Mrebo said:
TV's Frink said:
I agree with none.
The bill was perceived by Democrats as political maneuver to coax liberal lawmakers into supporting the bill or face the prospect of an onslaught of campaign advertisements this fall highlighting a lawmaker's vote to support sex-selection abortions.To an extent, sure. But why in the world would anyone support sex-selection abortions?
I don't. But as to why some would: lets first assume we are talking about a group of people who believe the fetus is not yet human life with the same rights as you or I. Let us also assume we are talking about a group people that believe in a woman's right to chose. I don't think it is a stretch to think that this group of people might also believe that a woman should be able to use whatever reason she wants to in deciding to get an abortion, that the government shouldn't be in the business of deciding what reasoning a woman can and can't use. Again, I don't agree with those people, but that might be why some would support sex-selection abortions.
Mrebo said:
I've read a complaint that such abortions are (supposedly) rare and so not worth doing anything about. I've read a complaint that this will hurt Republicans with asians because it is supposedly more common among asians than other ethnicities.
I know it is common in China to prefer male children to female children. That, with the rules there limiting how many children you can have, is why most children up for adoption in China are girls. I know this stuff because my brother and his wife adopted a child from china, my niece. She is the light of my life, btw.
Mrebo said: I'm surprised I haven't read the usual/pathetic 'but we have so many important things to be focused on!' argument.
did you miss my previous post?
why is that argument pathetic? don't we have more important things to do than put up a bill that was designed to create ammo for campaign commercials? In the political thread, you said the number one issue for the upcoming election is the economy. Maybe Congress should be focused on that rather than playing games? In any case, I certainly don't think it is pathetic to think this way.
Mrebo said:
The notable exception is Obama who claims the bill would essentially force doctors to interrogate women about their motivation for seeking an abortion and that the government would be overstepping its bounds by imposing such a rule. My educated guess is that the bill does not impose such a requirement nor would a court construe it that way, but those who desire continued support of the pro-choice movement will read it into the bill as a palatable reason for opposing it.
without such a rule, just how would we go about enforcing a ban on sex-selection abortions?