View Poll Results: Should mothers be allowed to abort because of gender, race, or sexual preference?

Voters
21. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, abortion is a choice and the fetus isn't a person

    10 47.62%
  • No, discrimination is wrong even if the baby isn't born yet

    10 47.62%
  • Yes, under these circumstances:

    1 4.76%
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 72

Thread: PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

  1. #61
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

    Quote Originally Posted by friday View Post
    Even non-profit CEOs get compensated.
    Sure. What is the issue with that? They generally make less than CEOs in the private sector, which in my opinion is messed up.

    Quote Originally Posted by friday View Post
    And there is no link, this wasn't a news story. It was an actual situation that I encountered in my profession.
    Well, no offense, but I'm not going to believe that your description is an accurate reflection of the situation without some kind of outside evidence. Not saying you're lying, but everybody sees things differently. Being "very conservative", your perceptions of things ACORN does isn't exactly unbiased.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  2. #62
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    801

    Re: PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Sure. What is the issue with that? They generally make less than CEOs in the private sector, which in my opinion is messed up.



    Well, no offense, but I'm not going to believe that your description is an accurate reflection of the situation without some kind of outside evidence. Not saying you're lying, but everybody sees things differently. Being "very conservative", your perceptions of things ACORN does isn't exactly unbiased.
    Well, you're a liberal so I can't imagine you are looking at ACORN completely unbiasedly either. However, the questions regarding sex-selection abortion still remain despite this rabbit trail.
    Get informed: UNICEF foreign adoption policy is killing orphans and the US gives $132 million to UNICEF every year. Stop the madness.
    For the best news and commentary on the 2012 election from the GOP perspective, visit www.whitehouse12.com.

  3. #63
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

    Quote Originally Posted by friday View Post
    Well, you're a liberal so I can't imagine you are looking at ACORN completely unbiasedly either. However, the questions regarding sex-selection abortion still remain despite this rabbit trail.
    Well the question isn't really whether sex-selection abortion is a good thing. Most people don't think it is. The question is what effects this law would have. Seems to me it would have essentially no impact on sex selection abortions. People just wouldn't tell their doctor that was their reason for having the abortion and that would be it. The only real impact I see is some overzealous doctors trying to pry into people's personal lives and whatnot. Obviously nobody would tell them if they were doing it for sex selection, so what's the point really? Just to make a painful experience more painful for women?
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  4. #64
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    801

    Re: PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Well the question isn't really whether sex-selection abortion is a good thing. Most people don't think it is. The question is what effects this law would have. Seems to me it would have essentially no impact on sex selection abortions. People just wouldn't tell their doctor that was their reason for having the abortion and that would be it. The only real impact I see is some overzealous doctors trying to pry into people's personal lives and whatnot. Obviously nobody would tell them if they were doing it for sex selection, so what's the point really? Just to make a painful experience more painful for women?
    If it's such a painful experience, maybe you can explain why women are killing their babies so that they can try again for a different gender.
    Get informed: UNICEF foreign adoption policy is killing orphans and the US gives $132 million to UNICEF every year. Stop the madness.
    For the best news and commentary on the 2012 election from the GOP perspective, visit www.whitehouse12.com.

  5. #65
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,915

    Re: PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

    According to ABC, England, Canada, Germany, France, and other states already have laws banning abortion based on gender. Why do you suppose they do? Is this just a "hollow gesture" for them? Maybe it is. I mean, we're never going to stop people from stealing or murdering, and most people don't steal and murder, so what's the big deal? It's not a significant issue in the U.S., and those seeking an abortion for this reason will only lie, so why bother? What a sad rationale.

    One particular answer--that the state has an obligation to prevent "gendercide"-- is suggested here:

    "States have an obligation under human rights laws to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of girls and women. ...This OHCHR, UNFPA, UNICEF, UN Women and WHO joint interagency statement reaffirms the commitment of United Nations agencies to encourage and support efforts by States, international and national organizations, civil society and communities to uphold the rights of girls and women and to address the multiple manifestations of gender discrimination including the problem of imbalanced sex ratios caused by sex selection."

    http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publication...501460_eng.pdf

  6. #66
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

    Quote Originally Posted by friday View Post
    If it's such a painful experience, maybe you can explain why women are killing their babies so that they can try again for a different gender.
    In the US they aren't in any significant numbers. Children born here still are for all practical purposes split 50/50 between male and female.

    In the countries where it is a problem, it has to do with survival mostly. Subsistence farmers that believe that they will not survive without a son that can work the fields and whatnot. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a terrible thing even in those circumstances. But, that's why a mother is willing to make that kind of emotional sacrifice.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  7. #67
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    801

    Re: PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

    Oh, and by the way. The line at the bottom of your post about tax rates is highly inaccurate and misleading. My guess is it doesn't take into account the Earned Income Credit, or corporate tax rates. But that's another rabbit trail for another time.
    Get informed: UNICEF foreign adoption policy is killing orphans and the US gives $132 million to UNICEF every year. Stop the madness.
    For the best news and commentary on the 2012 election from the GOP perspective, visit www.whitehouse12.com.

  8. #68
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

    Quote Originally Posted by friday View Post
    Oh, and by the way. The line at the bottom of your post about tax rates is highly inaccurate and misleading. My guess is it doesn't take into account the Earned Income Credit, or corporate tax rates. But that's another rabbit trail for another time.
    That's my signature. It does not take corporate taxes, but that isn't relevant to taxes a person pays IMO. Companies can form many different ways and can choose whether to pay taxes or not. Choosing to pay taxes gets you things like limited liability. If they decide that is worth it, that's up to them.

    Earning income credits and all that are included. That is total taxes actually paid. It includes state and local and is totally accurate. The source is right there in my signature.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  9. #69
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,915

    Re: PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    In the US they aren't in any significant numbers. Children born here still are for all practical purposes split 50/50 between male and female.

    In the countries where it is a problem, it has to do with survival mostly. Subsistence farmers that believe that they will not survive without a son that can work the fields and whatnot. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a terrible thing even in those circumstances. But, that's why a mother is willing to make that kind of emotional sacrifice.
    So why are those small numbers statistically insignicant women willing to make that "emotional sacrifice" in the U.S.? And why does the fact that the numbers are small matter? If it doesn't happen often, do eugenics matter?

  10. #70
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

    Quote Originally Posted by nota bene View Post
    So why are those small numbers statistically insignicant women willing to make that "emotional sacrifice" in the U.S.?
    I dunno. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that it does. But, it's a big country. Every thing that a person can do somebody does sooner or later. /shrug.

    Quote Originally Posted by nota bene View Post
    And why does the fact that the numbers are small matter? If it doesn't happen often, do eugenics matter?
    Well, obviously you need to weigh the advantages of a policy against the disadvantages, right? So it's super rare in the US to start with, so that means the advantage is definitely very low. But then you have the fact that it would presumably never actually prevent a gender selection abortion, since people presumably already aren't telling their doctors that that is what their reason is, and even if they are, they wouldn't after a law like this went into effect. And, even if they did still tell their doctor, that would just mean that doctor couldn't perform it, so they'd just go to another doctor and not tell them that time... So, in the advantage column we seem to have a zero.

    In the disadvantages column we have some doctors feeling like they need to pry into women's motives. That would have a pretty massive impact, right? Digging around in women's personal lives and questioning their motives at a sensitive time like that? So, that certainly outweighs zero, right?
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •