P R E N D A (bill To Outlaw Abortion For Gender Selection)

[Odin]

For some yes. But for some others it was voted against because of its political existence.

[4588686]

[quote name='Odin' timestamp='1338594847' post='2439721']
For some yes. But for some others it was voted against because of its political existence.
[/quote]


I don't speak Norse.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Odin' timestamp='1338590085' post='2439676']
recent data has shown
[/quote]fail

[Aloysius]

I actually think unrealistic sham law regulations against abortion do more harm to the pro-life movement than good. for two reasons: one, they obfuscate the reality of who is really committed to pro-life causes and who is not, by giving the politicians who pay lip service to the pro-life movement something to talk about in their campaign speeches; and two, because they increase inefficient government interference into the procedure in a way that doesn't actually stop any abortions, but infuriates anti-life pro-choicers enough that they double down and dig their heels in all the more... not exactly the best way to move towards ending abortion IMO.

and in case anyone wondered, yes, I think federally banning "gender-based" abortions is an unrealistic sham law. you might as well ban people from having an abortion if they believe the devil told them to have an abortion. then you could have every doctor in the U.S. ask a woman "do you believe the devil told you to have an abortion?" before they got one, and the woman would say "no", and they'd get the abortion.

do people sometimes get abortions for gender selection? absolutely. can you really actually prove that in any given individual case? no. would this law have stopped people who do that from actually doing it, or even punished them after they had done it? no. how can we stop gender-based abortions? by banning abortion, there is no other way to do it.

I think Ron Paul was on the right track in voting against this bill. it's overreaching of the federal government in a stupid partisan way that in the end would harm the pro-life movement just to advance some politicians' carreers.

[Odin]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1338594999' post='2439723']
I don't speak Norse.
[/quote]

Let me state this more clearly:

Yes there are plenty of pro choice pro abortion liberals who voted against this bill because they believe that abortion should be allowed in every circumstance. This is why many Dems voted against the bill and this is true.

But this does NOT mean anyone who voted against it is a pro choice pro abortion liberal. That is like saying if someone voted against a bill that fixed the economy but also had a provision that said a million puppies would be slaughtered....yes this is an extreme example, but it works in this case, Just because the content of the bill might be good does NOT mean that the reasoning behind the bill is just as good and noble.

This bill was obviously thrown together in response to a recent video released about PP. It is a pure political ploy for the Republicans to use during this election year....this is angering and ridiculous. I do not know about you but I am personally offended when an important issue such as the issue of life is used as a political statement.

The Senate was never going to approve it...ANYONE knew that before making this bill and putting it to the floor....so why try? To use it as a political ploy.

Thank God for people like Ron Paul who refuse to play political games and instead want to focus on serious issues and work on serious bills instead of playing the political games and folly that has become our political structure.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Odin

[Odin]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1338596113' post='2439729']
I actually think unrealistic sham law regulations against abortion do more harm to the pro-life movement than good. for two reasons: one, they obfuscate the reality of who is really committed to pro-life causes and who is not, by giving the politicians who pay lip service to the pro-life movement something to talk about in their campaign speeches; and two, because they increase inefficient government interference into the procedure in a way that doesn't actually stop any abortions, but infuriates anti-life pro-choicers enough that they double down and dig their heels in all the more... not exactly the best way to move towards ending abortion IMO.

and in case anyone wondered, yes, I think federally banning "gender-based" abortions is an unrealistic sham law. you might as well ban people from having an abortion if they believe the devil told them to have an abortion. then you could have every doctor in the U.S. ask a woman "do you believe the devil told you to have an abortion?" before they got one, and the woman would say "no", and they'd get the abortion.

do people sometimes get abortions for gender selection? absolutely. can you really actually prove that in any given individual case? no. would this law have stopped people who do that from actually doing it, or even punished them after they had done it? no. how can we stop gender-based abortions? by banning abortion, there is no other way to do it.

I think Ron Paul was on the right track in voting against this bill. it's overreaching of the federal government in a stupid partisan way that in the end would harm the pro-life movement just to advance some politicians' carreers.
[/quote]

This nails it on the head as well.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1338594576' post='2439718']
You're a smart person. You know perfectly well that feminists in the US have been very vocal about sex based abortion in Asia. This bill is a stunt designed to

a- test the waters for further legislation to limit abortion

b-embarrass anybody who refuses to participate in this political theater.

Of course feminists oppose it.
[/quote]

Well, between you and Aloysius, I officially rescind my disbelief and officially get it now.

[Anomaly]

The only way this bill would have hurt the antiabortion effort is if it had been passed it would have been touted as the final say in limiting abortion. Of coutse ther is political manipulations in politics. It's politics. You don't fix a problem in a baseball game by suddenly starting to play basketball. None have go en a viable explanation of how this hurts antiabortion by it being a ppolitical machination. It identified who would support abortion at any term. Dems voted against it soley for the protection of their political party. Yes it was an issue being used by repubs for political benefit. That's okay by me if it helps my personal agenda to begin restricting abortion.

[Aloysius]

except HOW does it restrict abortion? maybe I'm missing some detail, but how exactly are you going to establish that anyone anywhere is getting an abortion based upon gender selection? if it forbids any abortions after a time when the parents could know the sex of their child, then maybe I'd be more in favor of it because that would illegalize all abortions after 18-20 weeks, but as far as I know it doesn't do that. the fact that it does not actually restrict abortions is what makes the subsequent argument that the political theatre of it is damaging to the pro-life movement more compelling. if it was political theatre AND it had some practical effect on abortion, maybe you'd have a point, but it's political theatre and has no practical effect on abortion (IMO, I'm willing to hear you out if you think it would), so I think your point is moot.