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 87
    More: Sick, Australians, Australian Medical Association, gender selection, blue moons  
•       •       •

13859 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-28 12:43:14 AM  
15 votes:
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 03:13:46 AM  
6 votes:
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 12:27:03 AM  
6 votes:

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 12:03:31 AM  
6 votes:
Anyone who has a problem with this cannot also claim that a fetus isn't a human being.
2013-04-28 03:23:33 AM  
5 votes:
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 03:10:44 AM  
5 votes:

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 03:05:24 AM  
5 votes:
Better that than having to live with parents that resent you because you aren't what they were hoping for.
2013-04-28 01:00:54 AM  
5 votes:
With the trends of male vs female success rates of the 20 somethings, why would a parent today prefer a male?
2013-04-28 09:01:02 AM  
4 votes:

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 03:47:25 AM  
4 votes:
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 02:39:27 AM  
4 votes:

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 12:49:51 AM  
4 votes:
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 07:18:50 AM  
3 votes:

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 03:57:42 AM  
3 votes:

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 03:11:36 AM  
3 votes:
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 03:10:42 AM  
3 votes:
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 04:46:29 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:30:08 PM  
2 votes:
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 11:44:11 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:10:00 AM  
2 votes:
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 07:30:37 AM  
2 votes:

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 07:26:56 AM  
2 votes:

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 04:28:08 AM  
2 votes:

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 03:51:13 AM  
2 votes:

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 03:44:55 AM  
2 votes:

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 03:44:27 AM  
2 votes:

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 03:28:18 AM  
2 votes:

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 03:28:13 AM  
2 votes:
 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 03:15:15 AM  
2 votes:
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 12:16:57 AM  
2 votes:
Welcome to Obama's America.
2013-04-29 02:28:06 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-04-28 06:34:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:38:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:38:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:27:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:22:18 PM  
1 votes:
"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 02:10:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:40:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:34:58 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:33:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:29:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:09:45 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:32:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:43:07 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:30:58 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:30:43 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:09:44 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:23:13 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:04:16 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:31:26 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:21:04 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:20:15 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:04:31 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:03:47 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:19:03 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:00:16 AM  
1 votes:

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 07:28:50 AM  
1 votes:
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 06:46:18 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:31:27 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:10:04 AM  
1 votes:
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 06:03:17 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:02:39 AM  
1 votes:

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 05:58:50 AM  
1 votes:
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 05:22:12 AM  
1 votes:
thevillage-locksmith.com

The only good fetus is an aborted fetus.
2013-04-28 05:09:17 AM  
1 votes:

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 05:06:08 AM  
1 votes:

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 04:51:59 AM  
1 votes:

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 04:31:55 AM  
1 votes:

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 04:16:10 AM  
1 votes:

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 04:13:47 AM  
1 votes:
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 04:10:52 AM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-04-28 04:10:47 AM  
1 votes:
Must be a coincidence that Australia is getting a large influx of Asians.
2013-04-28 03:59:12 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:59:05 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:54:41 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:54:17 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:49:13 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:48:42 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:45:35 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:41:50 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:41:25 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:31:09 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:27:53 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:19:53 AM  
1 votes:
If they ever find a doctor that will actually do the surgery, then he better run, he better take cover.
2013-04-28 03:03:06 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:40:42 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:34:57 AM  
1 votes:
What part of CHOICE did you not understand?


/Oops
//I think I just redlit
///This thread
 
Displayed 87 of 87 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report