-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Proposed bill would require men in Alabama to get vasectomy
- Thread starter Cooky
- Start date
Technically, a parasite.
How about a cap and trade system?
Let the people who want more than 2 buy the right to over-procreate from those of us who have not?
Tom
Cooky
Veteran Member
Cooky
Veteran Member
What does it have to do with you anyway?
If some couple want to have 6 kids, they could buy the rights for a couple of the kids from me. I don't have any kids, but I am just as stuck with the problems created by over-procreation as anybody.
In fact, I pay a bunch of taxes to support other people's kids. Even the kids of well-to-do folks. Yeah, getting a little back would benefit me.
Tom
Cooky
Veteran Member
Keep repeating that.Baloney. It doesn't effect you at all.
Won't make it true, but you'll prolly feel better.
Tom
epronovost
Well-Known Member
This is called a "protest bill". You will see those once in a while. They are bills presented by representatives to shine a light on some issue they perceive with the law an society. In this case, it's the severe restriction on abortion in Alabama that makes it nearly impossible for a women to get one if she needs so (especially if she's poor). The idea of the bill, which will never pass, is to put a spotlight on the fact that legislating on how men can use their reproductive system would be deemed wrongheaded, but that with all those restrictions on abortion in Alabama, the State basically legislate how women should use their reproductive system. It's basically to underline the fact there is a certain double-standard in the matter.
ONLY if she's poor.
If she's got the money to fly to New York or somewhere she's got lots more rights.
Tom
Cooky
Veteran Member
Hold on dang-it, the dog just jumped up and started licking my face, and I spilled my beer all over my wife-beater T-shirt. Dang-it!
...But yeah. Ain't nuthin' like a good abortion.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Until birth, yes, because the baby won't survive without the mother.
epronovost
Well-Known Member
Well, middle-class women aren't exactly poor, but aren't likely to have the time and money to take vacation in New-York State or a similar one to get an abortion, but aren't exactly poor. Let's not split hair to much though. Ironically, it's the women most likely to require urgently an abortion that are the least likely to be able to obtain one; those for whom a pregnancy can cause loss of employment or have dire consequences on physical, mental and financial health.
Is this in any way relevant to my posts in this, or any other, thread?
Looks to me like you're dodging.
Tom
Cooky
Veteran Member
The "what" won't survive without the mother....?
But they are far more able to choose abortion rights than a teenager who doesn't really have $20.
Abortions are more available to people of means than poor people, that's the bottom line of differing rights in different states. That's why I opposed making this a state issue.
Tom
Cooky
Veteran Member
epronovost
Well-Known Member
On that, I completely agree with you.
Don't you realize how religious this is?
By the standards of the Bible a baby wasn't alive until s/he drew a breath. Modern science proves differently.
Tom
epronovost
Well-Known Member
The question never really was about life either, but about personhood and what makes us humans so spcial and different. We kill living things, inclding human tissue all the time.