Gendercide foes called racist against Asians

The bill to ban abortion for the purpose of sex-selection was defeated in the House of Representatives.  Because of a procedural move by Republicans (which tells me they weren’t serious about trying to pass it) the bill had to get 2/3 of the votes.

So guess how Democrats are spinning this?  Gender-selection abortions are  common in Asia, especially in China and India, where there is a strong cultural preference for boys over girls.  This is also happening with at least some Asian-Americans.  So Democrats are saying that the Republicans who favored the bill are racist against Asian-Americans!  Really!

Republican’s abortion bill risks alienating Asian Americans – The Washington Post.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • formerly just steve

    Kill, if you must, but whatever you do don’t be mean!

  • formerly just steve

    Kill, if you must, but whatever you do don’t be mean!

  • Mary

    In the movie The Dictator with Sacha Baron-Cohen

    In one scene, the dictator is informed by his wife that she is pregnant; to which he replies: “Are you having a boy or an abortion?”
    Truth found in strange places indeed.

  • Mary

    In the movie The Dictator with Sacha Baron-Cohen

    In one scene, the dictator is informed by his wife that she is pregnant; to which he replies: “Are you having a boy or an abortion?”
    Truth found in strange places indeed.

  • http://multiplyjustice.net Mark

    So, according to the WaPo writer, sex-selection abortion is a “huge tragedy” in parts of Asia, but in this country the only consideration is the possibility of offending Asian immigrants?

    I’d love to hear Mssr. Milbank explain why it’s a tragedy in Asia, but isn’t here.

  • http://multiplyjustice.net Mark

    So, according to the WaPo writer, sex-selection abortion is a “huge tragedy” in parts of Asia, but in this country the only consideration is the possibility of offending Asian immigrants?

    I’d love to hear Mssr. Milbank explain why it’s a tragedy in Asia, but isn’t here.

  • Pingback: Brilliant liberals, faux conservatives | kainos

  • Pingback: Brilliant liberals, faux conservatives | kainos

  • The Jones

    Of course we can’t pass a law in this country that outlaws the intentional killing of babies based on their gender. That could open the door to other laws that outlaw the intentional killing of babies irrespective of gender.

    And everybody knows how horrible that would be!

  • The Jones

    Of course we can’t pass a law in this country that outlaws the intentional killing of babies based on their gender. That could open the door to other laws that outlaw the intentional killing of babies irrespective of gender.

    And everybody knows how horrible that would be!

  • formerly just steve

    #4, maybe we need to take a note from the Gay Rights playbook. If we get someone to write a bill defending abortion based on gender-selection as a cultural practice, the Supreme Court will knock it down and it will be de facto illegal.

  • formerly just steve

    #4, maybe we need to take a note from the Gay Rights playbook. If we get someone to write a bill defending abortion based on gender-selection as a cultural practice, the Supreme Court will knock it down and it will be de facto illegal.

  • DonS

    “Because of a procedural move by Republicans (which tells me they weren’t serious about trying to pass it) the bill had to get 2/3 of the votes.”

    Wow, that’s pretty harsh. Actually, they chose to bypass the committee, which is why they needed 2/3 vote. My understanding is that there were three reasons for this: 1) Political — they wanted to put the Democrats on record as supporting gendercide, and 2) Practical — they knew they would need a 2/3 vote to overcome the certain Obama veto anyway. I don’t have a problem with either of these two reasons, nor do I think they imply that most of the folks voting for this bill weren’t sincere in their desire for it to pass.

    Discrimination against Asians?! You can’t make this stuff up. Yet the mainstream media continues to dutifully report directly from the Democratic talking points sheets each day, and a sizable percentage of voters appear to continue to lap it up.

  • DonS

    “Because of a procedural move by Republicans (which tells me they weren’t serious about trying to pass it) the bill had to get 2/3 of the votes.”

    Wow, that’s pretty harsh. Actually, they chose to bypass the committee, which is why they needed 2/3 vote. My understanding is that there were three reasons for this: 1) Political — they wanted to put the Democrats on record as supporting gendercide, and 2) Practical — they knew they would need a 2/3 vote to overcome the certain Obama veto anyway. I don’t have a problem with either of these two reasons, nor do I think they imply that most of the folks voting for this bill weren’t sincere in their desire for it to pass.

    Discrimination against Asians?! You can’t make this stuff up. Yet the mainstream media continues to dutifully report directly from the Democratic talking points sheets each day, and a sizable percentage of voters appear to continue to lap it up.

  • DonS

    My comment at 6 should read “two reasons”, not three.

  • DonS

    My comment at 6 should read “two reasons”, not three.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Thanks, Don, for the explanation. But since they got a majority to vote for it, why not let it go through the process and actually pass the bill? The Senate would be unlikely to pass it, but still. If the president vetoes it, it will be on him. But they knew they couldn’t get 2/3 and just did put it through as a show–as you say, to put the Democrats on record for opposing it, an act of politics rather than governance.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Thanks, Don, for the explanation. But since they got a majority to vote for it, why not let it go through the process and actually pass the bill? The Senate would be unlikely to pass it, but still. If the president vetoes it, it will be on him. But they knew they couldn’t get 2/3 and just did put it through as a show–as you say, to put the Democrats on record for opposing it, an act of politics rather than governance.

  • DonS

    Dr. Veith: An act of politics is often an act of governance. Realistically, this bill cannot be passed until the Senate, and perhaps the Presidency changes hands, because most Democrats, particularly the leadership. seem to be in the thrall of the abortion rights lobby. So, to govern on this issue, the composition of our government must change in the next election. Defining the issues for the people is part of the process of winning that election so that desirable policies can be enacted.

    Just because its “politics” doesn’t always mean it’s necessarily evil or insincere. We the people have chosen a democratic form of government, which necessarily requires some level of “politics”.

  • DonS

    Dr. Veith: An act of politics is often an act of governance. Realistically, this bill cannot be passed until the Senate, and perhaps the Presidency changes hands, because most Democrats, particularly the leadership. seem to be in the thrall of the abortion rights lobby. So, to govern on this issue, the composition of our government must change in the next election. Defining the issues for the people is part of the process of winning that election so that desirable policies can be enacted.

    Just because its “politics” doesn’t always mean it’s necessarily evil or insincere. We the people have chosen a democratic form of government, which necessarily requires some level of “politics”.

  • formerly just steve

    DonS, seems like reason 2 contradicts reason 1. Why not let it go through and put the President on record too. Requiring 2/3 votes puts it back on them.

  • formerly just steve

    DonS, seems like reason 2 contradicts reason 1. Why not let it go through and put the President on record too. Requiring 2/3 votes puts it back on them.

  • DonS

    formerly @ 10: It wouldn’t go through to the President anyway, because the Senate wasn’t going to take it up this year regardless.

    Bypassing the committee allowed the legislation to reach the floor now, rather than months from now, which was important for helping voters understand a little better the kind of fanaticism on the other side of this issue.

  • DonS

    formerly @ 10: It wouldn’t go through to the President anyway, because the Senate wasn’t going to take it up this year regardless.

    Bypassing the committee allowed the legislation to reach the floor now, rather than months from now, which was important for helping voters understand a little better the kind of fanaticism on the other side of this issue.

  • Michael B.

    This bill has a lot of practical problems. For one, how would it be enforced. You can determine a gender as early as 4-5 months. How would you know she is aborting do to gender? What if she says, “Look, I just think this pregnancy is too high risk for me”.

    And congress got this right. It doesn’t matter what her reason is. You can’t force a woman to gestate, for any reason. It’s the same as who she chooses to have sex with. What she wants is the final authority. Not the government.

  • Michael B.

    This bill has a lot of practical problems. For one, how would it be enforced. You can determine a gender as early as 4-5 months. How would you know she is aborting do to gender? What if she says, “Look, I just think this pregnancy is too high risk for me”.

    And congress got this right. It doesn’t matter what her reason is. You can’t force a woman to gestate, for any reason. It’s the same as who she chooses to have sex with. What she wants is the final authority. Not the government.

  • The Jones

    Michael B. @12

    Of course you can’t force a woman to gestate, and yes, it’s the same as who she chooses to have sex with.

    But once she has chosen to gestate, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say she can’t change her mind by killing somebody else.

  • The Jones

    Michael B. @12

    Of course you can’t force a woman to gestate, and yes, it’s the same as who she chooses to have sex with.

    But once she has chosen to gestate, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say she can’t change her mind by killing somebody else.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Woe to those who call good evil and evil good…

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Woe to those who call good evil and evil good…

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Michael (@12), if you are indeed concerned about the problem of largely symbolic laws that would be difficult to enforce, then that is a valid concern. However, as you seem to be a fairly doctrinaire liberal, I have to ask: do you also object to “hate crime” legislation on the same grounds and to the same degree? Because both types of laws attempt to criminalize the intent behind the action, not merely the action itself.

    Of course, both types of laws are not impossible to enforce. They are just difficult, because a reasonably informed and clever person should be able to conceal her thoughts to avoid being charged under such a law. But not everyone is informed and clever.

    You can’t force a woman to gestate, for any reason.

    That’s kind of like saying that you can’t force a mother to keep her children alive after they are born. In a very narrow sense, that is true. And yet, we as a society expect parents to feed and provide for their children, and not to kill them. And we have laws to enforce such notions. Do you also object to those laws?

    What she wants is the final authority. Not the government.

    I wonder how far that attitude of yours goes. What about “faith healing” parents, who refuse medical treatment of any sort for their children, even when their conditions are disfiguring/fatal and easily treatable? Do you believe the parents are still the final authority, not the government?

    What if the parent wants to kill her toddler? Parent still the final authority? Why or why not?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Michael (@12), if you are indeed concerned about the problem of largely symbolic laws that would be difficult to enforce, then that is a valid concern. However, as you seem to be a fairly doctrinaire liberal, I have to ask: do you also object to “hate crime” legislation on the same grounds and to the same degree? Because both types of laws attempt to criminalize the intent behind the action, not merely the action itself.

    Of course, both types of laws are not impossible to enforce. They are just difficult, because a reasonably informed and clever person should be able to conceal her thoughts to avoid being charged under such a law. But not everyone is informed and clever.

    You can’t force a woman to gestate, for any reason.

    That’s kind of like saying that you can’t force a mother to keep her children alive after they are born. In a very narrow sense, that is true. And yet, we as a society expect parents to feed and provide for their children, and not to kill them. And we have laws to enforce such notions. Do you also object to those laws?

    What she wants is the final authority. Not the government.

    I wonder how far that attitude of yours goes. What about “faith healing” parents, who refuse medical treatment of any sort for their children, even when their conditions are disfiguring/fatal and easily treatable? Do you believe the parents are still the final authority, not the government?

    What if the parent wants to kill her toddler? Parent still the final authority? Why or why not?

  • Michael B.

    @Todd

    “And yet, we as a society expect parents to feed and provide for their children, ”

    For the sake of argument, let me grant your premise that a fetus is like any other kid. Does your statement go so far as to actually give kids control over the parent’s body? For example, let’s suppose a child needs an kidney transplant, and there are no donors. Should one of the parents be forced by the government to give an organ? It’s not like you’re advocating that the government just force a person to write a check — you’re asking that they be forced to gestate — that they lose control over their physical body.

  • Michael B.

    @Todd

    “And yet, we as a society expect parents to feed and provide for their children, ”

    For the sake of argument, let me grant your premise that a fetus is like any other kid. Does your statement go so far as to actually give kids control over the parent’s body? For example, let’s suppose a child needs an kidney transplant, and there are no donors. Should one of the parents be forced by the government to give an organ? It’s not like you’re advocating that the government just force a person to write a check — you’re asking that they be forced to gestate — that they lose control over their physical body.

  • The Jones

    Michael B. @16

    “Does your statement go so far as to actually give kids control over the parent’s body?”

    Yes. Children are entitled to the physical labor of their fathers at least. That’s called alimony. Parents are also forced to physically care for their children or otherwise face the penalty of criminal neglect. Your idea of the parents’ freedom from their children is a strange one, and you have to go as far as hypothetical kidney transplants to even make it plausible.

    But this misses the point. No one is trying to make some construct where women are forced to do something with their body that the did not choose to do: gestate. The fact of the matter is that the choice of gestation is made at sex. There is little force of will at all on a woman. We’re just preaching biology and also saying, “Since you’ve already chosen to gestate, and you can’t change your mind and kill somebody in the process.” This is a rather mild position of basic morality, in my view.

    But you are right that it does come down to whether the fetus is a person or not. I’m willing to admit that if a fetus is not a person, then everything I’m saying is moot. However, I have never heard a decent defense of that position at all. So, until I do, I’m just going to continue to go on the evidence I have seen that a fetus is a person.

  • The Jones

    Michael B. @16

    “Does your statement go so far as to actually give kids control over the parent’s body?”

    Yes. Children are entitled to the physical labor of their fathers at least. That’s called alimony. Parents are also forced to physically care for their children or otherwise face the penalty of criminal neglect. Your idea of the parents’ freedom from their children is a strange one, and you have to go as far as hypothetical kidney transplants to even make it plausible.

    But this misses the point. No one is trying to make some construct where women are forced to do something with their body that the did not choose to do: gestate. The fact of the matter is that the choice of gestation is made at sex. There is little force of will at all on a woman. We’re just preaching biology and also saying, “Since you’ve already chosen to gestate, and you can’t change your mind and kill somebody in the process.” This is a rather mild position of basic morality, in my view.

    But you are right that it does come down to whether the fetus is a person or not. I’m willing to admit that if a fetus is not a person, then everything I’m saying is moot. However, I have never heard a decent defense of that position at all. So, until I do, I’m just going to continue to go on the evidence I have seen that a fetus is a person.

  • Daniel Gorman

    The Jones#17: “We’re just preaching biology and also saying, “Since you’ve already chosen to gestate, and you can’t change your mind and kill somebody in the process.” This is a rather mild position of basic morality, in my view.”

    It is not question of morality. It is a question of personhood. If an unborn child is a person (i.e., “of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting”, Athanasian Creed), the unborn child has a right to life. The morality of the mother and her choice to gestate or her lack of choice to gestate (i.e., rape or incest) is irrelevant to the unborn child right to life and should not be considered one way or the other.

  • Daniel Gorman

    The Jones#17: “We’re just preaching biology and also saying, “Since you’ve already chosen to gestate, and you can’t change your mind and kill somebody in the process.” This is a rather mild position of basic morality, in my view.”

    It is not question of morality. It is a question of personhood. If an unborn child is a person (i.e., “of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting”, Athanasian Creed), the unborn child has a right to life. The morality of the mother and her choice to gestate or her lack of choice to gestate (i.e., rape or incest) is irrelevant to the unborn child right to life and should not be considered one way or the other.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Michael B. (@16), I think The Jones (@17) did a reasonable job of replying to your question for me. In short, yes, when you and your partner make the decision to have a child, or to engage in activities that are, by design, likely to lead to a child — and, let’s be clear here, that is the case for the overwhelming number of abortions that occur in this country — then you cede some of your freedom. As Jones noted, while I was legally free to sit on my butt and think of no one but myself before my children were born, I was no longer legally free to do that after they were born. I was obliged to feed them and otherwise care for them.

    You said, “It’s not like you’re advocating that the government just force a person to write a check,”, but here you seem to miss the point that the money behind a check isn’t just a number, it’s a representation of actual work done — you know, by the parent’s body. So even being forced to write a check is losing control over your own body.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Michael B. (@16), I think The Jones (@17) did a reasonable job of replying to your question for me. In short, yes, when you and your partner make the decision to have a child, or to engage in activities that are, by design, likely to lead to a child — and, let’s be clear here, that is the case for the overwhelming number of abortions that occur in this country — then you cede some of your freedom. As Jones noted, while I was legally free to sit on my butt and think of no one but myself before my children were born, I was no longer legally free to do that after they were born. I was obliged to feed them and otherwise care for them.

    You said, “It’s not like you’re advocating that the government just force a person to write a check,”, but here you seem to miss the point that the money behind a check isn’t just a number, it’s a representation of actual work done — you know, by the parent’s body. So even being forced to write a check is losing control over your own body.

  • Daniel Gorman

    toDD#19: “In short, yes, when you and your partner make the decision to have a child, or to engage in activities that are, by design, likely to lead to a child — and, let’s be clear here, that is the case for the overwhelming number of abortions that occur in this country — then you cede some of your freedom.”

    That argument conflates a theoretical loss of freedom caused by parental decision with an unborn child’s right to life. The unspoken corollary to that argument is that, if there was no decision to have a child, the unborn child would have no right to life.

    The Jones and tODD have invented a new law not found in scripture or in government statue books. The church has no interest in telling a married couple that they may not engage in activities that are likely to lead to a child. The government has no interest in reducing the freedom of parents (unless they have committed a real crime).

    The church’s only interest is condemning real sins (e;g., harming an unborn child). The church’s only weapon is the power to remit and to retain sins.

    The government’s only interest is protecting the unborn from physical harm and avenging their murder. “he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Romans 13:4

  • Daniel Gorman

    toDD#19: “In short, yes, when you and your partner make the decision to have a child, or to engage in activities that are, by design, likely to lead to a child — and, let’s be clear here, that is the case for the overwhelming number of abortions that occur in this country — then you cede some of your freedom.”

    That argument conflates a theoretical loss of freedom caused by parental decision with an unborn child’s right to life. The unspoken corollary to that argument is that, if there was no decision to have a child, the unborn child would have no right to life.

    The Jones and tODD have invented a new law not found in scripture or in government statue books. The church has no interest in telling a married couple that they may not engage in activities that are likely to lead to a child. The government has no interest in reducing the freedom of parents (unless they have committed a real crime).

    The church’s only interest is condemning real sins (e;g., harming an unborn child). The church’s only weapon is the power to remit and to retain sins.

    The government’s only interest is protecting the unborn from physical harm and avenging their murder. “he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Romans 13:4

  • Michael B.

    First, there’s the problem of whether the mother consented to have the kid. Certainly with rape your premise fails.

    Second, there is no comparison with writing a check to raising and having a kid. If you want to challenge this point, would you want to switch places with the woman? You get to have an unwanted kid, birth it, raise it, and everything that goes with it. Or would you just rather just write a check every month? Writing a check every month is hardly giving up control over your body. We already do it with taxes.

    I would be interested to know if you think there are cases in which a father should be forced to give up one of his organs for his children. Let’s say he has consented to have kids. And his kid will die without one of his organs.

  • Michael B.

    First, there’s the problem of whether the mother consented to have the kid. Certainly with rape your premise fails.

    Second, there is no comparison with writing a check to raising and having a kid. If you want to challenge this point, would you want to switch places with the woman? You get to have an unwanted kid, birth it, raise it, and everything that goes with it. Or would you just rather just write a check every month? Writing a check every month is hardly giving up control over your body. We already do it with taxes.

    I would be interested to know if you think there are cases in which a father should be forced to give up one of his organs for his children. Let’s say he has consented to have kids. And his kid will die without one of his organs.

  • The Jones

    Michael,

    “Should a father be forced to give up one of his organs for his children?”

    I don’t know. It depends. Are there any organs the father has which are specifically designed for the care of his children? If he has consented to have kids, then yes. I would say that he should give up that organ.

    As we already covered, tODD and I are saying that while there are no particular organs singled out as child-caring organs for fathers. The father still does have a duty to care for his children, however. Namely, it is his duty (enforced by law) to provide for them. That may involve his hands, his mind, his voice, or whatever. These days it usually is funneled to a paycheck. Of course he doesn’t have to do this with someone ELSE’s children, but his? Yes, of course. The answer to your question is “Yes.”

    And I know that this argument doesn’t work with rape, because rape does not involve consenting to children. There is a different argument for that, and I won’t conflate this basic argument with that slightly more complicated one. Let’s just stick to the fact that you seem to think that it is morally acceptable for a woman to free herself from biology by killing somebody else.

    You think that’s injustice that women have children after sex. I think that’s biology, and that the injustice is when you kill another person. This isn’t that complicated or outlandish.

  • The Jones

    Michael,

    “Should a father be forced to give up one of his organs for his children?”

    I don’t know. It depends. Are there any organs the father has which are specifically designed for the care of his children? If he has consented to have kids, then yes. I would say that he should give up that organ.

    As we already covered, tODD and I are saying that while there are no particular organs singled out as child-caring organs for fathers. The father still does have a duty to care for his children, however. Namely, it is his duty (enforced by law) to provide for them. That may involve his hands, his mind, his voice, or whatever. These days it usually is funneled to a paycheck. Of course he doesn’t have to do this with someone ELSE’s children, but his? Yes, of course. The answer to your question is “Yes.”

    And I know that this argument doesn’t work with rape, because rape does not involve consenting to children. There is a different argument for that, and I won’t conflate this basic argument with that slightly more complicated one. Let’s just stick to the fact that you seem to think that it is morally acceptable for a woman to free herself from biology by killing somebody else.

    You think that’s injustice that women have children after sex. I think that’s biology, and that the injustice is when you kill another person. This isn’t that complicated or outlandish.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Michael B., you asked (@21):

    If you want to challenge this point, would you want to switch places with the woman? You get to have an unwanted kid, birth it, raise it, and everything that goes with it.

    Even if you’re unaware of it, many, many men and women find themselves in this situation every day. “Unwanted” children are not only the result of rape, you know.

    Writing a check every month is hardly giving up control over your body. We already do it with taxes.

    It still seems that you don’t understand how money is a medium of exchange used to trade activities that are done in our bodies. Here, try this out. Quit your job. Just quit. Do with your body exactly what you want: travel the world, sit on the couch, whatever. Don’t worry about anyone else but yourself — not the bank that ownst most of your mortgage (or whatever), not the IRS. Let me know how that works out for you.

    Meanwhile, I’m going to continue to go to work, because I need to pay for my house, and the food I want to feed myself and my family, and because I owe taxes of various kinds. I am not wholly free to do with my body as I want. Because I am responsible to other parties.

    I would be interested to know if you think there are cases in which a father should be forced to give up one of his organs for his children. Let’s say he has consented to have kids. And his kid will die without one of his organs.

    Essentially, yes, under the right circumstances. I’d assume that the father is, for some reason, the only potential donor for his child (which, medically, seems an unlikely situation, but whatever). And that the donation would not likely be fatal for the father.

    Just as a father is compelled to work (with his body) and provide for his child, and just as our society and laws have consistently determined that parents are obliged to give their kids some level of medical treatment when possible, I would also think that a father refusing to undergo a non-lethal operation to save his child’s life could be punishable by law. It’s enforcing the idea that parents are responsible to care for their children — and we already have quite a few other laws to that end on the books. Do you object to all of them? If you want to be consistent, you should.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Michael B., you asked (@21):

    If you want to challenge this point, would you want to switch places with the woman? You get to have an unwanted kid, birth it, raise it, and everything that goes with it.

    Even if you’re unaware of it, many, many men and women find themselves in this situation every day. “Unwanted” children are not only the result of rape, you know.

    Writing a check every month is hardly giving up control over your body. We already do it with taxes.

    It still seems that you don’t understand how money is a medium of exchange used to trade activities that are done in our bodies. Here, try this out. Quit your job. Just quit. Do with your body exactly what you want: travel the world, sit on the couch, whatever. Don’t worry about anyone else but yourself — not the bank that ownst most of your mortgage (or whatever), not the IRS. Let me know how that works out for you.

    Meanwhile, I’m going to continue to go to work, because I need to pay for my house, and the food I want to feed myself and my family, and because I owe taxes of various kinds. I am not wholly free to do with my body as I want. Because I am responsible to other parties.

    I would be interested to know if you think there are cases in which a father should be forced to give up one of his organs for his children. Let’s say he has consented to have kids. And his kid will die without one of his organs.

    Essentially, yes, under the right circumstances. I’d assume that the father is, for some reason, the only potential donor for his child (which, medically, seems an unlikely situation, but whatever). And that the donation would not likely be fatal for the father.

    Just as a father is compelled to work (with his body) and provide for his child, and just as our society and laws have consistently determined that parents are obliged to give their kids some level of medical treatment when possible, I would also think that a father refusing to undergo a non-lethal operation to save his child’s life could be punishable by law. It’s enforcing the idea that parents are responsible to care for their children — and we already have quite a few other laws to that end on the books. Do you object to all of them? If you want to be consistent, you should.

  • Michael B.

    @Todd

    “I would also think that a father refusing to undergo a non-lethal operation to save his child’s life could be punishable by law. ”

    I didn’t find your argument about child support particularly compelling. It’s basically an income tax, and most guys are required to have a job anyway. But the above statement is rather interesting. Even more interesting was another person in the other thread who suggested that men have an obligation to serve women and children in the form of forced military service. Thus, women have an obligation to go through forced pregnancy if necessary. While I disagree with this, I find it an interesting concept. I’ve generally thought of pro-lifers as wanting to have the mother have every conceivable legal obligation to care for the kid, while doing everything they can to lower their obligation by getting rid of government programs. But the idea that men should be forced to defend them in the military is one I never considered.

  • Michael B.

    @Todd

    “I would also think that a father refusing to undergo a non-lethal operation to save his child’s life could be punishable by law. ”

    I didn’t find your argument about child support particularly compelling. It’s basically an income tax, and most guys are required to have a job anyway. But the above statement is rather interesting. Even more interesting was another person in the other thread who suggested that men have an obligation to serve women and children in the form of forced military service. Thus, women have an obligation to go through forced pregnancy if necessary. While I disagree with this, I find it an interesting concept. I’ve generally thought of pro-lifers as wanting to have the mother have every conceivable legal obligation to care for the kid, while doing everything they can to lower their obligation by getting rid of government programs. But the idea that men should be forced to defend them in the military is one I never considered.

  • The Jones

    Michael,

    I still don’t understand what you mean by a “forced pregnancy.” What is that?

    To me it seems like you’re arguing against the order of the universe: namely, that women have children after they have sex. Can you tell me what is “forced” about organs working as they are designed to work after voluntary sex? (We’ll get to rape later. We’ll cover the basics now.) What on earth is this term that you keep using?

  • The Jones

    Michael,

    I still don’t understand what you mean by a “forced pregnancy.” What is that?

    To me it seems like you’re arguing against the order of the universe: namely, that women have children after they have sex. Can you tell me what is “forced” about organs working as they are designed to work after voluntary sex? (We’ll get to rape later. We’ll cover the basics now.) What on earth is this term that you keep using?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X