Sex-selective AbortionFollow

I don't like it, but I don't find it reprehensible either. While significantly more expensive, I'd prefer to grow embryos in a test tube and then put all the female ones inside me, if I wanted a girl that badly. Which, if I could afford to do, I totally would if my first kid was a boy. I only want two kids, and the boyfriend and I both really want a daughter. Y'know, when we get around to getting married and popping out crotch fruit.

....and unshaven clown.

Don't believe it when you're told size doesn't matter.

I'm pro-abortion in all cases. Did you really have to ask?



As if, in this hypothetical, theoretical situation, it would never be the man pressuring the abortion because he'd prefer a ball-catcher to a sandwich-maker.

Not sure what that says about Joph Jr (and Sr for that matter), but okay.

I especially love when people go on about how they want government as small as possible and out of our lives ... except on things they don't agree with. "Stay out of my life but not other peoples' uteruses!"

Mindhumbingly terrible example. Wanting to make all abortion illegal is one of the very few logically and ethically defensible positions of the US Right.. I disagree with it, but it's a simple, straightforward, well contained argument. Life begins at conception, human rights begin when life does, abortion is therefore murder. Doesn't contradict the idea of small government *at all*. If anything it affirms personal civil rights by granting them at an earlier point in the human lifespan.

Let's be honest, the opposing position, the one which I support, is wholly arbitrary. It's made up. There's no scientific evidence around when "life" begins. There's nothing to indicate it happens at birth or conception or at 28 weeks of pregnancy. There are no real ethical reason it's ok to end a pregnancy that differ at all from the ethical reasons for killing a newborn infant. Women want control of their bodies, and I support that. That's the best I can do when justifying the Left's position. Compared to "human life is inviolate and all life has inherent rights" it's a massively weak argument. It's a terrible idea that a woman who was raped should have to carry a pregnancy to term, but it's ABSOLUTELY not more terrible than murdering an innocent. So we pretend that's not what occurs. We just arbitrarily decide, being too cowardly to articulate the real position: women should have the right to kill their own children while those children reside inside of their bodies. That's really the realpolitik case, though. Women will end these pregnancies regardless of legal consequence, restricting access to doing so safely doesn't benefit society.

The kid has the right to live, just not inside me. If he can move out and get his own place, he's free to go peacefully. Otherwise, I gotta evict by force.

Zygotes check in; they don't check out?

People's sexual preferences are nobody's business but their own.

The unnaturally occurring children you can do what you'd like with. They might be valuable some day as a collectors item though so I'd stick it in the basement for now.

Who needs naturally-occurring when you've worked for Monsanto?

Careful, you might yield more bushels per acre quintuplets.