Video: Georgia State Rep. Yasmin Neal Wants to Ban Vasectomies
Georgia Democrat State Rep. Yasmin Neal has proposed a law that would ban the practice of vasectomies, except in cases where a man faces serious health risks (video below).
Rep. Neal's bill was crafted as a response to a 'fetal pain bill' proposed by Georgia Republicans, which would ban abortions after 20 weeks (which is also the law in the UK).
In her video, Rep. Neal says: “Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies."
"It is patently unfair that men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly, while women’s ability to decide is constantly up for debate throughout the United States.”
The Centers for Disease Control stated in a 2003 report that 1.4 percent of abortions happen past 21 weeks.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Pretty funny, but not the same. Killing an ALREADY existing unborn child is NOT the same as PREVENTING the pregnancy entirely.
What you say is true for a vasectomy or a condom, but not when using the pill or an IUD. Conception can occur, but not implantation. A fertilized zygote can still form but a "pregnancy" will not initiate. Is that a form of abortion? What about plan B?
A perfectly consistent individual will say that the only forms of birth control that are acceptable are ones that prevent conception. Very few people are that consistent, and most people would not support such a restriction.
The bright line some people try to draw is not quite so clear. Almost everyone is opposed to late term abortions, and the majority of people support first trimester or early abortions, but the spectrum goes from orthodox catholics who would oppose vasectomies to supporters of NARAL who would support late term abortion.
It is very difficult to draw a firm line on what it means to be pro-life or pro-choice. Go look at the gallup surveys - they are very interesting.
When you say "killing an existing unborn child," do you mean conception or implantation?
The ignorance of the average state rep is astounding.
This ignorant cretin should be forced to visit the MILLIONS of starving children around the world at her expense and then be kicked out of office for being terminally stupid.
Religious Believers.... Zealots of ignorance.
Those that can't or won't defend themselves can only be slaves.
It seems like you didn't read the whole article. This woman started this law to mock the actions of male reps trying to restrict abortion or to add conditions.
The mistake here is equating prevention with termination. In the first case, responsible, proactive action is taken to prevent conception, in the latter less care is taken (or sometimes outright neglect) to prevent contraception and the resulting life is terminated because to carry to term is an inconvenience. So we have a Capital sentence executed not on the guilty party, but as collateral damage upon teh innocent bystander.
And for those who cry foul becaus some abortions dice and slice the product of rape or incest, those acts represent less than 2% of all abortions. So 3 million+ human lives are ended in a brutally horrible fashion that would be deemed Unconstitutional were it done to duly convicted murderes and pedophilic rapists because the would be Momma decided she didn't want to carry to term.
Actually, you are incorrect about the role of birth control. See my post below. Many forms of birth control result in a blocking of implantation, but conception still occurs. Would you ban those too?
Most people support safe and legal abortion in the first trimester. The polling data form places like Gallup is unambiguous.
Ideally, there would be no unplanned pregnancies. As a father, I know that is wishful thinking, but fortunately none of my adult unmarried daughters has been pregnant yet.
Everyone is missing the ruddy point. Children conceived neither ask for that to happen or have a voice in it. They may be yet unborn, but they are a person. Ladies, if you have not used a contraceptive or have not abstained, then deal with the fact you have a living person growing within you who has the right to be born and grow and live. Gentlemen, if you simply could not abstain or use a contraceptive you are being the worst kind of selfish, and you leave the lady with a decision she should not have to make because you just would not accept your responsibility, then you are not a man but simply of the male species, and any male can do that. Stop slinging rights around as if they have no value, life and living is a right of every person, born or yet unborn.
Ladies, you can sign a pact that when the child is born you can give them up straight away for adoption, and never have to even see the child. But to coldly and arbitrarily kill the person growing in you because you decided not to use a contraceptive or say no and now you don't want the responsibility is just plain wrong. I call that murder, but if you want to dress it up with some other word feel free to do whatever it takes to make you feel better.
Gentlemen, even before the child is born, start saving money if you don't have it in you to do the right thing and help raise the child directly. Do not miss one single payment if you intend to live apart after the "deed" is done; you have no choice now but to admit your paternity and take the utmost care to make sure you not only give what is required but more still.
And last but not least, it takes two to "tango" so ladies and gentlemen, get over yourselves and take responsibility after if you simply cannot take it before.
You state, "They may be yet unborn, but they are a person....the fact you have a living person growing within you who has the right to be born... "
Your view depends, obviously, on an unborn fetus actually being a person. You indicate it to be a "fact" that any unborn fetus is a person. So, two questions for you:
1) At what point during the development of any unborn fetus have you concluded that the fetus becomes a person?
2) What is your irrefutable proof that an unborn fetus has indeed become a person at that point?
(BTW -- I'm 56, married 32 years, my wife and I have six biological children, ages 14 to 30, and three grandchildren, so I don't think I quite qualify for that "shirk-one's-adult-responsibilities" category you describe...)
I don't think that Eruvilui was using the word "person" in a sophisticated way, that allows one to represent his argument as depending upon the "proof" Eojtus rather stupidly demands, as to at what moment (what "point", he asks) "personhood" (however defined) first manifests in a new human. One can prove by mathematical induction that nobody ever becomes a "person" by setting that impossible task!
I think all Eruvilui was trying to say, was that every abortion kills somebody - a human distinct from either of his or her parents. He cannot see how that can be right, and nor can I.
It takes a special kind of sophistication to talk oneself into a pro-abortion mindset, and I hope I never ever become that clever a fool myself. I certainly don't need to think at what "point" a human becomes a "person", to know that killing somebody else is wrong.
I don't even have to think about personhood, whatever you or I might mean by calling somebody a "person", as distinct from merely calling them human, to form a rebutable presumption that killing somebody on purpose and for the sake of not having them around any longer is likely to be a very wrong thing for anybody to do, even if the victim isn't a person, by this or that definition.
Eojtus, perhaps you need to look at some of the dead babies, and moving pictures of some of the procedures used to kill them, and the gruesome jigsaw puzzle that has to be assembled to ensure that no stray feet or hands or other bits have been left behind to decompose inside the reluctant mother, in order to cure your sophistication.
I'd say when there is a heartbeat or brain function. But for me I named my sons as soon as the first period was missed and talked about them as people. So my sons were people to me at that point. My first nephew was miscarried and that hurt me pretty badly. More than losing a mass of tissue. I lost a person that I had hoped to bond with and help raise.
I would not however push my personal belief off on anybody else.