not abortion is legal based around who is at 'fault' for a pregnancy seems like that makes anti choice legislation a lot more about punishing women than protecting life.

You mean kinda like arguing that a woman's body stops being her own once the fetus reaches a certain gestational age doesn't make any sense?

And it makes your view on abortion seem more about letting women escape being mothers than about having control over their body?

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Why can't anyone in this country compromise? Make abortion legal through 5 months for rape, incest, or medical reasons that may affect the mother. Make abortion leagal through 2 months for all other reasons. Call it a day.

Up to week 25 the foetus does not exhibit frontal lobe activity beyond random activity which, if it was a born human being, would make it as dead as fucking death.

There are only two reasons why anyone would want to prohibit it before that, religious indoctrination or they want to punish the whore for having sex.

 

[Atreus21]

I still can't possibly wrap my head around the rape exception. Being raped is no excuse for murdering a child, if that's what you believe abortion is.

Changing your view on whether or not abortion is legal based around who is at 'fault' for a pregnancy seems like that makes anti choice legislation a lot more about punishing women than protecting life.

Pro-abortion folks make this hypothetical all the time. Imagine you're asleep and someone comes into your room and hooks himself to your body in such a way that you are now responsible for his breathing function. If you disconnect yourself from him, he dies. Are you entitled to do this?

Yes. You had no say in the transaction. You were forced. The vast majority of abortions don't fit this hypothetical, but rape does.

It's not about punishing women. It's about balancing rights that are in conflict. A woman's right not to be raped, and furthermore to be free of all consequences of it, trump even the child's right to life, in my opinion.

 

[JD50]

Pro-abortion folks make this hypothetical all the time. Imagine you're asleep and someone comes into your room and hooks himself to your body in such a way that you are now responsible for his breathing function. If you disconnect yourself from him, he dies. Are you entitled to do this?

Yes. You had no say in the transaction. You were forced. The vast majority of abortions don't fit this hypothetical, but rape does.

It's not about punishing women. It's about balancing rights that are in conflict. A woman's right not to be raped, and furthermore to be free of all consequences of it, trump even the child's right to life, in my opinion.

That's a really bad analogy. The child didn't sneak into your body, someone else put them there.

 

[fskimospy]

Pro-abortion folks make this hypothetical all the time. Imagine you're asleep and someone comes into your room and hooks himself to your body in such a way that you are now responsible for his breathing function. If you disconnect yourself from him, he dies. Are you entitled to do this?

Yes. You had no say in the transaction. You were forced. The vast majority of abortions don't fit this hypothetical, but rape does.

It's not about punishing women. It's about balancing rights that are in conflict. A woman's right not to be raped, and furthermore to be free of all consequences of it, trump even the child's right to life, in my opinion.

The difference there is that such a person would be committing a crime by doing such a thing. The child committed no crime. You're murdering a third party because a second party did something bad. How does that make sense?

 

[WHAMPOM]

The bill is here:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB2336



Was defeated 13-6 on party lines. Democrats' defense:



http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...Democrats-Kill-Ban-on-Sex-Selection-Abortions

Democrats in California are prepared to condemn the act, but kill attempts to outlaw it. Why should sex-selective abortions not be outlawed? I thought perhaps there was some text in the bill which might sneakily introduce other regulations, but I failed to find it.

Camel, tent proverb, look it up dimwit.

 

[Atreus21]

So basically you don't even believe that this is about killing children? You just want the whore to pay the price for having the gall to have sex?

Because that is what you are saying, you are removing all of the emotional garbage and instead you are proclaiming that if she didn't want to have sex she shouldn't suffer the punishment of having to carry the child. But if the dirty whore wanted sex she has to pay for that.

You might embellish it so that it sounds callous and vindictive, but there's a difference between forcing a woman to birth a child she chose to create, and forcing a woman to birth a child she was forced to create.

My motive is not disdain for women or to force them to stay in the kitchen or otherwise in a woman's place. It's simply that there are some good reasons for killing the innocent. Carelessness and frivolity are not among them. Women suffer from a biological disadvantage in that having sex for them is far more risky than it is for men. That's why men are (or should be) so stigmatized for producing children without caring for them: it's irresponsible, immature, cruel, and comes necessarily at the mother's expense.

Killing children shouldn't be a means to rectify biological differences.

See above, you are nothing but a hypocritical pretend-to-be Christian without an ounce of honesty and without an iota of common sense.

Well, we were getting along just fine and civilly until you wanted to hurl insults.

Common sense is what makes abortion so repulsive in the first place. It is they who craft elegant and labyrinthine rationales to justify what in the end is a mangled, dead baby who lack common sense.