For this particular subject? Like jazz, if you have to ask...
Most comments are of the type that a woman in a racial minority is finding racial discrepancies in gifted programs at a school. IMNSHO everything should be merit-based, not tainted by quotas or other biases.
If you want a quick science-based tour of the same issues, but with some pointers to actual studies, and written by a very smart woman, then I recommend this:
http://mitadmissions.org/blogs...
What does it matter if the author is male or female?
However, employers pay a large portion of the employee's health insurance. As the employer has a financial stake in it,
No, they don't. The health insurance, as already stated, is part of employees compensation. As such, the employer has no financial stake whatsoever in it. It does not belong the them, it belongs to the employee.
The company decides which insurance to offer, and pays a portion to the insurance company (my company spends over a hundred bucks per month on top of my own premium). The same insurance plans are offered to all employees in the company working at least 30 hours per week (or whatever ObamaCare requires). As the company is subsidizing a portion, the company can dictate which plans to offer. There is no discrimination. The company pays the same amount per employee with the same plan. If an employee wants coverage for something not covered by the company's plan, they can get supplemental insurance.
they should be able to pay for a plan that does not cover contraceptives; if the employee wishes to buy supplemental insurance for this, more power to them.
"More power to them" would in practice require separating healthcare from employment entirely, which in turn means a completely publicly-funded healthcare system. Until one is in place, the employee should not be penalized for not sharing their employers religious convictions, which is what having to take another insurance amounts to.
How is the employee penalized? He is getting the same exact company provided insurance as everyone else.
Let me put this into another context. Let's say that you belong to an HOA which subsidizes basic cable tv and internet to all members. If you want more channels, or a faster connection, you must open your own contract with the cable company and / or ISP. No discrimination is implied just because someone must supplement what is subsidized.
employers who hold religious beliefs that contraceptives are immoral should not be forced to pay for a health plan which provides them
The health care plan is part of the employee's compensation, is it not? As such, the employer's religious beliefs should have no say on what it covers, just like the employer's religious beliefs have no say on what I use the rest of my wage for. It's not the employer's money any more at that point.
Any compensation should be spelled out so the candidate can make an informed decision. You have a small logical flaw in your argument. Once the employee receives their pay, the employer has no say in how it's used. This is 100% correct. However, employers pay a large portion of the employee's health insurance. As the employer has a financial stake in it, they should be able to pay for a plan that does not cover contraceptives; if the employee wishes to buy supplemental insurance for this, more power to them.
BTW, why do Democrats put contraceptives under the "women's health" umbrella when it takes two to tango?
Because contraceptives have other uses than just preventing pregnancy. For example, oral contraceptives lower women's ovarian cancer risk, clears up acne, lighter menstruation, reduction in PMS symptoms, relief from endometriosis, and relief from polycystic ovarian syndrome.
They also serve as a pretty effective form of birth control. But when a woman is advised by her doctor to use oral contraceptives for any of the above conditions (or anything else), and reasonably wants them to be covered by her insurance, she gets Rush Limbaugh calling her a slut.
You mean drugs often have multiple effects? shocking! As an aside, Viagra was developed to help lower blood pressure. It was a happy coincidence that this also results in its more popular use. BTW, Rush is not a good measure for the heart-beat of the Republican Party.
Personally, I think if we can manage to cover boner pills with medical insurance, we can probably cover birth control pills also, regardless of the reason a woman wants to take them.
I personally don't believe that Viagra should be covered by entry-level insurance; if a couple wants it without paying the true cost, have it as an add-on or supplemental insurance (eg. the couple pays extra per month).
What women's healthcare issue is it you want funded ?
Planned Parenthood and mandating health insurance company cover birth control
Why is birth control listed under women's healthcare? It takes two to tango. The most common form of contraceptive is the male condom. Granted, it is the woman who gets pregnant and carries the embryo / fetus / baby nine months, but in most cases she was a willing participant. Very few would argue that a woman should be forced to carry a baby to term if the pregnancy was the result of rape, so it's a moot point in political discussions.
Where are the Republican's fighting baby killing ? They won't even stop children being butchered and their organs sold.
Planned Parenthood defunding attempt due to the small percentage of their services that are abortion related.
Republicans don't like tax money used to pay for elective abortions. The revelation that Planned Parenthood rotates the baby to be able to harvest more body parts - and sells such parts for profit - doesn't sit right with us.
Speaking as a Democrat, I'm happy to see that the R's gave in on abortion, funded women's health care, stopped oil subsidies, went along with a single payer health care system, cut back on war funding, funded basic infrastructure, etc etc etc. Oh wait, that never happened.
Most Republicans are NOT against funding women's health care; rather we are against using tax money to fund elective abortions. There is a difference. Republicans also generally want to make "late term" elective abortions illegal. There is no consensus on other contraceptives, except that employers who hold religious beliefs that contraceptives are immoral should not be forced to pay for a health plan which provides them (If the employee chooses to, they could get supplemental insurance). BTW, why do Democrats put contraceptives under the "women's health" umbrella when it takes two to tango?
The company I work at uses Skype for internal communications for when email is considered too slow. I'm unable to connect this morning, and I'm in the USA - not one of the countries listed as being affected by the BBC.
So what exactly is the point of paying beyond year one?
With a subscription, you are entitled to newer versions of their products; the fall-back license is permission to continuously use that (possibly) outdated version indefinitely.
Given the statement "That rock is owned by Roger", we can determine that the singular rock is owned by a singular person (Roger). Thus, if someone asked "Is that Roger's rock?" then the response "Yes it is theirs" is grammatically correct (and always has been).
Historically, their and theirs means third person plural owners. In this politically correct age, these words are used when the gender and / or sex of the owner is not known. Since Roger is (most likely) male, the most correct answer would be Yes, it is his.
Similarly, given the statement "That rock is owned by the three women sitting on top of it", we can determine that the rock is owned by three women. Therefore, if someone asks the question "Who owns that rock?" we can say "It is theirs."
Third person plural owners has always been their or theirs; this has not changed due to political correctness.
Why am I adding an s to "their"? Because that's the plural of their. "Their" vs. "Theirs".
WRONG! You use theirs when you don't want to repeat the object. It is their rock (the rock belongs to them) vs It is theirs (It belongs to them). It's the same difference as my vs mine and your vs yours and our vs ours.
Or, are you suggesting that there is a yet undefined part of the English language that magically adds a third type of plural. If that's the case then I guess the word "geeses" is ok.
If as you say, "most folks are on it at least 1-2x a day, if not longer" then clearly it is relevant news to "most folks". Is it 'important'? - No, and few people would claim that it was, but it doesn't have to be "important news" to be "news".
Back OT - I agree with Zuckerberg, a "dislike" button would be the death of FB, it's bread and butter comes from millions of old fart "sheeple" like me who do not want to keep in contact with their grandkids via reddit, tyvm.
I admit to using Facebook to keep in touch with people across the globe (including my in-laws). On more than one occasion I have replied with the words Do not like followed by sincere commiseration for what that person posted. If there's a news article about a group helping after a major disaster, do I likeit because of the group's efforts, or would that indicate that I like the disaster, too? With a whole range of emotions and levels of support, a simple Like button often falls flat.
Your an idiot. Evolution has been proved if you would only read a little
The biggest misunderstanding is that people don't know what is evolution and what it is not. Evolution is simply a change in the genetic composition of a population. This kind of change has been observed in the wild (eg. the color of moths before, during, and after the start of the Industrial Revolution). A special case of evolution is speciation where the genetics of a population change so much that they form a new species. Even speciation has been observed (look at the difference between the Hawaiian nene and the Canadian goose). Evolution does not attempt to explain how the first organisms came into existence, even though scientists are trying to figure this out, too.
Whatsapp is quite popular in Brazil. Just saying...
It costs me 30 cents a minute to call a Brazilian cell phone (my wife's from there and we like talking with her family). WhatsApp is free the first year and about a buck per subsequent year. It is a convenient option for my wife.
Ironically enough, I just clicked that link and the "how to" video at the top right of the linked page autoplays...
Did you see the following paragraph from that page?
On New Year’s Day, I told you how to block videos that play automatically when you visit a Web page. In fact, if such a video is starting to play right aboutnow, you may want to revisit that article.
Exactly. Autoplay of HTML5 video is a real pain, and one of the more noxious ways modern advertisers try to shove their content down our throats. Modern advertising really is the haunt of sociopaths.
That raises a lot if questions.
What do you call affordable?
I used to pay $100 / month for a family health plan.
Why did the people without healthcare had none before the act?
I think you meant what and not why. Admittedly, the ACA makes it illegal to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions. I have a sister-in-law who has health insurance for the first time in a decade. However, people who chose not to have health insurance before are now forced to pay. In the US, there are laws which require emergency rooms to stabilize people, even if they aren't able to pay. Many illegals take advantage of this fact. Those of us with coverage pay for those who can't.
Why is your system of demogracy not able to stop
obama, if he is so unconstitunional?
It's because the justices of the Supreme Court are also Democrats and are making laws from the bench instead of dictating which laws are constitutional and which are not. There is no balance of powers if all the power resides in the same party. BTW, we are a republic, not a strict democracy.
it took Obama to give you affordable healthcare for every one. By crafting a law!
I hate to break it to you, but the "Affordable Care Act" (aka ObamaCare) is anything but. The ACA forced millions of Americans lose their existing affordable healthcare because it didn't measure up to the requirements of the ACA, then sign up for more expensive coverage or pay an extra tax. My own premiums have almost doubled since the ACA has become law. As to Obama crafting a law, according to our Constitution, it is the Legislative Branch (House of Representatives and the Senate) which have the power to create laws, not the POTUS. Obama has abused our people through the use of Executive Orders. Obama has even threatened to veto any bill which undoes any of his executive orders.
What exactly do you think makes humans more special than any other animal?
Our level of evolution, perhaps? Perhaps humans are more special to me because I, too, am human and am preprogrammed to value my own species above others?
Good, that means I read the OP and your comments correctly. In order for your "baby factories" comment to be valid (in my mind at least), it means that the woman is forced to become pregnant. Since the woman became pregnant of her own agency (assuming it wasn't the result of rape), she is not being forced to act as a baby factory, but rather face the consequences of her own actions. There are precautions a couple can take to avoid pregnancy, even if they choose to be sexually active (condoms are 99% effective if used correctly, for example).
In an ideal world, every human would be implanted with a reversible birth control device, but there is no perfect world. So, based on your statement, if she "can't keep it in her pants", so to speak and ends up pregnant, she needs to go to "Mommy Jail" (I'll drop the Baby Factory, as we can't seem to agree on this) and be forced to have the child. So, by your opinion, carrying the baby to term is her "punishment" for doing something perfectly natural and quite enjoyable. Also, please do not forget that, prior to the 40's reliable contraception wasn't available (poorly made condoms and diaphragms). Are you saying that there needs to be retribution?
You're thinking of the pregnancy as society's punishment instead of it being the natural consequence of her actions. Also, any ban on any abortions would not be retroactive; you cannot create a new law and punish people for not following it before it existed. Finally, as this is all hypothetical, we don't know what punishment would be administered for performing an illegal abortion (this would also affect the doctor).
As to your objection based on the pregnancy resulting from something "perfectly natural and quite enjoyable", are you saying that everything that feels good should be legal? Should all drugs be legal because it's natural and quite enjoyable experimenting with narcotics? Should it be legal for a man to rape a woman because (for him) it's natural and quite enjoyable? If society is to succeed, we each give up something for the good of the community.
There are no "moral" questions - the word moral is code for religious or superstitious.
Morals and ethics exist outside the realm of religion. 99% of the world's adult population would agree it's immoral to kill another human being in most everyday circumstances. Most would agree it's immoral to steal or rob.
A newborn cannot remain viable for very long without care.
Does that make it moral to kill a newborn? Doesn't that newborn have rights?
This is an interesting question and has plagued humans forever. For most societies throughout history up to the present day the practice of "female infanticide" was and is, acceptable. I can't speak to the morality of it; I can understand it, but I am not in favor of it (the dregs of a rejected Catholic indoctrination, I suppose). It's a variation on the old "Titanic lifeboat dilemma"; you have X amount of weight the boat can carry before it swamps and everyone drowns, and people keep floating in the water, screaming for help. What do you do? As far as "Newborn Rights" go, again, one that is wrestled with and decisions made and reversed often over time, based on the needs of the society it is born into. Lately, it would seem that in Western European countries, we have the luxury of debating this question. Sadly, there are places in the world where there is no such luxury.
I am strongly opposed to infanticide of any sort. Some countries (such as China) have legal limits to how many children a couple can have. A son is often seen as more valuable (eg. pass on family name), so if a girl is born, she has a greater risk of being killed. Barbaric practice that has no place in the modern world.
No, Laie_techie, I do not have "things mixed up in my head."; the OP said, and I quote so you don't have to actually bother reading the thread, "When there are many people who can't have children who struggle to adopt, abortion should not be happening", hence, the comment about forcing women to be "Baby Factories" for childless, entitled people.
Good, that means I read the OP and your comments correctly. In order for your "baby factories" comment to be valid (in my mind at least), it means that the woman is forced to become pregnant. Since the woman became pregnant of her own agency (assuming it wasn't the result of rape), she is not being forced to act as a baby factory, but rather face the consequences of her own actions. There are precautions a couple can take to avoid pregnancy, even if they choose to be sexually active (condoms are 99% effective if used correctly, for example).
There are no "moral" questions - the word moral is code for religious or superstitious.
Morals and ethics exist outside the realm of religion. 99% of the world's adult population would agree it's immoral to kill another human being in most everyday circumstances. Most would agree it's immoral to steal or rob.
A newborn cannot remain viable for very long without care.
Does that make it moral to kill a newborn? Doesn't that newborn have rights?
Unless you are willing to take responsibility for at least one unwanted child, who are you to impose your beliefs on another individual? You can have opinions, yes, but how can you be allowed to impose your beliefs on another individual? Just where does your sense of "morality" come from? Think long and hard about that.
I admit that my religion has shaped my sense of morality. I also believe that most normal humans are born with a general sense of right and wrong. You have no idea about my family and personal life except what I post here.
BTW, is that Laie, Hawaii? I was lucky enough to live in Kaneohe town for 8 years before a family situation brought me back to the mainland, but if so, I am happy for you being able to live the island life; there is nothing else like it,
Yes, I am a Laie Boy. I was raised there before moving to the mainland in pursuit of a career. I love the Islands, but I never fit into any of the three main industries (tourism, agriculture, military). I still speak Pidgin and am introducing a few words to my son (Are three languages too many to learn at once?).
There are also, and should rightly be, plenty of ways to help individuals avoid an unwanted baby, right up to the point where the baby can survive on its own, in which case, there's a line around the block for people eager to take care of it, according to you.
How old must a child be before he can survive on its own? Surely it's years after birth. Does this mean that infanticide should be legal?
Um, forcing your will on other humans just because you can't breed and you want a baby is way beyond shady, it's manipulative and cruel to force others to be your "baby factories" for your entitled self. There is no valid reason for any more reproduction of the species other than those based in selfishness or superstition. Of course, just my opinion.
You have things mixed up in your head. The childless couple didn't get the woman pregnant, nor did they turn her into a "baby factory". The process by which women get pregnant has been known since before recorded history. If the woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she knows what activity to avoid, or what precautions to take. My comments in this post of course exclude the heinous situation where the woman was raped (I personally wouldn't want a reminder of such a violation).
The moral question is when does a group of cells become advanced enough to be considered human and have its life protected by the law. If a pregnant woman gets murdered, the perpetrator is charged with double murder, so why isn't optional abortion considered murder on its own?
Slashdot Mirror
For this particular subject? Like jazz, if you have to ask...
Most comments are of the type that a woman in a racial minority is finding racial discrepancies in gifted programs at a school. IMNSHO everything should be merit-based, not tainted by quotas or other biases.
If you want a quick science-based tour of the same issues, but with some pointers to actual studies, and written by a very smart woman , then I recommend this: http://mitadmissions.org/blogs...
What does it matter if the author is male or female?
No, they don't. The health insurance, as already stated, is part of employees compensation. As such, the employer has no financial stake whatsoever in it. It does not belong the them, it belongs to the employee.
The company decides which insurance to offer, and pays a portion to the insurance company (my company spends over a hundred bucks per month on top of my own premium). The same insurance plans are offered to all employees in the company working at least 30 hours per week (or whatever ObamaCare requires). As the company is subsidizing a portion, the company can dictate which plans to offer. There is no discrimination. The company pays the same amount per employee with the same plan. If an employee wants coverage for something not covered by the company's plan, they can get supplemental insurance.
"More power to them" would in practice require separating healthcare from employment entirely, which in turn means a completely publicly-funded healthcare system. Until one is in place, the employee should not be penalized for not sharing their employers religious convictions, which is what having to take another insurance amounts to.
How is the employee penalized? He is getting the same exact company provided insurance as everyone else.
Let me put this into another context. Let's say that you belong to an HOA which subsidizes basic cable tv and internet to all members. If you want more channels, or a faster connection, you must open your own contract with the cable company and / or ISP. No discrimination is implied just because someone must supplement what is subsidized.
The health care plan is part of the employee's compensation, is it not? As such, the employer's religious beliefs should have no say on what it covers, just like the employer's religious beliefs have no say on what I use the rest of my wage for. It's not the employer's money any more at that point.
Any compensation should be spelled out so the candidate can make an informed decision. You have a small logical flaw in your argument. Once the employee receives their pay, the employer has no say in how it's used. This is 100% correct. However, employers pay a large portion of the employee's health insurance. As the employer has a financial stake in it, they should be able to pay for a plan that does not cover contraceptives; if the employee wishes to buy supplemental insurance for this, more power to them.
Because contraceptives have other uses than just preventing pregnancy. For example, oral contraceptives lower women's ovarian cancer risk, clears up acne, lighter menstruation, reduction in PMS symptoms, relief from endometriosis, and relief from polycystic ovarian syndrome.
They also serve as a pretty effective form of birth control. But when a woman is advised by her doctor to use oral contraceptives for any of the above conditions (or anything else), and reasonably wants them to be covered by her insurance, she gets Rush Limbaugh calling her a slut.
You mean drugs often have multiple effects? shocking! As an aside, Viagra was developed to help lower blood pressure. It was a happy coincidence that this also results in its more popular use. BTW, Rush is not a good measure for the heart-beat of the Republican Party.
Personally, I think if we can manage to cover boner pills with medical insurance, we can probably cover birth control pills also, regardless of the reason a woman wants to take them.
I personally don't believe that Viagra should be covered by entry-level insurance; if a couple wants it without paying the true cost, have it as an add-on or supplemental insurance (eg. the couple pays extra per month).
Not the OP, but off the top of my head -
What women's healthcare issue is it you want funded ?
Planned Parenthood and mandating health insurance company cover birth control
Why is birth control listed under women's healthcare? It takes two to tango. The most common form of contraceptive is the male condom. Granted, it is the woman who gets pregnant and carries the embryo / fetus / baby nine months, but in most cases she was a willing participant. Very few would argue that a woman should be forced to carry a baby to term if the pregnancy was the result of rape, so it's a moot point in political discussions.
Where are the Republican's fighting baby killing ? They won't even stop children being butchered and their organs sold.
Planned Parenthood defunding attempt due to the small percentage of their services that are abortion related.
Republicans don't like tax money used to pay for elective abortions. The revelation that Planned Parenthood rotates the baby to be able to harvest more body parts - and sells such parts for profit - doesn't sit right with us.
Speaking as a Democrat, I'm happy to see that the R's gave in on abortion, funded women's health care, stopped oil subsidies, went along with a single payer health care system, cut back on war funding, funded basic infrastructure, etc etc etc. Oh wait, that never happened.
Most Republicans are NOT against funding women's health care; rather we are against using tax money to fund elective abortions. There is a difference. Republicans also generally want to make "late term" elective abortions illegal. There is no consensus on other contraceptives, except that employers who hold religious beliefs that contraceptives are immoral should not be forced to pay for a health plan which provides them (If the employee chooses to, they could get supplemental insurance). BTW, why do Democrats put contraceptives under the "women's health" umbrella when it takes two to tango?
I have Comcast Business as my ISP and I still only get IPv4.
The company I work at uses Skype for internal communications for when email is considered too slow. I'm unable to connect this morning, and I'm in the USA - not one of the countries listed as being affected by the BBC.
So what exactly is the point of paying beyond year one?
With a subscription, you are entitled to newer versions of their products; the fall-back license is permission to continuously use that (possibly) outdated version indefinitely.
Let's look at this another way.
Given the statement "That rock is owned by Roger", we can determine that the singular rock is owned by a singular person (Roger). Thus, if someone asked "Is that Roger's rock?" then the response "Yes it is theirs" is grammatically correct (and always has been).
Historically, their and theirs means third person plural owners. In this politically correct age, these words are used when the gender and / or sex of the owner is not known. Since Roger is (most likely) male, the most correct answer would be Yes, it is his.
Similarly, given the statement "That rock is owned by the three women sitting on top of it", we can determine that the rock is owned by three women. Therefore, if someone asks the question "Who owns that rock?" we can say "It is theirs."
Third person plural owners has always been their or theirs; this has not changed due to political correctness.
Why am I adding an s to "their"? Because that's the plural of their. "Their" vs. "Theirs".
WRONG! You use theirs when you don't want to repeat the object. It is their rock (the rock belongs to them) vs It is theirs (It belongs to them). It's the same difference as my vs mine and your vs yours and our vs ours.
Or, are you suggesting that there is a yet undefined part of the English language that magically adds a third type of plural. If that's the case then I guess the word "geeses" is ok.
If as you say, "most folks are on it at least 1-2x a day, if not longer" then clearly it is relevant news to "most folks". Is it 'important'? - No, and few people would claim that it was, but it doesn't have to be "important news" to be "news".
Back OT - I agree with Zuckerberg, a "dislike" button would be the death of FB, it's bread and butter comes from millions of old fart "sheeple" like me who do not want to keep in contact with their grandkids via reddit, tyvm.
I admit to using Facebook to keep in touch with people across the globe (including my in-laws). On more than one occasion I have replied with the words Do not like followed by sincere commiseration for what that person posted. If there's a news article about a group helping after a major disaster, do I likeit because of the group's efforts, or would that indicate that I like the disaster, too? With a whole range of emotions and levels of support, a simple Like button often falls flat.
Your an idiot. Evolution has been proved if you would only read a little
The biggest misunderstanding is that people don't know what is evolution and what it is not. Evolution is simply a change in the genetic composition of a population. This kind of change has been observed in the wild (eg. the color of moths before, during, and after the start of the Industrial Revolution). A special case of evolution is speciation where the genetics of a population change so much that they form a new species. Even speciation has been observed (look at the difference between the Hawaiian nene and the Canadian goose). Evolution does not attempt to explain how the first organisms came into existence, even though scientists are trying to figure this out, too.
Whatsapp is quite popular in Brazil. Just saying...
It costs me 30 cents a minute to call a Brazilian cell phone (my wife's from there and we like talking with her family). WhatsApp is free the first year and about a buck per subsequent year. It is a convenient option for my wife.
Saving a buck usually translates into consuming fewer resources
What? No it doesn't. Lowering the price of a resource generally increases consumption.
Methinks he meant it takes fewer resources to produce.
Ironically enough, I just clicked that link and the "how to" video at the top right of the linked page autoplays...
Did you see the following paragraph from that page?
Exactly. Autoplay of HTML5 video is a real pain, and one of the more noxious ways modern advertisers try to shove their content down our throats. Modern advertising really is the haunt of sociopaths.
There are ways to stop autoplay for Chrome and Firefox.
That raises a lot if questions. What do you call affordable?
I used to pay $100 / month for a family health plan.
Why did the people without healthcare had none before the act?
I think you meant what and not why. Admittedly, the ACA makes it illegal to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions. I have a sister-in-law who has health insurance for the first time in a decade. However, people who chose not to have health insurance before are now forced to pay. In the US, there are laws which require emergency rooms to stabilize people, even if they aren't able to pay. Many illegals take advantage of this fact. Those of us with coverage pay for those who can't.
Why is your system of demogracy not able to stop obama, if he is so unconstitunional?
It's because the justices of the Supreme Court are also Democrats and are making laws from the bench instead of dictating which laws are constitutional and which are not. There is no balance of powers if all the power resides in the same party. BTW, we are a republic, not a strict democracy.
Sorry ... sounds like urban legends ...
it took Obama to give you affordable healthcare for every one. By crafting a law!
I hate to break it to you, but the "Affordable Care Act" (aka ObamaCare) is anything but. The ACA forced millions of Americans lose their existing affordable healthcare because it didn't measure up to the requirements of the ACA, then sign up for more expensive coverage or pay an extra tax. My own premiums have almost doubled since the ACA has become law. As to Obama crafting a law, according to our Constitution, it is the Legislative Branch (House of Representatives and the Senate) which have the power to create laws, not the POTUS. Obama has abused our people through the use of Executive Orders. Obama has even threatened to veto any bill which undoes any of his executive orders.
What exactly do you think makes humans more special than any other animal?
Our level of evolution, perhaps? Perhaps humans are more special to me because I, too, am human and am preprogrammed to value my own species above others?
Good, that means I read the OP and your comments correctly. In order for your "baby factories" comment to be valid (in my mind at least), it means that the woman is forced to become pregnant. Since the woman became pregnant of her own agency (assuming it wasn't the result of rape), she is not being forced to act as a baby factory, but rather face the consequences of her own actions. There are precautions a couple can take to avoid pregnancy, even if they choose to be sexually active (condoms are 99% effective if used correctly, for example).
In an ideal world, every human would be implanted with a reversible birth control device, but there is no perfect world. So, based on your statement, if she "can't keep it in her pants", so to speak and ends up pregnant, she needs to go to "Mommy Jail" (I'll drop the Baby Factory, as we can't seem to agree on this) and be forced to have the child. So, by your opinion, carrying the baby to term is her "punishment" for doing something perfectly natural and quite enjoyable. Also, please do not forget that, prior to the 40's reliable contraception wasn't available (poorly made condoms and diaphragms). Are you saying that there needs to be retribution?
You're thinking of the pregnancy as society's punishment instead of it being the natural consequence of her actions. Also, any ban on any abortions would not be retroactive; you cannot create a new law and punish people for not following it before it existed. Finally, as this is all hypothetical, we don't know what punishment would be administered for performing an illegal abortion (this would also affect the doctor).
As to your objection based on the pregnancy resulting from something "perfectly natural and quite enjoyable", are you saying that everything that feels good should be legal? Should all drugs be legal because it's natural and quite enjoyable experimenting with narcotics? Should it be legal for a man to rape a woman because (for him) it's natural and quite enjoyable? If society is to succeed, we each give up something for the good of the community.
There are no "moral" questions - the word moral is code for religious or superstitious.
Morals and ethics exist outside the realm of religion. 99% of the world's adult population would agree it's immoral to kill another human being in most everyday circumstances. Most would agree it's immoral to steal or rob.
A newborn cannot remain viable for very long without care.
Does that make it moral to kill a newborn? Doesn't that newborn have rights?
This is an interesting question and has plagued humans forever. For most societies throughout history up to the present day the practice of "female infanticide" was and is, acceptable. I can't speak to the morality of it; I can understand it, but I am not in favor of it (the dregs of a rejected Catholic indoctrination, I suppose). It's a variation on the old "Titanic lifeboat dilemma"; you have X amount of weight the boat can carry before it swamps and everyone drowns, and people keep floating in the water, screaming for help. What do you do? As far as "Newborn Rights" go, again, one that is wrestled with and decisions made and reversed often over time, based on the needs of the society it is born into. Lately, it would seem that in Western European countries, we have the luxury of debating this question. Sadly, there are places in the world where there is no such luxury.
I am strongly opposed to infanticide of any sort. Some countries (such as China) have legal limits to how many children a couple can have. A son is often seen as more valuable (eg. pass on family name), so if a girl is born, she has a greater risk of being killed. Barbaric practice that has no place in the modern world.
No, Laie_techie, I do not have "things mixed up in my head."; the OP said, and I quote so you don't have to actually bother reading the thread, "When there are many people who can't have children who struggle to adopt, abortion should not be happening", hence, the comment about forcing women to be "Baby Factories" for childless, entitled people.
Good, that means I read the OP and your comments correctly. In order for your "baby factories" comment to be valid (in my mind at least), it means that the woman is forced to become pregnant. Since the woman became pregnant of her own agency (assuming it wasn't the result of rape), she is not being forced to act as a baby factory, but rather face the consequences of her own actions. There are precautions a couple can take to avoid pregnancy, even if they choose to be sexually active (condoms are 99% effective if used correctly, for example).
There are no "moral" questions - the word moral is code for religious or superstitious.
Morals and ethics exist outside the realm of religion. 99% of the world's adult population would agree it's immoral to kill another human being in most everyday circumstances. Most would agree it's immoral to steal or rob.
A newborn cannot remain viable for very long without care.
Does that make it moral to kill a newborn? Doesn't that newborn have rights?
Unless you are willing to take responsibility for at least one unwanted child, who are you to impose your beliefs on another individual? You can have opinions, yes, but how can you be allowed to impose your beliefs on another individual? Just where does your sense of "morality" come from? Think long and hard about that.
I admit that my religion has shaped my sense of morality. I also believe that most normal humans are born with a general sense of right and wrong. You have no idea about my family and personal life except what I post here.
BTW, is that Laie, Hawaii? I was lucky enough to live in Kaneohe town for 8 years before a family situation brought me back to the mainland, but if so, I am happy for you being able to live the island life; there is nothing else like it,
Yes, I am a Laie Boy. I was raised there before moving to the mainland in pursuit of a career. I love the Islands, but I never fit into any of the three main industries (tourism, agriculture, military). I still speak Pidgin and am introducing a few words to my son (Are three languages too many to learn at once?).
We test drugs on rats. A rat is definitely more alive and aware than this thing.
A rat is not human and doesn' t have the potential to become human.
There are also, and should rightly be, plenty of ways to help individuals avoid an unwanted baby, right up to the point where the baby can survive on its own, in which case, there's a line around the block for people eager to take care of it, according to you.
How old must a child be before he can survive on its own? Surely it's years after birth. Does this mean that infanticide should be legal?
Um, forcing your will on other humans just because you can't breed and you want a baby is way beyond shady, it's manipulative and cruel to force others to be your "baby factories" for your entitled self. There is no valid reason for any more reproduction of the species other than those based in selfishness or superstition. Of course, just my opinion.
You have things mixed up in your head. The childless couple didn't get the woman pregnant, nor did they turn her into a "baby factory". The process by which women get pregnant has been known since before recorded history. If the woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she knows what activity to avoid, or what precautions to take. My comments in this post of course exclude the heinous situation where the woman was raped (I personally wouldn't want a reminder of such a violation).
The moral question is when does a group of cells become advanced enough to be considered human and have its life protected by the law. If a pregnant woman gets murdered, the perpetrator is charged with double murder, so why isn't optional abortion considered murder on its own?