Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Female FeticideFollow

#52 Jan 18 2012 at 9:27 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts


Withholding medical test results for sociopolitical reasons is a bad idea.


Meh, debatable. The idea that people are generally empowered by more information is a utopian one rather than a demonstrated one. The information itself can change outcomes without an informed consent action taking place. People are complex systems, societies withhold known information from individuals for a variety of reasons with varying effects, clinicians in most societies do as well to varying degrees.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#53 Jan 18 2012 at 9:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,223 posts
Smasharoo wrote:


Withholding medical test results for sociopolitical reasons is a bad idea.


Meh, debatable. The idea that people are generally empowered by more information is a utopian one rather than a demonstrated one. The information itself can change outcomes without an informed consent action taking place. People are complex systems, societies withhold known information from individuals for a variety of reasons with varying effects, clinicians in most societies do as well to varying degrees.



I would argue that the result of a sonogram should not be withheld from parents, pretty much ever. The only exception I can think of is if one parent is mentally unstable - which is what? no more than 80% of the population, right?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#54 Jan 18 2012 at 10:44 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts

I would argue that the result of a sonogram should not be withheld from parents, pretty much ever.


I get it, I'm just not sure it works in practice. Liberty is great, and everything, and women should have power over their own bodies, yadda yadda. I'm left of Margret Sanger and Peter Singer on that, but that's distinct from providing information that may be used in (what society determines are) unethical ways.

If society thinks it's fine to abort based on gender, great, provide the information. If society finds that a spurious reason, discretionary release of the information based on practitioner judgement doesn't strike me as offensive.

For the record, personally, gender selection through abortion is about on the edge of where I "feel" abortion is an ethical act. My ethics aren't societies, obviously, and I wouldn't impose them on anyone not seeking me or mine harm, but, honestly, it starts to get a little "squishy" around there, doesn't it? Bothers me much moreso than other "lines" like hate speech/1st amendment stuff or whatever.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#55 Jan 19 2012 at 12:08 AM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I feel like China could have done a better job of this if they had just made a 2 child policy instead.


Well, the point was that they were getting overcrowded, so they wanted to lower the population. Having only one child per two people means you're lowering your population, whereas having two kids per two people keeps the population exactly where it's at, assuming every couple has two kids.
#56 Jan 19 2012 at 6:52 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Apparently they're expecting a bit of a baby boom on account of this being the year of the dragon. Supposed to be good luck. I suspect that means a corresponding rise in female infanticide/abortions.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 7:53am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#57 Jan 19 2012 at 6:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,223 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
For the record, personally, gender selection through abortion is about on the edge of where I "feel" abortion is an ethical act. My ethics aren't societies, obviously, and I wouldn't impose them on anyone not seeking me or mine harm, but, honestly, it starts to get a little "squishy" around there, doesn't it? Bothers me much moreso than other "lines" like hate speech/1st amendment stuff or whatever.


I do know what you mean. I feel like I'm still on firm ground, but I can see the marsh from there. Like, if people started screening for cosmetic reasons my reaction would be purely judgmental: Do you **** want a kid, or not? If not, then stop putting yourselves through this. Jerks.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#58 Jan 19 2012 at 7:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,952 posts
I'm of sorta the opposite opinion here, being able to design your creation seems optimal. For you, I mean, not always for it. But sometimes.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#59 Jan 19 2012 at 8:11 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,917 posts
It gets another thing to blame you for.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#60 Jan 19 2012 at 9:23 AM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm of sorta the opposite opinion here, being able to design your creation seems optimal. For you, I mean, not always for it. But sometimes.
I can't wait until they have something like the Spore creature creator, but with humans instead of mutated Pikachus

Actually, that sounds pretty awesome...

I really can't say I'm for banning sex-selective abortion, and it's not because I don't find it abhorrent. There's always some lurking, crawling feeling when there's another thing that confirms the fact that there's going to be a subset of society that sees me as less capable due to some fucking irrational internalized precepts.

However, banning it is just a band-aid that doesn't solve the problem that women are often considered less than, and taking another decision out of their hands does nothing but reinforce those paternalistic kinds of attitudes by implicitly saying, "we don't trust you to make your own decisions." The only long term solution to the problem is education and the furthering of women's rights.


edit: used wrong word and accidentally said opposite of what I meant

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 9:26am by Sweetums
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#61 Jan 19 2012 at 10:59 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,309 posts
From what I remember, the "one child" policy only applied to people in cities and towns. People in rural farming communities were permitted two children.

I'm sure they still made sure at least one of them was a boy. If the second one was a girl, okay. If the second one was also a boy, even better.

The problem had nothing to do with family names and everything to do with traditions. In China, the son stays with the parents, inherits the house, brings a wife into the family to have kids, etc, but the daughter almost always moves in with her husband's family. Thus, if you had a daughter, she would leave you and you would have no one to take care of you in your old age and would not see your grandchildren grow up.

A girl in my high school was from China. Her family had to move to the US when her mother became pregnant with a son... Both her parents were upper class medical doctors so they were able to pick up and move pretty easily. I remember her griping all the time about how her parents disparaged her and loved on her little brother. Last I heard, she was in medical school learning to be a surgeon to pay for her Prada handbag addiction, and her slacker little brother was a townie up here in Athens who dropped out of college to join a band.

I wonder who they are going to move in with when they retire now?

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 12:01pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#62 Jan 19 2012 at 11:26 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,048 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

I would argue that the result of a sonogram should not be withheld from parents, pretty much ever.


I get it, I'm just not sure it works in practice. Liberty is great, and everything, and women should have power over their own bodies, yadda yadda. I'm left of Margret Sanger and Peter Singer on that, but that's distinct from providing information that may be used in (what society determines are) unethical ways.

If society thinks it's fine to abort based on gender, great, provide the information. If society finds that a spurious reason, discretionary release of the information based on practitioner judgement doesn't strike me as offensive.
Without knowing recipient intent, it's hard to argue that we should categorically or individually deny this information just because it could be used in unethical ways.

This is a legal clusterfuck waiting to happen, although nice in theory, I guess.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 11:29am by Demea
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#63 Jan 19 2012 at 11:35 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Quote:
A girl in my high school was from China. Her family had to move to the US when her mother became pregnant with a son... Both her parents were upper class medical doctors so they were able to pick up and move pretty easily. I remember her griping all the time about how her parents disparaged her and loved on her little brother.


There's another side of that coin. My Taiwanese friend's parents granted his sister much more freedom, and generally treated her gentler. She was able to pursue more personal interests (like a veterinary career), go pretty far away to college, and is generally slightly more coddled (though she's still insanely bright). My friend, as the son, had both of them looking over his shoulder on everything, and much more responsibilities from a very young age. He was pretty much forced into staying close to home, pursuing dentistry, and taking over the family business. He felt a tremendous pressure to get married and start a family before his mother passed on, though he wasn't able to do so.

It's tough for me to relate, often. I used to ask him what he actually wanted to do with his life, and he could never provide a real answer. There's a sort of deeply ingrained resignation in him, which is kind of depressing.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 12:37pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#64 Jan 19 2012 at 11:38 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
You sure she said veterinary or culinary?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#65 Jan 19 2012 at 12:59 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,917 posts
I had friends, two sisters and a brother, whose parent immigrated from Sri Lanka. Their parents treated them pretty much equitably, but their grandparents and aunts often made them feel awful. While they grew up their grandparents and aunts openly favoured the son over the daughters in hundreds of ways. And openly favoured one of the daughters in a different set of hundreds of ways because she had lighter skin than her sister and brother. Blatant things like giving one child chocolate and biscuits and none to the other two. Praise to one child and insults to the others without any other reason than their **** or the colour of their skin. Ordering the girls to serve and obey their brother, and fulfill all his requests, and making sure that the brother asked them for stuff and that they did those things. soiling the fair skinned daughter and neglecting the dark skinned daughter.

Before I heard about this childhood treatment, which they all still obviously resented and felt hurt about, I hadn't even noticed a difference in their skin tones. To his credit the now young man turned out not only a polite guy socially, but perfectly pleasant and democratic with his sisters and their active friend.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#66 Jan 19 2012 at 1:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

I would argue that the result of a sonogram should not be withheld from parents, pretty much ever.


I get it, I'm just not sure it works in practice. Liberty is great, and everything, and women should have power over their own bodies, yadda yadda. I'm left of Margret Sanger and Peter Singer on that, but that's distinct from providing information that may be used in (what society determines are) unethical ways.

If society thinks it's fine to abort based on gender, great, provide the information. If society finds that a spurious reason, discretionary release of the information based on practitioner judgement doesn't strike me as offensive.


So freedom of choice is only championed as long as people make the choices you want them to? Like I said earlier, you're not acting on principle, but on an end goal. As long as people's actions move in the direction of a desired outcome, you allow it. But if they don't, you disallow it. Which kinda means there isn't really any freedom at all, right?

Quote:
For the record, personally, gender selection through abortion is about on the edge of where I "feel" abortion is an ethical act. My ethics aren't societies, obviously, and I wouldn't impose them on anyone not seeking me or mine harm, but, honestly, it starts to get a little "squishy" around there, doesn't it? Bothers me much moreso than other "lines" like hate speech/1st amendment stuff or whatever.


This is the moral quandary you find yourself in when you manipulate the meaning of concepts like rights and liberty in order to use them to help achieve some socio-political goal. Suddenly, people start using the things you defined as rights in ways you didn't intend and you end out becoming your own enemy. If you believe that the choice to abort is a right that a woman possesses, you should support that choice no matter what her reasons. The idea that someone has a right to do something, but only if they're exercising that right for the reasons we like is frankly absurd. She either does have the right, or she doesn't.


Oh. And for the record, this is why we silly conservatives constantly talk about you liberals as supporting authoritarianism. You use labels like freedom, liberty, rights, etc, but you don't champion those things because you believe in freedom, liberty, or rights, but out of a desire to control the outcomes of people's actions. You freely allow the use of authoritarian power to enforce the "rights" that result in outcomes you desire, but equally freely allow that use of power to prevent outcomes you don't want. In the end, it isn't really about freedom at all. It's about the use of power to create outcomes you want. That's the common factor.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 11:26am by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Jan 19 2012 at 1:29 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
gbaji wrote:

Quote:
For the record, personally, gender selection through abortion is about on the edge of where I "feel" abortion is an ethical act. My ethics aren't societies, obviously, and I wouldn't impose them on anyone not seeking me or mine harm, but, honestly, it starts to get a little "squishy" around there, doesn't it? Bothers me much moreso than other "lines" like hate speech/1st amendment stuff or whatever.


This is the moral quandary you find yourself in when you manipulate the meaning of concepts like rights and liberty in order to use them to help achieve some socio-political goal. Suddenly, people start using the things you defined as rights in ways you didn't intend and you end out becoming your own enemy. If you believe that the choice to abort is a right that a woman possesses, you should support that choice no matter what her reasons. The idea that someone has a right to do something, but only if they're exercising that right for the reasons we like is frankly absurd. She either does have the right, or she doesn't.
I don't remember Samira ever saying where she wanted to ban it. You really don't see where it's easy to be uncomfortable about the ethical implications of an action, but still not actually want to make it illegal?

____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#68 Jan 19 2012 at 1:35 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Blatant things like giving one child chocolate and biscuits and none to the other two.


My Uncle, who is half Mexican, half Syrian, does that. Smiley: lol My cousin has 4 kids, 3 girls and a boy. He found out that my uncle was secretly paying them for every goal they scored in soccer. Turned out he was giving the boy $5 per goal, and the girls $2.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#69 Jan 19 2012 at 1:45 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Sweetums wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Quote:
For the record, personally, gender selection through abortion is about on the edge of where I "feel" abortion is an ethical act. My ethics aren't societies, obviously, and I wouldn't impose them on anyone not seeking me or mine harm, but, honestly, it starts to get a little "squishy" around there, doesn't it? Bothers me much moreso than other "lines" like hate speech/1st amendment stuff or whatever.


This is the moral quandary you find yourself in when you manipulate the meaning of concepts like rights and liberty in order to use them to help achieve some socio-political goal. Suddenly, people start using the things you defined as rights in ways you didn't intend and you end out becoming your own enemy. If you believe that the choice to abort is a right that a woman possesses, you should support that choice no matter what her reasons. The idea that someone has a right to do something, but only if they're exercising that right for the reasons we like is frankly absurd. She either does have the right, or she doesn't.
I don't remember Samira ever saying where she wanted to ban it. You really don't see where it's easy to be uncomfortable about the ethical implications of an action, but still not actually want to make it illegal?



I was replying to Smash. I was also making a broader comment about the unintended consequences of manipulating concepts in order to achieve an end. You end out having those manipulated definitions being used for things you didn't intend and then you have to act to prevent them. It's what leads to a decision to prevent women from making a choice about abortion even though those doing it presumably support the "right" to make that choice in the first place.


To me, that's the expected result when you are defining rights not based on some principle, but because it's convenient for a socio-political objective to define them that way. Again, if you really believe that a woman has a right to choose to abort, you should support that right no matter why she makes the choice. If she wants to have a boy child and thus decides to abort a girl, why is that any less valid than doing it because she doesn't want a child at all, or it would be a burden, or any other reason she might have? She's either free to make that choice, or she isn't.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#70 Jan 19 2012 at 1:53 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,048 posts
gbaji wrote:
Again, if you really believe that a woman has a right to choose to abort, you should support that right no matter why she makes the choice. If she wants to have a boy child and thus decides to abort a girl, why is that any less valid than doing it because she doesn't want a child at all, or it would be a burden, or any other reason she might have? She's either free to make that choice, or she isn't.

While I agree with this reasoning in principle, your view is a bit narrow, don't you think? I mean, we have the right to freedom of speech unless there is a prevailing public interest to prevent said speech, such as when speech is defamatory, libelous, inciteful, or threatens the public well-being (yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater).

One could easily foresee some law stating that doctors may withhold gender information from parents if they have sufficient reason to suspect that the parents will abort based on this information. However, as I said above, this is a legal clusterfuck waiting to happen when we try to define "sufficient reason."

Shades of grey, etc.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#71 Jan 19 2012 at 1:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
Demea wrote:
One could easily foresee some law stating that doctors may withhold gender information from parents if they have sufficient reason to suspect that the parents will abort based on this information. However, as I said above, this is a legal clusterfuck waiting to happen when we try to define "sufficient reason."

Shades of grey, etc.


To me, this is on par with forcing women to look at ultrasounds before she can elect to get an abortion.

Abortion is legal. The reasons shouldn't really be anyone's business but the two people involved in making the decision.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 1:57pm by Belkira
#72 Jan 19 2012 at 2:29 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,048 posts
Belkira wrote:
Demea wrote:
One could easily foresee some law stating that doctors may withhold gender information from parents if they have sufficient reason to suspect that the parents will abort based on this information. However, as I said above, this is a legal clusterfuck waiting to happen when we try to define "sufficient reason."

Shades of grey, etc.


To me, this is on par with forcing women to look at ultrasounds before she can elect to get an abortion.

Abortion is legal. The reasons shouldn't really be anyone's business but the two people involved in making the decision.

So you can think of no circumstances in which you think abortion should be restricted or unavailable? Not even third-trimester abortions?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#73 Jan 19 2012 at 2:38 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Demea wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Again, if you really believe that a woman has a right to choose to abort, you should support that right no matter why she makes the choice. If she wants to have a boy child and thus decides to abort a girl, why is that any less valid than doing it because she doesn't want a child at all, or it would be a burden, or any other reason she might have? She's either free to make that choice, or she isn't.

While I agree with this reasoning in principle, your view is a bit narrow, don't you think? I mean, we have the right to freedom of speech unless there is a prevailing public interest to prevent said speech, such as when speech is defamatory, libelous, inciteful, or threatens the public well-being (yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater).


Yes. But the principle (yeah, I'm using that word again, so buckle your seatbelt!) behind such restrictions is the concept of competing rights. It's not really about "public good", but rather "harm to others". My right to not be trampled to death by a false claim that the building is on fire outweighs your right to freely speak a lie about the existence of said fire. We can (or should) be able to trace any infringement of rights to this concept. The second more than one person exists in a society, there will be infringement of rights. But we should make that choice based on which right is more important to protect. That's clear in the case of someone falsely calling "fire" in a crowded theater. Of course, some cases are not so clear.

In the case of the pro-choice position, the argument is that the woman's right to control her own body outweighs the right of the growing fetus to be born and live. Or alternatively, is based on the argument that the growing fetus has no rights and thus the woman's right to control her body is absolute. There is no "social good" argument (or there shouldn't be). In the US at least, Roe v Wade does allow for growing rights for the fetus (else they'd not have placed any restrictions on abortion at all). But the issue is and always should be defined within that "competing rights" concept.


The restriction in this case isn't about competing rights. If the woman's right to choose to abort outweighs the right (if any exist) of the fetus to be born, then that can't change based on the **** of the fetus. She either has that right, or she doesn't.


I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that the act of attempting to prevent a woman from knowing the **** of a fetus so as to prevent abortions based on that criteria is in violation of the claimed right to choose to abort that has been championed by left leaning political activists for decades. My question is whether that fight (at least for some) was ever really about the "right" at all, but rather to attempt to achieve a social objective (mainly getting poor single women to abort their children). This ties into my oft-stated observation that when government takes responsibility for something (by paying for it), it will eventually act to limit people's actions with regard to that thing. So if the government is creating a social safety net, it encounters the need to reduce costs/burdens on that system. If too many poor single women are having children they can't afford, then fighting for their "right" to abort makes a **** of a lot of sense, doesn't it?

But if by aborting more girl fetuses than boys, it creates some imbalance of sexes down the line, that *also* presents a challenge to a planned/controlled society. So the "right" should disappear in that case.

If you support the right to make that choice, then you must give the women the freedom to make it as they wish. Else, it's not really a right. It's just an action that is treated as a right when it aligns with a social agenda, but ceases to be one when it doesn't. Which means, it's not a right. It's population control.


Yeah. I realize that this is an uncomfortable line of thought for many. And I'm sure I'll get tons of rate downs for saying it. But call my a cynic, but I think about these sorts of things. I question why governments take the actions they take. I question why movements do so. I always attempt to understand what drives those things. I've long believed that many of the rights fought for by liberal activists aren't really about rights, but about a desire to use the idea of rights to generate desired social outcomes. And this case seems to bear it out here.


That's not to say that everyone who is pro choice falls into that category. It means that if you are pro choice, then you should be for the right reasons, and not just because you're following an organization, or a cause, or whatever. That leads you to not realize when those rights stop being rights and become about control.

Quote:
One could easily foresee some law stating that doctors may withhold gender information from parents if they have sufficient reason to suspect that the parents will abort based on this information. However, as I said above, this is a legal clusterfuck waiting to happen when we try to define "sufficient reason."


/shrug

I think if we start out understanding the "why" of something, then it's easier to determine when we're violating our principles. The danger comes when we don't understand the principles at all. Then it's easy to manipulate the outcomes. Just label something a particular way and people will follow.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Jan 19 2012 at 3:06 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,309 posts
Demea wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Demea wrote:
One could easily foresee some law stating that doctors may withhold gender information from parents if they have sufficient reason to suspect that the parents will abort based on this information. However, as I said above, this is a legal clusterfuck waiting to happen when we try to define "sufficient reason."

Shades of grey, etc.


To me, this is on par with forcing women to look at ultrasounds before she can elect to get an abortion.

Abortion is legal. The reasons shouldn't really be anyone's business but the two people involved in making the decision.

So you can think of no circumstances in which you think abortion should be restricted or unavailable? Not even third-trimester abortions?


If it's against the woman's will, it should be illegal.

Woman is pregnant and wants to keep the baby. Father doesn't want a kid, coerces her into an abortion.

That should be illegal.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 4:06pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#75 Jan 19 2012 at 3:10 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,048 posts
I wasn't trying to imply that the right to obtain an abortion (if we assume one exists) and the right to freedom of speech were similar in that both are (or should be) limited in situations involving competing personal rights. Rather, I was trying to point out that not all rights (actual rights, not just "desirable social outcomes") are absolute in all situations. Regardless of the right, there are probably always at least some cases in which that right should not be upheld.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#76 Jan 19 2012 at 3:16 PM Rating: Good
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm of sorta the opposite opinion here, being able to design your creation seems optimal. For you, I mean, not always for it. But sometimes.


Yeah, I think the idea is pretty cool too. However, I understand the distaste that people have for genetic design of children. It's... kinda creepy in a way. Plus it's probably cause a lot of imbalance down the road as well. Most people are going to want beautiful and wickedly intelligent children. At least I would assume that's what most people would want.

We already have this to a very small extent now. I remember reading about this in my high school biology book years ago, but we have the technology to choose the **** of a baby before it is conceived. You basically just do the typical test tube baby thing, and then only put the desired **** embryos in the mother. At least that's how I understood it at the time. I'm sure this is probably ridiculously expensive, but I think it's a lot more ethical than aborting a child because it's not the right **** (or infanticide for the same reason).
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#77 Jan 19 2012 at 3:18 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,048 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm of sorta the opposite opinion here, being able to design your creation seems optimal. For you, I mean, not always for it. But sometimes.


Yeah, I think the idea is pretty cool too. However, I understand the distaste that people have for genetic design of children. It's... kinda creepy in a way. Plus it's probably cause a lot of imbalance down the road as well. Most people are going to want beautiful and wickedly intelligent children. At least I would assume that's what most people would want.

What, exactly, is so bad about having more smart, attractive people in the world than there otherwise would be?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#78 Jan 19 2012 at 3:34 PM Rating: Good
Balance. If everybody is smart and attractive, what is there to distinguish us all from one another?

Realistically, it'd probably be incredibly difficult to get to that point. In general, I think it would be fantastic if we had more smart people around. Not that the movie Idiocracy is a great example of sociological theory, but I know that that concept probably worries a lot of smart people. It worries me when I think about it.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#79 Jan 19 2012 at 3:35 PM Rating: Good
Besides, if we don't have some stupid people, who are going to flip our burgers and clean our toilets?
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#80 Jan 19 2012 at 3:37 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Besides, if we don't have some stupid people, who are going to flip our burgers and clean our toilets?


"Our"?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#81 Jan 19 2012 at 3:39 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
Demea wrote:
So you can think of no circumstances in which you think abortion should be restricted or unavailable? Not even third-trimester abortions?


I will be the first to admit I don't fully understand third-trimester abortions. If the child is viable outside of the mother, then in my opinion, the child should be removed intact and, if still unwanted, given to the foster system for adoption.

But then, that's just my opinion, and not necessarily what I believe the law should be.
#82 Jan 19 2012 at 3:40 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Balance. If everybody is smart and attractive, what is there to distinguish us all from one another?

Realistically, it'd probably be incredibly difficult to get to that point. In general, I think it would be fantastic if we had more smart people around. Not that the movie Idiocracy is a great example of sociological theory, but I know that that concept probably worries a lot of smart people. It worries me when I think about it.


I'd say it's more likely that it'd be something only available to a certain % of the population. So it'd probably just result in a widening gap between social strata, instead of making everyone the same.

If everyone was smart and attractive, the scale would shift. We'd still have people that we'd consider ugly or dumb, and those that we'd consider beautiful or smart. They'd be better relative to where we are now, but that hypothetical society would still regard them the same way as always. They might all be more similar, but we'd proportionally increase the importance of minute differences to fit it within the same old dualities.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 4:43pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#83 Jan 19 2012 at 3:43 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
I'd say it's more likely that it'd be something only available to a certain % of the population. So it'd probably just result in a widening gap between social strata, instead of making everyone the same.


I don't know, I imagine there are plenty of people in the upper classes that would find genetically engineering your child simply for beauty and/or brains is morally bad, so you'd still have "big, dumb, and ugly" in the upper classes. And it's entirely possible for lower class people to naturally birth beautiful, brilliant individuals.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 3:43pm by Belkira
#84 Jan 19 2012 at 3:44 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Belkira wrote:
And it's entirely possible for lower class people to naturally birth beautiful, brilliant individuals.


[:scoff:]

Well I never! I turn my nose up at you, madame.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 4:51pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#85 Jan 19 2012 at 4:01 PM Rating: Good
Belkira wrote:
Demea wrote:
So you can think of no circumstances in which you think abortion should be restricted or unavailable? Not even third-trimester abortions?


I will be the first to admit I don't fully understand third-trimester abortions. If the child is viable outside of the mother, then in my opinion, the child should be removed intact and, if still unwanted, given to the foster system for adoption.

But then, that's just my opinion, and not necessarily what I believe the law should be.


That's pretty much what I believe too.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#86 Jan 19 2012 at 4:06 PM Rating: Good
Eske Esquire wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Balance. If everybody is smart and attractive, what is there to distinguish us all from one another?

Realistically, it'd probably be incredibly difficult to get to that point. In general, I think it would be fantastic if we had more smart people around. Not that the movie Idiocracy is a great example of sociological theory, but I know that that concept probably worries a lot of smart people. It worries me when I think about it.


I'd say it's more likely that it'd be something only available to a certain % of the population. So it'd probably just result in a widening gap between social strata, instead of making everyone the same.

If everyone was smart and attractive, the scale would shift. We'd still have people that we'd consider ugly or dumb, and those that we'd consider beautiful or smart. They'd be better relative to where we are now, but that hypothetical society would still regard them the same way as always. They might all be more similar, but we'd proportionally increase the importance of minute differences to fit it within the same old dualities.


That's probably very likely. Even now, we have people that are considered ugly, plain, pretty, beautiful, and gorgeous. There's a big gap between even pretty and gorgeous people, let alone ugly and gorgeous people. If everyone had access to genetic engineering and chose to make smart, beautiful babies, the gap would probably just shrink instead of disappear completely.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#87 Jan 19 2012 at 7:03 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,260 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Female infanticide has been going on a lot longer than China's one-child policy has been in effect, and other countries participate in it too. The answer is simple: when women are devalued, they don't want to use their resources for a child they deem "inferior."


Also in countries/cultures where women need to have a dowry in order for their families to marry them off/get rid of them, female children are even more expensive than male children - that is made even worse by biases in the workplace which mean that young men can work and help support the family while girls are just another mouth to feed (they may do work but the work is not valued/doesn't bring in money)

Dowry is such a huge part of it though, in some areas. Which I guess is a fancy way of saying - it's a cultural/socio-economic issue, as well, I suppose.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 7:47pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#88 Jan 19 2012 at 7:05 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Balance. If everybody is smart and attractive, what is there to distinguish us all from one another?

Realistically, it'd probably be incredibly difficult to get to that point. In general, I think it would be fantastic if we had more smart people around. Not that the movie Idiocracy is a great example of sociological theory, but I know that that concept probably worries a lot of smart people. It worries me when I think about it.


I'd say it's more likely that it'd be something only available to a certain % of the population. So it'd probably just result in a widening gap between social strata, instead of making everyone the same.

If everyone was smart and attractive, the scale would shift. We'd still have people that we'd consider ugly or dumb, and those that we'd consider beautiful or smart. They'd be better relative to where we are now, but that hypothetical society would still regard them the same way as always. They might all be more similar, but we'd proportionally increase the importance of minute differences to fit it within the same old dualities.


That's probably very likely. Even now, we have people that are considered ugly, plain, pretty, beautiful, and gorgeous. There's a big gap between even pretty and gorgeous people, let alone ugly and gorgeous people. If everyone had access to genetic engineering and chose to make smart, beautiful babies, the gap would probably just shrink instead of disappear completely.


If it happened all of a sudden on a massive scale, you might perceive it that way. But because "ugly" and "beautiful" are subjective, ever-changing qualities influenced by a myriad of subconscious feelings, in all likelihood it'd be as if nothing changed. As generations grow up habituated to increasingly beautiful people, they'd perceive it as standard. They'd identify a medium, a pinnacle, and a bottom. The gap ends up being the same size; it's the qualities on either end of it that change.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#89 Jan 19 2012 at 7:32 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Demea wrote:
I wasn't trying to imply that the right to obtain an abortion (if we assume one exists) and the right to freedom of speech were similar in that both are (or should be) limited in situations involving competing personal rights. Rather, I was trying to point out that not all rights (actual rights, not just "desirable social outcomes") are absolute in all situations. Regardless of the right, there are probably always at least some cases in which that right should not be upheld.


Sure. But that should always and only happen in cases where the exercise of that right infringes someone else's right. Rights should be "absolute" against anything else that isn't a right. IMO, that's what makes something a right. If the government can infringe it for reasons other than protection of some other right, then you don't really have the "right" to that thing in the first place.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 5:33pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#90 Jan 25 2012 at 1:08 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,952 posts
It depends on why you support abortion. If you support abortion as a legal option but do not necessarily agree with the process, then no. However, if you support abortion because you don't believe the fetus is a child, but just a splash of cells, etc., then yes.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#91 Jan 25 2012 at 6:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,952 posts
catwho wrote:
Demea wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Demea wrote:
One could easily foresee some law stating that doctors may withhold gender information from parents if they have sufficient reason to suspect that the parents will abort based on this information. However, as I said above, this is a legal clusterfuck waiting to happen when we try to define "sufficient reason."

Shades of grey, etc.


To me, this is on par with forcing women to look at ultrasounds before she can elect to get an abortion.

Abortion is legal. The reasons shouldn't really be anyone's business but the two people involved in making the decision.

So you can think of no circumstances in which you think abortion should be restricted or unavailable? Not even third-trimester abortions?


If it's against the woman's will, it should be illegal.

Woman is pregnant and wants to keep the baby. Father doesn't want a kid, coerces her into an abortion.

That should be illegal.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 4:06pm by catwho


If you only take into account the women's will when making the decision, you can't then rely on the other party to support the end results.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#92 Jan 25 2012 at 6:51 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,952 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Besides, if we don't have some stupid people, who are going to flip our burgers and clean our toilets?


You clearly don't get the purpose of an intelligent population.

You can easily design a robot or minimally engineered human to do do those jobs. It'll be a new world, for those brave enough to grasp it.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#93 Jan 25 2012 at 6:57 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,952 posts
Belkira wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
I'd say it's more likely that it'd be something only available to a certain % of the population. So it'd probably just result in a widening gap between social strata, instead of making everyone the same.


I don't know, I imagine there are plenty of people in the upper classes that would find genetically engineering your child simply for beauty and/or brains is morally bad, so you'd still have "big, dumb, and ugly" in the upper classes. And it's entirely possible for lower class people to naturally birth beautiful, brilliant individuals.

Edited, Jan 19th 2012 3:43pm by Belkira


In any society that doesn't have power structures that are benefited by leadership being physically strong and risk tolerant, the smart charismatic people flow to the top. Imperfectly, to be sure, but flow they do. Unless there is some need for hand to hand conflict for dominance, it's doubtful that they would stay in the top echelons for long, before being pushed out by their better adapted kin.

____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#94 Jan 25 2012 at 3:52 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Almalieque wrote:
It depends on why you support abortion. If you support abortion as a legal option but do not necessarily agree with the process, then no. However, if you support abortion because you don't believe the fetus is a child, but just a splash of cells, etc., then yes.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Assuming you were responding to my post, are you saying that having the "right to abort" can be infringed for some reason other than a competing right depending on why you support abortion? That doesn't make much sense. If your reason for supporting abortion does not include an assumption that the woman has some right to have one, then the issue is irrelevant. It's not about whether non-rights can compete with the right to abort, but that you don't believe that the right to abort exists in the first place.


I was making that argument that if you do believe that having an abortion is a right and should be protected, then any infringement of that right should be justified base on some other competing right. For those people, withholding ultrasound results should be seen as a clear violation of that right. Obviously, if you don't believe in said right in the first place, then you can restrict abortion for any reason you want. But if that's the case, then a whole **** of a lot of the pro-choice argument disappears in a puff of smoke.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#95 Jan 26 2012 at 6:09 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,952 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
It depends on why you support abortion. If you support abortion as a legal option but do not necessarily agree with the process, then no. However, if you support abortion because you don't believe the fetus is a child, but just a splash of cells, etc., then yes.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Assuming you were responding to my post, are you saying that having the "right to abort" can be infringed for some reason other than a competing right depending on why you support abortion? That doesn't make much sense. If your reason for supporting abortion does not include an assumption that the woman has some right to have one, then the issue is irrelevant. It's not about whether non-rights can compete with the right to abort, but that you don't believe that the right to abort exists in the first place.


I was making that argument that if you do believe that having an abortion is a right and should be protected, then any infringement of that right should be justified base on some other competing right. For those people, withholding ultrasound results should be seen as a clear violation of that right. Obviously, if you don't believe in said right in the first place, then you can restrict abortion for any reason you want. But if that's the case, then a whole **** of a lot of the pro-choice argument disappears in a puff of smoke.


I'm sorry. I was responding to the OP.

It's not hypocritical if you support abortion as an option for women but not necessarily agree with the action. However, it is hypocritical if you support abortion because you don't believe the fetus is a child and so therefore, "it's not killing", but somehow have a problem if it's done to choose a sex. The latter would imply giving sentiments and life to the fetus, which deduces to the belief that the fetus IS a person.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#96 Jan 27 2012 at 9:30 AM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
Almalieque wrote:


It's not hypocritical if you support abortion as an option for women but not necessarily agree with the action. However, it is hypocritical if you support abortion because you don't believe the fetus is a child and so therefore, "it's not killing", but somehow have a problem if it's done to choose a sex. The latter would imply giving sentiments and life to the fetus, which deduces to the belief that the fetus IS a person.

Nonsense. I'm not a proponent of banning it, but I couldn't give less of a **** about the blob of cells in the woman's uterus. It's the underlying reason-- that they view half of the human race as second-class. Crazily enough, it tends to be expressed in other ways, too.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#97 Jan 27 2012 at 9:58 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,952 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Almalieque wrote:


It's not hypocritical if you support abortion as an option for women but not necessarily agree with the action. However, it is hypocritical if you support abortion because you don't believe the fetus is a child and so therefore, "it's not killing", but somehow have a problem if it's done to choose a sex. The latter would imply giving sentiments and life to the fetus, which deduces to the belief that the fetus IS a person.

Nonsense. I'm not a proponent of banning it, but I couldn't give less of a sh*t about the blob of cells in the woman's uterus. It's the underlying reason-- that they view half of the human race as second-class. Crazily enough, it tends to be expressed in other ways, too.


That's hypocritical, because if the underlying problem is with viewing women as second class citizens, then this topic doesn't change that. The problem goes beyond this action. The only thing this would change would be the birth or death of the child. For all you know, 65% of aborted fetuses are females, just for the sake of the abortion. That doesn't affect the girls that are born and treated like a 2nd class citizen....

At this point, you're for abortion depending on the reason, which is no different than someone who's against abortion except for rape, mother's death, child disorder, etc.


How is that not hypocritical to say it's ok for a woman to have her 4th abortion because she doesn't use protection, but wrong for a woman to have her first abortion because she wants a male?

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#98 Jan 27 2012 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
Almalieque wrote:

How is that not hypocritical to say it's ok for a woman to have her 4th abortion because she doesn't use protection, but wrong for a woman to have her first abortion because she wants a male?

Overwhelmingly the responses in this thread (Sweetums included) claim that it's not wrong for a woman to have an abortion (regardless of reason). Independent of that argument, most also negatively view a societal believe that woman are of less worth than men.

But perhaps you're just practicing. If so, carry on.




Edited, Jan 27th 2012 6:30pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#99 Jan 27 2012 at 3:08 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

How is that not hypocritical to say it's ok for a woman to have her 4th abortion because she doesn't use protection, but wrong for a woman to have her first abortion because she wants a male?

Overwhelmingly the responses in this thread (Sweetums included) claim that it's not wrong for a woman to have an abortion (regardless of reason). Independent of that argument, most also negatively view a societal believe that woman are of less worth than men.

But perhaps you're just practicing. If so, carry on.


It's no use, Elinda. Logic and reason waved bye-bye to Alma long ago.
#100 Jan 28 2012 at 12:34 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,917 posts
But I'll try a flyby pass:

Sometimes actions in themselves are not wrong. But they can have negative consequences further down the line, especially en masse. The latter mass effect is so negative in effect on everyone, that it becomes necessary to regulate the original behaviour.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#101 Jan 28 2012 at 12:45 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
But I'll try a flyby pass:

Sometimes actions in themselves are not wrong. But they can have negative consequences further down the line, especially en masse. The latter mass effect is so negative in effect on everyone, that it becomes necessary to regulate the original behaviour.


Aripyanfar wrote:
Except maybe two massy sets of balls riding high and tight, sweaty from exertion, pulsating together rhythmically?


Sensing a trend.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 33 All times are in CDT
Allegory, Debalic, ElneClare, Anonymous Guests (30)