Gender-based abortions

[nigel_k]

Would you also say that, to be consistent, anti-abortion folks must favor high taxes and big government?

You could argue that saving the life of an innocent child is more important than many of the things our taxes are used for. But opposing state-funded healthcare and also opposing abortion is hard to justify.

[OleBerg]

It's the poor and the scared that need the law to be on their side here.

As always.

[helene_t]

Anyway, if suppose a woman has given birth to such a child but then at 10 murdered him/her, it would be clearly wrong, the same applies to if he/she is 1, or 1 day old... So where exactly is the line?

To answer that (other than just by reference to core values or gut feelings) I think I have to ask myself why I consider murder to be wrong. After all, since the World is over-crowded, killing a random person would on average be good for humankind as a whole, wouldn't it?

 

I think the main reason is that for society to function we need to be able to trust that other people are unlikely to kill us. Otherwise we would have to avoid a lot of interaction with other people because of fear. For a social species like Homo Sapiens that would be impractical.

 

Another reason is that most people are the loved ones of some other people, so murder tends to make some people sad.

 

Probably some other reasons could be added. Anyway, having written up those reasons, we can start figuring out how the rule that murder is bad applies to the case where the victim is a very young child, a fetus, a germ cell, a terminal patient in coma, a psychopatic mass murderer on death row, a "vegetable", a domestic dog, a domestic pig, a wild animal etc.

 

I suspect that AFAIAC the conclusion would likely be that murdering a young adult is worst, murdering a newborn child is much less bad especially if the killer is the mother, and that this is even more true for a fetus.

[OleBerg]

Would you also say that, to be consistent, anti-abortion folks must favor high taxes and big government?

You could argue that saving the life of an innocent child is more important than many of the things our taxes are used for. But opposing state-funded healthcare and also opposing abortion is hard to justify.

Sometimes tax-money is used to save the life of an innocent child.

 

I know I am in a minority position, but if you actually believe (I do, no kidding) that many tax-money are well-spent, your argument diminishes considerably.

[bid_em_up]

Why require them to have an abortion?

 

I'd much prefer that such people be required to have a vasectomy or their tubes tied before ever either getting someone pregnant or getting pregnant on their own. Preventative methods rather than post-coital methods would work wonders for this world.

Because what do you do about 13-16 year olds who decide to "experiment" with their boyfriends and end up pregnant?

I assumed you were referring to adults, not children.

[jjbrr]

Why require them to have an abortion?

 

I'd much prefer that such people be required to have a vasectomy or their tubes tied before ever either getting someone pregnant or getting pregnant on their own. Preventative methods rather than post-coital methods would work wonders for this world.

Because what do you do about 13-16 year olds who decide to "experiment" with their boyfriends and end up pregnant?

I assumed you were referring to adults, not children.

Touche. Teenagers who get pregnant probably aren't important to this thread, nor relevant to the OP.

 

In that case, I like your solution.

[Gerben42]

The group of pro-life people is diverse so this is sort of a straw man. Not everyone who opposes abortion think women must give birth after rape/incest (assuming that's what your first sentence means).

 

That is one example, yes. You're not really pro-life if you accept that there are situations where the woman can choose abortion, even if giving birth wouldn't endanger her life.

 

I think this is complicated, though. Anyway, if suppose a woman has given birth to such a child but then at 10 murdered him/her, it would be clearly wrong, the same applies to if he/she is 1, or 1 day old... So where exactly is the line? Why do you think it is so clear cut? You could say that the fetus is a "part of her body" but I don't think it is a really immediate fact that this distinction is real (just 1 minute before giving birth there are two bodies not one). So if one person thinks terminating the life of a fetus 1 month old should be stopped then one is arrogantly forcing one's morals upon others, but if someone else thinks terminating the life of a human 1 month old should be stopped, he/she represents good, solid moral grounds.

 

I mean exactly what I wrote. There is a boundary somewhere, but it should be after the point where the women knows that she is pregnant. For reasons you mention, it should also be well before full-term. That is the grey area. I'm not talking about the grey area.

 

Pro-lifers are those who are, by definition, against all abortions in cases where the woman's life is not endangered by continuing the pregnancy. They want women who abort the pregnancy to be persecuted. I think this is not an acceptable position, as I wrote in my post.

 

The whole point is that the pro-lifers are really saying not only "I am against abortion", which is fine with me. They are saying "YOU also cannot have an abortion because I am against it", which is not fine.

 

A simpler and less controversial example: Sex before marriage. In many religions, you are not allowed to have sex before marriage. I'm totally OK with: "I stand to my moral code and will not have sex before I marry".

I'm not OK with: "My moral code says that one should not have sex before marriage, so if you break that rule, you should be punished."

 

Coming back to the opening post: I think that the woman did something I firmly disapprove of and if she were a friend and told me this, I doubt that afterwards she would still be my friend. But there should be no law against it, assuming that it was early in the pregnancy.

[Lobowolf]

The whole point is that the pro-lifers are really saying not only "I am against abortion", which is fine with me. They are saying "YOU also cannot have an abortion because I am against it", which is not fine.

 

A simpler and less controversial example: Sex before marriage. In many religions, you are not allowed to have sex before marriage. I'm totally OK with: "I stand to my moral code and will not have sex before I marry".

I'm not OK with: "My moral code says that one should not have sex before marriage, so if you break that rule, you should be punished."

Your "simpler and less controversial example" is a poor analog, as premarital sex doesn't directly harm any third parties.

 

 

They are, of course, saying what you say they're saying. A closer analogy to the pro-lifers' beliefs on the matter would be, say, killing 5 year-old children. Most people who are opposed to killing 5 year-old children don't just mean that they personally wouldn't kill any 5 year-old children; they mean that "YOU also cannot kill 5 year-old children."

 

A less silly example would be something like slavery. The abolitionists didn't "agree to disagree" about slavery, because they believed that there were vulnerable third parties who needed to be spoken up for.

 

That doesn't mean they're necessarily RIGHT, but if you're pro-choice (as I am), and you're going to be intellectually honest, you have to acknowledge that the pro-life stance is principled and goes beyond the typical moral issues involving government interference, such a censorship, recreational drug use, etc.

[Gerben42]

They are, of course, saying what you say they're saying. A closer analogy to the pro-lifers' beliefs on the matter would be, say, killing 5 year-old children. Most people who are opposed to killing 5 year-old children don't just mean that they personally wouldn't kill any 5 year-old children; they mean that "YOU also cannot kill 5 year-old children."

 

Reciprocal ethics "do not onto others as you would not want others to do onto you" is of course the basic rule on which society is based.

 

Pro-lifers are making it unfair by taking the statement that a fetus has a soul (whatever that is) and is a human being from conception onward, and thus has human rights. And you cannot discuss that with them since that's their belief, can't touch that. That may be their belief, but there is no reason why it should be like this. And since it's a belief, to which others (with a different belief) may disagree, it should not be the basis of a law.

[Lobowolf]

And since it's a belief, to which others (with a different belief) may disagree, it should not be the basis of a law.

Is this really your general position? A belief that others may disagree with should not be the basis of a law?

[luke warm]

Pro-lifers are those who are, by definition, against all abortions in cases where the woman's life is not endangered by continuing the pregnancy. They want women who abort the pregnancy to be persecuted. I think this is not an acceptable position, as I wrote in my post.

this is not true - at least it isn't true of anyone i know

The whole point is that the pro-lifers are really saying not only "I am against abortion", which is fine with me. They are saying "YOU also cannot have an abortion because I am against it", which is not fine.

again, this is not true... i grant there are many, on both sides of this and other arguments, who think that way... imo it's not a defensible position

And since it's a belief, to which others (with a different belief) may disagree, it should not be the basis of a law.

i don't think this is what you meant

[Winstonm]

Claiming the tag "pro-life" rather than the more accurate "anti-abortion" was one of the great all-time marketing ploys for the Christian Right Wing IMO. It immediately places those on the other side of the discussion on the defensive as implied "anti-life".

 

Staunch anti-abortionists are no different from fundamental Muslim groups like the Taliban in that they want to foist their interpretation of religious beliefs onto the rest of the world - to save the world from itself, of course.

 

IMO, controllers and their need to control is the ultimate mental illness. The thinking that "if only everyone would do as I say everything would be perfect" is simply delusional.

[Lobowolf]

Claiming the tag "pro-life" rather than the more accurate "anti-abortion" was one of the great all-time marketing ploys for the Christian Right Wing IMO. It immediately places those on the other side of the discussion on the defensive as implied "anti-life".

 

Staunch anti-abortionists are no different from fundamental Muslim groups like the Taliban in that they want to foist their interpretation of religious beliefs onto the rest of the world - to save the world from itself, of course.

 

IMO, controllers and their need to control is the ultimate mental illness. The thinking that "if only everyone would do as I say everything would be perfect" is simply delusional.

Claiming the tag "pro-life" rather than the more accurate "anti-abortion" was one of the great all-time marketing ploys for the Christian Right Wing IMO.  It immediately places those on the other side of the discussion on the defensive as implied "anti-life".

 

Similarly, "pro-choice" plays better in the media than "pro-being-able-to-kill-fetuses-without-legal-repercussions."

 

 

Staunch anti-abortionists are no different from fundamental Muslim groups like the Taliban in that they want to foist their interpretation of religious beliefs onto the rest of the world - to save the world from itself, of course.

 

Are they different from the Christian groups who opposed slavery in the 19th Century?

 

 

IMO, controllers and their need to control is the ultimate mental illness. The thinking that "if only everyone would do as I say everything would be perfect" is simply delusional.

 

Again, in principle, the logical extension of this line of thinking to slavery would make for an extremely unpalatable argument: "Well, if you think slavery is wrong, don't own any slaves. But why the pathological need to impose your moral beliefs on me? I'll just continue to own my slaves, and we can agree to disagree."

 

 

The fundamental question isn't one of who wants to control other people more. Lots of non-Christians and pro-choicers want to exerts all sorts of control over others with respect to different issues. And, again, the slavery context (hopefully) makes pretty clear that there are issues over which the vast majority of us would certainly impose our moral beliefs on others. The fundamental question is simply (??) whether or not unborn fetuses are entitled to the same level of legal protection as the rest of us.

[Winstonm]

The fundamental question is simply (??) whether or not unborn fetuses are entitled to the same level of legal protection as the rest of us.

 

The fundamental question to answer is at what point are fetuses individuals. IMO, your question about "unborn fetuses" presumes that from conception until birth there is no difference in the nature of the fetus.

 

Societies certainly have the right to answer this question legally and impose their decision through laws.

 

Similarly, "pro-choice" plays better in the media than "pro-being-able-to-kill-fetuses-without-legal-repercussions."

 

Absolutely correct. We have become such a sidebar society that only thing we can repeat is the bumper sticker slogans.

[Gerben42]

Again, in principle, the logical extension of this line of thinking to slavery would make for an extremely unpalatable argument: "Well, if you think slavery is wrong, don't own any slaves. But why the pathological need to impose your moral beliefs on me? I'll just continue to own my slaves, and we can agree to disagree."

 

Sorry a bad example... As the slaves get their say too, it would only be fine with it if the slaves also think it is a good solution. If that were the case, one would probably consider them as servants, as they have the right to quit at any time.

 

Is this really your general position? A belief that others may disagree with should not be the basis of a law?

 

Perhaps I should make it more precise. The religious belief of any group should not be the sole basis to make a law that forces their beliefs upon others. Please teach me a counterexample.

[jakob_r]

I'd much prefer that such people be required to have a vasectomy or their tubes tied before ever either getting someone pregnant or getting pregnant on their own. Preventative methods rather than post-coital methods would work wonders for this world.

 

Such ideas have worked wonders already. They were widely applied and applauded in Germany in the 1930ies. The nazis even had the objective criteria (and a few not so objective) that jjbr is suggesting be used for forced abortion. Criminals, degenerates, dissidents, homosexuals (go figure!), the mentally ill and a bunch of others were subjected to forced sterilisation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

 

Clearly that made the world a happier and better place.

[helene_t]

A more apt example would be animal rights. I mean, unlike slavery and the killing of 5-year olds, animal rights is actually something which 21st century non-psychopats can disagree about.

[shyams]

I have not read all the posts in detail here. But based on a cursory glance, it appears that the discussion has veered away from 'gender-based abortions' to '.... abortions'

 

The original post can be (for purposes of my discussion) split into two parts:

1. A one-off (not exactly one event but a rare enough occurrence) decision made by a Swede (or European or American etc) to consciously abort a female foetus for the sole reason that it is female

2. A repeated occurrence in some societies to abort female foetuses.

 

Part I: My personal opinion is that it is solely the choice of the pregnant woman in question. Most countries has laws on abortion, and the citizens abide by those laws. There are also societal considerations, peer pressure issues etc.

However, if the one-offs in Part I are rare, it would make not much difference.

 

Part II: I give you the case of India.

Here is one of many articles found on the web (search for "amniocentesis ban India")

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Gender...7462303415.html

 

Some interesting quotes from the article:

the government says around 10 million girls have been killed by their parents - either before or immediately after birth - over the past 20 years

And if the Government says 10 million, it could easily be 20 million

Over the last four decades, the child sex ratio has been declining, with the sharpest fall from 1981 onwards.

A 2001 census found there were 927 girls for every 1,000 boys in the age group of six-years-old or below, compared to 945 to 1,000 in 1991.

Emphasis added by me.

 

If the Swedish occurrence ever leads down the slippery slope as with India, I would be absolutely against it.

[jjbrr]

I'd much prefer that such people be required to have a vasectomy or their tubes tied before ever either getting someone pregnant or getting pregnant on their own. Preventative methods rather than post-coital methods would work wonders for this world.

 

Such ideas have worked wonders already. They were widely applied and applauded in Germany in the 1930ies. The nazis even had the objective criteria (and a few not so objective) that jjbr is suggesting be used for forced abortion. Criminals, degenerates, dissidents, homosexuals (go figure!), the mentally ill and a bunch of others were subjected to forced sterilisation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

 

Clearly that made the world a happier and better place.

"It didn't work in Germany three quarters of a century ago when a dictatorial leader imposed his fanatical beliefs on his brain-washed followers in the midst of a world war, so it stands to reason that it could never work today."

 

You're right. It's too bad nothing has changed in the past 80 years. We're still trying to cleanse the world of inferior races in one generation, and we're still trying to breed races of genetically superior citizens to fuel our war machines. And there's no end in sight.

[onoway]

Well. When at one time women could be divorced (or even killed) for not bearing sons, or who have themselves lived lives of being considered less than in any way significant to those around them, it isn't surprising there is some carryover once the choice is available. It's Utopian to suggest that all children should be born only to those who want and cherish them and who can provide adequately for their emotional and physical needs, but surely a goal to work toward?

 

Pro-lifers would have more credibility in my mind if they also were concerned about the children who are already here and living in misery and despair, or if they even concerned themselves with the life the unborn child will have after he or she is born. To any I have run across, that seems to be considered immaterial, which makes no sense to me at all.

 

A neighbor's married daughter gave birth to a child with extreme physical problems of all sorts. They knew before the birth there were problems, if they knew how severe I don't know, but in any case they are pro-lifers. The family has had a three year rollercoaster ride which has so far left them with a divorce in process, a troubled older sibling and financial disaster as they had to give up their jobs and move to another province to get the care she required. Given our healthcare system, it has cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep the child alive. The doctors have said from the beginning it will take a miracle for her to survive past 5 years of age. Theoretically she is supposed already to have "died" several times but the doctors managed to bring her back. In the meantime the life she leads is one most of us would shudder to think about..it has seemed to me at times as though she is an experimental subject more than a person. Most people would consider it cruel to inflict such an existence on their dog. It is difficult for me not to think it would have been better to abort the foetus.

 

The other extreme would be people who want to abort because of something such as the colour of their eyes or shape of the nose or because pregnancy will interfere with vacation plans. I wonder if you really want to force people with such values to be parents at all, much less to an unwanted child.

 

A thought about sterilization..sterilize everyone over the age of 6 on October 30th 2009! (or some other arbitrary date, Hallowe'en seemed appropriate. ) That avoids the question of privilege. Negative population growth for a minimum of about 8 years would take care of a lot of the world's problems, including feeding the war machine. Think the idea would fly? Could email Sarah Palin and tell her on that date the government is going to release a gas which will cause everyone over 6 to become instantly and permanantly sterile.....wonder if she would hop back on her little dais and alert the public, have everyone afraid to go outside on Hallowe'en. :ph34r:

[jakob_r]

I'd much prefer that such people be required to have a vasectomy or their tubes tied before ever either getting someone pregnant or getting pregnant on their own. Preventative methods rather than post-coital methods would work wonders for this world.

 

Such ideas have worked wonders already. They were widely applied and applauded in Germany in the 1930ies. The nazis even had the objective criteria (and a few not so objective) that jjbr is suggesting be used for forced abortion. Criminals, degenerates, dissidents, homosexuals (go figure!), the mentally ill and a bunch of others were subjected to forced sterilisation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

 

Clearly that made the world a happier and better place.

"It didn't work in Germany three quarters of a century ago when a dictatorial leader imposed his fanatical beliefs on his brain-washed followers in the midst of a world war, so it stands to reason that it could never work today."

 

You're right. It's too bad nothing has changed in the past 80 years. We're still trying to cleanse the world of inferior races in one generation, and we're still trying to breed races of genetically superior citizens to fuel our war machines. And there's no end in sight.

If the quoted statement is your interpretation of the point i tried to make or an actual quote of someone else (which i seriously doubt) I'd like to say that the passage of time does not alter my point of view. Eugenics is a sick and sickening idea anywhere at any time.

 

But since you don't seem at all disuaded, I'd be curious to know if you could provide an outline of the objective criteria according to which people should be forcefully sterilised (or forced to abort). Also how the government agency tasked with the selection should seek out the undesirable parents? Should the unwanted traits of the parents be inheritable or is it enough that the parents, based on objective criteria, must be deemed unsuitable for parenthood?

 

And what are the reasons for having a particular threshold? Can't further improvement be achieved if - say - certain non-debilitating traits were required to be present?

 

As an aside that has no bearing to my point at all, the nazi's eugenic program was put into effect 9 years before the outbreak of WWII, so the war was hardly an explanation of why it occured or was allowed to occur. And just to make it perfectly clear that I'm not out after the Germans, the idea of eugenics wasn't fostered by them, but by an American.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

 

Happy reading.

[helene_t]

Eugenics is a sick and sickening idea anywhere at any time.

I think it's fine if prospective parents take measures to avoid passing defective genes to their children, e.g. by choosing sperm and/or eggs from a donor if their own material has serious defects, or by choosing to adopt children instead.

[mike777]

Eugenics is a sick and sickening idea anywhere at any time.

I think it's fine if prospective parents take measures to avoid passing defective genes to their children, e.g. by choosing sperm and/or eggs from a donor if their own material has serious defects, or by choosing to adopt children instead.

I doubt it would be illegal even if people do it for less serious defects.

 

If roughly in one generation there are 260 million abortions in just one country, I think the discussion has moved on to other issues such as assisted suicide being legal in the heart of Europe.

 

 

"March 17, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Dignitas euthanasia "clinic" has reopened its doors in a facility located next to Switzerland's largest brothel.

 

Dignitas, which has repeatedly made international headlines for its unapologetic mission to assist the ill from around the world to kill themselves,"

 

 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08031711.html

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/assisted-suicide

[jdeegan]

:) My ancestors moved halfway across the planet to the edge of civilization so some government bureaucratic asshole could tell our women what they could do with with their bodies. I don't think so!

[luke warm]

Eugenics is a sick and sickening idea anywhere at any time.

I think it's fine if prospective parents take measures to avoid passing defective genes to their children, e.g. by choosing sperm and/or eggs from a donor if their own material has serious defects, or by choosing to adopt children instead.

but is it still fine if the motives are different? how about if, instead of the woman involved, it's the community who decides - is it still fine?