Abortion based on sex of the child

[Trojan_Ripper]

Wow! Funny how some women want to cry foul on their rights…. but think “gender selected abortion” is great, and just another one of their rights. Little do they know that they are blindly following the three most dangerous words voiced in places like China and India “It’s a girl”. …While at the same time for some odd fucked up reason, wish the same bullshit for our country.

I guess if everyone felt that way…. we wouldn’t, in the near future, have to worry about women’s rights, or, men’s rights for that matter would we?

It’s also interesting that most countries that are staunch Pro-Choice/Pro-Abortion rights BAN sex selection abortions…. but for some odd reason… here in the United States it seems to take longer for reason and sanity to sink in. Must be fucking politics.

When women choose to open themselves to possible pregnancy while “choosing” not to use birth control, or, “demand their partner use birth control”…. they leave themselves open for the responsibility of dealing with the consequences.
Fortunately for our country we don’t tell a women “what she can have and how many”…. but if that is what some women want for their “rights” I say export, and welcome to your new paradise in China, India, wherever. Go play the baby lotto or learn to say “NO”.

With the subject of women’s rights on this topic of “should a woman be able to abort their child based on gender” I have to say “HELL NO” while also saying, “how arrogant, pretentious, disdainful, and hollow can a human be in doing so”?

I guess some topics on Volconvo can be useful....you know...when bile cleans the back of your teeth and saves you time at the dentist. Phifffitttt. Trying to compare gender to a terminal illness? WTF?

[Dieval]

Title of the OP:

Should a person be able to abort their child based upon gender?

Is it different? Does that change your original answer?

It doesn't change my original answer.

[Bhaal-Zebub]

Welcome to the human condition where our choices a based on greed.

My how far we have evolved.

[Trojan_Ripper]

How could I throw away a miracle
How could I face another day
It's all of my doing
I made a choice
And today I pay
My heart is full of pain
How could you understand
The way I feel
How could you relate to so much pain
Seems as though nothing can comfort me
So today I pray
That someone should listen for

[Chorus]
Nothing should matter
Not when love grows inside you
The choice is yours
There's a miracle in store
Nothing should matter
Not when love grows inside you
A voice of love is crying out
Don't throw love away
There's a miracle in store
How could I let go of a miracle
Nothing could ever take its place
Thought I was looking
Out for myself
Now it seems the pain
Is all that I have gained
I wonder if I could be your miracle
I wonder if I could spare you pain
Seems as though nothing will comfort me
Less today I pray
That you should come listen
[Chorus]

Don't ever throw away your miracle
Don't let it slip away
Nothing should matter

Yep. Evolution in all its grandeur and splendor…. something to be proud of, eh?

[minorwork]

Welcome to the human condition where our choices a based on greed.

My how far we have evolved.

Let us choose the direction of our evolution on an individual basis. Wipe out genetic carriers and disease. If you want a boy, girl, or puppy dog, and the ability exists to choose, what interest does any other have in individuals doing so? If they want to stick with the crap shoot let them gamble but why prevent another that doesn't want to gamble and is willing to bear the responsibility of directing their reproductive product to the end of their choice? Not government forcings, not royal monarchy's political necessities, just individual choice on the grounds that they are already responsible by procreating. Let them demonstrate control over themselves to their ends not yours.

[Maryjane]

Wow! Funny how some women want to cry foul on their rights…. but think “gender selected abortion” is great, and just another one of their rights. Little do they know that they are blindly following the three most dangerous words voiced in places like China and India “It’s a girl”. …While at the same time for some odd fucked up reason, wish the same bullshit for our country.

What's funny is the assumption women are too stupid to know about places like China and India, or what's best for themselves, but they are smart enough to raise children.

I guess if everyone felt that way…. we wouldn’t, in the near future, have to worry about women’s rights, or, men’s rights for that matter would we?

Yes, just because some couples do it, everyone will and in the near future there goes all of civilization. I guess you missed the part where some do it to prevent genetic abnormalities in their offspring?

[/U]It’s also interesting that most countries that are staunch Pro-Choice/Pro-Abortion rights BAN sex selection abortions…. but for some odd reason… here in the United States it seems to take longer for reason and sanity to sink in. Must be fucking politics.

It can be a humanitarian position. If you're going to drag politics into it, they could be left, middle and right who support healthcare providers covering pre-existing conditions so people don't go bankrupt trying to take care of indigent children instead of turning them over as wards of the state to get care as their only option.

When women choose to open themselves to possible pregnancy while “choosing” not to use birth control, or, “demand their partner use birth control”…. they leave themselves open for the responsibility of dealing with the consequences.

You must have missed the in-vitro fertilization part? These are wanted children, not accidents. It's common place to cull embryos. You want these women to attempt to carry 10 kids to term? You want to force a woman to carry a child that's going to die to term? That should be her and her partner's decision.

Fortunately for our country we don’t tell a women “what she can have and how many”…. but if that is what some women want for their “rights” I say export, and welcome to your new paradise in China, India, wherever. Go play the baby lotto or learn to say “NO”.

In our country, yes, it belongs to all of us, we don't kick people out for exercising their legal rights.

With the subject of women’s rights on this topic of “should a woman be able to abort their child based on gender” I have to say “HELL NO” while also saying, “how arrogant, pretentious, disdainful, and hollow can a human be in doing so”?

How horrible of a couple to not want to bring a child with Cystic Fibrosis into this world. How dare they not want to neglect the other children they have, go bankrupt trying to take care of them, only to watch them die an excruciating death before the age of 20.

I guess some topics on Volconvo can be useful....you know...when bile cleans the back of your teeth and saves you time at the dentist. Phifffitttt. Trying to compare gender to a terminal illness? WTF?

Such knee jerk responses. Yes, terminal illnesses are genetically linked to sex. The majority of miscarriages are males. Taking away the right to abort infringes on the woman's right to privacy.

[Apeman81]

Let us choose the direction of our evolution on an individual basis. Wipe out genetic carriers and disease. If you want a boy, girl, or puppy dog, and the ability exists to choose, what interest does any other have in individuals doing so? If they want to stick with the crap shoot let them gamble but why prevent another that doesn't want to gamble and is willing to bear the responsibility of directing their reproductive product to the end of their choice? Not government forcings, not royal monarchy's political necessities, just individual choice on the grounds that they are already responsible by procreating. Let them demonstrate control over themselves to their ends not yours.

AH! What hubris.

And what of the women who finds herself pregnant with a child thought to have a genetic diseases? Is she to be told, in the interest of the collective, of course, that only selfishness and greed would see her carry the child to term, to raise it and care for it?

Individual choice to kill the individual you conceive? Now that's a right worth striving for.

Yessiree! Abortion has nothing to do with selfishness.

[lili462]

Can someone tell me how the song of a dead coke head is relevant to this matter?

[minorwork]

AH! What hubris.

That's responsibility.

And what of the women who finds herself pregnant with a child thought to have a genetic diseases? Is she to be told, in the interest of the collective, of course, that only selfishness and greed would see her carry the child to term, to raise it and care for it?

You can't seem to face the point that it is immoral on the grounds of personal responsibility for a collective or any to force a woman from her decision concerning reproductive rights. You deflect from your failed arguments. At least make a sensible argument for why you are the better choice to make decisions for a woman in the matter.

Individual choice to kill the individual you conceive? Now that's a right worth striving for.

Striving is necessary to retain the right that is already existing in the face of misogyny.

Yessiree! Abortion has nothing to do with selfishness.

Your selfish concern is noted.

[Trojan_Ripper]

What's funny is the assumption women are too stupid to know about places like China and India, or what's best for themselves, but they are smart enough to raise children.

I’m sorry. I didn’t realize a baby’s gender would interfere with “what’s best for women”. How does that work? Is it something like “we need to have another boy because we have all these boy clothes we can hand down”?
I know many intelligent and gifted women and never stereotyped them on their view of abortion....but then I don’t see them being so conceited as basing an abortion on their baby’s gender either.

Yes, just because some couples do it, everyone will and in the near future there goes all of civilization. I guess you missed the part where some do it to prevent genetic abnormalities in their offspring?

I guess you missed the part of “I guess if everyone felt that way”. But then you did get the point.

If “SOME” do it to prevent genetic abnormalities in their offspring then all they have to do is prove it with screening and then abort. No problem.

But just stating it’s a girl and “MIGHT” be born with Turner syndrome, or, it’s a boy and “MIGHT” be born with SCID does not leave it open to just abort for gender reason. With screening and chance of having a disease such as Tay-Sachs then you abort for reasons other than fucking gender. What’s next....they might be color blind? Your case for gender abortions for genetic abnormalities doesn’t even rate on the weak scale.

It can be a humanitarian position. If you're going to drag politics into it, they could be left, middle and right who support healthcare providers covering pre-existing conditions so people don't go bankrupt trying to take care of indigent children instead of turning them over as wards of the state to get care as their only option.

Huh? We are talking “Gender abortion” here aren’t we? I believe you are confusing plain old abortion with “gender selection abortion” while throwing in genetic abnormalities you distorted any point you were trying to make.
Now....with this different twist, it flows farther and farther from the gender selection abortion issue and becomes humanitarian abortion? So now it’s “I’m pregnant” (pre-existing) condition, I couldn’t say No, I’m poor and need insurance to cover my abortion because I’ll go bankrupt, and to stick with the OP we are debating... the baby might be jaundiced and color blind when it’s born. LOL

You must have missed the in-vitro fertilization part? These are wanted children, not accidents. It's common place to cull embryos. You want these women to attempt to carry 10 kids to term? You want to force a woman to carry a child that's going to die to term? That should be her and her partner's decision.

I didn’t miss it....Nothing wrong with that at all. How does that even compare in your view? Let’s think about it. Getting pregnant on purpose with a selected gender, versus, aborting because it is not the right gender. Hmmmm

How horrible of a couple to not want to bring a child with Cystic Fibrosis into this world. How dare they not want to neglect the other children they have, go bankrupt trying to take care of them, only to watch them die an excruciating death before the age of 20.

AGAIN....this is moot to the OP.

I’ll put it another way with this question because it seems you are intentionally bringing up a different point all together.
Okay....you want a girl...do you go to full term and deliver a baby girl with Cystic Fibrosis or abort? You want a girl and it’s a boy with Cystic Fibrosis....do you go to full term and deliver a baby boy or abort? Does gender even play a part in your decision? If not, why bring it up?

Such knee jerk responses. Yes, terminal illnesses are genetically linked to sex. The majority of miscarriages are males. Taking away the right to abort infringes on the woman's right to privacy.

I would say keeping those knees together or using birth control until you are responsible enough to have and want children would be the proper response.

....And one more time. This debate is about the right to abort for “gender selection” not just a blanket statement of taking away a woman’s “right to abort”. See my opinions on abortion stated in other threads on the subject.

[JimmyNic]

Striving is necessary to retain the right that is already existing in the face of misogyny.

Let's not resort to throwing round words like mysogyny, which add nothing to a discussion. I suspect many people who hold anti-abortion views would be equally opposed to it if it was men who got pregnant. The vast majority don't oppose abortion because they hate women, and that likely includes everyone on this forum.

You can't seem to face the point that it is immoral on the grounds of personal responsibility for a collective or any to force a woman from her decision concerning reproductive rights. You deflect from your failed arguments. At least make a sensible argument for why you are the better choice to make decisions for a woman in the matter.

Should governments be forces for moral conscience or do they merely set the rules and let the game play out? This is really the question being asked.

Abortion is a bad thing, whether you are in favour of it or not. No-one wants to go through an abortion, and it would certainly be better for the women involved to have prevented the pregnancy in the first place. Abortion is probably the lesser of two evils when it comes to foetuses likely to be born with terrible defects, but should it be used as a tool for family planning when adoption is available? I don't know. Do we want to encourage the idea of terminating foetuses based on non-health attributes? I'd say no. But then I do believe governments should be forces for moral conscience.

[minorwork]

Let's not resort to throwing round words like misogyny, which add nothing to a discussion.

What other word describes the position that the woman who would dare to exercise her rights is so selfish that she should be denied the right to live her life but should be subject to one who considers themselves more moral. What other word describes a position that claims any woman desiring abortion is doing so on a whim? What other word is more apt to apply to any who deny respect to a woman unless she yields to their superiority of moral righteousness? Give me a single word that does that better than the antonym of misandry.

Speak for yourself why you've no one word that not only adds to discussion but does so in such a pithy manner.

I suspect many people who hold anti-abortion views would be equally opposed to it if it was men who got pregnant. The vast majority don't oppose abortion because they hate women, and that likely includes everyone on this forum.

Fantasy Island arguments? But fine. What word defines someone who doesn't hate but women who abort?

Should governments be forces for moral conscience or do they merely set the rules and let the game play out? This is really the question being asked.

Try it out on Tuesdays. What is your meaning as compared to the issue being who is to decide whether to abort or not? I don't get what you mean. There is no moral conscience of an organization that consists of people who are responsible for THEIR actions.

Abortion is a bad thing, whether you are in favour of it or not. No-one wants to go through an abortion, and it would certainly be better for the women involved to have prevented the pregnancy in the first place. Abortion is probably the lesser of two evils when it comes to foetuses likely to be born with terrible defects, but should it be used as a tool for family planning when adoption is available? I don't know. Do we want to encourage the idea of terminating foetuses based on non-health attributes? I'd say no. But then I do believe governments should be forces for moral conscience.

For your moral conscience you mean.A future free of genetic disease at odds with your moral conscience that prevents the means to accomplish it. There is no room for another's morality or preferences as long as your comfort is not inconvenienced by one disagreeing with you.