If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(News.com.au)   Australian couples expecting baby girls demand doctors do a procedure down under because they want a boy instead   (news.com.au) divider line 235
    More: Sick, Australians, Australian Medical Association, gender selection, blue moons  
•       •       •

13855 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Apr 2013 at 2:57 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



235 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-28 02:09:33 PM  

bbfreak: Shady or not it isn't your choice because it isn't your body. You may disagree but who is harmed in the resulting decision? Certainly not a person. Ultimately it's up to the woman, husband or not to make her own decisions no matter how influenced she is by her husband. If anything I would be fine with abortion clinics making sure the woman doesn't feel pressured but firmly believe it is nobody's business why a woman wants an abortion as long as she isn't pressured into such a thing.


Would you be OK with abortion at 39 weeks  or after the contractions have started? If not, why not?
 
2013-04-28 02:10:13 PM  

orbister: R.A.Danny: As I said before, you either get choice or you do not. Some half baked, cockamie scheme that judges whether you get a right by your reason to use that right is just plain silly.

No, it's a perfectly reasonable point of view. Motive is important in determining whether lots of things are permitted. There is nothing half-baked about saying "You have the right to a termination if you do not wish to have a child but you do not have the right to a termination if you do not wish this particular child".


Motive only matters to the potential parents-to-be.  NOBODY else in this situation is affected by their decision.
 
2013-04-28 02:19:24 PM  

sleeps in trees: f my siblings have had kids in the last four years, and this appears to be the norm.

I was not allowed and neither was my girlfriend so we've had 3 for 3. She was subsequently told


From other comments, it appears to be a BC thing and not anywhere in the law there, and shouldn't be an issue finding a provider that did not withhold that information - I'm in Ontario, and there's no issues with the technician telling you the sex so far as the last 4 nieces and nephews are concerned. But if they cannot see it on your 20ish week ultrasound, than you will be paying to find out if there's no reason for another ultrasound.
 
2013-04-28 02:22:18 PM  
"It was the husband who did all the talking - he was so insistent."

-that- is the part that creeps me out.

/what if his (future) son is gay?...
//wouldn't want to be his kid, no matter what gender
 
2013-04-28 02:27:29 PM  

sendtodave: orbister: No, it's a perfectly reasonable point of view. Motive is important in determining whether lots of things are permitted. There is nothing half-baked about saying "You have the right to a termination if you do not wish to have a child but you do not have the right to a termination if you do not wish this particular child".

Seems like a distinction without a difference.


I don't think so. The long version says "Society as a whole doesn't much like abortion, because it values human life at all stages, but recognises that some people simply do not wish to be parents and in those cases it permits abortion at early stages of pregnancy. However, society insists that the disinclination should be to having any child, as it finds the idea of terminating a pregnancy to avoid having a particular child with particular characteristics unacceptable".

I'm not saying that this is the only point of view, but I do think it is a valid point of view. In between the small number of people who think abortion is wonderful and should be available at any point before birth and the people who think abortion is terrible and should not be permitted under any circumstances are the large majority who don't like it much but are prepared to countenance it under certain circumstances. Those circumstances can be as narrow as "in cases of incest only" or as wide as "up to 24 weeks on demand".

It's the placing of the legal boundary that causes most heart searching and debate. Downs? Deaf? Harelip?
 
2013-04-28 02:29:04 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Motive only matters to the potential parents-to-be.  NOBODY else in this situation is affected by their decision.


That may be how you see it, but it is not how society sees it. Try demanding an abortion at 38 weeks because you want a kid with different hair colour and see how far you get.
 
2013-04-28 02:30:08 PM  
Monkeyfark Ridiculous:
Impressive. It takes some badly twisted ethics to allow a medical professional to deny a patient access to information gathered from her own body, let alone to mandate the denial.

Like the law in Arizona* that allows a physician to lie to a patient about serious birth defects if they *merely think* the patient may abort if they knew the truth?

*kansas and georgia are trying to pass similar laws
 
2013-04-28 02:38:38 PM  

orbister: The My Little Pony Killer: Motive only matters to the potential parents-to-be.  NOBODY else in this situation is affected by their decision.

That may be how you see it, but it is not how society sees it. Try demanding an abortion at 38 weeks because you want a kid with different hair colour and see how far you get.


Oh, I wouldn't be waiting that long.  I'd have gotten the abortion right away, seeing as how I don't want a child, much less one with a specific color of hair.  You wouldn't have been the wiser either.

And nobody is going to wait 38 weeks to decide that they might not like the color of their child's hair. Which again, even if that was their reasoning, it affects you not.
 
2013-04-28 02:41:57 PM  
Australian couples expecting baby girls demand doctors do a procedure down under because they want a boy instead

Is this a surprise to anyone? Watch what happens if scientists ever isolate genes responsible for homosexuality.
 
2013-04-28 03:06:58 PM  
If these douchebags are callous enough to abort based on gender, I hope they are infertile on the next go-round.  They don't deserve a kid, or more to the point, a kid does not deserve these parents.  I want to believe that people still retain some humanity, but I'm beginning to doubt it.
 
2013-04-28 03:13:07 PM  

bbfreak: Yeah, not seeing the problem here. What part of it is sick Subby? Or do you support government telling you what you can or cannot do with your body?


I think the people who are aborting for this reason are "sick."  The choice should be protected for difficult situations, not gender.  I'm not willing to say that we should restrict abortions, but to be so callous as to abort your child (who you originally wanted) based on her gender is sick.  It indicates to me that they don't have any empathy or love for a child.  They need to order a puppy instead...they can choose gender, breed, temperament, etc without spreading their sociopathic seed.
 
2013-04-28 03:23:22 PM  

doglover: BarkingUnicorn: Anyone who has a problem with this cannot also claim that a fetus isn't a human being.

The Mormons actually have to kick young men out of the church to make sure they have enough brides to go around for the senior members. http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.jp/2012/09/where-do-extra-men-go.htm l

That's what I think one of the big things in the Muslim countries with all the extreme terrorists is. They also allow polygamy. So the richest, most powerful old goats snap up all the women and the poor young men are left with no money, no power, and no pussy. When was the last time a George Clooney type playboy went all suicide bomber? If you guessed never, step up and collect your prize.

So a dearth of unwed young men will always lead to trouble. That's my hypothesis and thus objection.


So extremist chinese in 10 years?
 
2013-04-28 03:24:12 PM  

bbfreak: UnspokenVoice: bbfreak: Government should never impose moral values on its population.

Government shouldn't have laws? Pretty much all of the laws are enforcing morality. A nice easy one is laws prohibiting murder.

Yes, that is exactly what I said. Oh wait, it isn't. Hmm, if not murdering is an easy one. How about chemical castration due to being gay? Or banning sodomy? Surely those were just laws too. I might of been clearer in my meaning though and honesty that last part about morality distracts from the rest of the statement.


Hey, it is your statement. Run with it. I just don't think you understand the role of government very well.
 
2013-04-28 03:38:00 PM  

cneupie: The choice should be protected for difficult situations, not gender.  I'm not willing to say that we should restrict abortions, but to be so callous as to abort your child (who you originally wanted) based on her gender is sick.  It indicates to me that they don't have any empathy or love for a child.


... so, in other words, they probably shouldn't have a child, right?

People who seek abortions for this reason should be encouraged to go through with it, not barred.
 
2013-04-28 03:40:31 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Oh, I wouldn't be waiting that long.  I'd have gotten the abortion right away, seeing as how I don't want a child, much less one with a specific color of hair.


Not wanting a child is a socially acceptable reason.

And nobody is going to wait 38 weeks to decide that they might not like the color of their child's hair. Which again, even if that was their reasoning, it affects you not.

It doesn't matter whether it affects me or not. It doesn't affect me if someone wants to beat their dog to death or to marry their sister, but society frowns on both of these things.

You may think that abortion should be available on demand until full term, but society doesn't agree and it's society that makes the rules so it's society you have to convince.
 
2013-04-28 03:48:20 PM  

untaken_name: ArcadianRefugee: Better that than having to live with parents that resent you because you aren't what they were hoping for.

How would you know?


Hurm: non-existence vs. an existence filled with resentment and/or abuse?

Ooo, tough choice.
 
2013-04-28 03:51:17 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: BarkingUnicorn: Anyone who has a problem with this cannot also claim that a fetus isn't a human being.

You're a dipshiat.


What's your problem?  I don't have a problem with abortion or sex selection.
 
2013-04-28 03:53:49 PM  
content.dnalc.org

The Fark Progressive Brigade applauds the breeders decision.
 
2013-04-28 03:54:41 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: orbister: R.A.Danny: As I said before, you either get choice or you do not. Some half baked, cockamie scheme that judges whether you get a right by your reason to use that right is just plain silly.

No, it's a perfectly reasonable point of view. Motive is important in determining whether lots of things are permitted. There is nothing half-baked about saying "You have the right to a termination if you do not wish to have a child but you do not have the right to a termination if you do not wish this particular child".

Motive only matters to the potential parents-to-be.  NOBODY else in this situation is affected by their decision.


If the parents-to-be perform their own abortion.
 
2013-04-28 04:43:30 PM  
I don't understand. Am I supposed to be upset by the prospect of having more women in the world? Seriously?
 
2013-04-28 04:46:29 PM  

hasty ambush: Margaret Sanger
Founder of Planned Parenthood:


Oh boy. This shiat again.

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)


Here is the quote in context:

The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members. Moreover, the overcrowded homes of large families reared in poverty further contribute to this condition. Lack of medical attention is still another factor, so that the child who must struggle for health in competition with other members of a closely packed family has still great difficulties to meet after its poor constitution and malnutrition have been accounted for.

After showing the increasing infant mortality rate of children born late (23% of first born and 20% of second born children in large families died before they were a year old while 60% of 12th-borns did), she went on to chronicle the many ways surviving children of large families suffered through lack of food and medical care and by being likely to end up as child workers in the most horrible conditions, almshouses, etc. She wasn't  advocating infanticide. She was deploring the fact that the death that was so common was arguably less painful than the lives those children went on to suffer. The advocate birth control to prevent these deaths by reducing the births of children likely not to live to their fifth birthdays and to live lives of misery if they did.

"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

Uh, yeah, I can select a bunch of random words from any text and make it say anything I want too. That's not even a sentence. Although in this case I did Ctrl-F searches for "human weeds" and "reckless breeders" in The Pivot of Civilization, and neither phrase is actually in there.

The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

Uh, no. This is what she actually said: Society must make life worth the living and the refining for the individual by conditioning him to love and to seek the love-object in a manner that reflects a constructive effect upon his fellow-men and by giving him suitable opportunities. The virility of the automatic apparatus is destroyed by excessive gormandizing or hunger, by excessive wealth or poverty, by excessive work or idleness, by sexual abuse or intolerant prudishness. The noblest and most difficult art of all is the raising of human thoroughbreds (Sanger, 1922 [1969]).

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America,

She didn't want word to go out that they wanted to exterminate the "negro population" - because they DIDN'T. The context of that quote is a letter to a financial backer in which she argued for the hiring of African-American doctors and social workers. She felt black women, who were much more likely than white women to die or suffer poor health as a result of childbirth, should enjoy the same access to birth control as she advocated for white women, and so wanted to avoid the movement being falsely perceived as one that wanted to eliminate blacks. What she ACTUALLY said about black women and birth control is

A sickly race is a weak race. As long as Negro mothers die in childbirth at two and one-half times the rate of white mothers, as long as Negro babies are dying at twice the rate of white babies, colored homes will be unhappy.
and
 Negro participation in planned parenthood means democratic participation in a democratic idea. Like other democratic ideas, planned parenthood places greater value on human life and the dignity of each person. Without planning at birth, the life of Negroes as a whole in a democratic world cannot be planned.

"Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." So said Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

That one seems fabricated out of whole cloth, as I've never seen a source given for it, and even some anti-abortionists have admitted it's fake.
 
2013-04-28 04:48:54 PM  
boy.  girl.

your life is still farked either way.
 
2013-04-28 05:13:48 PM  
steerforth:
Chinese people have been here since the 1850s. You have heard of the term Gold Rushes, I presume? We had them too.

Not to the current scale, and you know it.

Anyway, I was just saying that large immigration numbers of Asians and unidentified couples wanting boys so badly that they'd get abortions kind of frames the picture pretty well.
 
2013-04-28 05:59:41 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Anyone who has a problem with this cannot also claim that a fetus isn't a human being.


People can claim anything. A consistent ethos is the problem.
 
2013-04-28 06:34:39 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: steerforth:
Chinese people have been here since the 1850s. You have heard of the term Gold Rushes, I presume? We had them too.

Not to the current scale, and you know it.

Anyway, I was just saying that large immigration numbers of Asians and unidentified couples wanting boys so badly that they'd get abortions kind of frames the picture pretty well.


No, it doesn't. The article says there was one unidentified couple wanting to abort a female fetus. The rest of the article says the practice is very rare. To me, that kind of frames the picture pretty well.
 
2013-04-28 06:39:20 PM  

Lorelle: One of Australia's biggest abortion clinics has revealed that parents have requested abortions on gender grounds - although it is "extremely rare" and always refused.

The Fertility Control Clinic - Victoria's biggest abortion provider - told the Senate inquiry that 96 per cent of abortions are performed before 12 weeks' gestation, when it is too early to know the sex.

So anti-abortionists in Australia managed to find  one rare case of abortion based on gender, and are using that to try to impose restrictions on abortion. Sounds like the fetus-obsessed, pro-forced-childbirth nuts in the U.S.


Ok, it's rare. Great. How about a lw that liumits abortions in the late term to keep this rarity from occurring. It'll only inconvenience less than 4% of people who want an abortion.

Can the anti-abortion groups count on your support?
 
2013-04-28 09:00:21 PM  

bk3k: So what?  There is nothing wrong with abortion and it doesn't matter WHY they feel like getting one.  Maybe there is a possible birth defect.  Maybe you're jobless asses can't really support a baby and you aren't so reckless as to demand the state(taxpayers) do it for you.  Maybe you have a gender preference.  Maybe you don't like the fact that the conception occurred on a Wednesday.

It doesn't matter because all you are ending is cell division.  More people should get abortions.  That is all.


That reminds me of a song by Jiz:

"Girls, let's get an abortion....do it today!
Every girl should get an abortion!
Pull that baby out of your snizz!
Don't give it a name....flush it down the drain!
Get an abortion today!"

Do it or she'll kill you!
 
2013-04-28 11:39:39 PM  

BlaqueKatt: Monkeyfark Ridiculous:
Impressive. It takes some badly twisted ethics to allow a medical professional to deny a patient access to information gathered from her own body, let alone to mandate the denial.

Like the law in Arizona* that allows a physician to lie to a patient about serious birth defects if they *merely think* the patient may abort if they knew the truth?

*kansas and georgia are trying to pass similar laws


Exactly.
 
2013-04-29 12:00:07 AM  
I detect a small chink in this argument.
 
2013-04-29 10:56:56 AM  
Why do so many people insist that this sort of thing needs to be intellectually consistent?

It is perfectly reasonable to be for choice in most cases but against it for trivial reasons.  I think we all agree, abortion is not a "good" thing, so when it does happen IMO it should be for a "good" reason.  Wanting a different gender baby is not a good reason in my book.  Banning sex selection abortions may not prevent that practice altogether, but it would at lease discourage it.

Fetus has right to life, mother has right to choose.  Up to a point, the mother's right to choose trumps the fetus, after a certain point almost all of us agree that this situation starts to favor the fetus.  Where we differ is when that happens.  (although I'm sure there are some sickos who are ok with abortion at any time, but those are surely rare)
 
2013-04-29 11:40:07 AM  
"[You] tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger." -- Matthew 23:4Why are all these anti-abortion saints not offering to raise these unwanted children?
 
2013-04-29 02:28:06 PM  

nocturnal001: Why do so many people insist that this sort of thing needs to be intellectually consistent?

It is perfectly reasonable to be for choice in most cases but against it for trivial reasons.  I think we all agree, abortion is not a "good" thing, so when it does happen IMO it should be for a "good" reason.  Wanting a different gender baby is not a good reason in my book.  Banning sex selection abortions may not prevent that practice altogether, but it would at lease discourage it.

Fetus has right to life, mother has right to choose.  Up to a point, the mother's right to choose trumps the fetus, after a certain point almost all of us agree that this situation starts to favor the fetus.  Where we differ is when that happens.  (although I'm sure there are some sickos who are ok with abortion at any time, but those are surely rare)


We do NOT all agree that abortion is not a "good" thing.  There are definitely lots of cases IMO where people SHOULD get them and do not.  Such an example is any case where the expecting couple cannot pay for the child on their own(without relying mostly on the taxpayers) and cannot therefore provide a good life for the potential child to be.  There is nothing bad about abortions.  Nothing.  Not even a little.

A zygote/fetus is nothing more than a batch of cells that use as many resources as possible to divide and grow as quickly as possible.  It is not fundamentally different than what happens in a malignant tumor except the process occurs more safely inside the womb and the cells do not have direct access to the mother's blood - so their growth can be regulated and thus the mother's life is generally not at risk.  In neither case is anything sacred (or whatever you call it) going on.  It is a complex chemical reaction following it's "programming" due to nothing more than the laws of physics.  There are no miracles here.  This is NOT equivalent to a human and does NOT have anything resembling a consciousness and/or self-awareness let alone RIGHTS.

As for late term abortions, I think they are in bad taste personally but I'm not so sure they should be illegal.  If there is any significant medical risk to the mother, then they should be absolutely legal.  Other than that, you are talking about a being that has not known consciousness, emotion, light, nor has even one memory.   At worst I see killing that as animal cruelty(which I do no condone without a very good reason) and that is a bit of a stretch honestly.

That does not make me a "sicko."  I just don't place the same value on all things as you do.  In my mind, a human is more than cells or particular patterns of DNA.  A human has come greater than the sum of it's parts.  It is a self-aware intelligent consciousness with feelings, memories, loves/hates, desires, and even fears.  The difference between us and any other animal does not immediately manifest itself.  The difference is one of potential.  A fetus has not yet reached even the potential of a lizard, so I cannot see them as equal to a human.  There probably is no "line" where that happens, since it happens gradually and and different rates for some.

In the same manor, I see someone who has become a permanent vegetable as no longer truly human.  This is because I think that who they once where is dead no matter what their organs have to say about the matter.  Even if you believe in a soul, just what IS a soul?  A magical energy field?  Or is it some sort of permanent record of WHO we are?  We probably don't have one anyhow, but even if we do, that doesn't really change what I am saying.

If all that seems so alien to you, consider my view of life and death.  All that lives... dies.  Death is the high cost of life than we ALL must pay.  The question is one of when not if.  All we really have is a limited and variable amount of TIME to exist, experience things(pleasant or unpleasant), and create memories(good or bad).  So when something/someone dies, they have not "lost" their life so much as they have "lost" the ability to experience things and make memories.

In that spirit, I take a stance on life that is quality > quantity.  It is better for the few to live good lives than the many to live miserable lives.  Plus I see little reason to believe there is anything after this life for anyone, and at the end we probably just stop existing.  That possibly being the case, it may not matter anyhow.  But assuming it does, we might as well make the most out of life for those that do live.

Also we are having too many babies anyhow.  Less people should be having their own child, and more adopting the unloved children that live NOW.  Considering that a child will generally only get 50% of your genes anyhow and considering just how very small the genetic difference is between one human and the next, why does it matter if it is really "your" child or not?

The love we have for children is not truly born from genetics but from our relationships to them.  The time we spend with them and the things we experience together.  So it really should not matter if it is genetically your child or an adopted child.  People need to have more abortions and adopt a child instead.  The world would be improved as a whole if only people would do that.
 
2013-04-29 03:00:13 PM  

nmemkha: "[You] tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger." -- Matthew 23:4Why are all these anti-abortion saints not offering to raise these unwanted children?


Because it's all about punishing "sluts"
 
2013-04-29 03:24:53 PM  

Lorelle: One of Australia's biggest abortion clinics has revealed that parents have requested abortions on gender grounds - although it is "extremely rare" and always refused.

The Fertility Control Clinic - Victoria's biggest abortion provider - told the Senate inquiry that 96 per cent of abortions are performed before 12 weeks' gestation, when it is too early to know the sex.

So anti-abortionists in Australia managed to find  one rare case of abortion based on gender, and are using that to try to impose restrictions on abortion. Sounds like the fetus-obsessed, pro-forced-childbirth nuts in the U.S.


Our idiots are far from alone, they just tend to be louder.
 
2013-04-29 03:26:45 PM  

Mrbogey: Ok, it's rare. Great. How about a lw that liumits abortions in the late term to keep this rarity from occurring. It'll only inconvenience less than 4% of people who want an abortion.

Can the anti-abortion groups count on your support?


If you're talking about the U.S. (where about 90% of all abortions are performed during the first trimester of pregnancy), the Roe v. Wade decision already limits late-term abortions.
 
Displayed 35 of 235 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report