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  
•       •       •

13856 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
 
2013-04-28 12:03:31 AM  
Anyone who has a problem with this cannot also claim that a fetus isn't a human being.
 
2013-04-28 12:16:57 AM  
Welcome to Obama's America.
 
2013-04-28 12:27:03 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-28 12:28:21 AM  

doglover: no money, no power, and no pussy.


Have you been stalking me?
 
2013-04-28 12:34:57 AM  
What part of CHOICE did you not understand?


/Oops
//I think I just redlit
///This thread
 
2013-04-28 12:40:42 AM  

Amos Quito: What part of CHOICE did you not understand?


Yep. You either believe that choice is a right or you do not. Or at least that you should keep your nose out of it.
 
2013-04-28 12:43:14 AM  
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.
 
2013-04-28 12:49:51 AM  
If someone is a big enough assbag that he or she would want an abortion based on gender, that aborted baby is getting off light.
 
2013-04-28 12:50:14 AM  
No. Hell no. Keep the kid, don't keep the kid. Your choice. Sex of the kid an issue? Hell no.

I'm sure some people lie about that and it's a slippery lope, but if that is the identified reason? Wow, no.
 
2013-04-28 01:00:54 AM  
With the trends of male vs female success rates of the 20 somethings, why would a parent today prefer a male?
 
2013-04-28 02:39:27 AM  

hb0mb: If someone is a big enough assbag that he or she would want an abortion based on gender, that aborted baby is getting off light.


this

Amos Quito: What part of CHOICE did you not understand?


and this

while it would be nice to be able to decide for people, we know exactly what happens when you interfere.
Both china and india had outlawed gender based abortions.
solution? back alley ultrasounds.
followed by legal abortions.

"did you have an ultrasound to determine the gender before deciding to have an abortion?"
NO

/LOL
 
2013-04-28 03:03:06 AM  

DON.MAC: With the trends of male vs female success rates of the 20 somethings, why would a parent today prefer a male?


So they dont have to spend all day listening to equal rights and rape culture bs
 
2013-04-28 03:03:30 AM  
Why would baby girls even know about childbirth let alone have the speaking and rhetorical abilities to talk their doctors into allowing it?
 
2013-04-28 03:04:51 AM  
They could just let the dingos deal with it.
 
2013-04-28 03:05:24 AM  
Better that than having to live with parents that resent you because you aren't what they were hoping for.
 
2013-04-28 03:10:05 AM  
I thought we were all supposed to embrace transgender people, or whatever the T stands for in LGWTFBBQ
 
2013-04-28 03:10:42 AM  
The headline made me think they were going to demand sex change operations be done on babies... Then I clicked the link and was outraged for an entirely different reason.
 
2013-04-28 03:10:44 AM  

DON.MAC: With the trends of male vs female success rates of the 20 somethings, why would a parent today prefer a male?


An issue that I believe is not spoken about in the article is that, although this is an Australian article, I believe the emphasis on preferring males is predominantly by Chinese and Indian immigrants.
 
2013-04-28 03:11:36 AM  
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?
 
2013-04-28 03:13:46 AM  
Here's the thing. There may be abortions I don't personally approve of, but that's very different from criminalizing them. The woman in question is the only one who knows her circumstances. So lawmakers can go pat themselves on the back for banning sex-selection abortions and everyone will feel all fuzzy until the first woman is beaten or killed for having a girl or something horrible happens to the first girl infant. Sex-selection abortions can be prevented through education, improving the status of women so having boys isn't seen as an advantage, and providing services so women afraid of giving birth to a daughter have a way to get out of their situation. It needs to be the woman's choice - but create the circumstances so she has a real choice and doesn't feel like she has to have an abortion if the fetus is female.
 
2013-04-28 03:15:15 AM  
Old news. In Canada sex is not revealed through universal medical ultra sound. Private is another story. As that is available everywhere.

This is a big "Ooga Booga Scary" piece which is quite silly.
 
2013-04-28 03:19:53 AM  
If they ever find a doctor that will actually do the surgery, then he better run, he better take cover.
 
2013-04-28 03:21:26 AM  
The Chinese, the Indians and the Australians.

They will invade us.

For our wimminfolks.
 
2013-04-28 03:23:04 AM  

sleeps in trees: Old news. In Canada sex is not revealed through universal medical ultra sound. Private is another story. As that is available everywhere.

This is a big "Ooga Booga Scary" piece which is quite silly.


Have you ever seen an ultrasound? You can tell the sex of the child quite often. Geographic location has nothing to do with it.
 
2013-04-28 03:23:33 AM  
Eh, I can't summon the outrage.  If abortion is a tool of family planning (and that is how it is used) then one can plan their family however they see fit.  Also, like the article said, most abortions are too early to discern gender anyway.  But,but,but the lost girls! Yeah, those girls don't know the difference.  There are greater injustices to women out there, like anti-choice, pro-birth at all costs nutjobs.
 
2013-04-28 03:24:31 AM  

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.


I mean you definitely opened the link and you pretended to read it. So I have no idea how you got where you're going. The doctors in questions simply want to be able to withhold the child's gender. I mean, the people asking for this are the people who perform general obstetrics and clearly also abortions - although this a bridge too far for them. The argument made above, that such selection is deleterious to society in general, is not lost on these doctors... plus, if anything, this is about xenophobia I suppose and how "crazy foreigners" only want boys.

I'm male and married, I never really had an opinion about abortion other than choice because I don't believe men should be dictating that sort of thing to women. I think the doctors basically want to tell various populations in that country who are gender obsessed "no, you cannot know your babies gender because we don't trust you." That has room to debate and yell and scream, but I think you're off the mark.

Just saying.

//And honestly, it's a terrible human being who would walk in with their mind set one way and then think "Oh the baby's a _____ I guess we're to ______ now." any way you cut that scenario is.... just plain messed up.
 
2013-04-28 03:27:53 AM  

randomjsa: The headline made me think they were going to demand sex change operations be done on babies... Then I clicked the link and was outraged for an entirely different reason.


I was about to get all riled up about how horrible that would be, then I read the article.  The anger is still there, it's just now directed at subby.

/transgender, so has an interesting perspective on what the headline first sounded like
 
2013-04-28 03:28:13 AM  
 Logically speaking, motive is irrelevant when it comes to abortion. It doesn't matter if you were raped or you just don't want a girl. Do you really want to say "You were raped, so this fetus is okay to abort. However, since you simply don't want a girl baby, we will not allow this abortion?" The unborn does not choose how it comes to be; to determine viability for abortion based on that criterion is nonsensical. Whatever reason is given, it is ultimately unimportant in the time before the infant can survive outside the womb.
 
2013-04-28 03:28:18 AM  

R.A.Danny: Amos Quito: What part of CHOICE did you not understand?

Yep. You either believe that choice is a right or you do not. Or at least that you should keep your nose out of it.


Implying that it's all black and white and there is no such thing as being in the middle.

Some of us are pro choice, but with restrictions and regulation. You know, kind of like how anyone sane is when it comes to things like guns, voting, driving, and anything else of consequence.

You should be able to obtain an abortion up to a certain point in any pregnancy, with no required waiting period (or, at most, a very small one), covered by insurance, no required ultrasound / other unnecessary steps, etc. But not for any reason under the sun. Not wanting to go ahead with a baby because you lost your job and can't afford it, or it'll be dead on arrival, or it will have a severe defect is ok. Not the choice everyone would make, but it's your choice. Doing the same because you don't like girls is just farked up. Sorry.

I am of the opinion that the choices of women need to be respected and we need to be cognizant of the fact that nobody knows each individual family's situation but each individual family, and one size doesn't fit all. But I am also of the opinion that a fetus, in most cases, WILL eventually become a human, and we should not have people running around getting abortions completely 100% without restriction, rhyme, or reason.

And if you support laws making it such that killing a pregnant woman gives you 2 counts of murder instead of 1, congratulations. You, too, are not 100% on the "fetuses don't matter at all and choice is all that matters" side either.
 
2013-04-28 03:28:31 AM  

R.A.Danny: sleeps in trees: Old news. In Canada sex is not revealed through universal medical ultra sound. Private is another story. As that is available everywhere.

This is a big "Ooga Booga Scary" piece which is quite silly.

Have you ever seen an ultrasound? You can tell the sex of the child quite often. Geographic location has nothing to do with it.


Yes thanks I have, many times. Parents are not allowed to see certain photos nor the actual ultra sound. One cannnot make accurate assessments from the ones given through the ultra sound. I said nothing about geographic location, but universal health care.
 
2013-04-28 03:30:34 AM  

R.A.Danny: sleeps in trees: Old news. In Canada sex is not revealed through universal medical ultra sound. Private is another story. As that is available everywhere.

This is a big "Ooga Booga Scary" piece which is quite silly.

Have you ever seen an ultrasound? You can tell the sex of the child quite often. Geographic location has nothing to do with it.


It must be performed by a wizard and viewed by a little man behind a curtain.
 
2013-04-28 03:31:09 AM  

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


I'd consider you pretty farked up if your dog had a litter and you drowned all the female pups out of spite. Do I have to agree that dogs are people now? Please respond ASAP. My dog is standing here with a petition in his mouth and I only have a couple of minutes to decide whether to sign it before the drool makes it illegible.

/non-story anyway, for reasons already covered
 
2013-04-28 03:35:37 AM  

doglover: no money, no power, and no pussy.


First you get the sugar...

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-28 03:36:04 AM  

Strolpol: Logically speaking, motive is irrelevant when it comes to abortion. It doesn't matter if you were raped or you just don't want a girl. Do you really want to say "You were raped, so this fetus is okay to abort. However, since you simply don't want a girl baby, we will not allow this abortion?" The unborn does not choose how it comes to be; to determine viability for abortion based on that criterion is nonsensical. Whatever reason is given, it is ultimately unimportant in the time before the infant can survive outside the womb.


From another standpoint, intent is all that matters. Or a major part of it.

For instance, I could rob a store to buy food for my starving family after I got laid off and can't work due to a disability (and don't qualify for enough/any benefits for one reason or another). Or I could rob a store to buy cheetos and a giant TV and be a couch potato for a while. The action is identical in each case. The intent is completely different. Would you treat both of the above people as being equally "evil"?

The situation here is somewhat similar. There is a big difference between someone wanting to abort because they were raped and don't want to go through 9 months of carrying a reminder of that followed by years of walking, talking reminder, and someone wanting to abort because they don't like girls, or whatever. In the example you're stating, the woman has no problem with the fact that her baby was conceived by rape (she is apparently not bothered by the reminder of the act) but just doesn't want a girl. There being a good reason for her to have an abortion means nothing if she eschews it for a terrible reason instead.

It's true that she could just say "Ok, fine, I want to abort because it's a rape baby", and we have no way of knowing if she's being truthful or not. But, as I said, to people for whom intent is important, that matters.
 
2013-04-28 03:38:46 AM  

Tanishh: Would you treat both of the above people as being equally "evil"?


The vandal is the friend of the parasite and must be hanged!
 
2013-04-28 03:41:25 AM  

Strolpol: Logically speaking, motive is irrelevant when it comes to abortion. It doesn't matter if you were raped or you just don't want a girl.


The problem is the externalities.  While allowing this seems like it ought to be a right, the problem comes from its societal effects.

With the vast majority of such families requesting sex-based abortion for female children, you end up with a significant population bias toward men.  This is exactly what has happened in China, even though the practice is officially illegal.  You end up with many straight men who can't find partners.
 
2013-04-28 03:41:50 AM  

sleeps in trees: Parents are not allowed to see certain photos nor the actual ultra sound.


That is crazy. Someone can perform a medical procedure on you and you cannot see the result of what is going on in your OWN BODY!?!?!?
 
2013-04-28 03:44:27 AM  

Researcher: I mean you definitely opened the link and you pretended to read it. So I have no idea how you got where you're going. The doctors in questions simply want to be able to withhold the child's gender. I mean, the people asking for this are the people who perform general obstetrics and clearly also abortions - although this a bridge too far for them. The argument made above, that such selection is deleterious to society in general, is not lost on these doctors... plus, if anything, this is about xenophobia I suppose and how "crazy foreigners" only want boys.


Nah. YOU apparently pretended to read it.

A Senate committee is inquiring into draft legislation prepared by "pro-life" Democratic Labor Party senator John Madigan, which would ban Medicare rebates for gender-selective abortions.

It's not unlike the fetus worshippers in the U.S. who want to ban late-term abortions even though they are rarely performed.
 
2013-04-28 03:44:55 AM  

Myria: Strolpol: Logically speaking, motive is irrelevant when it comes to abortion. It doesn't matter if you were raped or you just don't want a girl.

The problem is the externalities.  While allowing this seems like it ought to be a right, the problem comes from its societal effects.

With the vast majority of such families requesting sex-based abortion for female children, you end up with a significant population bias toward men.  This is exactly what has happened in China, even though the practice is officially illegal.  You end up with many straight men who can't find partners.


I wouldn't be surprised if the people asking for this are from china.
 
2013-04-28 03:45:35 AM  

Tanishh: For instance, I could rob a store to buy food for my starving family after I got laid off and can't work due to a disability (and don't qualify for enough/any benefits for one reason or another). Or I could rob a store to buy cheetos and a giant TV and be a couch potato for a while. The action is identical in each case. The intent is completely different. Would you treat both of the above people as being equally "evil"?


Probably, if only because there's no way to know what's actually going on in your head.  Anyone can make up a hard-luck story, and after playing professional victim for a while, many of the worst offenders probably even have the formal diagnoses to go with it.  Given that its impossible to really know what a person's motivations are, Occam's razor comes into play.  Besides, if it became known that being laid-off is a "get out of jail free" card, then it would be open-season at the Quickie Mart.
 
2013-04-28 03:47:22 AM  

Lorelle: It's not unlike the fetus worshippers in the U.S. who want to ban late-term abortions even though they are rarely performed.


So what Gosnell was up to is just dandy?
 
2013-04-28 03:47:25 AM  
If too many countries do this, we're going to have an overabundance of men in a generation.

You know what happens when an entire generation of men can't get any pussy?

img294.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-28 03:48:42 AM  

cedarpark: DON.MAC: With the trends of male vs female success rates of the 20 somethings, why would a parent today prefer a male?

An issue that I believe is not spoken about in the article is that, although this is an Australian article, I believe the emphasis on preferring males is predominantly by Chinese and Indian immigrants.


I'm probably going to be accused of trolling, but is this the same part of Australia that was having issues with Muslim immigrants beating women up on the beach for wearing revealing clothing, whether those women were Muslims themselves or not?  There's a pretty serious "tell" given in the article that at the very least these are probably first or second generation immigrants from a more patriarchal society.

FTFA:   "It was the husband who did all the talking - he was so insistent."

/I don't dislike Muslims as a group any more/less than I dislike any other group
//stand against the radical elements of whatever group you belong to, or don't complain about being lumped in with them
///third slashie is an equal opportunity hater too
 
2013-04-28 03:49:13 AM  

sleeps in trees: R.A.Danny: sleeps in trees: Old news. In Canada sex is not revealed through universal medical ultra sound. Private is another story. As that is available everywhere.

This is a big "Ooga Booga Scary" piece which is quite silly.

Have you ever seen an ultrasound? You can tell the sex of the child quite often. Geographic location has nothing to do with it.

Yes thanks I have, many times. Parents are not allowed to see certain photos nor the actual ultra sound. One cannnot make accurate assessments from the ones given through the ultra sound. I said nothing about geographic location, but universal health care.


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.
 
2013-04-28 03:51:13 AM  

Ishkur: If too many countries do this, we're going to have an overabundance of men in a generation.

You know what happens when an entire generation of men can't get any pussy?



They approach the problem through calm, rational discourse?

snappedshot.com
 
2013-04-28 03:51:23 AM  

Teknowaffle: I wouldn't be surprised if the people asking for this are from china.


It's pretty much guaranteed.

doglover: When was the last time a George Clooney type playboy went all suicide bomber?


Osama bin Laden and Dzokhar Tsarnaev weren't suicides, but bin Laden started out as a rich playboy, and Tsarnaev was just a regular attractive playboy.  Some people are just assholes.

/Hitler may have been a bad artist, but he was also recognized as a war hero before the Nazis came along
 
2013-04-28 03:52:08 AM  

R.A.Danny: sleeps in trees: Parents are not allowed to see certain photos nor the actual ultra sound.

That is crazy. Someone can perform a medical procedure on you and you cannot see the result of what is going on in your OWN BODY!?!?!?


Well I can attest to 4 months ago with a girlfriend. My last was 10 years ago. No information is given to you and it is up to your Drs discretion (which is not mentioned as we are with a high Indo/Asian community).

We are welcome to get private ultrasounds but at 1k a pop it's not often done.
 
2013-04-28 03:52:39 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: 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.


Its for their own good.
 
2013-04-28 03:54:17 AM  

Lorelle: Researcher: I mean you definitely opened the link and you pretended to read it. So I have no idea how you got where you're going. The doctors in questions simply want to be able to withhold the child's gender. I mean, the people asking for this are the people who perform general obstetrics and clearly also abortions - although this a bridge too far for them. The argument made above, that such selection is deleterious to society in general, is not lost on these doctors... plus, if anything, this is about xenophobia I suppose and how "crazy foreigners" only want boys.

Nah. YOU apparently pretended to read it.

A Senate committee is inquiring into draft legislation prepared by "pro-life" Democratic Labor Party senator John Madigan, which would ban Medicare rebates for gender-selective abortions.

It's not unlike the fetus worshippers in the U.S. who want to ban late-term abortions even though they are rarely performed.


Which they're ALWAYS pushing - regardless of this piece of nonsense article but the entire board of doctors is against it and the Minister of Health rep are like, yeah - not so much.
 
2013-04-28 03:54:41 AM  

sleeps in trees: (which is not mentioned as we are with a high Indo/Asian community).


So they take your race into account when deciding to let you know what information they will give someone about their own bodies?
Do they still protect "Injuns" from firewater too?
 
2013-04-28 03:57:42 AM  

bbfreak: What part of it is sick Subby?


the male dynastic lineage part.

fta: "It was the husband who did all the talking - he was so insistent."

Abortion should never be the man's decision. Ever. At least, not 100%. It is the height of misogynistic arrogance for the man to assert that he has full control over all rights and usages of his woman's uterus. This shiat always comes from hell-hole countries with social stratification that can best be described as "chauvinistic patriarchies".
 
2013-04-28 03:58:50 AM  

R.A.Danny: sleeps in trees: (which is not mentioned as we are with a high Indo/Asian community).

So they take your race into account when deciding to let you know what information they will give someone about their own bodies?
Do they still protect "Injuns" from firewater too?


LOL
my guess is that withholding information would be illegal or required by law.
there is zero medical risk if you are not informed of the gender of the fetus.
but, my guess is that it is illegal for them to tell the gender.
because otherwise, HELLO lawsuits
 
2013-04-28 03:59:05 AM  

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


Boring and bland false-flag argument, BarkingUnicorn.  Try harder next time.

/3/10
 
2013-04-28 03:59:12 AM  

R.A.Danny: Do they still protect "Injuns" from firewater too?


Here in the US we absolutely do.  Check the liquor laws in Alaska, they're designed with exactly this goal in mind.
 
2013-04-28 03:59:58 AM  

R.A.Danny: sleeps in trees: (which is not mentioned as we are with a high Indo/Asian community).

So they take your race into account when deciding to let you know what information they will give someone about their own bodies?
Do they still protect "Injuns" from firewater too?


I did not say that muckrucker. Try not to goad.
 
2013-04-28 04:01:45 AM  
I see news.com.au got its clickbait from fark as well. I should't be surprised, I clicked on the article ready to feel the outrage, but then I read the article.
 
2013-04-28 04:02:08 AM  

namatad: R.A.Danny: sleeps in trees: (which is not mentioned as we are with a high Indo/Asian community).

So they take your race into account when deciding to let you know what information they will give someone about their own bodies?
Do they still protect "Injuns" from firewater too?

LOL
my guess is that withholding information would be illegal or required by law.
there is zero medical risk if you are not informed of the gender of the fetus.
but, my guess is that it is illegal for them to tell the gender.
because otherwise, HELLO lawsuits


The people that so ultra sounds are not medical practitioners.
 
2013-04-28 04:04:15 AM  

sleeps in trees: R.A.Danny: sleeps in trees: (which is not mentioned as we are with a high Indo/Asian community).

So they take your race into account when deciding to let you know what information they will give someone about their own bodies?
Do they still protect "Injuns" from firewater too?

I did not say that muckrucker. Try not to goad.


I did not say you, doofus, don't take it personally.

How the hell are you supposed to have the kid's room painted in time? Someone having a procedure like an ultrasound is far more likely trying to check on the health of a wanted and already loved child, not trying to figure out if they're gonna eject.
 
2013-04-28 04:05:11 AM  

sleeps in trees: The people that so ultra sounds are not medical practitioners.


Burger flippers in their spare time?
 
2013-04-28 04:05:39 AM  

R.A.Danny: sleeps in trees: R.A.Danny: sleeps in trees: (which is not mentioned as we are with a high Indo/Asian community).

So they take your race into account when deciding to let you know what information they will give someone about their own bodies?
Do they still protect "Injuns" from firewater too?

I did not say that muckrucker. Try not to goad.

I did not say you, doofus, don't take it personally.

How the hell are you supposed to have the kid's room painted in time? Someone having a procedure like an ultrasound is far more likely trying to check on the health of a wanted and already loved child, not trying to figure out if they're gonna eject.


I like the doofus!
 
2013-04-28 04:10:47 AM  
Must be a coincidence that Australia is getting a large influx of Asians.
 
2013-04-28 04:10:52 AM  
Hmmn.   Any country with "too many men," (China, India) will soon enough have guerilla wars break out, due to too many guys (the gender that commits war acts) going to war, in form or another.

Yes, men like pussy.  And (secret be told), women like dick.  But, if a country aborts a large percentage of its female babies, it is just ASKING for civil disruptions or wars to break out.  Women don't go bombing or shooting up places--men do.  Too many men, devoid of satisfaction. . .  You will have trouble.

And if you try to import your gender-bias into developed countries, you will run into additional difficulties.
 
xcv
2013-04-28 04:12:29 AM  

Myria: Strolpol: Logically speaking, motive is irrelevant when it comes to abortion. It doesn't matter if you were raped or you just don't want a girl.

The problem is the externalities.  While allowing this seems like it ought to be a right, the problem comes from its societal effects.

With the vast majority of such families requesting sex-based abortion for female children, you end up with a significant population bias toward men.  This is exactly what has happened in China, even though the practice is officially illegal.  You end up with many straight men who can't find partners.


That's a huge fallacy.
 The gender imbalance in China is already increasing socioeconomic prospects for women and it would do the same in any secular, free society.  If women are outnumbered they can afford to be pickier for mates. Even homely and poor women will have far more opportunities to 'marry up' and happily satisfy the natural females' affinity for hypergamy.


Gender-based abortion is far more a reflection of (relatively uncommon) immigration issues than an abortion-rights matter.
 
2013-04-28 04:13:33 AM  

Ishkur: bbfreak: What part of it is sick Subby?

the male dynastic lineage part.

fta: "It was the husband who did all the talking - he was so insistent."

Abortion should never be the man's decision. Ever. At least, not 100%. It is the height of misogynistic arrogance for the man to assert that he has full control over all rights and usages of his woman's uterus. This shiat always comes from hell-hole countries with social stratification that can best be described as "chauvinistic patriarchies".


I don't disagree, but the main thrust of the article is about limiting abortion because you don't agree with someone's reasons for doing so. You either believe in abortion or you don't. Government should never impose moral values on its population. Fark that shiat.
 
2013-04-28 04:13:47 AM  
fta: "It was the husband who did all the talking - he was so insistent."

That just makes me incredibly sad. Anyone I've met who's been in the basic situation (ie. all kids of one gender, would like one of the other) always passes it of as a 'meh' because they then follow it up with saying that they wouldn't change their currents kids one bit and love them unconditionally.

Then you have this PoS who sounds like he shouldn't have the responsiblity of looking after a pet rock.
 
2013-04-28 04:16:10 AM  

namatad: R.A.Danny: sleeps in trees: (which is not mentioned as we are with a high Indo/Asian community).

So they take your race into account when deciding to let you know what information they will give someone about their own bodies?
Do they still protect "Injuns" from firewater too?

LOL
my guess is that withholding information would be illegal or required by law.
there is zero medical risk if you are not informed of the gender of the fetus.
but, my guess is that it is illegal for them to tell the gender.
because otherwise, HELLO lawsuits



Lawsuits for what? Ultrasounds all over the world disclose this information routinely. This farker pointed out that private ultrasounds do so in Canada as well (i.e. wealthier patients are granted access to more of the information gathered from the same procedure). We're also talking about the raw data, not just interpretation. If this is true it is some really ugly patronism.
 
2013-04-28 04:16:45 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: namatad: R.A.Danny: sleeps in trees: (which is not mentioned as we are with a high Indo/Asian community).

So they take your race into account when deciding to let you know what information they will give someone about their own bodies?
Do they still protect "Injuns" from firewater too?

LOL
my guess is that withholding information would be illegal or required by law.
there is zero medical risk if you are not informed of the gender of the fetus.
but, my guess is that it is illegal for them to tell the gender.
because otherwise, HELLO lawsuits


Lawsuits for what? Ultrasounds all over the world disclose this information routinely. This farker pointed out that private ultrasounds do so in Canada as well (i.e. wealthier patients are granted access to more of the information gathered from the same procedure). We're also talking about the raw data, not just interpretation. If this is true it is some really ugly patronism.


if the information were being illegally withheld ...
FFS, people sure for the dumbest reasons
 
2013-04-28 04:18:44 AM  

jshine: R.A.Danny: Do they still protect "Injuns" from firewater too?

Here in the US we absolutely do.  Check the liquor laws in Alaska, they're designed with exactly this goal in mind.


After checking, it seems that there are dry reservations, counties and municipalities just like in many other states, and those places have voted to be dry on their own accord. It has nothing to do with race, even though many of those dry places have higher Native populations. A native could easily go to another town and legally possess booze.
 
2013-04-28 04:22:29 AM  

doglover: 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.


I think that's only the radical underground pedophile group (your link won't work).  I'm not a fan of Mormonism, or any religion particularly, but lets at least slander them for real offenses.
 
2013-04-28 04:23:11 AM  

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.


This argument also work with gun control nuts
 
2013-04-28 04:24:48 AM  

R.A.Danny: jshine: R.A.Danny: Do they still protect "Injuns" from firewater too?

Here in the US we absolutely do.  Check the liquor laws in Alaska, they're designed with exactly this goal in mind.

After checking, it seems that there are dry reservations, counties and municipalities just like in many other states, and those places have voted to be dry on their own accord. It has nothing to do with race, even though many of those dry places have higher Native populations. A native could easily go to another town and legally possess booze.



That's true; nowhere do the laws explicitly mention race (as they did in the past).   ...but the correlation between demographics and alcohol laws (wet/damp/dry) is extremely strong; more so than simple coincidence can reasonably explain.
 
2013-04-28 04:28:08 AM  

jshine: but the correlation between demographics and alcohol laws (wet/damp/dry) is extremely strong; more so than simple coincidence can reasonably explain.


There is a VERY simple explanation. These communities choose to impose these laws upon themselves by vote. They are choosing to be dry, not having it thrust upon them by some outside force.
 
2013-04-28 04:30:23 AM  

namatad: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: namatad: R.A.Danny: sleeps in trees: (which is not mentioned as we are with a high Indo/Asian community).

So they take your race into account when deciding to let you know what information they will give someone about their own bodies?
Do they still protect "Injuns" from firewater too?

LOL
my guess is that withholding information would be illegal or required by law.
there is zero medical risk if you are not informed of the gender of the fetus.
but, my guess is that it is illegal for them to tell the gender.
because otherwise, HELLO lawsuits


Lawsuits for what? Ultrasounds all over the world disclose this information routinely. This farker pointed out that private ultrasounds do so in Canada as well (i.e. wealthier patients are granted access to more of the information gathered from the same procedure). We're also talking about the raw data, not just interpretation. If this is true it is some really ugly patronism.

if the information were being illegally withheld ...
FFS, people sure for the dumbest reasons


Ah, I see. I misunderstood what you were saying, sorry.
 
2013-04-28 04:30:24 AM  

bbfreak: You either believe in abortion or you don't.


First of all, there is nothing to "believe". Abortion is not a moral issue, it is a legal one.

Secondly, it is not a black-white issue. I think abortion should be permitted, but with conditions and regulations. 24 weeks is way too late. It should fully be the woman's choice without coercion.

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


It's not. It's giving its population the freedom to make that choice themselves.
 
2013-04-28 04:30:42 AM  

namatad: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: namatad: R.A.Danny: sleeps in trees: (which is not mentioned as we are with a high Indo/Asian community).

So they take your race into account when deciding to let you know what information they will give someone about their own bodies?
Do they still protect "Injuns" from firewater too?

LOL
my guess is that withholding information would be illegal or required by law.
there is zero medical risk if you are not informed of the gender of the fetus.
but, my guess is that it is illegal for them to tell the gender.
because otherwise, HELLO lawsuits


Lawsuits for what? Ultrasounds all over the world disclose this information routinely. This farker pointed out that private ultrasounds do so in Canada as well (i.e. wealthier patients are granted access to more of the information gathered from the same procedure). We're also talking about the raw data, not just interpretation. If this is true it is some really ugly patronism.

if the information were being illegally withheld ...
FFS, people sure for the dumbest reasons


When I was pregnant I wasn't able to find out the sex before 24 weeks, which is/was the legal limit for abortion. I live in BC, Canada. At that time, the BC college of physicians' official stance was that the potential for gender based abortions was a moral issue that ethically, they shouldn't be a party to. It appears that they have changed their stance. https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Disclosure-of-Fetal-Sex.pdf

It was never illegal, just strongly frowned upon by doctors. Private sex determining ultrasounds are readily available for about $100. About 10 years back I was told by and ultrasound tech "I can clearly see the sex, I just can't tell you". My doctor told me that that meant it was a boy. She was right.
 
2013-04-28 04:31:55 AM  

Arumat: cedarpark: DON.MAC: With the trends of male vs female success rates of the 20 somethings, why would a parent today prefer a male?

An issue that I believe is not spoken about in the article is that, although this is an Australian article, I believe the emphasis on preferring males is predominantly by Chinese and Indian immigrants.

I'm probably going to be accused of trolling, but is this the same part of Australia that was having issues with Muslim immigrants beating women up on the beach for wearing revealing clothing, whether those women were Muslims themselves or not?  There's a pretty serious "tell" given in the article that at the very least these are probably first or second generation immigrants from a more patriarchal society.

FTFA:   "It was the husband who did all the talking - he was so insistent."

/I don't dislike Muslims as a group any more/less than I dislike any other group
//stand against the radical elements of whatever group you belong to, or don't complain about being lumped in with them
///third slashie is an equal opportunity hater too


I live here and haven't heard of any instances of Muslim men beating up women on the beach for inappropriate dress. There was a huge riot a couple of years ago in Sydney after a group of Lebanese men beat up a lifesaver, but he was a male. Afterwards a bunch of retarded bogans went bananas because their testicles got in a twist over Lebanese men daring to speak to 'white' women. The Lebanese then retaliated and it was all fun and games.

If you actually read the article, it mentions several times that sex-based abortion requests are extremely rare, and it says nothing about the ethnicity of those requesting those abortions. We really don't keep records on this sort of thing so it's pure speculation to single out immigrants. We have very large populations of Chinese and Indians - and have done so for over a century - but I can't find any statistics showing they practice sex-specific family planning. They are usually middle class and well educated and can afford birth control.

Besides which, those few people who request abortions based on sex may actually be requesting that a male fetus be aborted rather than a female. As far as I know, requests to adopt and foster children are skewed towards female children in this country, so it is entirely possible.

Besides which which, the fundamentalist retard mentioned in the article who has pushed for this Senate inquiry is a fundamentalist retard, so potato.
 
2013-04-28 04:31:55 AM  

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.


That's exactly why I think China is not particularly worried about its own country's gender imbalance. It's going to have a huge amount of men to make it's army strong. When they have no money, no power and no pussy there is not much to motivate people to stay at home and be peaceful.
 
2013-04-28 04:36:17 AM  

steerforth: Besides which which, the fundamentalist retard mentioned in the article who has pushed for this Senate inquiry is a fundamentalist retard, so potato.


Fair enough.  I'm only slightly less ignorant than the average American when it comes to current affairs in foreign countries.
 
2013-04-28 04:36:30 AM  

Nidiot: That's exactly why I think China is not particularly worried about its own country's gender imbalance. It's going to have a huge amount of men to make it's army strong.


That's good -- if there's one thing China has historically lacked, its manpower.
 
2013-04-28 04:40:27 AM  

Marlys: namatad: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: namatad: R.A.Danny: sleeps in trees: (which is not mentioned as we are with a high Indo/Asian community).

So they take your race into account when deciding to let you know what information they will give someone about their own bodies?
Do they still protect "Injuns" from firewater too?

LOL
my guess is that withholding information would be illegal or required by law.
there is zero medical risk if you are not informed of the gender of the fetus.
but, my guess is that it is illegal for them to tell the gender.
because otherwise, HELLO lawsuits


Lawsuits for what? Ultrasounds all over the world disclose this information routinely. This farker pointed out that private ultrasounds do so in Canada as well (i.e. wealthier patients are granted access to more of the information gathered from the same procedure). We're also talking about the raw data, not just interpretation. If this is true it is some really ugly patronism.

if the information were being illegally withheld ...
FFS, people sure for the dumbest reasons

When I was pregnant I wasn't able to find out the sex before 24 weeks, which is/was the legal limit for abortion. I live in BC, Canada. At that time, the BC college of physicians' official stance was that the potential for gender based abortions was a moral issue that ethically, they shouldn't be a party to. It appears that they have changed their stance. https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Disclosure-of-Fetal-Sex.pdf

It was never illegal, just strongly frowned upon by doctors. Private sex determining ultrasounds are readily available for about $100. About 10 years back I was told by and ultrasound tech "I can clearly see the sex, I just can't tell you". My doctor told me that that meant it was a boy. She was right.


Thank you for clarifying.
 
2013-04-28 04:45:30 AM  

Arumat: steerforth: Besides which which, the fundamentalist retard mentioned in the article who has pushed for this Senate inquiry is a fundamentalist retard, so potato.

Fair enough.  I'm only slightly less ignorant than the average American when it comes to current affairs in foreign countries.


No worries. We certainly have fewer fundamentalists rearing their ugly heads than the US seems to, but they do pop up now and again.
 
2013-04-28 04:48:48 AM  
Before going on about how bad it is for women in the US, take a look worldwide.
 
2013-04-28 04:51:59 AM  

cedarpark: DON.MAC: With the trends of male vs female success rates of the 20 somethings, why would a parent today prefer a male?

An issue that I believe is not spoken about in the article is that, although this is an Australian article, I believe the emphasis on preferring males is predominantly by Chinese and Indian immigrants.


If they're living here, and they're citizens, they're Australians. Yes, they're bringing in an older cultural sensibility, of course - but it's not one that lasts. Australia is where dogmas come to die, oddly.
 
2013-04-28 04:54:44 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: namatad: R.A.Danny: sleeps in trees: (which is not mentioned as we are with a high Indo/Asian community).

So they take your race into account when deciding to let you know what information they will give someone about their own bodies?
Do they still protect "Injuns" from firewater too?

LOL
my guess is that withholding information would be illegal or required by law.
there is zero medical risk if you are not informed of the gender of the fetus.
but, my guess is that it is illegal for them to tell the gender.
because otherwise, HELLO lawsuits


Lawsuits for what? Ultrasounds all over the world disclose this information routinely. This farker pointed out that private ultrasounds do so in Canada as well (i.e. wealthier patients are granted access to more of the information gathered from the same procedure). We're also talking about the raw data, not just interpretation. If this is true it is some really ugly patronism.


It is up to your doctor to disclose. If you don't like his or her answer find another doctor (at no cost). Or yes, you can pay.

Further you can also get an abortion at no cost if you are unsure or have a daughter.

The history of the ethnic community in BC pushed this and is not prevalent in the majority of Canada. It has now lessened as 2nd generations are becoming part of an open community. We had wife burning, bride acid etc. We are now very protective of our women. And rightly so.
 
2013-04-28 05:00:55 AM  

God-is-a-Taco: Must be a coincidence that Australia is getting a large influx of Asians.


Chinese people have been here since the 1850s. You have heard of the term Gold Rushes, I presume? We had them too.
 
2013-04-28 05:06:08 AM  

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


Not at all. One might find it objectionable because it devalues female children, just as it's possible to object to the selective abortion of children with Downs'. Or, to put it another way, one could accept a woman's right not to any child at all, but object to the idea of her saying that some particular children are not worth having.
 
2013-04-28 05:09:17 AM  

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

Not at all. One might find it objectionable because it devalues female children, just as it's possible to object to the selective abortion of children with Downs'. Or, to put it another way, one could accept a woman's right not to any child at all, but object to the idea of her saying that some particular children are not worth having.


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.

Whether or not you find that choice reprehensible is up to you. There's a difference.
 
2013-04-28 05:09:42 AM  

Marlys: namatad: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: namatad: R.A.Danny: sleeps in trees: (which is not mentioned as we are with a high Indo/Asian community).

So they take your race into account when deciding to let you know what information they will give someone about their own bodies?
Do they still protect "Injuns" from firewater too?

LOL
my guess is that withholding information would be illegal or required by law.
there is zero medical risk if you are not informed of the gender of the fetus.
but, my guess is that it is illegal for them to tell the gender.
because otherwise, HELLO lawsuits


Lawsuits for what? Ultrasounds all over the world disclose this information routinely. This farker pointed out that private ultrasounds do so in Canada as well (i.e. wealthier patients are granted access to more of the information gathered from the same procedure). We're also talking about the raw data, not just interpretation. If this is true it is some really ugly patronism.

if the information were being illegally withheld ...
FFS, people sure for the dumbest reasons

When I was pregnant I wasn't able to find out the sex before 24 weeks, which is/was the legal limit for abortion. I live in BC, Canada. At that time, the BC college of physicians' official stance was that the potential for gender based abortions was a moral issue that ethically, they shouldn't be a party to. It appears that they have changed their stance. https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Disclosure-of-Fetal-Sex.pdf

It was never illegal, just strongly frowned upon by doctors. Private sex determining ultrasounds are readily available for about $100. About 10 years back I was told by and ultrasound tech "I can clearly see the sex, I just can't tell you". My doctor told me that that meant it was a boy. She was right.


There's no legal limit on abortion in Canada. It's just that practically speaking, the clinics won't do them past about 20-22 weeks, and the hospitals won't do them then unless medically indicated (and even then, there often aren't any doctors qualified to perform such late abortions, and women who need them because of a fetal condition incompatible with life and the like often need to go to the few US clinics that do. It's often paid for by provincial health care.)

There's no law forbidding the public clinics/hospitals from giving the information. But some have policies that they won't give it out, and some commenters have argued that the provincial regulatory bodies should pass regulations prohibiting disclosure of the sex before 30 weeks (on the grounds that it's not medically relevant information). But there's a lot of disagreement, and at this point it's left to individual facilities as far as I can tell (at least in Ontario and Quebec - I know lots of women who've found out the sex at 20 weeks.)
 
2013-04-28 05:16:07 AM  
The cognitive dissonance amongst the abortionists in this thread is amusing.
 
2013-04-28 05:16:08 AM  

Myria: randomjsa: The headline made me think they were going to demand sex change operations be done on babies... Then I clicked the link and was outraged for an entirely different reason.

I was about to get all riled up about how horrible that would be, then I read the article.  The anger is still there, it's just now directed at subby.

/transgender, so has an interesting perspective on what the headline first sounded like


You're not got confused by the headline. Either way it's crazy though.
 
2013-04-28 05:19:06 AM  
resources0.news.com.au

Meh. China White people problems.
 
2013-04-28 05:22:12 AM  
thevillage-locksmith.com

The only good fetus is an aborted fetus.
 
2013-04-28 05:23:41 AM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Myria: randomjsa: The headline made me think they were going to demand sex change operations be done on babies... Then I clicked the link and was outraged for an entirely different reason.

I was about to get all riled up about how horrible that would be, then I read the article.  The anger is still there, it's just now directed at subby.

/transgender, so has an interesting perspective on what the headline first sounded like

You're not got confused by the headline. Either way it's crazy though.


Er not the only one that got confused.
/I'll blame not previewing before posting
//But it's I've been drinking all night really :/
 
2013-04-28 05:46:51 AM  

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.


I think it's clear from the article that they're not wanting an outright restriction on abortion, they just want a restriction on the parents knowing the gender before it's too late to get an abortion so parents can't get an abortion just because they don't like the gender of the baby.
 
2013-04-28 05:58:50 AM  
If someone doesn't want a child of a specific gender badly enough to abort it, maybe the child is better off being aborted. Society on the other hand, yes that will eventually get totally farked up where this stuff is happening. But maybe that's what they need to drag them out of the dark ages. After a generation of men has to take a wide stance in the men's room or get shipped overseas as mail order husbands to get any action, maybe they'll have another think about the cunningness of their plan.
 
2013-04-28 06:02:39 AM  

Munchkin City Coroner: [thevillage-locksmith.com image 426x249]

The only good fetus is an aborted fetus.


I see you have the old model kit. You can upgrade it by adding one of these...

www.kotulas.com
 
2013-04-28 06:03:17 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: 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.

I think it's clear from the article that they're not wanting an outright restriction on abortion, they just want a restriction on the parents knowing the gender before it's too late to get an abortion so parents can't get an abortion just because they don't like the gender of the baby.


It's clear from the article that there isn't a problem.
 
2013-04-28 06:06:50 AM  

ambercat: If someone doesn't want a child of a specific gender badly enough to abort it, maybe the child is better off being aborted. Society on the other hand, yes that will eventually get totally farked up where this stuff is happening. But maybe that's what they need to drag them out of the dark ages. After a generation of men has to take a wide stance in the men's room or get shipped overseas as mail order husbands to get any action, maybe they'll have another think about the cunningness of their plan.


I don't know it seems to me itf you care about the child's gender that much maybe they shouldn't be having kids. And unfortunately there seems one popular way of getting rid of surplus male children.
 
2013-04-28 06:10:04 AM  
I should also add a recommendation to all you guys who don't want kids to get a vasectomy.

It's fast, easy, and (in my case at least) nearly painless.

It's even better when you get it done and don't tell anyone.

/Our bodies, our choice right ladies? Ladies?
//I'm always forgetting rule 16.
 
2013-04-28 06:20:58 AM  

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


R.A.Danny: Amos Quito: What part of CHOICE did you not understand?

Yep. You either believe that choice is a right or you do not. Or at least that you should keep your nose out of it.


In China, you can only have one child; you will be forced to abort any more after that, or pay very stiff fines.

But, you cannot abort that first child due to gender preferences.

So, it is possible to claim that they aren't human beings AND deny the mother their choice!
 
2013-04-28 06:28:13 AM  

illannoyin: I should also add a recommendation to all you guys who don't want kids to get a vasectomy.

It's fast, easy, and (in my case at least) nearly painless.


That's all true...but I still don't want kids to get a vasectomy.

/that's an adult decision
 
2013-04-28 06:31:27 AM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: ambercat: If someone doesn't want a child of a specific gender badly enough to abort it, maybe the child is better off being aborted. Society on the other hand, yes that will eventually get totally farked up where this stuff is happening. But maybe that's what they need to drag them out of the dark ages. After a generation of men has to take a wide stance in the men's room or get shipped overseas as mail order husbands to get any action, maybe they'll have another think about the cunningness of their plan.

I don't know it seems to me itf you care about the child's gender that much maybe they shouldn't be having kids. And unfortunately there seems one popular way of getting rid of surplus male children.


Oh, they definitely shouldn't be having any kids, but sadly that goes for about 90% of people, just for different reasons. I'm just saying I can picture the girls getting a lifetime of beatings, sexual abuse, deprivation and neglect and having to listen to 'I WISH WE COULD HAVE ABORTED YOU' once a week or so, and question if we're really doing them a favor by making sure they're carried to term and raised by those parents.
 
2013-04-28 06:42:37 AM  

randomjsa: The headline made me think they were going to demand sex change operations be done on babies... Then I clicked the link and was outraged for an entirely different reason.


That was my first thought too... But clicking the link made me feel relieved.

With the global population problem we are experiencing, abortion should be considered a sacrament anyway.
 
2013-04-28 06:46:18 AM  

letrole: The cognitive dissonance amongst the abortionists in this thread is amusing.


This. We wimmens want that "womb reset button" so badly that we're apparently willing to throw our fellow females under the bus. (Not that banning abortion would put a stop to it in any way, but there's no reason why in a country that's as rich and well educated as ours, that any woman should be without reliable contraception. And those women who refuse to use it responsibly when it's available should be pressured and shamed for not doing so.)

I think there's a big difference between a young teenager or poor mother tearfully agreeing to an abortion out of fear of being unable to handle a new baby, and a douchebag couple who wants to "design" their perfect crotch spawn. What's next, aborting a fetus for having the wrong color hair? How about aborting a fetus because it's gay? (Should there ever be a way of determining a child's sexual orientation in the womb.)  Abortion should be the tool of last resort--an act of desperation. Not a tool for creating the perfect cuddly little accessories to mom's fabulous life....
 
2013-04-28 06:50:09 AM  

ambercat: tinfoil-hat maggie: ambercat: If someone doesn't want a child of a specific gender badly enough to abort it, maybe the child is better off being aborted. Society on the other hand, yes that will eventually get totally farked up where this stuff is happening. But maybe that's what they need to drag them out of the dark ages. After a generation of men has to take a wide stance in the men's room or get shipped overseas as mail order husbands to get any action, maybe they'll have another think about the cunningness of their plan.

I don't know it seems to me itf you care about the child's gender that much maybe they shouldn't be having kids. And unfortunately there seems one popular way of getting rid of surplus male children.

Oh, they definitely shouldn't be having any kids, but sadly that goes for about 90% of people, just for different reasons. I'm just saying I can picture the girls getting a lifetime of beatings, sexual abuse, deprivation and neglect and having to listen to 'I WISH WE COULD HAVE ABORTED YOU' once a week or so, and question if we're really doing them a favor by making sure they're carried to term and raised by those parents.


Well it's true but I do wonder about the boy's that are born into these families, that's gotta be tough. Damn, the whole thing is so messed up.
 
2013-04-28 07:14:57 AM  

bbfreak: You either believe in abortion or you don't


It isn't that black and white. I believe in choice. But I feel that some choices are more ethical than others. Abortions to save the woman's life? Yes. Abortions in cases of rape and/or incest? Yes. Abortions because your partner doesn't like the gender of the baby? I still believe you have the right to an abortion but, damn, that's shady.
 
2013-04-28 07:18:50 AM  

yourmomlovestetris: letrole: The cognitive dissonance amongst the abortionists in this thread is amusing.

This. We wimmens want that "womb reset button" so badly that we're apparently willing to throw our fellow females under the bus. (Not that banning abortion would put a stop to it in any way, but there's no reason why in a country that's as rich and well educated as ours, that any woman should be without reliable contraception. And those women who refuse to use it responsibly when it's available should be pressured and shamed for not doing so.)

I think there's a big difference between a young teenager or poor mother tearfully agreeing to an abortion out of fear of being unable to handle a new baby, and a douchebag couple who wants to "design" their perfect crotch spawn. What's next, aborting a fetus for having the wrong color hair? How about aborting a fetus because it's gay? (Should there ever be a way of determining a child's sexual orientation in the womb.)  Abortion should be the tool of last resort--an act of desperation. Not a tool for creating the perfect cuddly little accessories to mom's fabulous life....


The point I was trying to make at the very least is that why a woman wants an abortion should be none of the government's business in my opinion. It is her body and her choice. I fail to see why we should be outraged over people making a choice if it harms no person. Especially if we don't agree with the said decision.

Secondly abortion statistics would hint that most women agree with you on it being a last resort. I know the abortion rate in the USA is very low, and wouldn't be surprised if it was the same elsewhere it is legal. so women aren't getting abortions willy nilly, and I doubt many people are willing to use it as a way to have a designer baby (before we have a more direct way of doing so. Think Gattaca).

One last point. I don't agree with your encouragement of shaming women who don't use contraceptives properly. There are two responsible parties after all. Slut shaming seems to be rather close to what you are suggesting.
 
2013-04-28 07:21:30 AM  
This was probably an Asian culture.  Sex-selective abortions are widespread across Asia.  It's often illegal, but it's fairly easy to get one anyway.  Asian countries have a huge surplus of men who cannot find brides because there are too few females.  Everyone acknowledges the problem, but nobody sees why they should have to shoulder the burden of raising a daughter for the benefit of some other family's son.  The daughter leaves the nest taking a huge dowry with her.  A son can get a job and provide for his parents.
 
2013-04-28 07:26:56 AM  

bbfreak: yourmomlovestetris: letrole: The cognitive dissonance amongst the abortionists in this thread is amusing.

This. We wimmens want that "womb reset button" so badly that we're apparently willing to throw our fellow females under the bus. (Not that banning abortion would put a stop to it in any way, but there's no reason why in a country that's as rich and well educated as ours, that any woman should be without reliable contraception. And those women who refuse to use it responsibly when it's available should be pressured and shamed for not doing so.)

I think there's a big difference between a young teenager or poor mother tearfully agreeing to an abortion out of fear of being unable to handle a new baby, and a douchebag couple who wants to "design" their perfect crotch spawn. What's next, aborting a fetus for having the wrong color hair? How about aborting a fetus because it's gay? (Should there ever be a way of determining a child's sexual orientation in the womb.)  Abortion should be the tool of last resort--an act of desperation. Not a tool for creating the perfect cuddly little accessories to mom's fabulous life....

The point I was trying to make at the very least is that why a woman wants an abortion should be none of the government's business in my opinion. It is her body and her choice. I fail to see why we should be outraged over people making a choice if it harms no person. Especially if we don't agree with the said decision.

Secondly abortion statistics would hint that most women agree with you on it being a last resort. I know the abortion rate in the USA is very low, and wouldn't be surprised if it was the same elsewhere it is legal. so women aren't getting abortions willy nilly, and I doubt many people are willing to use it as a way to have a designer baby (before we have a more direct way of doing so. Think Gattaca).

One last point. I don't agree with your encouragement of shaming women who don't use contraceptives properly. There are two responsible ...


I like you, and you speak some truth.
 
2013-04-28 07:28:50 AM  
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.
 
2013-04-28 07:30:37 AM  

mekki: bbfreak: You either believe in abortion or you don't

It isn't that black and white. I believe in choice. But I feel that some choices are more ethical than others. Abortions to save the woman's life? Yes. Abortions in cases of rape and/or incest? Yes. Abortions because your partner doesn't like the gender of the baby? I still believe you have the right to an abortion but, damn, that's shady.


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.
 
2013-04-28 07:37:55 AM  

sigdiamond2000: Welcome to Obama's America.


Except It's Australia.

.... and I'll bet it's not white dudes (or black dudes) ... I'll bet it's yellow or brown dudes.
 
2013-04-28 07:51:54 AM  
I am pro-choice, but not pro-everything. Why not allow gender-based abortion? Because we have plenty of examples of why that is a bad thing. Mess up the ratio if men and women too much, it creates an imbalanced society and many people unable to find a mate. In China and India the cities are filled with the surplus of single men which are causing crime to go up because these men have no prospects or boundaries. That's why China is considering relaxing the one-child rule.
 
2013-04-28 07:54:32 AM  
ID-10-T alert....
 
2013-04-28 08:00:16 AM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: bbfreak: yourmomlovestetris: letrole: The cognitive dissonance amongst the abortionists in this thread is amusing.

This. We wimmens want that "womb reset button" so badly that we're apparently willing to throw our fellow females under the bus. (Not that banning abortion would put a stop to it in any way, but there's no reason why in a country that's as rich and well educated as ours, that any woman should be without reliable contraception. And those women who refuse to use it responsibly when it's available should be pressured and shamed for not doing so.)

I think there's a big difference between a young teenager or poor mother tearfully agreeing to an abortion out of fear of being unable to handle a new baby, and a douchebag couple who wants to "design" their perfect crotch spawn. What's next, aborting a fetus for having the wrong color hair? How about aborting a fetus because it's gay? (Should there ever be a way of determining a child's sexual orientation in the womb.)  Abortion should be the tool of last resort--an act of desperation. Not a tool for creating the perfect cuddly little accessories to mom's fabulous life....

The point I was trying to make at the very least is that why a woman wants an abortion should be none of the government's business in my opinion. It is her body and her choice. I fail to see why we should be outraged over people making a choice if it harms no person. Especially if we don't agree with the said decision.

Secondly abortion statistics would hint that most women agree with you on it being a last resort. I know the abortion rate in the USA is very low, and wouldn't be surprised if it was the same elsewhere it is legal. so women aren't getting abortions willy nilly, and I doubt many people are willing to use it as a way to have a designer baby (before we have a more direct way of doing so. Think Gattaca).

One last point. I don't agree with your encouragement of shaming women who don't use contraceptives properly. There are two responsible ...

I like you, and you speak some truth.


Thanks.
 
2013-04-28 08:02:38 AM  

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.


Actually, more like racism.

This practice is common in India to avoid dowries, despite it being illegal.
 
2013-04-28 08:06:39 AM  

bborchar: I am pro-choice, but not pro-everything. Why not allow gender-based abortion? Because we have plenty of examples of why that is a bad thing. Mess up the ratio if men and women too much, it creates an imbalanced society and many people unable to find a mate. In China and India the cities are filled with the surplus of single men which are causing crime to go up because these men have no prospects or boundaries. That's why China is considering relaxing the one-child rule.


This.  And would it be rude to mention that the girls are often born full-term and drowned?  Good luck, Chinese/Indian parents of a son who has no chance of finding a wife because you thought that boys were the only necessary children. I hate this well-documented and tolerated murder of baby girls.  I can only hope that it reaps the obvious results:  in about ten years, Indian and Chinese women (the ones who survived) will be valued beyond belief.

Forgive my cynicism.  They'll probably be raped and forced to bear a child every year by multiple men to correct the error.
 
2013-04-28 08:08:17 AM  
bborchar: Mess up the ratio if men and women too much, it creates an imbalanced society and many people unable to find a mate.


Mess up the birthrate, and it creates a society unable to maintain either a replacement rate or a sufficient tax base, and many people with WTF value systems need to imported fill the gap.
 
2013-04-28 08:10:00 AM  
I am pro choice, and also believe that the fetus is a person.  Abortion then would be "legal murder" I suppose.  My reasoning is that the rights of the mother trump the rights of the fetus as long as the fetus is, in my words, a subsidiary part of the organism.
 
2013-04-28 08:14:04 AM  

bbfreak: Thanks.


Welcome it was well said.
 
2013-04-28 08:19:03 AM  

bborchar: I am pro-choice, but not pro-everything. Why not allow gender-based abortion? Because we have plenty of examples of why that is a bad thing. Mess up the ratio if men and women too much, it creates an imbalanced society and many people unable to find a mate. In China and India the cities are filled with the surplus of single men which are causing crime to go up because these men have no prospects or boundaries. That's why China is considering relaxing the one-child rule.


Preferences for males over females is a cultural issue mostly, even if you made abortion in the case of gender preference illegal it wouldn't stop such people from seeking outside means due to the economic pressure of having a boy over a girl. Boys can provide income in such cultures, while women only drain income in the case of wedding dowerys.


So in my opinion the whole thing is a non issue as far as abortion is concerned. Especially when you put value in women as a society. You know instead of pressuring women to be sex objects first and scientists, engineers, etc.
 
2013-04-28 08:22:17 AM  
scientists and etc second. Sorry, posted that last post before I finished that thought.
 
2013-04-28 08:31:58 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-28 08:33:51 AM  
Don't get why abortion would still be allowed at 19 weeks anyways, with the exception of the mother's life being in danger or the baby having some kind of horrible condition. The baby is very formed by then, and is about  4 weeks away from being able to survive with a lot of help.
 
2013-04-28 08:56:26 AM  
Lets replace "Girl baby" with "Gay baby" and see if anyone changes their opinion.
Don't kid yourself, you know it's  being worked on right now to find a test to detect the "Gay " gene, its probable just a few years away.
 
2013-04-28 09:01:02 AM  

sleeps in trees: Old news. In Canada sex is not revealed through universal medical ultra sound. Private is another story. As that is available everywhere.

This is a big "Ooga Booga Scary" piece which is quite silly.


Uh, that's not true. Gender IS revealed in universal medicine ultrasound in Canada (or at least in Ontario).

I found out I was having a son at about 20 weeks (they even tried to determine the sex at the 12 week scan but couldn't). The tech offered the information after confirming we wanted to know. This was 4 years ago.

Everybody I know who had had a baby in the last few years (which has been A LOT) have found out the gender thru scans paid for thru OHIP.

I'd have been super pissed if they had refused to tell me, not because I had any intention of aborting, but because I like to plan and this let me get a bunch of little boy things for him before he was born, decide on a name, and actually helped me to develop some semblance of a bond with my son before he was born. I've never understood people wanting to be surprised by the gender at birth (though, to each their own).

WRT sex-selective abortions, I think it's a pretty shiatty thing to do, and I would question if someone who would do that would make a good parent at all (except in the rare case of genetic diseases only impacting one gender or something). However, if you do truly believe abortion is the woman's choice (which I do), unfortunately some abortions will likely happen for reasons that you find distasteful.

Personally, I don't think I could ever abort a baby (exceptions being if the pregnancy was life threatening or if the baby had some catastrophic illness). This isn't faith-based or anything (atheist here) I just don't like the idea of removing a potential person from the world before they even have a chance.

But, my choices are not everybody else's and I don't believe in taking away choices from others simply because I don't agree with them. Everyone who aborts a child has their own set of circumstances and I have no business judging them for doing what they feel is best.
 
2013-04-28 09:02:22 AM  

kyrg: Lets replace "Girl baby" with "Gay baby" and see if anyone changes their opinion.
Don't kid yourself, you know it's  being worked on right now to find a test to detect the "Gay " gene, its probable just a few years away.


Maybe by that time, they'll be able to adjust things in utero with a retrovirus or something. No abortion necessary.
 
2013-04-28 09:03:47 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I thought we were all supposed to embrace transgender people, or whatever the T stands for in LGWTFBBQ


We should, but we know that some homophobes will remain possessed by fear and hate, and cite anything bad they can find about changing gender to say "I told you so," even if it has nothing to do with LGBT.
 
2013-04-28 09:04:31 AM  
We should, but we know that some homophobes will remain possessed by fear and hate, and cite anything bad they can find about changing gender to say "I told you so," even if it has nothing to do with LGBT.
 
2013-04-28 09:05:28 AM  

Arumat: FTFA:   "It was the husband who did all the talking - he was so insistent."

/I don't dislike Muslims as a group any more/less than I dislike any other group


My theory is that his house only had two bathrooms, and with two girls he knew he would never see them again.
 
2013-04-28 09:07:07 AM  
Crap. Sorry for double post. Fark now sends my mobile device to some shiatty full page ad after I post (and then to an installer for some FB game), and it looks like the post wasn't made.

Thanks, fark. That crap will drive me away.
 
2013-04-28 09:07:26 AM  

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


That's all parents.
 
2013-04-28 09:09:55 AM  
I don't agree with it, but do you really want to put up with hosting sleepovers for little girls for years?  Boys talk loudly and laugh, girls shriek.

Snark aside not a factor in a choice I'd make, but freedom is freedom and you can't tell people what to do with it.  Besides, if you try to outlaw that, all a couple or person has to do is say:  I/We don't want a child.  Hell no reason should be need to be given.
 
2013-04-28 09:12:53 AM  

Arumat: cedarpark: DON.MAC: With the trends of male vs female success rates of the 20 somethings, why would a parent today prefer a male?

An issue that I believe is not spoken about in the article is that, although this is an Australian article, I believe the emphasis on preferring males is predominantly by Chinese and Indian immigrants.

I'm probably going to be accused of trolling, but is this the same part of Australia that was having issues with Muslim immigrants beating women up on the beach for wearing revealing clothing, whether those women were Muslims themselves or not?  There's a pretty serious "tell" given in the article that at the very least these are probably first or second generation immigrants from a more patriarchal society.

FTFA:   "It was the husband who did all the talking - he was so insistent."

/I don't dislike Muslims as a group any more/less than I dislike any other group
//stand against the radical elements of whatever group you belong to, or don't complain about being lumped in with them
///third slashie is an equal opportunity hater too


That alarmed me as well. Was he insistent on being the only speaker or insistent on the abortion? Or both?
 
2013-04-28 09:13:33 AM  

Brittabot: sleeps in trees: Old news. In Canada sex is not revealed through universal medical ultra sound. Private is another story. As that is available everywhere.

This is a big "Ooga Booga Scary" piece which is quite silly.

Uh, that's not true. Gender IS revealed in universal medicine ultrasound in Canada (or at least in Ontario).

I found out I was having a son at about 20 weeks (they even tried to determine the sex at the 12 week scan but couldn't). The tech offered the information after confirming we wanted to know. This was 4 years ago.

Everybody I know who had had a baby in the last few years (which has been A LOT) have found out the gender thru scans paid for thru OHIP.


I don't know you, but in Ontario my wife and I were given the chance to find out the gender of our child at the second ultrasound, at about 15 weeks or so. We didn't find out until the 33rd week due to our little girl being rather shy, but it wasn't for lack of trying.

And the only thing not covered by OHIP were the Ultrasound pictures.
 
2013-04-28 09:20:15 AM  

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.


Or the first few posters in this thread. :)
 
2013-04-28 09:21:04 AM  
I'm switching to a new profile as soon as I think of a good username, so whatever:

Speaking as someone who was born intersexed and assigned the wrong gender at birth, it's guaranteed that if they are actually changed from male to female, they'll spend the rest of their lives KNOWING that something is wrong with them; their "boy" will probably end up playing and socializing with the girls, will be harassed by their parents for being more interested in girl things and will most likely want to take measures to fix themselves when they get older; at best, they will end up becoming MTF trans* women and while society is becoming much more accepting, it still puts you into the "other" category...

Way to increase the misery in this world, parents..
 
2013-04-28 09:31:26 AM  
I wrote:
*snip*

Way to increase the misery in this world, parents..


Way to not read the article and increase the misery of your fellow farkers, self...

/gets off soapbox
 
2013-04-28 09:37:09 AM  
Meh. Got no beef with this.
 
2013-04-28 09:39:52 AM  

0z79: I wrote:
*snip*

Way to increase the misery in this world, parents..

Way to not read the article and increase the misery of your fellow farkers, self...

/gets off soapbox


Heh, I made the same mistake at first, oh and just so you keep this login for another month ; )
/ Welcome to TF ; )
 
2013-04-28 09:47:40 AM  

bbfreak: Preferences for males over females is a cultural issue mostly, even if you made abortion in the case of gender preference illegal it wouldn't stop such people from seeking outside means due to the economic pressure of having a boy over a girl. Boys can provide income in such cultures, while women only drain income in the case of wedding dowerys.


Good luck finding a wife for your son to carry on the family line when a load of them have been aborted.

In China, there are now 120 males born for every 100 females. The ratio in the UK is 105 (nature seems to favour male births as a few more males don't get to adulthood).
 
2013-04-28 09:50:59 AM  

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

R.A.Danny: Amos Quito: What part of CHOICE did you not understand?

Yep. You either believe that choice is a right or you do not. Or at least that you should keep your nose out of it.

In China, you can only have one child; you will be forced to abort any more after that, or pay very stiff fines.

But, you cannot abort that first child due to gender preferences.

So, it is possible to claim that they aren't human beings AND deny the mother their choice!


Not without being a hypocrite.
 
2013-04-28 09:52:12 AM  
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.

Please don't let it stop you from panicking, though.

hb0mb: If someone is a big enough assbag that he or she would want an abortion based on gender, that aborted baby is getting off light.


So much This.

Australia may have a severe shortage of strippers in about 20 years, though.
 
2013-04-28 09:53:24 AM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: 0z79: I wrote:
*snip*

Way to increase the misery in this world, parents..

Way to not read the article and increase the misery of your fellow farkers, self...

/gets off soapbox

Heh, I made the same mistake at first, oh and just so you keep this login for another month ; )
/ Welcome to TF ; )


Wow... thank you! I can get a little preachy sometimes, but I do try to reign it in.. hanging around people who seem to be all advocacy, all issue, all the time is starting to rub off on me.

/is off to bed; 5:00 AM fire alarm in the building
//gal couldn't cook bacon, never cleaned her burners
///really really really cranky right now
 
2013-04-28 09:58:11 AM  

0z79: tinfoil-hat maggie: 0z79: I wrote:
*snip*

Way to increase the misery in this world, parents..

Way to not read the article and increase the misery of your fellow farkers, self...

/gets off soapbox

Heh, I made the same mistake at first, oh and just so you keep this login for another month ; )
/ Welcome to TF ; )

Wow... thank you! I can get a little preachy sometimes, but I do try to reign it in.. hanging around people who seem to be all advocacy, all issue, all the time is starting to rub off on me.

/is off to bed; 5:00 AM fire alarm in the building
//gal couldn't cook bacon, never cleaned her burners
///really really really cranky right now


LOL; ) It's all good, carry on and cool story.
 
2013-04-28 10:04:16 AM  

God-is-a-Taco: Must be a coincidence that Australia is getting a large influx of Asians.


Fun fact:  The younger, upwardly mobile (male) generation in China actually prefers girl babies, overall.  The logic is that if you have a girl, you don't need to pay for her house when she marries.

That is the groom's (family's) job.

See, male children are what you want if you need your son to make money and send it back home.  Or, maybe you need help farming dirt.  Either way, a son is what you want if you are a dirt farmer.

Not so much if you are that guy, the son of dirt farmers, now working, and looking to have kids.

So, anyway, this whole idea that "Asians (sp. Chinese) prefer males" isn't an Asian thing.  Not some Confucian patriarchy we-love-males whatever.

It's simply an economic thing.

So don't be so damn racist about it.
 
2013-04-28 10:06:49 AM  

ambercat: Oh, they definitely shouldn't be having any kids


This mentality reeks of First World.
 
2013-04-28 10:07:58 AM  

farkeruk: bbfreak: Preferences for males over females is a cultural issue mostly, even if you made abortion in the case of gender preference illegal it wouldn't stop such people from seeking outside means due to the economic pressure of having a boy over a girl. Boys can provide income in such cultures, while women only drain income in the case of wedding dowerys.

Good luck finding a wife for your son to carry on the family line when a load of them have been aborted.

In China, there are now 120 males born for every 100 females. The ratio in the UK is 105 (nature seems to favour male births as a few more males don't get to adulthood).


Did you have a point? I know you skipped over mine.
 
2013-04-28 10:08:09 AM  

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

R.A.Danny: Amos Quito: What part of CHOICE did you not understand?

Yep. You either believe that choice is a right or you do not. Or at least that you should keep your nose out of it.

In China, you can only have one child; you will be forced to abort any more after that, or pay very stiff fines.

But, you cannot abort that first child due to gender preferences.

So, it is possible to claim that they aren't human beings AND deny the mother their choice!

Not without being a hypocrite.


Or the Government.

/not mutually exclusive
 
2013-04-28 10:13:00 AM  

farkeruk: In China, there are now 120 males born for every 100 females. The ratio in the UK is 105 (nature seems to favour male births as a few more males don't get to adulthood).


In China, there are at least 15 more dirt farmers per hundred pepole than in the UK.

At least.

Anyway, poverty favors males.  Not much more to it than that.
 
2013-04-28 10:16:56 AM  

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.
 
2013-04-28 10:23:13 AM  

bbfreak: farkeruk: bbfreak: Preferences for males over females is a cultural issue mostly, even if you made abortion in the case of gender preference illegal it wouldn't stop such people from seeking outside means due to the economic pressure of having a boy over a girl. Boys can provide income in such cultures, while women only drain income in the case of wedding dowerys.

Good luck finding a wife for your son to carry on the family line when a load of them have been aborted.

In China, there are now 120 males born for every 100 females. The ratio in the UK is 105 (nature seems to favour male births as a few more males don't get to adulthood).

Did you have a point? I know you skipped over mine.


For what it is worth, I think you are right, but I caution you for making "cultural" and "economic" synonyms.  Most people in the West seem to see Asia as a cultural monolith.  Especially China.

I've been trying to explain China to Farkers for years.  Oh, man, they're all brainwashed and ride bikes in China!  They sure love Mao, IP theft, and pollution!  And everyone is the same.

Anywho, saying the choice is "cultural" then comes off as more racial than economic.  It's like saying black gangbangers kill each other due to "cultural" reasons.
 
2013-04-28 10:39:05 AM  
So, uh, do I kill these threads, or just happen along when they're on their last gasps?
 
2013-04-28 10:41:21 AM  

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.


You're correct. Which is why I am quite pessimistic about China. They kept aborting baby girls for several decades to decrease the population growth rate, so there are now a huge number of military-age men running around without any available pussy.

And one of the historical means of getting pussy has been conquest.

Furthermore, I don't think this is something that the Chinese leadership can necessarily control. All that is really needed for things to go all pear-shaped is for some charismatic and smart guy with military training in some podunk village in China to decide that he can raise himself up a whole bunch of horny guys and go out a-conquering. These things can take on lives of their own.
 
2013-04-28 10:45:47 AM  

angrycrank: Here's the thing. There may be abortions I don't personally approve of, but that's very different from criminalizing them. The woman in question is the only one who knows her circumstances. So lawmakers can go pat themselves on the back for banning sex-selection abortions and everyone will feel all fuzzy until the first woman is beaten or killed for having a girl or something horrible happens to the first girl infant. Sex-selection abortions can be prevented through education, improving the status of women so having boys isn't seen as an advantage, and providing services so women afraid of giving birth to a daughter have a way to get out of their situation. It needs to be the woman's choice - but create the circumstances so she has a real choice and doesn't feel like she has to have an abortion if the fetus is female.


Then all you have to deal with is the festering, soul-destroying guilt repressed for years/decades by the ex-mother, who knows deep down that a fetus is a baby.
 
2013-04-28 10:46:50 AM  

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 unlaid young men will always lead to trouble. That's my hypothesis and thus objection.


Temple prostitutes. Compulsory service.  See Herodotus and "hierodules."
 
2013-04-28 10:48:23 AM  

phrawgh: They could just let the dingos deal with it.


Expect a bill for for my keyboard in the next couple of weeks.
 
2013-04-28 10:55:20 AM  

Myria: Strolpol: Logically speaking, motive is irrelevant when it comes to abortion. It doesn't matter if you were raped or you just don't want a girl.

The problem is the externalities.  While allowing this seems like it ought to be a right, the problem comes from its societal effects.

With the vast majority of such families requesting sex-based abortion for female children, you end up with a significant population bias toward men.  This is exactly what has happened in China, even though the practice is officially illegal.  You end up with many straight men who can't find partners.


Seems that would raise the value of women and things would work out. Just give the free market time to  adjust.
 
2013-04-28 11:00:40 AM  

gadian: Eh, I can't summon the outrage.  If abortion is a tool of family planning (and that is how it is used) then one can plan their family however they see fit.  Also, like the article said, most abortions are too early to discern gender anyway.  But,but,but the lost girls! Yeah, those girls don't know the difference.  There are greater injustices to women out there, like anti-choice, pro-birth at all costs nutjobs.


Why the hate?

I've thought about the whole abortion issue for decades, and - as I developed various ethical, social and technological arguments - have gone from one side to the other several times. This mirrors, in effect, the difficulties in decision-making that I experienced back in the early 70's when I was honored to be selected as one of a group of people developing an abortion plank for the just-being-born Libertarian Party. We worked on the issue 12 hours a day for two weeks, and still could not arrive at consensus. We finally decided on "choice" but with ethical reservations, and the caveat that the issue would be solved (sidestepped) by technology.

Like many problems, the whole issue of abortion and whether a fetus should have the right to life can be resolved by technology. Very soon now, I believe within a decade or two, we will have the ability to tweak and guide the genetics of a zygote/fetus. We can bid farewell to birth defects (one of the rationales for allowing abortions). Also soon, within a century, will exist the capability to bring fetuses to full term outside the womb, circumventing necessity due to mother health issues or simply a desire not to have the child.

There will then be no excuses for "murdering" a fetus.
 
2013-04-28 11:07:59 AM  
I used to listen to Limbaugh. He had a supposition I'd like to see if he was right about: "When the sexual orientation of an unborn can be determined, the gays will stop supporting abortion."
 
2013-04-28 11:09:44 AM  
This should absolutely be banned, because if a couple is willing to undergo a painful medical procedure not to have a girl, then they definitely should be forced to have a girl. And then we'll send them all home together. I'm sure nothing bad will come of this.
 
2013-04-28 11:12:58 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Like many problems, the whole issue of abortion and whether a fetus should have the right to life can be resolved by technology. Very soon now, I believe within a decade or two, we will have the ability to tweak and guide the genetics of a zygote/fetus. We can bid farewell to birth defects (one of the rationales for allowing abortions). Also soon, within a century, will exist the capability to bring fetuses to full term outside the womb, circumventing necessity due to mother health issues or simply a desire not to have the child.

There will then be no excuses for "murdering" a fetus.


Except for overpopulation, and starting a kid's life with insurmountable debt to due the expense of the procedure.

/"Welcome to the world, little 491765C. You're owned by MegaCorp, who paid for your gestation. Hope you like salt mines!"
 
2013-04-28 11:13:20 AM  

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


This
 
2013-04-28 11:15:07 AM  

Tanishh: And if you support laws making it such that killing a pregnant woman gives you 2 counts of murder instead of 1, congratulations. You, too, are not 100% on the "fetuses don't matter at all and choice is all that matters" side either.


False.

I'm of the opinion that when it comes to murder or similarly disturbing crimes where the goal is removing the perpetrator from society for as much time as possible, the more charges the better, period.

Has nothing to do with my stance on abortion.

It's not a black and white issue....hypocrite.
 
2013-04-28 11:20:24 AM  

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

Boring and bland false-flag argument, BarkingUnicorn.  Try harder next time.

/3/10


A dictionary of rhetorical buzzwords is a handy way to avoid thinking too much.
 
2013-04-28 11:25:57 AM  

Theaetetus: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Like many problems, the whole issue of abortion and whether a fetus should have the right to life can be resolved by technology. Very soon now, I believe within a decade or two, we will have the ability to tweak and guide the genetics of a zygote/fetus. We can bid farewell to birth defects (one of the rationales for allowing abortions). Also soon, within a century, will exist the capability to bring fetuses to full term outside the womb, circumventing necessity due to mother health issues or simply a desire not to have the child.

There will then be no excuses for "murdering" a fetus.

Except for overpopulation, and starting a kid's life with insurmountable debt to due the expense of the procedure.

/"Welcome to the world, little 491765C. You're owned by MegaCorp, who paid for your gestation. Hope you like salt mines!"


The overpopulation myth is a dead horse. Please stop whipping it. The entire population of the Earth could fit into Rhode Island, with room left over. Starvation, water and land issues are virtually all politics-related due to local sociopathic dictators using them as weapons against their own citizen-slaves.

As for cost: knowledge-based technological costs tend to always decrease. Remember when a personal computer with 640K ran cost five grand? Additionally, I think that "right to life" issues are actually a legitimate area of government "commons" action. IOW, a fetus's right to life should be guaranteed by the State. If the mother does not want the child then the government simply removes the fetus and creche-raises it to term. And there are plenty of people wanting to adopt. If not, then the State raises the child.

I know, that may sound bizarre coming from someone with a libertarian bent. But there are legitimate functions of government. And I've come to the conclusion that guaranteeing the right to life of a fetus is one of them.
 
2013-04-28 11:30:43 AM  

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.


Came into the thread to say this. If you can't back it up with statistics, it's bullshiat.

/College freshman English. Why do most people seem to have skipped it?
 
2013-04-28 11:30:58 AM  

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.


In China, where the "one child" policy has lead to an overstock of males vs females, women are realizing they've got a LOT of power when it comes to who they choose to marry -- and they're looking to make bank. As part of the "bride price," they're demanding -- and getting -- new cars, apartments/houses for their parents, you name it. Keeping that daughter as the "one child" is turning out to be a very good investment for parents, so I'm guessing the market will correct itself.
 
2013-04-28 11:31:02 AM  
The outcome of this issue can be summed up by the world's most famous New Zealand intellectuals...

TOO MANY DICKS ON THE DANCE FLOOR.
 
2013-04-28 11:39:39 AM  

steerforth: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: 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.

I think it's clear from the article that they're not wanting an outright restriction on abortion, they just want a restriction on the parents knowing the gender before it's too late to get an abortion so parents can't get an abortion just because they don't like the gender of the baby.

It's clear from the article that there isn't a problem.


Are you saying that parents wanting to get an abortion because they don't like the biological gender of the baby isn't a problem?  Either way, please explain.
 
2013-04-28 11:42:07 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Theaetetus: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Like many problems, the whole issue of abortion and whether a fetus should have the right to life can be resolved by technology. Very soon now, I believe within a decade or two, we will have the ability to tweak and guide the genetics of a zygote/fetus. We can bid farewell to birth defects (one of the rationales for allowing abortions). Also soon, within a century, will exist the capability to bring fetuses to full term outside the womb, circumventing necessity due to mother health issues or simply a desire not to have the child.

There will then be no excuses for "murdering" a fetus.

Except for overpopulation, and starting a kid's life with insurmountable debt to due the expense of the procedure.

/"Welcome to the world, little 491765C. You're owned by MegaCorp, who paid for your gestation. Hope you like salt mines!"

The overpopulation myth is a dead horse. Please stop whipping it. The entire population of the Earth could fit into Rhode Island, with room left over. Starvation, water and land issues are virtually all politics-related due to local sociopathic dictators using them as weapons against their own citizen-slaves.


That's not any different from what I said. Read the sarcastic slashy.

As for cost: knowledge-based technological costs tend to always decrease. Remember when a personal computer with 640K ran cost five grand? Additionally, I think that "right to life" issues are actually a legitimate area of government "commons" action. IOW, a fetus's right to life should be guaranteed by the State. If the mother does not want the child then the government simply removes the fetus and creche-raises it to term. And there are plenty of people wanting to adopt. If not, then the State raises the child.

Yes, "knowledge-based technological costs" tend to decrease. Food, water, clothing, shelter costs tend to remain stable, or even increase. You've just proposed increasing the federal budget by several orders of magnitude.

I know, that may sound bizarre coming from someone with a libertarian bent. But there are legitimate functions of government. And I've come to the conclusion that guaranteeing the right to life of a fetus is one of them.

That's pretty much the opposite of libertarian. Even if you include the caveat of "... provided we do have the technology to instantly and painlessly remove the fetus from the womb" (which you didn't include), you're still stating that the government should be responsible for bearing and raising everyone, guaranteeing safety, food, shelter, etc. It's actually socialist, not libertarian.
 
2013-04-28 11:43:07 AM  

hb0mb: If someone is a big enough assbag that he or she would want an abortion based on gender, that aborted baby is getting off light.


You have a good point.
 
2013-04-28 11:44:11 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: steerforth: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: 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.

I think it's clear from the article that they're not wanting an outright restriction on abortion, they just want a restriction on the parents knowing the gender before it's too late to get an abortion so parents can't get an abortion just because they don't like the gender of the baby.

It's clear from the article that there isn't a problem.

Are you saying that parents wanting to get an abortion because they don't like the biological gender of the baby isn't a problem?  Either way, please explain.


He's saying that this isn't a societalproblem, because it occurs in only one out of a billion cases. It's not something that needs to be addressed by new, overbroad legislation that would affect those 999 million other cases.
 
2013-04-28 11:51:24 AM  
If the woman's mother aborted her because of gender, this wouldn't be an issue now would it ?
 
2013-04-28 11:56:34 AM  

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


Horseshiat. The only valid reason to choose to have an abortion is inability to be a good parent, imho. Aborting based on gender tells me you're a shiatty person that views children as fashion accessories.

A parent's job is to help your child become the best adult he/she can be, not who you *want* them to be.
 
2013-04-28 12:06:16 PM  

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

Horseshiat. The only valid reason to choose to have an abortion is inability to be a good parent, imho. Aborting based on gender tells me you're a shiatty person that views children as fashion accessories.

A parent's job is to help your child become the best adult he/she can be, not who you *want* them to be.


Why require a reason to get an abortion if a fetus isn't a human being?
 
2013-04-28 12:12:37 PM  

Theaetetus: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: steerforth: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: 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.

I think it's clear from the article that they're not wanting an outright restriction on abortion, they just want a restriction on the parents knowing the gender before it's too late to get an abortion so parents can't get an abortion just because they don't like the gender of the baby.

It's clear from the article that there isn't a problem.

Are you saying that parents wanting to get an abortion because they don't like the biological gender of the baby isn't a problem?  Either way, please explain.

He's saying that this isn't a societalproblem, because it occurs in only one out of a billion cases. It's not something that needs to be addressed by new, overbroad legislation that would affect those 999 million other cases.


Excellent point, but how does not allowing parents to know the gender of their unborn children prior to 24 weeks have a negative affect on cases where parents would not abort the fetus because of the gender?
 
2013-04-28 12:14:09 PM  

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?
 
2013-04-28 12:22:48 PM  
And in 20 years.
ts4.mm.bing.net
 
2013-04-28 12:27:43 PM  

Theaetetus: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Theaetetus: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Like many problems, the whole issue of abortion and whether a fetus should have the right to life can be resolved by technology. Very soon now, I believe within a decade or two, we will have the ability to tweak and guide the genetics of a zygote/fetus. We can bid farewell to birth defects (one of the rationales for allowing abortions). Also soon, within a century, will exist the capability to bring fetuses to full term outside the womb, circumventing necessity due to mother health issues or simply a desire not to have the child.

There will then be no excuses for "murdering" a fetus.

Except for overpopulation, and starting a kid's life with insurmountable debt to due the expense of the procedure.

/"Welcome to the world, little 491765C. You're owned by MegaCorp, who paid for your gestation. Hope you like salt mines!"

The overpopulation myth is a dead horse. Please stop whipping it. The entire population of the Earth could fit into Rhode Island, with room left over. Starvation, water and land issues are virtually all politics-related due to local sociopathic dictators using them as weapons against their own citizen-slaves.

That's not any different from what I said. Read the sarcastic slashy.

As for cost: knowledge-based technological costs tend to always decrease. Remember when a personal computer with 640K ran cost five grand? Additionally, I think that "right to life" issues are actually a legitimate area of government "commons" action. IOW, a fetus's right to life should be guaranteed by the State. If the mother does not want the child then the government simply removes the fetus and creche-raises it to term. And there are plenty of people wanting to adopt. If not, then the State raises the child.


Yes, "knowledge-based technological costs" tend to decrease. Food, water, clothing, shelter costs tend to remain stable, or even increase. You've just proposed increasing the federal budget by several orders of magnitude.

I know, that may sound bizarre coming from someone with a libertarian bent. But there are legitimate functions of government. And I've come to the conclusion that guaranteeing the right to life of a fetus is one of them.

That's pretty much the opposite of libertarian. Even if you include the caveat of "... provided we do have the technology to instantly and painlessly remove the fetus from the womb" (which you didn't include), you're still stating that the government should be responsible for bearing and raising everyone, guaranteeing safety, food, shelter, etc. It's actually socialist, not libertarian.


I didn't include "everyone" in that statement, just unwanted fetuses. Would the government be responsible for helping a child found wandering in the streets with no relatives? Same thing. I believe that a Last Chance safety net is a "commons" good.

To some extent I'm coming from (toying with) the concept of Social Credit, which sounds Socialist as all hell until you shift your viewpoint regarding the purpose of money.

With the coming advances in robotics. plummeting direct production costs, and 80% unemployment, something like this will be a necessity.
 
2013-04-28 12:32:56 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.


This. Don't forget the "some ethnicity's want this" bashing.
 
2013-04-28 12:44:58 PM  
Not a big deal, really. Most abortions are already a matter of selfish calculation -- this is just another parameter.
 
2013-04-28 01:01:00 PM  

cedarpark: DON.MAC: With the trends of male vs female success rates of the 20 somethings, why would a parent today prefer a male?

An issue that I believe is not spoken about in the article is that, although this is an Australian article, I believe the emphasis on preferring males is predominantly by Chinese and Indian immigrants.


ahh I was wondering how many post before this racist gem comes out LOL. I'm sure that the effect is almost always the opposite. Immigrants are more likely to be NOT like their counterparts in their native land otherwise they wouldn't be immigrants.

More so in the case of India and China where this subject is particularly sensitive. Most likely any Indian or Chinese who emigrated would value girls far above even those of their adopted country nevermind where they came from.
From my own personal experience I can tell you girls born to immigrant Chinese or Indians parents are like the most precious snowflake of snowflakes. The exact reverse of the attitudes toward girls born in China or India.


You are quite the ignorant .
 
2013-04-28 01:06:42 PM  

bifford: This was probably an Asian culture.  Sex-selective abortions are widespread across Asia.  It's often illegal, but it's fairly easy to get one anyway.  Asian countries have a huge surplus of men who cannot find brides because there are too few females.  Everyone acknowledges the problem, but nobody sees why they should have to shoulder the burden of raising a daughter for the benefit of some other family's son.  The daughter leaves the nest taking a huge dowry with her.  A son can get a job and provide for his parents.


ElizaDoolittle: This.  And would it be rude to mention that the girls are often born full-term and drowned?  Good luck, Chinese/Indian parents of a son who has no chance of finding a wife because you thought that boys were the only necessary children. I hate this well-documented and tolerated murder of baby girls.  I can only hope that it reaps the obvious results:  in about ten years, Indian and Chinese women (the ones who survived) will be valued beyond belief.

Forgive my cynicism.  They'll probably be raped and forced to bear a child every year by multiple men to correct the error.


this and this
Society will do what it always does. Change.
China is already seeing that (see above comment about bride price.
At some point the parents of girls in India will wake up and realize that they got it all wrong.
They will have big wars/auctions for the right to marry their daughters.
FFS, that wont be any better for the girls, but it will shift the mindset to stop killing the female babies.

/meh - less women in india and china = less babies being born there = not a bad thing at all
 
2013-04-28 01:09:45 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: From my own personal experience I can tell you girls born to immigrant Chinese or Indians parents are like the most precious snowflake of snowflakes.


heheheheehe
that is so cute that you use anecdotal evidence to support that you are right and the other people are racist.
LOLOLOLOL

from my own infinitely wiser evidence, I saw exactly the opposite.
Asian family had a girl, fine fine, but oh boy, once their SON came along, the daughter became second fiddle and was virtually ignored.

so yah, that bias wasnt completely left behind
 
2013-04-28 01:16:46 PM  

Brittabot: sleeps in trees: Old news. In Canada sex is not revealed through universal medical ultra sound. Private is another story. As that is available everywhere.

This is a big "Ooga Booga Scary" piece which is quite silly.

Uh, that's not true. Gender IS revealed in universal medicine ultrasound in Canada (or at least in Ontario).

I found out I was having a son at about 20 weeks (they even tried to determine the sex at the 12 week scan but couldn't). The tech offered the information after confirming we wanted to know. This was 4 years ago.

Everybody I know who had had a baby in the last few years (which has been A LOT) have found out the gender thru scans paid for thru OHIP.

I'd have been super pissed if they had refused to tell me, not because I had any intention of aborting, but because I like to plan and this let me get a bunch of little boy things for him before he was born, decide on a name, and actually helped me to develop some semblance of a bond with my son before he was born. I've never understood people wanting to be surprised by the gender at birth (though, to each their own).

WRT sex-selective abortions, I think it's a pretty shiatty thing to do, and I would question if someone who would do that would make a good parent at all (except in the rare case of genetic diseases only impacting one gender or something). However, if you do truly believe abortion is the woman's choice (which I do), unfortunately some abortions will likely happen for reasons that you find distasteful.

Personally, I don't think I could ever abort a baby (exceptions being if the pregnancy was life threatening or if the baby had some catastrophic illness). This isn't faith-based or anything (atheist here) I just don't like the idea of removing a potential person from the world before they even have a chance.

But, my choices are not everybody else's and I don't believe in taking away choices from others simply because I don't agree with them. Everyone who aborts a child has their own set of circumstances and I have no business judging them for doing what they feel is best.


Not in parts of BC. It is up to the MD. The decision as another poster agreed is an unspoken agreement that depends often on race.
 
2013-04-28 01:29:17 PM  

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


You're a dipshiat.
 
2013-04-28 01:33:32 PM  

Tanishh: R.A.Danny: Amos Quito: What part of CHOICE did you not understand?

Yep. You either believe that choice is a right or you do not. Or at least that you should keep your nose out of it.

Implying that it's all black and white and there is no such thing as being in the middle.

Some of us are pro choice, but with restrictions and regulation. You know, kind of like how anyone sane is when it comes to things like guns, voting, driving, and anything else of consequence.

You should be able to obtain an abortion up to a certain point in any pregnancy, with no required waiting period (or, at most, a very small one), covered by insurance, no required ultrasound / other unnecessary steps, etc. But not for any reason under the sun. Not wanting to go ahead with a baby because you lost your job and can't afford it, or it'll be dead on arrival, or it will have a severe defect is ok. Not the choice everyone would make, but it's your choice. Doing the same because you don't like girls is just farked up. Sorry.

I am of the opinion that the choices of women need to be respected and we need to be cognizant of the fact that nobody knows each individual family's situation but each individual family, and one size doesn't fit all. But I am also of the opinion that a fetus, in most cases, WILL eventually become a human, and we should not have people running around getting abortions completely 100% without restriction, rhyme, or reason.

And if you support laws making it such that killing a pregnant woman gives you 2 counts of murder instead of 1, congratulations. You, too, are not 100% on the "fetuses don't matter at all and choice is all that matters" side either.


Forcing somebody to have a child that they don't want (for ANY reason) is what's farked up.  You'd rather that child go through a lifetime of pain and misery simply because you don't personally like their reasons for wanting to abort.

When actually, their reasons are none of your business. Stop trying to insert yourself in other people's relationships.
 
2013-04-28 01:34:58 PM  

Tanishh: But, as I said, to people for whom intent is important, that matters.


The intent shouldn't matter to you though.  It's not your fetus.
 
2013-04-28 01:37:27 PM  
Margaret Sanger
Founder of Planned Parenthood:

"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)

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

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

"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,

Link

"Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." So said Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Seventy-eight percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are in black neighborhoods. Blacks make up only 12% of the population, but 35% of America's aborted babies are black. Half of black pregnancies end in abortion. Is this an intentional genocide? (Emphasis added)

"The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb," according to Pastor Clenard Childress, Jr. Blacks are the only minority in America experiencing a declining population.


Link
 
2013-04-28 01:40:33 PM  

R.A.Danny: Before going on about how bad it is for women in the US, take a look worldwide.


Which is all the more reason to keep fighting for our rights to access to safe (and on-demand) abortion here at home.
 
2013-04-28 01:40:59 PM  
What a quandry for feminists; people terminating fetal tissue after finding out the tissue is a female.
 
2013-04-28 01:42:51 PM  

sleeps in trees: R.A.Danny: sleeps in trees: Old news. In Canada sex is not revealed through universal medical ultra sound. Private is another story. As that is available everywhere.

This is a big "Ooga Booga Scary" piece which is quite silly.

Have you ever seen an ultrasound? You can tell the sex of the child quite often. Geographic location has nothing to do with it.

Yes thanks I have, many times. Parents are not allowed to see certain photos nor the actual ultra sound. One cannnot make accurate assessments from the ones given through the ultra sound. I said nothing about geographic location, but universal health care.


This is incorrect. I just went with my wife for her 20 week, and it's a boy - I watched the entire ultrasound with her, she pointed out the twig and berries, made sure to get a few times around there to ensure it was a boy. If the little lump wasn't cooperating and hid the goods, we would have to pay for a separate ultrasound if we wanted to find out the sex, unless there was a valid medical reason to have another ultrasound. So if all things good, two ultrasounds are paid for by our universal health care, and they try to show you the sex, and you get to see the whole thing. Your information is incorrect. Also, we could ask for specific pictures while going through, if we wanted. Three of my siblings have had kids in the last four years, and this appears to be the norm.
 
2013-04-28 01:48:07 PM  

Theaetetus: Food, water, clothing, shelter costs tend to remain stable, or even increase.


No one paid attention to my previous drunken rambling, which makes me sad.  So, I'll up the drunken rambling.

The things on the  base of Maslow's hierarchy?  They cost nothing.  Well, next to nothing.  The most expensive thing, really, is food and water.  Shelter, clothing?  These things are actually really, really farking cheap, or could be.

Those tennis shoes that cost $125?   They are worth about $3, and the department store shreds hundreds of them to keep them expensive.

My wife just got a sales job at a trade factory (in China, ofc) that makes jewerly for several famous labels.  They sell these baubles for thousands of USD.  In reality, they cost about 50 RMB to make.  Eight bucks US.  For a necklace that sells for several THOUSAND dollars US.

That's less than the cost of pork here in China.

Wearing a slab of pork meat around your neck is a better show of wealth than a Dio----- I mean Swarov--- Ah, whatever the fark brand name necklace.

We live in a time where everything OTHER than food and water is extranious.  Prices are rediculously inflated for clothing and shelter.  Only fairly inflated for food and water.

Imagine a world where everyone only paid "wholesale" cost for food, water, shelter, and clothing.  Everyone on the planet could afford to live better than all the generations that came before.
 
2013-04-28 01:50:18 PM  

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

Boring and bland false-flag argument, BarkingUnicorn.  Try harder next time.

/3/10

A dictionary of rhetorical buzzwords is a handy way to avoid thinking too much.


Yes, but we really do wish you'd stop crapping up threads that way...
 
2013-04-28 01:53:24 PM  
hasty ambush: Herp-a-doo

Do you have any actual sources?
 
2013-04-28 01:54:22 PM  

Sawkie: sleeps in trees: R.A.Danny: sleeps in trees: Old news. In Canada sex is not revealed through universal medical ultra sound. Private is another story. As that is available everywhere.

This is a big "Ooga Booga Scary" piece which is quite silly.

Have you ever seen an ultrasound? You can tell the sex of the child quite often. Geographic location has nothing to do with it.

Yes thanks I have, many times. Parents are not allowed to see certain photos nor the actual ultra sound. One cannnot make accurate assessments from the ones given through the ultra sound. I said nothing about geographic location, but universal health care.

This is incorrect. I just went with my wife for her 20 week, and it's a boy - I watched the entire ultrasound with her, she pointed out the twig and berries, made sure to get a few times around there to ensure it was a boy. If the little lump wasn't cooperating and hid the goods, we would have to pay for a separate ultrasound if we wanted to find out the sex, unless there was a valid medical reason to have another ultrasound. So if all things good, two ultrasounds are paid for by our universal health care, and they try to show you the sex, and you get to see the whole thing. Your information is incorrect. Also, we could ask for specific pictures while going through, if we wanted. Three of 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 by her doctor but not by the technician.
 
2013-04-28 02:04:24 PM  

WordyGrrl: 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.

In China, where the "one child" policy has lead to an overstock of males vs females, women are realizing they've got a LOT of power when it comes to who they choose to marry -- and they're looking to make bank. As part of the "bride price," they're demanding -- and getting -- new cars, apartments/houses for their parents, you name it. Keeping that daughter as the "one child" is turning out to be a very good investment for parents, so I'm guessing the market will correct itself.


Thanks for paying attention.

Also, I checked your profile, and you have great boobies.
 
2013-04-28 02:04:56 PM  

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".
 
2013-04-28 02:06:51 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".


Seems like a distinction without a difference.
 
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 235 of 235 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report