50 2 mins 14 yrs

Abortion on demand — good thing or bad thing?  The debate rages on, and it looks like Mother Nature is going to get the last word.  Mark Steyn says it best:

“… Sex-selective abortion is a fact of life in India, where the gender ratio has declined to 1,000 boys to 900 girls nationally, and as low as 1,000 boys to 300 girls in some Punjabi cities. In China, the state-enforced "one child" policy has brought about the most gender-distorted demographic cohort in global history, the so-called guang gun– "bare branches." If you can only have one kid, parents choose to abort girls and wait for a boy, to the point where in the first generation to grow to adulthood under this policy there are 119 boys for every 100 girls. In practice, a "woman’s right to choose" turns out to mean the right to choose not to have any women. (my emphasis)

…By midcentury, when today’s millions of surplus boys will be entering middle age, India and China are expected to account for a combined 50 percent of global GDP. On present trends, they will be the most male-heavy societies that have ever existed. “Smaller families may mean just a boy or a girl for liberal Democrats, but in other societies it means just a boy. The Indian writer Gita Aravamudan calls this the "female feticide." Colleen Carroll Campbell writes that abortion, "touted as the key to liberating future generations of women," has become instead "the preferred means of eradicating them." (my emphasis)


 Read the rest of the article.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

50 thoughts on “The Unintended Consequences of Playing God

  1. >>touted as the key to liberating future generations of women," has become instead "the preferred means of eradicating them."<<

    So who’s giving birth to all those boys then?

    And has Steyn, or anyone else, shown that there are actually less females in China today in real terms than there were a generation ago?

  2. And as well as women refusing to give birth it appears there are some women using contraception, eradicating billions. Some of them are even saying no to sex, as if it were their ‘choice’. Worst of all, many of those who are having sex are getting off scot free.

    Clearly the solution to all of these problems is more force. Since there is a shortage of people these uppity women are just going to have to get with the program.

  3. Some demographic future. Islam V 30 million frustrated young Chinamen.

    And the winner is? Feminism? I’ll take that bet.

  4. A consequence will be large scale immigration of females from poor countries in Asia as "mail order brides" for Chinese men.

    This industry is already underway in places like Korea, where Vietnamese women are matched up with Korean men.

    The Vietnamese are similar enough in culture to the Chinese, and China is relatively rich and Vietnam is still poor, so there will clearly be a lot of this in the next thirty years.

  5. Noel: "So who’s giving birth to all those boys then?"

    The current crop of females, of course.

    With the 1 child requirements in China, there are less children born overall, With selective aborting of females, the ratio of male to female is changing. Taken to its logical conclusion, in an isolated world, the Chinese would eventually die out.

    The Phantom: I think you might be right. From what I read the "sex slavery" industry is alive and well.

    Dawkins: "just realized those are UN statistics" lol. sometimes even a blind squirrel finds an acorn?

  6. Patty

    Sex slavery unfortunately is very much alive and well

    But some of this will not be sex slavery, it will be consentual migration of "mail order brides" in large numbers. Once N Korea opens up, you’ll see it from there too.

  7. Henry,

    "And the winner is? Feminism? I’ll take that bet."

    You are barking up the wrong tree if you think the cause of any of the demographic shifts is feminism. Everything you decry has its root cause in cultural attitudes of women as low value property on the one hand, and on the other the overpopulation that results in those same populations trying to control fertlity by limiting the numbers of females. All the inevitable results of policies very much like yours, and nothing like those of feminists.

    The dangers of playing God indeed.

  8. He may be saying that the balance of power will shift to the females in such a distorted population base.

    But feminists should have no beef. They want unrestricted abortion, so what business is it of theirs if it is the female infants who wind up in the disposal. Feminists should be fine with that…unless they want "restrictions on the right of abortion". Freedom to choose I believe is the operative phrase.

  9. I fault feminism for overstating the choice issue such that abortion is no longer seen as either a sinful taking of human life or even a Sophies choice between 2 equally despicable alternatives, but rather a casual medical procedure, a convenient solution to an inconvenient "problem."

  10. Can i ask what for the love of God, western feminism has to do with what’s going on in China?

    Did feminism decide women were the ones who wind up pregnant?
    Did feminism invent abortion?
    Would feminism not find issue with forced abortions as they occur in China in the same way they would find issue with forced pregnancy?
    What’s "convenient" about unwanted pregnancy, or "casual" about an invasive procedure many here have no concept of, frankly in anyone’s books, male or female?

    What a lot of barking nonsense.

    I initially thought this piece was about the export of dangerous Chinese herbal abortion medicines to the west on the black market. I wonder what feminism would make of that!

  11. I’ve heard women here complain about sex-specific abortion in India and China. As they should.

    But when you’re decades down the road of making the argument of "abortion is a human right, no reason necessary " then its hard to make the case that selecting against females is a bad thing. Because someone’s gonna get selected against in that situation.

  12. Phantom,

    "But when you’re decades down the road of making the argument of "abortion is a human right, no reason necessary " then its hard to make the case that selecting against females is a bad thing"

    In fact it is completely trivial to make that case: women are people too. Once you accept that, then there is no reason to discriminate against them. Indeed it is impossible to make a case for sex selection without devaluing girls and women.

    Now you are right in saying that there is a group that cannot make that argument without being obvious hypocrites. You just picked the wrong group. It ain’t the feminists.

  13. –Indeed it is impossible to make a case for sex selection without devaluing girls and women–

    Well, don’t think its just the evil men in China making these decisions. The women in such cultures very much want boys and are making the decision too in very many cases.

    There is no way to restrict this practice without restricting abortion "rights". And watch the feminists of America and west Europe howl like the banshee when that happens.

    Better a huge overage of females aborted than a less than complete abortion right.

  14. Frank

    Regards those black market chinese herbal abortion drugs that are on sale (article on BBC last week) – i think i might chalk that up to the unintended consequences of capitalist market forces at work!

    Hell it’s even an ‘ism’. What would people moan about without an ‘ism’!
    😉

    "And watch the feminists of America and west Europe howl like the banshee when that happens."

    Women in Iran dress up like black banshees and smash seven bells out of feminists fighting for the right to wear what they like. Women in the Westwant to restrict women they don’t know access to abortion and howl like banshees when they don’t get their way. In other words some women have always been utter bitches to other women. No change there. And there are always men on hand to help them achieve it – or in China make sure they know their worth is ZERO.

  15. Phantom,

    "Well, don’t think its just the evil men in China making these decisions."

    I never said it was. I said there was no way to make a case for it without devaluing women. A bunch of uncle tomasitas don’t change that.

    "There is no way to restrict this practice without restricting abortion "rights"."

    And there is no way to restrict this practice by restriction of abortion rights (yes rights) either. Certainly no moral way, and besides it’s already illegal in India. You can however address the reasons without removing anyone’s rights.

  16. That Indian law isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

    –You can however address the reasons without removing anyone’s rights.–

    In very traditional cultures like that? Lots of luck. The main reason IMHO is that the parents want a boy because they want a son to look after them. Am not sure that would change much no matter what you did to the economy or what benefits you might add or what educational campaign you may want to start. ("Girls are people too"!!)

    Esp in a case of one child per family -and I take a devils argument here- who is anyone to tell them they can’t select against girls if they want boys? If someone has to be aborted, whats the problem if all aborted fetuses are girls, and all live births are boys? Might make for one messed up society, but freedom of choice, you asked for it, and you should not complain when that freedom gives a result that no sane person would ever want.

  17. Phantom –

    Well said. Last week, the feministas in here stood on the opinion that an aborted child was better than an unwanted child.

    Now here they are, well, not really giving any opinion at all, because to criticise selective Chinese abortion would be to undermine their own argument.

    If it’s better to kill unwanted children in the West than let them live, it’s surely better to kill an unwanted Chinese child too. But that’s a tough principle to stand by when the children are unwanted simply because they’re not boys, hence their evasion.

  18. "You can however address the reasons without removing anyone’s rights"

    Precisely Frank.

  19. –the feministas in here stood on the opinion that an aborted child was better than an unwanted child.–

    Missed that one. A lot of grown men and women who may not have had the best of parents or who may not have been "wanted" may beg to differ.

    This is one brutally tough moral and social issue. Its not as simple as "murder" but its not as simple as "rights" either.

    –Precisely Frank–
    Baloney. Send me a memo when you’ve resolved that one.

  20. Phantom,

    "That Indian law isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on."

    Now you do surprise me. Usually anti-abortion laws work so well, too!

    Oh well. Looks like you need to come up with a better idea.

  21. "Usually anti-abortion laws work so well, too!"

    Yeah damn those feminists for spotting the horrific flaw in that one when they did! We can leave the evasion of those particular issues for the anti abortion cabal to stay predictably mute on.

    Bit like the very peculiar argument that what is going on in China has anything to do with access to abortion as a ‘rights issue’ eg via feminism and its highlight of the inevitable ensuant illegal unsafe abortion that arises without safe access.

    As if these desperate and skewed Chinamen would not pursue illegal abortions in their one child restrictive circumstances in the absence of access!

    The ‘unintended consequences’ of restricting abortion in these desperate one child communist policy circumstances = dead babies + dead women.

  22. Frank

    Everything you decry has its root cause in cultural attitudes of women as low value property on the one hand, and on the other the overpopulation that results in those same populations trying to control fertlity by limiting the numbers of females.

    The state in China’s case is trying to limit fertility. It is the Communist regime that has decided a woman can only have one child. Choice does not come into it.

    The response from the culture has been to make the child a male by using abortion. Without the Communist dictatorship the question would not arise.

    What I decry is the belief that what is going on in China has anything to do with women’s choices or women’s rights.

    But to a western liberal mind abortion means freedom irrespective of the oppressive circumstances in which it happens.

    That applies to abortion in the West too even when the woman is practically pushed in the door of the clinic by her boyfriend or husband. Extend the right to choose to he right to marry the father and you would have real choice for women. It’s hard to get a seconder for the right to choose in that case.

    But that is largely beside the point of this discussion. The policy won’t change until the communists are overthrown in China are real freedom is established.

    What is worth discussing are the consequences and we can only guess what they may be.

    My guess is that sex will be very hard to come by for Chinamen. Not just because of the imbalance but because the women who do exist will have more of a choice and casual sex won’t be as common as it becomes where there is a perceived or actual shortage of men.

    Marriage will be the price of sex for men and social society will become far more conservative. The leftovers will be the problem. They may well head west either as migrants or as an army.

  23. The genie is well out of the bottle. All I am saying is that abortion fans should recuse themselves when the subject of gender imbalance in abortion results comes up. It is none of their business.

    If you want unfettered choice, don’t complain when people’s choices don’t suit you. The unnatural sex ratios, aided by devilish technology, flowed directly from their abortion rights and "choice" campaigns. To an extent, they own this thing.

    Choicechoicechoice. Its all very wonderful.

    –It is the Communist regime that has decided a woman can only have one child. Choice does not come into it–
    Oh yes it does. In China, a law abiding family can choose to not have children, or to have them. And if they do have a child, they can choose whether or not to use technology to.select by sex

  24. ‘hen the subject of gender imbalance in abortion results comes up. It is none of their business’.

    We don’t assume it is none of our business. But you will have to come up with someone else to blame if, in the absence of abortion access, they pursued illegal abortions, which they inevitably would do, in these horrendous circumstances.

    No choice no choice no choice – its all very wonderful in your world. It’s as if sex selective abortions wouldn’t happen!

    The argument should be over the disgusting policy of the Chinese regime – not access to safe abortion.

  25. Henry,

    "What I decry is the belief that what is going on in China has anything to do with women’s choices or women’s rights."

    Who believes that?

    "But to a western liberal mind abortion means freedom irrespective of the oppressive circumstances in which it happens."

    Rubbish. I am pro-choice. That means that women can choose to give birth or they can choose not to, free of coercion in both cases. The Chinese are not pro-choice and the ‘western liberal mind’ does not believe that they are.

    "That applies to abortion in the West too even when the woman is practically pushed in the door of the clinic by her boyfriend or husband."

    If such coercion were overt it would be illegal. And when it comes to more subtle or covert coercion, then the most vocal ‘pro-life’ are equally guilty as they will label her a brainless whore if she gives birth, and will do their level best to ensure she isn’t ‘rewarded’ by benefits for doing so. Not that they mind coercion in the first place – they certainly have no problem if any women is shoved into the pre-natal class by her boyfriend or husband, and if he won’t do it they would like to.

    "Extend the right to choose to he right to marry the father and you would have real choice for women. It’s hard to get a seconder for the right to choose in that case."

    What on earth are you talking about? Women choose to marry the father all the time. If you think they should be able to do it without his agreement then you have an unusual view of marriage.

  26. Interesting topic and discussion. Seems we’re back to cultural and moral differences again. Some peoples prefer sons, if they’re limited by government or money to one child, they’re going to choose the boy if they’re able. Abortion has always been available, technology just makes it selective for people with a preference.

    I don’t think the pro-choice, feminist crowd or population control advocates are going to have a problem with this selectivity. They don’t have a problem with aborting children with disabilities or retardation or because they are unwanted for whatever reason or, on the part of the few, instead of using birth control. The reason doesn’t matter.

    Why would sex selection in emerging countries cause any qualms? It’s probably been happening here for quite awhile, but nobody would dare admit it, that wouldn’t be politically correct.

    **As an aside, there is a huge demand from western women for Indian surrogate mothers, it’s becoming quite the cottage industry.

  27. There’s a lot of muddled thinking going on here. Phantom, which pro-abortion feminists are now saying that abortion should be restricted ? And what is the preferred solution. Restricting abortion so that women are forced to have female children they may not be able to afford to keep, and who may well end up being abused and treated badly. Of course China’s one child policy is crude and cruel , and accepting the idea of gender specific abortion is repugnant , but the answers can never be to try and forceably resrict abortion access, and it is just lazy political stereotyping to try and blame the problem on Western pro-abortion rights campaigners.

  28. Phantom,

    "–You can however address the reasons without removing anyone’s rights.–

    In very traditional cultures like that?"

    Gee you’re right, there’s no precedent for that at all. That’s why conservatives all over the globe are so contented and haven’t a care in the world.

    If only someone had started a movement, I dunno, maybe they’d all be wailing about returning to ‘tradition’ or something.

  29. Frank

    The Chinese are not pro-choice and the ‘western liberal mind’ does not believe that they are.

    You can only speak for yourself on that one.

    In response to a question concerning China’s policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government’s policy among the most intelligent in the world"

    Yard was President of NOW which is the leading feminist organisation in the USA. It has consistently supported funding of the Chinese forced abortion policy through the UN.

    If you think they should be able to do it without his agreement then you have an unusual view of marriage.

    I don’t think the right to choose should override the right to life of the baby either but given a choice I would give the woman the choice to marry the father before the right to kill the baby.

  30. Alison: I think the strident aggressiveness of the Western feminist has devalued the miracle of life by framing abortion as a "lifestyle choice" issue.

    Talk about hubris! How about a little humility? A little respect for human life when playing God is in order, don’t you think?

    Or, not…. nonetheless, the Cosmic Giggle is going to have the last word here as the unintended consequences of Communist State Mandated birth policies, followed by abortion-by-choice, clearly indicates.

  31. So you see the advantages to womankind and the miracle of life via illegal abortion Patty? Which is what would happen in commie China with its one child, male preferential society. This has nothing to do with feminism giving women (in the West) access to safer healthcare Patty and you know it! Very muddled logic in that regard!

    Colm: worse than that even. Forceably resricting abortion access in China with these policies would simply lead to illegal abortions.. and the outcomes in rural China would be wonderful i’m sure. There is no logic to this argument of Steyns. It’s desperate stereotyping and an empty argument.

  32. Henry,

    I question the veracity of that quote and the claim that follows it is a lie. The only sources I can find for the quote are all ‘pro-life’ sites, not exactly paragons of honesty. And even Bush could find no evidence to link UNFPA to coerced abortion. And that’s according to methodists (his own church!) not feminists.

    "I don’t think the right to choose should override the right to life of the baby either "

    Then report for duty tomorrow at 9am. Bring all your money and signed forms for kidney and bone marrow donation. You will be saving children’s lives.

    Patty,

    "the miracle of life"

    Miracles sure aren’t what they used to be. That particular ‘miracle’ happens an awful lot. If a ‘pro-life’ argument could be made without blatant falsehoods and hypocrisy, now that would be a miracle.

    "A little respect for human life when playing God is in order, don’t you think?"

    Yes but good luck getting the Pope to listen to that!

  33. Frank

    Do you concur that the statement attributed to Yard would be disgusting from anybody. Let’s establish agreement on that to make it worth our while to establish the veracity of it.

    I’m confused by you opting to quote a Methodist site. The State Department have nailed the UNFPA on the issue.

    The Government of the United States is disappointed that the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has decided to continue to provide financial and technical assistance to the Chinese birth limitation program under the direction of China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission. We have made our views known at the UNFPA Board meeting, which is currently reviewing the proposed new country program for China.

  34. But again let’s get back to the issue which we all agree has nothing to do with the right to choice. What will the outcome be of such a dramatic imbalance?

  35. Henry,

    "Do you concur that the statement attributed to Yard would be disgusting from anybody. "

    If it refers to coerced abortion, certainly. It would be exactly as disgusting as references to Ireland’s program of coerced birth as a ‘beacon’.

    "I’m confused by you opting to quote a Methodist site"

    Well here’s why:
    Despite findings of his own investigative team that no evidence links the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) with forced abortions in China, President Bush pulled promised funding from the agency in late July.

    We find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC (Peoples Republic of China), said the team in a letter to State Department Secretary Colin L. Powell. The letter advocated support for the release of the $34 million in funding voted by Congress in December and signed into his budget by President Bush.
    […]
    According to Bales, The $34 million represents approximately 13 percent of UNFPAs total budget. UNFPA predicts that this funding could prevent 800,000 abortions and the deaths of 4,700 pregnant mothers.
    […]
    In fact, U.S. funding to UNFPA in past years has not been spent in China but is held in a separate account for work in other nations.

  36. Frank

    In fact, U.S. funding to UNFPA in past years has not been spent in China but is held in a separate account for work in other nations.

    Is that supposed to fool anybody? The US funding programs elsewhere freeing up money for China.

    We find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC

    Knowingly? A child could see what’s going on. Lenin coined the phrase "unconditional but critical support" for such a contingency. You are too smart, Frank, to pretend you don’t see it.

    CHINA: Country Faces Challenges in Population and Development

    Xinhua General News Service reported August 11 2005 that in a speech delivered at Northwest China Population and Development Forum, Ronny Lindstrom, deputy representative of the UNFPA China Office, said China has made many accomplishments such as improved mother and child health, access to reproductive health services and contraceptives in China’s population program since the International Conference on Population and Development in 1994, but "a number of concerns related to China’s population and development remain." Lindstrom said that some of the principles of the Convention for Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action, both of which China is a party to, particularly those related to individual’s control of their own fertility, have yet to be fully met. "Hence, there is still work to be done to reach the goals that China has set in the 2002 Population and Family Planning Law,"

  37. Henry,

    "But again let’s get back to the issue which we all agree has nothing to do with the right to choice."

    Patty seems to think otherwise.

    "What will the outcome be of such a dramatic imbalance?"

    I would say that you will see increases in things such as mail order brides (as Phantom said) and also sex slavery and violence, and migration where possible. Women are treated as property so you should in theory see their price and value go up when they are in short supply, but they are hardly valued in the first place, and then only as a means to an end. You will probably see polyandry and a reinforcing cycle of sex selection whereby women will elect not to bring daughters into an environment like that. And you will see attempts to ban the practice which will fail, because you cannot force people to respect women by treating them even worse.

    "some of the principles of the Convention for Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action, both of which China is a party to, particularly those related to individual’s control of their own fertility, have yet to be fully met. "

    Those would be the principles that coerced abortion (and indeed sex selection) is contrary to.

    "Hence, there is still work to be done to reach the goals that China has set in the 2002 Population and Family Planning Law,""

    And that would be the law that is supposed to outlaw it.

    We are certainly a long way now from your ‘western liberal mind’ considering the Chinese policy to be one of choice and freedom.

  38. Henry,

    "Knowingly? A child could see what’s going on. Lenin coined the phrase "unconditional but critical support" for such a contingency. You are too smart, Frank, to pretend you don’t see it."

    Knowingly is pretty relevant when this was in response to the inference and the actual accusations that they (and somehow the NOW!) participated enthusiastically in it. For that matter I can say that you have not knowingly supported coerced abortion in China too, even though you are probably reading this on a computer that was assembled in China.

    You don’t know where all the UNFPA money goes and neither do I. Probably neither does the UNFPA to some extent. Since contraceptives are a lot cheaper than abortions and sterilisation though, I am pretty sure that the net effect is less coerced abortion and sterilisation, and not more. Yes, even forced contraception is still unacceptable. But in no way can you say that they are encouraging the policy or calling it freedom when it is blatantly obvious that they are doing the opposite.

  39. "But again let’s get back to the issue which we all agree has nothing to do with the right to choice."

    Patty seems to think otherwise."

    Frank, I don’t think Communist China is about "choice." You are mixing up two issues here.

    My post – and Steyn’s demographics – ia about hubris. It’s about a lack of humility, and about the inadvisability of playing God, whether by a central communist govt. which mandates family size or by strident advocates of abortions-on-demand, feminists who seek to "dumb down" the definition of life so that our society easily accepts the terminination of life in utero.

  40. Colm

    I’ve not heard any feminist say the words "abortion [choice] should be restricted". But I’ve heard them speak out against sex determination tests (link is to Chowk, an Asian discussion site )

    Which is absolutely a restriction on choice. Because if she wants to abort based on sex, restricting sex testing is throwing a roadblock her way. You’re going to force her to use back alley sex testers.

    If an Indian woman wants to abort ten female fetuses in a row until she gets the magic male baby, the feminists should propose a toast to the abortion queen, as she is the plucky one who steers her own ship to the terra firma of choice. She does not need a reason–on a whim, it can be the baby’s sex, genes, physical deformity –or because she does not feel like carrying a baby for nine months.

    I don’t support making abortion illegal –but I think that each abortion is a tragedy. And I don’t see how a its more or less an individual tragedy depending on the sex of the baby. And since "choice" is the only thing that matters, those who shouted "choice" in an endless loop over the past thirty years should not change the tune now- unless they want to make the slight concession that unrestricted "choice" is in itself not a good thing.

  41. Patty,

    "Frank, I don’t think Communist China is about "choice." You are mixing up two issues here."

    I’m not the one who used the phrase ‘abortion on demand’ to lead into a discussion of abortion in China.

    "My post – and Steyn’s demographics – ia about hubris. It’s about a lack of humility, and about the inadvisability of playing God"

    I’m pro-choice and an atheist. I don’t play God, not even on TV.

    Feel free to address your remarks about playing God and humility to those who think they speak for God on abortion and the beginning of life.

    Reminds me of a joke:

    Teacher: What are you drawing there, Sarah?
    Sarah: God
    Teacher: Don’t be silly, nobody knows what God looks like
    Sarah: Well they will in a minute

  42. Phantom,

    "Which is absolutely a restriction on choice."

    No it isn’t. She can still get an abortion or give birth if she wants.

    You define restriction so broadly as to be meaningless. Under your definitions if someone were to object to a woman barging into their kitchen to have an abortion it would be a restriction on choice.

    "I don’t support making abortion illegal"

    Then you’re pro-choice.

  43. Frank: "I’m pro-choice and an atheist."

    In that abortion is based on one human deciding either when life begins, and whose life doesn’t begin, I believe that it is playing God. If you don’t believe in God than abortion is even easier – you have no huigher power to answer to — in any case, abortion exhibits human hubris

    — and the jokes on us humans — believing we are "Gods" — and reaping unintended consequences.

    The post is not as black and white as you would like to interpret. I am addressing the lack of humility in the strident feminist stance, and the lack of humility in the Central Planning Committee of China. Separate things. But with the similar trait of arrogance, and a similar promotion of abortion and with very ironic (and similar) results of unintended consequences.

  44. FranK; ""I don’t support making abortion illegal"

    Then you’re pro-choice."

    This type of all-or-nothing stridency is exactly what I’m addressing. Isn’t it just possible that there is some grey area in the "choice" to have an abortion?

  45. –No it isn’t. She can still get an abortion or give birth if she wants.–

    No, you are playing games. Restricting information that a potential "customer" needs for informed consent ( to make the reprehensible decision to kill based on sex ) is a de facto choice restriction on abortion "rights"

    And its meaningless too. How cheap are sonogram machines now? How can you make it so that such machines can detect every detail of the heart etc but cannot determine sex?

    Anti sex selection laws are not worth the paper they are printed on.

    Patty

    You’re spot on in this discussion. This is not the black/white easy decision that abortion fans make it out to be.

    Regardless of whether one is pro or anti choice, if one is not troubled by this matter, they simply have no soul.

  46. Patty,

    "In that abortion is based on one human deciding either when life begins, and whose life doesn’t begin, I believe that it is playing God"

    Then you do it too and your point is meaningless. It isn’t optional to decide what is or is not a person. I am not going to act like my Mac or my lunch or an ovum is a person just in case I am ‘playing God’, and neither are you.

    " I am addressing the lack of humility in the strident feminist stance"

    Not so far. Neither of your examples have anything to do with feminism, strident or otherwise.

    "This type of all-or-nothing stridency is exactly what I’m addressing. Isn’t it just possible that there is some grey area in the "choice" to have an abortion?"

    There’s nothing strident or all-or-nothing about it. We don’t have to have the same views on abortion. You can figure out your own view. You can do whatever you want to about it as long as you don’t infringe somebody’s rights. But in a given society, and in the broader view of universal human rights, we do have to live by the same laws.

    Phantom,

    "Restricting information that she needs for informed consent ( to make the reprehensible decision to kill based on sex ) is a de facto choice restriction on abortion "rights"

    No it isn’t. It’s pretty stupid, and maybe you can argue that it violates some other right of hers – but it’s not any kind of restriction that requires her to remain pregnant against her will. That is the point and no amount of wordplay will make trying to withold information the same thing as keeping somebody pregnant.

    "Anti sex selection laws are not worth the paper they are printed on."

    Good job I’m not arguing for them then.

  47. Frank

    Repeating a falsehood does not make it so.

    Even in NY and other places in the US, Planned Parenthood has vehemently protested against "mandatory counseling" prior to abortion, etc as a "restriction on abortion rights".

    And thats far less restrictive than a law that would deny a potential client the ability to obtain the information needed to make a sex-based abortion. Such a law would be an intentional roadblock to the type of abortion she was desirous of. And that is a restriction in the real world, amigo.

  48. Frank: There are seldom black and white answers to moral and ethical issues. That is what makes them so difficult.

    Do we go to war to defend ourselves? Do we pull life support from a comatose patient? Do we abort an unborn baby? etc. etc.

    It is the lack of acknowledgement by both feminists, and Communist China, that child planning (aided by abortion) is a moral, ethical decision that bothers me.

    Through the shear lack of humility, the feminists have framed abortion so that we actually now speak of "choice" instead of "abortion."

    Do you not see the problem?

  49. Patty,

    "Frank: There are seldom black and white answers to moral and ethical issues. That is what makes them so difficult."

    That is what makes them so personal. I don’t know why you think we all have to have the same answer, whether it is black, white, grey or otherwise.

    And there are plenty of people who quite reasonably view what others consider to be a moral issue to be no more of a moral issue than mowing the lawn or breathing in and out. This has nothing to do with lack of ‘humility’. But to insist that everyone share your view of morals – and in this case your religion – does.

    Phantom,

    "Such a law would be an intentional roadblock to the type of abortion she was desirous of."

    Still wordplay. A woman seeking an abortion for sex selection gets the same type of abortion as a woman seeking an abortion for any other reason: one that makes her not be pregnant. She either gets it or she is prevented from getting it, and it really is that simple. There is no such thing as a little bit pregnant.

    "Even in NY and other places in the US, Planned Parenthood has vehemently protested against "mandatory counseling" prior to abortion, etc as a "restriction on abortion rights"."

    That’s because they are. The whole intent and effect of them is to delay abortion and make it more difficult to obtain – which is to say, keeping women pregnant longer than they wish to be.

    The sort of ‘restriction’ you are talking about is silly, but it doesn’t force anyone to stay pregnant. The proof of that is that millions of women have managed to have abortions without any such information.

Comments are closed.