financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
I like these stats.
As I said, the majority of American women agree with me that baby-killing should be either outlawed or restricted, and disagree with your enthusiastic support for baby-killing.
I like these stats.
I don't think that popular support should impact abortion rights, I think that it becomes a matter of an individuals control over their own body. Appealing to what most people believe is right doesn't say anything about the ethics of abortion or how the law should be constructed.
As I said, the majority of American women agree with me that baby-killing should be either outlawed or restricted, and disagree with your enthusiastic support for baby-killing.
The ethics of abortion is that it's wrong. It's that simple.
Even if their moral conscience lets them deny treatment to people based on sexual orientation?
financeguy, since you're back in this thread, throwing 'baby-killer" around, care to answer my question that was actually on topic?
Or would you rather derail the thread again so you don't have to answer?
What makes artificial insemination wrong? Would it be moral and natural (which are entirely separate things, for instance siblicide is natural) if one of these lesbians was to deliver the complimentary genetic material directly from the donors throbbing member?What these doctors, who have not forgotten their moral consciences, or even their Hippocratic oaths, are 'denying' is approving of and encouraging an activity - articifial insemination - which is simply unnatural, immoral, and plain wrong.
- articifial insemination - which is simply unnatural, immoral, and plain wrong.
You know we agree on this.
But why do you get to make the laws that govern other people's bodies? How does AI affect you in any way? Why do you get to decide whether these women get to have children or not? What have they done to make you think they must bend to your will?
articifial insemination - which is simply unnatural, immoral, and plain wrong.
The question is based on a premise that is false. No-one is denying medical treatment to gay people if they had heart disease, or cancer, or AIDS.
What these doctors, who have not forgotten their moral consciences, or even their Hippocratic oaths, are 'denying' is approving of and encouraging an activity - articifial insemination - which is simply unnatural, immoral, and plain wrong.
You should read the article again
I'm not sure why you think I am assigning myself the right to 'make the laws that govern other people's bodies', I never said anything of the sort. Your implication is incorrect.
We've been here before, I am only condemning activities I consider to be wrong.
As communities, we outlaw plenty of activities that the majority consider to be unnatural, immoral or wrong.
That's how civilised democracies work.
As far as I know doctors are not being forced to perform abortions. Seems to me that contraception leads to fewer abortions.
if it were all about the babies, we would never hear about "exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother." because if it was all about the babies, it doesn't matter if the child was created by rape or incest or whatever. it's a child, end of story, and therefore must be carried to term.
There are some who don't even make this exception. Ask the kind citizens of South Dakota about that.
And most people who claim to make an exception in those cases, really have no idea how to implement it. I truly think it's just a bone they throw out, trying to make themselves sound reasonable, or at least let themselves sleep at night.
There are some who don't even make this exception. Ask the kind citizens of South Dakota about that.
i think the ones that don't want to make the exception,
are at least more consistent
and less overly anti-women-having-sex.
Interesting. Are you the same Martha, not days ago, that was complaining about citizens of other states trying to affect legislation in California?
I did not realise you guys were living in some backward country where the government outlawed contraceptives.
^
I don't think that you got her point - you seem to assume she's saying something she's not. Probably because you're not familiar with SD.
As BVS already pointed out, this is no different from "simply" saying it, which is obviously not OK. When you think a rude post directed at you needs to be addressed, but can't manage a response that isn't rude yourself, then I suggest you report the post instead.I was tempted to tell "Martha" to simply F#*K OFF but thought that would be rude...so...
I see this thread got rather ugly while I was away...
I don't see any good reason for this to be turned into an abortion thread (unless MrsS wants that, it's her thread); the procedure in question (AI) is routinely enough performed for infertile heterosexual couples, so the issue is whether it can be refused to lesbians on grounds of a doctor's moral objections to lesbian parenting. Obviously abortion isn't analogous to that; people who want abortion banned aren't looking to ban it only for women from certain social groups, while considering it A-OK for others.