Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Sex-selective AbortionFollow

#1 Jun 14 2012 at 8:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Not happy to get stuffed in only one chamber of Congress, the GOP is introducing a bill to ban sex-selective abortions in the Senate.

I'm well aware that there are several parts of the bill that are dumb, and truly aimed at reducing access to all abortions in practice (doctors legally required to report potential cases of sex-selective abortion to police, etc.), which gives Democrats enough practical reason to oppose the bill. However, I'm curious how you ultra-liberal hippies feel about the issue of sex-selective abortion in theory.

If we take for granted that women have the right to terminate a fetus, does it really matter what their motives are? For the sake of limiting our scope, let's ignore other dubious motives like abortions in the case of mental defect.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#2 Jun 14 2012 at 8:53 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
I'm against it because less women means less sandwiches. Smiley: frown
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Jun 14 2012 at 8:58 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Demea wrote:
However, I'm curious how you ultra-liberal hippies feel about the issue of sex-selective abortion in theory.


I think 'it matters' that a woman or a couple would choose to abort based on the sex of the child because it could be an indication of a society that still favors one sex over another. I don't think it's a legal matter for the courts though. It's personal.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#4 Jun 14 2012 at 9:01 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I'm against it because less women means less sandwiches. Smiley: frown

Abort the boys to leave more sammiches for you. Smiley: smile
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#5 Jun 14 2012 at 9:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
It seems like one of those things that could be difficult to prove.

I'm generally against it, but wasn't aware that it was a problem in this country. Is it? I mean it's something you hear about in Asia or something. Is this akin to banning Sharia Law in Kansas or wherever they did it? I dunno, I don't really have a horse in this race. It's at least something that's morally questionable in my mind, and if we really decide we want to ban it I wouldn't oppose.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#6 Jun 14 2012 at 9:20 AM Rating: Good
It only really became an issue in Asia, specifically China, due to the One Child policy. In China, the male stays at home with the parents and is obligated to take care of them when they become elderly whether he marries or not. A girl who marries moves in with the husband's family. So the fear was that if your first child was a girl and you could only have one kid, you would not have a boy to take care of you when you grew up, or if your daughter unmarried to stay with you, you would not get grandchildren. Hence, boys are greatly favored.

None of those issues really seem to affect the US. We do not have cultural norms for elderly parents staying with one gender of child over the other, nor are we limited to one child without paying a hefty fine. Every pregnant woman I've known in the US has been totally cool with the sex of her child once it was confirmed.
#7 Jun 14 2012 at 9:50 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Overall, looks like a preemptive bill to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#8 Jun 14 2012 at 9:59 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Overall, looks like a preemptive bill to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Actually, it's a worthless bill designed to give the congressional GOP something to talk about when they run negative commercials about their opponents in November.

Luckily, I took care to ask specifically about the theory and not about this actual bill.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#9 Jun 14 2012 at 10:17 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Demea wrote:
[quote=lolgaxe]

Luckily, I took care to ask specifically about the theory and not about this actual bill.
Shew!

Second thought on this - if the baby is unwanted, it's unwanted. Who are we to judge why?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#10 Jun 14 2012 at 10:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
In theory, I'm against it.

In practice, I don't see any way to monitor or limit it aside from universally restricting access. Which I'm also against.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Jun 14 2012 at 10:48 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,393 posts
I'm against it because everything I can find on the topic says that you can't normally know the gender until around 18-20 weeks, I'm against abortion after the end of the third month(first trimester, w/e).

Anyone who would decide to terminate the pregnancy because the gender isn't what they hoped for is ****** in the head anyway, and shouldn't be allowed to procreate.
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#12 Jun 14 2012 at 10:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Speaking of, saying you're "against" it seems sort of silly. I doubt many people are "for" selective-sex abortions, just as most people aren't "for" abortions in general. "You had that baby aborted? Fuck yeah, you go girl!". Rather you're in favor of allowing people the freedom to make this personal decision for themselves.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Jun 14 2012 at 11:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Speaking of, saying you're "against" it seems sort of silly. I doubt many people are "for" selective-sex abortions, just as most people aren't "for" abortions in general. "You had that baby aborted? Fuck yeah, you go girl!". Rather you're in favor of allowing people the freedom to make this personal decision for themselves.


Well okay. How about the idea of abortion based solely on the idea of gender makes me more uncomfortable than other reasons, but I'm not sure it makes me uncomfortable enough to step in and say you're bad for wanting to do it. I mean if you're afraid your husband may turn into this guy or something do I still blame you?

I dunno.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#14 Jun 14 2012 at 11:12 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,393 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Speaking of, saying you're "against" it seems sort of silly. I doubt many people are "for" selective-sex abortions, just as most people aren't "for" abortions in general. "You had that baby aborted? Fuck yeah, you go girl!". Rather you're in favor of allowing people the freedom to make this personal decision for themselves.


Well okay. How about the idea of abortion based solely on the idea of gender makes me more uncomfortable than other reasons, but I'm not sure it makes me uncomfortable enough to step in and say you're bad for wanting to do it. I mean if you're afraid your husband may turn into this guy or something do I still blame you?

I dunno.


You know, I see articles like that, and I think, "well, if it's so ******* expensive, don't take the ******* risk then! Are there no forms of birth control there?".
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#15 Jun 14 2012 at 11:15 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
I suppose you could outlaw divulging the sex of the fetus to combat sex-selective abortions.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#16 Jun 14 2012 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Trans-vaginal ultrasounds for everyone!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#17 Jun 14 2012 at 11:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
Well okay. How about the idea of abortion based solely on the idea of gender makes me more uncomfortable than other reasons...

I was speaking generally on the whole "pro/con" divide.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Jun 14 2012 at 11:31 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Trans-vaginal ultrasounds for everyone!

It wasn't that long ago when a normal old pregnancy didn't require an ultrasound at all.

From what I understand about ultrasounds and gender; if the ultrasound shows a ***** the fetus is clearly male, but the lack of a visible ***** doesn't mean it's not male. The weeny might be hiding, or too little or yet undeveloped.

Girl-aborting could be risky business.



____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#19 Jun 14 2012 at 11:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Elinda wrote:
Demea wrote:
However, I'm curious how you ultra-liberal hippies feel about the issue of sex-selective abortion in theory.


I think 'it matters' that a woman or a couple would choose to abort based on the sex of the child because it could be an indication of a society that still favors one sex over another. I don't think it's a legal matter for the courts though. It's personal.


That's pretty much what I think too.

These specific types of abortions are an issue in India too apparently, it's just not quite as big of an issue as in China.

And yeah, anyone who thinks that pro-choice people love abortions and want everyone to have one, are seriously deluded.
#20 Jun 14 2012 at 12:01 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,089 posts
No ones business but the woman.
#21 Jun 14 2012 at 12:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Eh, like Elinda said, an unwanted child is an unwanted child. It's alright for a woman to abort because she didn't want ANY kid, but not because she didn't want a boy? Seems kind of hypocritical. There are chances that unwanted children can be abused, neglected, etc. And that chance exists also if a woman (or even a man) has a child that's not the sex they had hoped for. We might not want to think about this, but it's out there and it happens.
#22 Jun 14 2012 at 12:18 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Driftwood wrote:
I'm against it because everything I can find on the topic says that you can't normally know the gender until around 18-20 weeks, I'm against abortion after the end of the third month(first trimester, w/e).


My understanding it that's what has brought this issue to the forefront. While the whole issue is soaked in politics, the part to take away from the recent Planned Parenthood videos is that if someone walks into one of their facilities seeking an abortion, and then asks to delay the abortion until she can get an ultrasound in order to determine the gender before making her decision, PP will happily oblige them. Now obviously the videos are taken by people playing a part, so we can't say for sure how often this actually happens, but the seeming lack of any sort of "Gee. I'm not sure that's right" on the part of the PP employees is a bit troublesome.

Having said that, I'm also a bit unclear how this sort of law would change anything. Obviously, the woman can simply lie about why she's waiting, or why she wants an ultrasound or whatever other tests, and nothing can be done about it. I think the point (of the legislation) is to ensure that this isn't just being done openly and thus becoming a culturally accepted thing.

Quote:
Anyone who would decide to terminate the pregnancy because the gender isn't what they hoped for is @#%^ed in the head anyway, and shouldn't be allowed to procreate.


Yup. But in a generation or two, if there is no attempt to say clearly that this isn't acceptable to us, isn't it likely that it will become acceptable? Today pretty much everyone has a negative reaction to the idea of choosing to abort based on the sex of the fetus. But if we don't put something down on paper saying that this isn't acceptable, can you say that our grandchildren wont think it's just fine?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Jun 14 2012 at 12:22 PM Rating: Excellent
It's not the job or the responsibility of the PP employee to make morality judgments for their patients. It's their job to dispense healthcare. If people want morality judgments, they can go to the pregnancy clinics that tell them how evil abortion is.
#24 Jun 14 2012 at 12:28 PM Rating: Decent
I'd also say that if a mother even considered an abortion because it was the wrong sex, she probably didn't really want to be pregnant anyway and was looking for an excuse. Generally, if an American couple is actively trying to conceive, they are thrilled to have either one.
#25 Jun 14 2012 at 12:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Driftwood wrote:
I'm against it because everything I can find on the topic says that you can't normally know the gender until around 18-20 weeks, I'm against abortion after the end of the third month(first trimester, w/e).


Something else bringing the issue to the forefront, thought I had read about this at some point recently. Memory may be fuzzy, but every now and then it comes through.

Linky

Quote:
As a noninvasive method of determining the sex of a fetus, tests using cell-free fetal DNA obtained from the mother's blood after 7 weeks gestation performed well


Its apparently 95-99% accurate or something.




Edited, Jun 14th 2012 11:30am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#26 Jun 14 2012 at 12:40 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
18,463 posts
Jophiel wrote:
In theory, I'm against it.

In practice, I don't see any way to monitor or limit it aside from universally restricting access. Which I'm also against.

Sir, I grant you my proxy.
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 324 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (324)