Sex-selective AbortionFollow

...after I accidentally loosed on their property. This just keeps sounding better.

It's somewhat scary that this is probably the only political issue on which Smash and I more or less agree (even with the cynical "people lie to themselves about why they hold positions because the truth is uncomfortable to admit" part).



Yup. That's the starting point of a pro-choice position.



My personal position is that she has that right (to some degree) until the child *could* survive outside her body. Hence my strong issues with what appear to be elective late term abortions being performed (under the guise of "health of the mother" no less!). Prior to that point, I think that the rights of the child to live should gradually gain against the rights of the woman to control her body. Um... Obviously, the specifics of that sort of equation and how you apply it are pretty arbitrary though. Which is why I'm ok with different states having slightly different rules as long as they are within those bounds. I have issues with both extremes though and unfortunately that's usually where our debates end out.


I also happen to believe that because most people delude themselves about what they're really supporting when they take a pro-choice position, they allow for actions which they will insist constantly that they don't like and shouldn't be allowed. It's somewhat strange to watch, and interesting to see the string of justifications and rationalizations from people who just can't (or wont) acknowledge what criteria they really agree with. It's easy to say "a woman should have the right to control her own body". It's much harder to say at what point that right should end. But all rights have limits. They are not absolute. We just sometimes claim they are so as to make us feel better or something.

Edited, Jun 15th 2012 5:59pm by gbaji

Hey, if Kate Beckinsale is OK with republicans controlling her ******, you should be too, tiny.

I don't know about "shouldn't be allowed". As compared above, it's like the usual **** rally argument for free speech. Or publishing materials I find objectionable. Or religious practices I think are harmful. You accept that there'll be some actions that you personally disagree with but which are an unavoidable consequence of the greater freedom.

Again, just like speech or religion or the freedom from search & seizure or keeping arms or...

...well, I hope you didn't think you were saying anything new.

That sounds a bit too futuristic freaky to me... >.>

That sounds a lot like picking from a litter of puppies... I like puppies.

This could be a goldmine.

You could pretty much pop in and post this in any new thread you're interested in, and you'd be right.

If that were the case, then every thread would have a noticeable population arguing in agreement with my points. Given the fact that isn't true, I would have to disagree with your notion.

The delusion part comes in when people adamantly insist that they *don't* accept those things, but support actions which cause/allow them to happen anyway. I would have great respect for someone saying "I believe in an absolute right for a woman to choose to abort a pregnancy, so I'm perfectly fine with elective late term abortions". What I don't respect is people saying "Oh no! I don't agree with elective late term abortions at all. That's horrible!", but then turning around and opposing any law or action which might actually prevent elective late term abortions by insisting that it violates a woman's right to choose.

To me, you either believe that said right includes elective late term abortions, or it does not. But it seems like a hell of a lot of people spend a lot of effort avoiding facing that aspect of the issue at all.



And in all those other areas we do tend to allow for reasonable infringement of those rights, openly and honestly. We accept the whole "speech infringed so you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" case pretty universally. Same with reasonable search, reasonable gun control laws, etc. But in the area of abortion, it's much more common for people to argue blindly and blanketly about a "right to choose" regardless of situation. When asked about a given exception case, they'll say "Oh. Of course we shouldn't allow abortion in that case", but when it comes to actually passing laws, they fall in line with the "oppose this law because it infringes on women's rights!" and end out doing exactly the opposite of what they claim is the right thing to do.



It's not new so much as a new application of an old thing. The same "say one thing, but look the other way while the opposite happens" logic that applies to late term abortion certainly appears to be present in this issue as well. I'm seeing the same people doing pretty much the same thing in this case. You honestly didn't notice nearly unanimous statements that choosing to abort based on sex is wrong at the start of this thread, followed by a rapid walking away from any action which might actually prevent exactly that from happening? On some issues (and this is one of them) supporting your "side" becomes more important than personal morality. That's what I'm seeing happen here.

Double post pwnt.

Edited, Jun 18th 2012 5:28pm by Jophiel

I honestly didn't notice.

If there was anything one could call unanimous about the replies it would be that most had stated that didn't like the taste of weeding out girls but that ultimately it's not a legal issue that should impinge on a woman's right to choose.

I am the only one that admitted to coming back with a second thought. It wasn't a changing of my mind and simply wasn't 'walking away', but clarifying for myself, that i can refrain from passing judgement even when it means throwing my sex under the proverbial bus.

I know it's hard, all us liberals sound the same. But do try and measure us each individually.