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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
hasty ambush: Margaret SangerFounder of Planned Parenthood:
BarkingUnicorn: Anyone who has a problem with this cannot also claim that a fetus isn't a human being.
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.
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.
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.
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
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)
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?
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 like these links, you'll love
More Fark for your buck
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jun 24 2018 15:27:26
Runtime: 0.351 sec (350 ms)