- Posts: 4216
- Thank you received: 17
A Woman's Right to Choose...
- Nobody that matters
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
31 May 2012 09:21 #31
by Nobody that matters
It's the extremists on the right, not the entire republican party.
Unless you libs want to lay claim to some of the democrat whack jobs on the extreme left?
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Replied by Nobody that matters on topic A Woman's Right to Choose...
Something the Dog Said wrote: This is just another right wing faux outrage extending the Republican's war on women.
It's the extremists on the right, not the entire republican party.
Unless you libs want to lay claim to some of the democrat whack jobs on the extreme left?
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Reverend Revelant
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 7163
- Thank you received: 21
31 May 2012 09:21 #32
by Reverend Revelant
Just a clarification. The CDC figures you quote above are 4 years old... 2008.
Waiting for Armageddon since 33 AD
Replied by Reverend Revelant on topic A Woman's Right to Choose...
Something the Dog Said wrote: This is just another right wing faux outrage extending the Republican's war on women. Sex can not be determined until the 20th week. According to the CDC, less than 1.5% of pregnancy terminations occur after that time. So even if pregnancy termination was based on sex determination, it would have little effect. Even so, there is simply no evidence of gender based pregnancy termination. The O'Keefe/Breitbart video cited by the OP has no evidentary weight that gender based pregnancy termination occurs. In fact, the actual evidence shows just the opposite. Since 1983, according to the CDC, the rate of boys being born has actually decreased.
Yet another "outrage" with no facts behind it.
Just a clarification. The CDC figures you quote above are 4 years old... 2008.
Waiting for Armageddon since 33 AD
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- ScienceChic
-
- Mountain Champion
-
Less
More
- Posts: 15746
- Thank you received: 320
31 May 2012 10:03 #33
by ScienceChic
A moral consideration? No more so than having an abortion for any other reason; an abortion is an abortion, which is legal, and the reason doesn't really matter - as I said before, it all comes out in the wash on a population genetics level. Is it more justified to have one because the fetus has been diagnosed with a terminal disease than because it will have blue eyes? Yes I think so, but that's not my choice to make for someone else. If we start putting qualifications on what abortions are allowed and which aren't, then we increase government regulation, bureaucracy, paperwork, cost, and abuse (by participants lying) - I really don't want to go there, do you?
As I've said before, I am opposed to abortion as a method of birth control or to choose what traits a parent supposedly wants in their child (amazing how what we want for our kids often gets foiled by their own plans for themselves, that control is an illusion); however, I am absolutely in favor of it being available as a legal option for women as our society is not functioning in a supportive manner for those who find themselves in an unintended pregnancy situation. We don't properly educate and fully inform children as to the risks and consequences so they can make responsible, informed decisions as to the act in the first place; we stigmatize and judge, rather than just offering unqualified help to those who become pregnant and would suffer negative educational or job consequences if they remain pregnant and thus choose abortion when they otherwise might not. I'd like to see a whole lot more proactive solutions to reducing abortion rates, rather than reactive solutions that punish those left to deal with the consequences, for far too often the women are left to deal with it on their own.
Why does a woman need to know the sex if she's planning on killing it? Well, if she wants a particular gender then it helps if she actually knows what the gender is before making the decision to go through with it. If she's aborting for another reason, then she wouldn't need to know the gender. But this seems like a pretty obvious question, did you mean something else?
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Replied by ScienceChic on topic A Woman's Right to Choose...
I think it's a ridiculous reason to have an abortion - if you are that keen on having one gender over another, then do in vitro fertilization and increase your chances (it's not a perfect method but they can separate out female from male sperm based on speed).CritiKalbILL wrote:
That's all fine and dandy SC, but how do you feel about having an abortion based on what sex the baby is? Do you think there is any moral consideration there? Why does a woman need to know the sex if she's planning on killing it?Science Chic wrote: In the grand scheme of things, assuming if every time an abortion was performed that it was for gender selection, the results would come out in the wash - because about half the couples would want a girl and half the couples would want a boy. Even in China and India where boys are favored for economic reasons (which isn't the case in many cultures), the demographics haven't gotten that skewed, and they've been trying for what, 30 years?
Choosing to have an abortion in order to avoid a genetic disease, or even a supposed "social" trait, isn't going to breed that gene out of the population or get rid of that disease or social trait, unless it is done on a conscious, forced-on-everyone-who-comes-up-positive-whether-they-wanted-an-abortion-or-not-type-of-program, so again it doesn't matter.
What it comes down to is we need better education of the general public - that abortion is never going to be the answer to "getting rid of a problem" (either genetic, gender, or cultural trait), and that abortions aren't necessary to avoid the social or economic hardship of having a child too young or out-of-wedlock.
A moral consideration? No more so than having an abortion for any other reason; an abortion is an abortion, which is legal, and the reason doesn't really matter - as I said before, it all comes out in the wash on a population genetics level. Is it more justified to have one because the fetus has been diagnosed with a terminal disease than because it will have blue eyes? Yes I think so, but that's not my choice to make for someone else. If we start putting qualifications on what abortions are allowed and which aren't, then we increase government regulation, bureaucracy, paperwork, cost, and abuse (by participants lying) - I really don't want to go there, do you?
As I've said before, I am opposed to abortion as a method of birth control or to choose what traits a parent supposedly wants in their child (amazing how what we want for our kids often gets foiled by their own plans for themselves, that control is an illusion); however, I am absolutely in favor of it being available as a legal option for women as our society is not functioning in a supportive manner for those who find themselves in an unintended pregnancy situation. We don't properly educate and fully inform children as to the risks and consequences so they can make responsible, informed decisions as to the act in the first place; we stigmatize and judge, rather than just offering unqualified help to those who become pregnant and would suffer negative educational or job consequences if they remain pregnant and thus choose abortion when they otherwise might not. I'd like to see a whole lot more proactive solutions to reducing abortion rates, rather than reactive solutions that punish those left to deal with the consequences, for far too often the women are left to deal with it on their own.
Why does a woman need to know the sex if she's planning on killing it? Well, if she wants a particular gender then it helps if she actually knows what the gender is before making the decision to go through with it. If she's aborting for another reason, then she wouldn't need to know the gender. But this seems like a pretty obvious question, did you mean something else?
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- PrintSmith
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 5760
- Thank you received: 40
31 May 2012 10:04 #34
by PrintSmith
Replied by PrintSmith on topic A Woman's Right to Choose...
And this is just another example of demagogic bovine scat reverberating inside the "progressive" echo chamber that adds nothing to the discussion and is intended to fortify the current division between the populace of the union. It is an unnecessary, irrelevant and gratuitous example of written diarrhea accompanying an otherwise logical and reasoned argument against the legislation - which is:Something the Dog Said wrote: This is just another right wing faux outrage extending the Republican's war on women.
To which my reply would be that even granting the premise for the purposes of the discussion, that the law wouldn't prevent that many human lives from being destroyed because the prospective parent(s) wanted a child of the opposite sex than the one they had already created, it fails to address the question of whether or not we should allow even one human life to be destroyed because the prospective parent(s) wanted a child of the opposite sex than the one they created. Most reasonable people would agree that there are legitimate reasons for destroying the human life living in the womb even if they disagree on what constitutes a legitimate reason. The question before us is whether or not we, as a society, are willing to sanction the sex of the child as one of them.Something the Dog Said wrote: Sex can not be determined until the 20th week. According to the CDC, less than 1.5% of pregnancy terminations occur after that time. So even if pregnancy termination was based on sex determination, it would have little effect. Even so, there is simply no evidence of gender based pregnancy termination. The O'Keefe/Breitbart video cited by the OP has no evidentary weight that gender based pregnancy termination occurs. In fact, the actual evidence shows just the opposite. Since 1983, according to the CDC, the rate of boys being born has actually decreased.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- pineinthegrass
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 2836
- Thank you received: 25
31 May 2012 10:22 #35
by pineinthegrass
Your post is full of diversion and misinformation.
The diversion is throwing O'Keefe's name into this as if that really matters. No, it does not. Regardless, the video was done by a group called Live Action and I see no direct involvement by O'Keefe anyway. Plus, the full unedited video is available as well. Anyone can make a video like this.
Your misinformation is in stating gender cannot be determined until 20 weeks. That's partially true with ultrasound, but I've seen a range of 16-20 weeks. Amniocentesis can do it much earlier and you can even buy over the counter tests that claim to do it in as little as 6 weeks. I'm sure the accuracy isn't perfect, but does that matter? I looks like people buy them.
http://www.drugstore.com/intelligender-gender-prediction-test/qxp219808?catid=183049
Replied by pineinthegrass on topic A Woman's Right to Choose...
Something the Dog Said wrote: This is just another right wing faux outrage extending the Republican's war on women. Sex can not be determined until the 20th week. According to the CDC, less than 1.5% of pregnancy terminations occur after that time. So even if pregnancy termination was based on sex determination, it would have little effect. Even so, there is simply no evidence of gender based pregnancy termination. The O'Keefe/Breitbart video cited by the OP has no evidentary weight that gender based pregnancy termination occurs. In fact, the actual evidence shows just the opposite. Since 1983, according to the CDC, the rate of boys being born has actually decreased.
Yet another "outrage" with no facts behind it.
Your post is full of diversion and misinformation.
The diversion is throwing O'Keefe's name into this as if that really matters. No, it does not. Regardless, the video was done by a group called Live Action and I see no direct involvement by O'Keefe anyway. Plus, the full unedited video is available as well. Anyone can make a video like this.
Your misinformation is in stating gender cannot be determined until 20 weeks. That's partially true with ultrasound, but I've seen a range of 16-20 weeks. Amniocentesis can do it much earlier and you can even buy over the counter tests that claim to do it in as little as 6 weeks. I'm sure the accuracy isn't perfect, but does that matter? I looks like people buy them.
http://www.drugstore.com/intelligender-gender-prediction-test/qxp219808?catid=183049
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- FredHayek
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 30822
- Thank you received: 179
31 May 2012 14:18 #36
by FredHayek
Maybe currently in the US, but Canada and Asian countries are seeing higher sex based abortions. The scenario being played out is that the parents don't care if the first child is a boy or a girl, but if the second fetus is female after a female first child, it is much more likely to be aborted.
I know there is little that can be done to legislate against this, but I don't like seeing it.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Replied by FredHayek on topic A Woman's Right to Choose...
Something the Dog Said wrote: This is just another right wing faux outrage extending the Republican's war on women. Sex can not be determined until the 20th week. According to the CDC, less than 1.5% of pregnancy terminations occur after that time. So even if pregnancy termination was based on sex determination, it would have little effect. Even so, there is simply no evidence of gender based pregnancy termination. The O'Keefe/Breitbart video cited by the OP has no evidentary weight that gender based pregnancy termination occurs. In fact, the actual evidence shows just the opposite. Since 1983, according to the CDC, the rate of boys being born has actually decreased.
Yet another "outrage" with no facts behind it.
Maybe currently in the US, but Canada and Asian countries are seeing higher sex based abortions. The scenario being played out is that the parents don't care if the first child is a boy or a girl, but if the second fetus is female after a female first child, it is much more likely to be aborted.
I know there is little that can be done to legislate against this, but I don't like seeing it.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Arlen
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 1548
- Thank you received: 11
31 May 2012 20:14 #37
by Arlen
Hypocrites!
Replied by Arlen on topic A Woman's Right to Choose...
Are you serious? It is always the female baby that is aborted whenever sex is the determiner. And it is discrimination against female. And the liberals whole heartedly support this war on women.Something the Dog Said wrote: This is just another right wing faux outrage extending the Republican's war on women. Sex can not be determined until the 20th week. According to the CDC, less than 1.5% of pregnancy terminations occur after that time. So even if pregnancy termination was based on sex determination, it would have little effect. Even so, there is simply no evidence of gender based pregnancy termination. The O'Keefe/Breitbart video cited by the OP has no evidentary weight that gender based pregnancy termination occurs. In fact, the actual evidence shows just the opposite. Since 1983, according to the CDC, the rate of boys being born has actually decreased.
Yet another "outrage" with no facts behind it.
Hypocrites!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- LadyJazzer
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 14880
- Thank you received: 27
31 May 2012 20:16 #38
by LadyJazzer
Replied by LadyJazzer on topic A Woman's Right to Choose...
And of course, you have a valid source for your extremist bullcrap? (emphasis on the word "VALID")
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Arlen
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 1548
- Thank you received: 11
31 May 2012 20:18 #39
by Arlen
Replied by Arlen on topic A Woman's Right to Choose...
Why should I spend time educating you on the history of civilization? Every time that a liberal cannot dispute an argument, the liberal yells "SOURCE, PLEASE". That is so tiresome.
But thanks for playing.
But thanks for playing.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Rick
-
Topic Author
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 15608
- Thank you received: 163
31 May 2012 20:23 #40
by Rick
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Replied by Rick on topic A Woman's Right to Choose...
Just wanted to find out if you had a problem with a woman killing off a certain gender until she gets the gender she wants. I got my answer, thank you.Science Chic wrote:
CritiKalbILL wrote:
Science Chic wrote:
Why does a woman need to know the sex if she's planning on killing it? Well, if she wants a particular gender then it helps if she actually knows what the gender is before making the decision to go through with it. If she's aborting for another reason, then she wouldn't need to know the gender. But this seems like a pretty obvious question, did you mean something else?
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.181 seconds
sponsors
