Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

***-selective AbortionFollow

#27 Jun 14 2012 at 12:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
We can DO that?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Jun 14 2012 at 1:50 PM Rating: Default
****
9,346 posts
Gbaji wrote:
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.


Normally, I take no issue with PP, but IF they are doing that, then there's kind of a problem if they're saying that they'll still perform the abortion at that point.

Quote:
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 *** 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?


You raise a good point. It's hard to say what will be and what won't be acceptable that long into the future. However, with the way that technology and society change and progress, it's not easy to say that what we see as right and wrong should/will be the same then. It's a touchy issue, but hopefully we can find a solution. Putting something down on paper would potentially put a stop to what is basically a "do over" for idiots, but anything we do now should be done with consideration put towards what might be relevant in the future, as opposed to the present.
____________________________
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.
#29 Jun 14 2012 at 1:56 PM Rating: Default
****
9,346 posts
Peimei wrote:
No ones business but the woman.


No. I disagree with that, though that is sort of a different conversation, I'll make a quick reply. I'll put it this way, I'm pro-choice, however, if my partner got pregnant, it's completely my business. I should have a say, or at least be able to weigh in with my opinion about it. It is mine too after all. That being said, I ended up in that situation with my ex last year, we agreed upon the fact that neither of us was even remotely ready, and if the test came back positive, we'd opt to abort. It came back negative, so we never had to go through with it. The point though, is that we weren't going to do anything unless we could both agree upon the course of action. That's how it should be.

Anyway, like I said, that's a different topic. This is more about the moral issue behind choosing to abort because it's not the gender you wanted,and frankly, that's an absolutely terrible reason to do it.
____________________________
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.
#30 Jun 14 2012 at 2:02 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,569 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Anyway, like I said, that's a different topic. This is more about the moral issue behind choosing to abort because it's not the gender you wanted,and frankly, that's an absolutely terrible reason to do it.

I don't think that anybody would (publicly) disagree with the notion that aborting solely due to the gender of the fetus is reprehensible. However, as others have stated, since you can't determine the exact motives of the woman, you can't codify this into law.

And, since women do have the unquestionable right to terminate a fetus, we're sort of forced to accept that some may terminate due to the gender of the fetus.

It's a lot like letting ***** hold rallies.

Edited, Jun 14th 2012 3:05pm by Demea
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#31 Jun 14 2012 at 2:12 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Demea wrote:
It's a lot like letting ***** abort their babies if they find out its Jewish.
#32 Jun 14 2012 at 2:15 PM Rating: Good
******
21,720 posts
I despise the idea that a parent would abort a child simply because they wanted a child of the opposite ***. However, after having read up on China's "dying rooms", I'll revert back to my original position on abortion regardless of justification - it's better to abort the child in the womb for whatever reason than to bring it into a world that will not care for it.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#33 Jun 14 2012 at 4:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
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.

You're adorable for believing that.

Quote:
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?

Well, God forbid our grandchildren be allowed to govern themselves and make their own decisions about what's right and wrong.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#34 Jun 14 2012 at 6:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,463 posts
Jophiel wrote:
We can DO that?
I want to be someone's discovery, not sometime's wife.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#35 Jun 14 2012 at 6:44 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Demea wrote:
I don't think that anybody would (publicly) disagree with the notion that aborting solely due to the gender of the fetus is reprehensible.


More reprehensible than dealing drugs, or under aged drinking?

Quote:
However, as others have stated, since you can't determine the exact motives of the woman, you can't codify this into law.


Of course you can. We have laws which make it illegal for someone to sell alcohol to a minor, or to someone they suspect will provide said alcohol to a minor. Similarly, landlords can be held responsible for drug dealing/distributing/etc on their property by tenants if they knew it was happening and did not prevent it. Those laws also require someone to know what someone else is going to do, yet we managed to pass and apply them just fine.


Do these laws catch many people? Nope. But it does prevent things we find reprehensible (or even just a little bit wrong) from becoming casually accepted. The guy buying beer for the kids around the corner knows he can't tell the clerk that's what he's doing. This reinforces that what he's doing is frowned upon by society. And the tenant can't tell his landlord he's cooking meth on his property (and the landlord can't then repeat that to someone else). Again, it reinforces social perceptions.

Similarly, even if the only effect a law like this is to make the person seeking the abortion for gender reasons knowingly have to conceal that fact, it does reinforce on that person that what they're doing is not acceptable by society. And occasionally, someone will just walk up and say "I don't want a girl, so I want to abort if it's a girl". If we all agree that's reprehensible, then should we not do anything about this in cases where the person admits openly that this is what they're doing?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Jun 14 2012 at 6:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
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.

You're adorable for believing that.

Quote:
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?

Well, God forbid our grandchildren be allowed to govern themselves and make their own decisions about what's right and wrong.


I honestly don't understand the logic of people saying "OMG That's reprehensible" and then turning around and saying it would be fine though if their grandchildren didn't think it was. Um... Really?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Jun 14 2012 at 7:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
1. I, too, am more concerned about what the practice of gender-selective abortion says about a society than I am about the practice in its particulars.

2. Further, I can see problems down the line resulting from the practice. Doesn't take a crystal ball; those problems are already happening in China and elsewhere.

3. However, I would not vote to restrict the right of any individual to choose to bear and raise a child, whatever the reason. Trusting people to make their own decisions is the very basis of liberty, and refusing to interfere based on my own sensibilities is the very opposite of the dreaded "nanny state".

4. Planned Parenthood leaving an individual's options open within the law is perfectly acceptable to me.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#38 Jun 14 2012 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
Quote:
I honestly don't understand the logic of people saying "OMG That's reprehensible" and then turning around and saying it would be fine though if their grandchildren didn't think it was. Um... Really?


Yeah, really. Mores change all the time.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#39 Jun 14 2012 at 7:18 PM Rating: Good
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,139 posts
I'm in favor of abortion for any reason for the duration of gestation.
#40 Jun 14 2012 at 7:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,569 posts
gbaji wrote:
Demea wrote:
I don't think that anybody would (publicly) disagree with the notion that aborting solely due to the gender of the fetus is reprehensible.


More reprehensible than dealing drugs, or under aged drinking?

You think that underaged drinking is more reprehensible than aborting a fetus because you don't like the gender?

Quote:
Quote:
However, as others have stated, since you can't determine the exact motives of the woman, you can't codify this into law.


Of course you can. We have laws which make it illegal for someone to sell alcohol to a minor, or to someone they suspect will provide said alcohol to a minor. Similarly, landlords can be held responsible for drug dealing/distributing/etc on their property by tenants if they knew it was happening and did not prevent it. Those laws also require someone to know what someone else is going to do, yet we managed to pass and apply them just fine.


Do these laws catch many people? Nope. But it does prevent things we find reprehensible (or even just a little bit wrong) from becoming casually accepted. The guy buying beer for the kids around the corner knows he can't tell the clerk that's what he's doing. This reinforces that what he's doing is frowned upon by society. And the tenant can't tell his landlord he's cooking meth on his property (and the landlord can't then repeat that to someone else). Again, it reinforces social perceptions.

Similarly, even if the only effect a law like this is to make the person seeking the abortion for gender reasons knowingly have to conceal that fact, it does reinforce on that person that what they're doing is not acceptable by society. And occasionally, someone will just walk up and say "I don't want a girl, so I want to abort if it's a girl". If we all agree that's reprehensible, then should we not do anything about this in cases where the person admits openly that this is what they're doing?

You're talking about definitive actions, not internal motives. One is easy to observe and prove; the other is not.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#41 Jun 14 2012 at 7:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Demea wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Demea wrote:
I don't think that anybody would (publicly) disagree with the notion that aborting solely due to the gender of the fetus is reprehensible.


More reprehensible than dealing drugs, or under aged drinking?

You think that underaged drinking is more reprehensible than aborting a fetus because you don't like the gender?


No. Which is exactly my point.

If you walk up to a store clerk with a case of beer and tell the clerk "Some kids in the parking lot asked me to buy this for them", and the clerk sells the beer to you anyway, said clerk is subject to legal action.

If you walk up to an abortion doctor and tell him "I want to get an abortion if my fetus is a girl", and the doctor performs the abortion for you anyway, he is subject to no legal action at all.


If one really is more reprehensible than the other, then why is it ok to place such a burden on the involved professional in one case, but not in the other? Remember, I'm responding to the argument that we shouldn't do this because it's somehow impractical to implement or we can't determine what the doctor knows about the motives for the abortion. I think that's a BS response though. We do this in many other cases.

Is anyone seriously arguing that a store clerk should be more capable of determining the motivation of someone buying beer than a doctor determining the motivation of a woman seeking an abortion? Cause that's pretty darn silly.

Quote:
You're talking about definitive actions, not internal motives. One is easy to observe and prove; the other is not.


I'm using cases that are more or less identical to the proposed laws. If a doctor knowingly performs an abortion in which the gender was a determining factor, then he can be held legally responsible. How is that any different than a store clerk who knows someone's going to provide the beer he sells to a minor? Or a landlord who knowingly continues to rent his property to someone distributing drugs? Or a gun store clerk knowingly selling a gun to someone planning to kill someone else.

We can toss our hands up and say "They can't possibly know what someone else is going to do or why", but that's not the point. If they can't know, then the law doesn't affect them. It's designed to make it so that if someone walks into a liquor store and says "sell me some beer so I can provide it for those kids", or walks into a gun store and says "sell me a gun so I can kill my boss", or walks into an clinic and says "give me an abortion because I don't want a girl", the law will compel the person providing the good or service to refuse it.


We do this in other cases, so the argument that it's somehow impossible to do it here is just plain false.

Edited, Jun 14th 2012 6:51pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#42 Jun 14 2012 at 8:01 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,346 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
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.

You're adorable for believing that.

Quote:
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?

Well, God forbid our grandchildren be allowed to govern themselves and make their own decisions about what's right and wrong.


I honestly don't understand the logic of people saying "OMG That's reprehensible" and then turning around and saying it would be fine though if their grandchildren didn't think it was. Um... Really?


Really? From the opposite logic then, you would say that because our grandparents thought it was reprehensible for an African American to sit wherever they like on the bus, or marry a white woman/man(oh yeah, I'm going there), we should feel the same? What we believe now will not necessarily be even what our children believe, let alone our grandchildren.
____________________________
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.
#43 Jun 14 2012 at 9:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I honestly don't understand the logic of people saying "OMG That's reprehensible" and then turning around and saying it would be fine though if their grandchildren didn't think it was. Um... Really?

The chance of you having grandchildren is low enough that you don't need to worry your head about it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#44 Jun 14 2012 at 11:14 PM Rating: Good
While I'm personally opposed to abortion used as birth control (*** selective abortion would also fall under that umbrella), until I'm elected to congress or sprout a ****** I don't think my opinion matters all that much.

This bill is crap though.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#45 Jun 14 2012 at 11:17 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
I don't know. Aside from what has already been said about what this says about society and gender roles etc etc, I'm ok with this. I don't find it "reprehensible" that a woman use gender when deciding whether or not to abort. It just doesn't seem like that big a deal to me... Does that make me a bad person? Smiley: lol
#46 Jun 14 2012 at 11:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Omegavegeta wrote:
until I'm elected to congress or sprout a ****** I don't think my opinion matters all that much.

Realistically, it matters as much as anyone else's who is of voting age and not in Congress. Having a ****** doesn't get you an extra vote or anything.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Jun 14 2012 at 11:31 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,404 posts
Belkira wrote:
Does that make me a bad person? Smiley: lol


That isn't what makes you a bad person. Smiley: lol
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#48 Jun 14 2012 at 11:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Belkira wrote:
I don't know. Aside from what has already been said about what this says about society and gender roles etc etc, I'm ok with this. I don't find it "reprehensible" that a woman use gender when deciding whether or not to abort. It just doesn't seem like that big a deal to me... Does that make me a bad person? Smiley: lol

Nah, you're ok. I didn't think it was that bad either. People are going to have their reasons for abortion. This is just one of them.

Since we agree, we should get married. Smiley: inlove
#49 Jun 14 2012 at 11:40 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I don't know. Aside from what has already been said about what this says about society and gender roles etc etc, I'm ok with this. I don't find it "reprehensible" that a woman use gender when deciding whether or not to abort. It just doesn't seem like that big a deal to me... Does that make me a bad person? Smiley: lol

Nah, you're ok. I didn't think it was that bad either. People are going to have their reasons for abortion. This is just one of them.

Since we agree, we should get married. Smiley: inlove


We could both get pregnant then have abortions together while saying our vows. It'll be epic.
#50 Jun 14 2012 at 11:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,913 posts
I'm generally against the concept except in instances where there is a known high risk of a gender specific birth defect. The only one that comes to mind is Turner syndrome, but I'm guessing there are at least a handful of other diseases out there where you could garuntee with a high degree of certanty that a child of a specific gender would be born with a serious defect. In that one specific instance I would not be against an early enough selective proceedure.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#51 Jun 15 2012 at 12:15 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Jophiel wrote:
We can DO that?


ITT: Jophiel never attends another meeting.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)