Sex Selective Abortion

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

I personally find the practise repugnant and uncivilized, but I'd certainly never support a ban on it.

The fetus is not yet human, and hence it doesn't have any human rights. The mother should be able to abort it at will, and it's not up to the state to censor what that will contain.

Seriously, if it's the kind of family who think so little of a boy/girl that they'll abort the fetus for eventually becoming one, why on earth would you even want a boy/girl to be raised within such a vile and worthless family?

Champthrax:
...
I am curious because one of the many feminist clubs at my school are making an issue out of this, labelling it as "femicide", but just last semester they had a big rally against any kind of restrictions on abortions. Do you see this as an inconsistency?

That's a rather gross inconsistency, given that they - quite reasonably - demand to be able to purge their bodies of any fetus at will, yet calls the removal of something they'd consequently have to agree isn't a girl yet "femicide".

I am not sure I buy the theory of people testing for the gender of their child before deciding to have an abortion. Males are far more likely to be conceived, but females are still slightly more common to be born. Until there is some sign this pattern is actually shifting the other way, this whole argument always sounds like racist fear-mongering: "Women should have the right to choose, but Asians can't be trusted to make that choice."

It is also worth noting more genetic tests that encourage abortion of what would be sick children specifically target males far more than females, as the redundancy of the double XX chromosomes make females immune to a lot of them (This is the same reason why conceived males are naturally less likely to be born).

I guess I could also point out that physically we all start off as women (hence male nipples), and one's actual gender is not necessarily determine by their genes. The possibility of Chimera's removes any guarantee of accuracy for tests before gender starts to develop. Can anyone show people are waiting until gender is determine to getting an abortion? Though I guess if all abortions were perform early enough, I guess would have to say they all had female gender. But genetically it could go either way. I don't know, this might be too meta, but I have a hard time accusing sexism towards actions targeting something that has not yet determine a gender yet. It's kind of like saying someone is sexist to rocks.

F4LL3N:
How can you claim abortion is right but sex selection is wrong? Regardless of the reason given, the results are exactly the same - a dead baby. Why does it matter if more girls are aborted than boys? It's women who are given the choice to do it, so women are to be blamed for any imbalances.

We're in agreement here. I find sex-selective (or, for that matter, selecting for most traits) abortion disgusting; if you want a child, you want a child. But there is simply no reasonable moral argument against it once you have decided that a woman's right to her own body trumps a fetus's right to her body. However, it's worth noting that there's a second level that far too often goes ignored in such debates: the pragmatic level. If such practices are flat-out destroying demographics, as may turn out to be the case with China and India, then the fact is that the government needs to step in and do something about it, morally right or not.

Haha, I love the pitiful argument of "but it's discrimination". The law doesn't recognise the unborn child - it has exactly zero rights. I recognise the unborn child as a child, as without third party interruption it would be born as a (presumably) healthy child - however the Law stipulates otherwise because people wanted to be able to kill un-wanted children.

The law recognises the concept of "intent" and "inevitability". As in, if you're going to murder someone, you can be charged for that. If you're going to commit any crime, actually, you can be charged.
However, it was deliberately amended to not recognise the abortion of an un-born child as a crime - and it did this by not recognising the un-born child as life. As a result, you can literally do whatever you want to your un-born child and the Law says "It's all good".

The argument of discrimination isn't valid in any capacity: the Law doesn't grant the un-born child the right to not be discriminated against. You can murder the child if you don't like the way it's sitting in the womb.

a fetus =/= a baby
Seriously, can't we have a conversation about abortion without going into the "THEY'RE KILLING BABIES" territory?

Ultimately, I use this simple defining system:

Reason behind aborting one gender.

If for whatever reason, one gender isn't viable due to some genetics or disease. Fine, if its just bias, then its not fine.

For example, if genetic history practically dooms female offspring to have a particularly questionable mental state early and gets worse as age goes on which could cause problems for everyone(such as my genetic history, its a long story), I would see the reason. granted this is an example that isn't applicable to everyone.

That's all I can say on the matter. There has to be a good reason to do it.

Stagnant:
However, it's worth noting that there's a second level that far too often goes ignored in such debates: the pragmatic level. If such practices are flat-out destroying demographics, as may turn out to be the case with China and India, then the fact is that the government needs to step in and do something about it, morally right or not.

Well our agreement didn't last long. While I understand the position; if it's destroying demographics it's a problem that should be addressed. I don't believe it should be banned if you're going to continue to allow any other reason for abortion. You either ban abortion full stop (excluding mother's physical health) or you accept the consequences. Law shouldn't be so flexible that it allows one view point to be twisted and turned so it's just right, while basically ignoring the point of view that's against it. I disagree with preventing ultrasounds while saying at the same time, "go ahead, if you don't want the pregnancy have an abortion!" If abortion is such a problem for your society, then ban it.

nyysjan:
a fetus =/= a baby
Seriously, can't we have a conversation about abortion without going into the "THEY'RE KILLING BABIES" territory?

Not me. I do not like using the word 'fetus' as it dehumanizes the child. That's just caving into the people who still seem to think it isn't human, despite it being a biological fact.

F4LL3N:

Not me. I do not like using the word 'fetus' as it dehumanizes the child. That's just caving into the people who still seem to think it isn't human, despite it being a biological fact.

...saying "It's a fact" does not make it a fact. I'd very much like to see a scientific source of that "fact".

However, I believe that we shouldn't be using the words embryo and fetus interchangeably.

F4LL3N:
I disagree with preventing ultrasounds while saying at the same time, "go ahead, if you don't want the pregnancy have an abortion!" If abortion is such a problem for your society, then ban it.

If only a particular subset of abortions are problematic, then how is it reasonable to ban all abortions if you can simply prevent the problematic ones? Your position is akin to saying that society should outlaw boxing because of laws against assault. I can only see such reasoning coming from someone who felt very strongly that boxing needed to be illegal in the first place. It is very ad hoc. There is no particular reason to demand "all or none". It is a very transparent false dilemma.

That being said, I still think it within any mother's rights to have a sex-selective abortion if she wants one. If there is a demographic problem, forcing pregnancies to come to term is not its solution, nor is denying information.

Vegosiux:

F4LL3N:

Not me. I do not like using the word 'fetus' as it dehumanizes the child. That's just caving into the people who still seem to think it isn't human, despite it being a biological fact.

...saying "It's a fact" does not make it a fact. I'd very much like to see a scientific source of that "fact".

However, I believe that we shouldn't be using the words embryo and fetus interchangeably.

Well, here's abortion advocates admitting it's human. But I don't really need a source, it's simple logic. We're Homo sapien, any offspring produced by us will be Homo sapien too. Once fertilization occurs, it's a uniquely developing individual with unique DNA, and I would personally consider sperm to be pre-human.

If that's not enough for you, answer me this. If it's not Homo sapien, what species is it? I don't believe there's such a thing as 'non-species.' All living things have to be apart of a species and genesis. The only example that I'm aware of where a species doesn't produce a species of the same type is with hybrid breeding.

Yes, I am quite familiar with them taxonomical terms, I don't exactly see what use that graphic has for the discussion at hand.

But, you know, I don't consider a bunch of stem cells with no developed attributes an "individual". I actually don't consider anything that can't survive outside the womb (with some help from medical technology if need be, of course) an "individual".

Seanchaidh:

F4LL3N:
I disagree with preventing ultrasounds while saying at the same time, "go ahead, if you don't want the pregnancy have an abortion!" If abortion is such a problem for your society, then ban it.

If only a particular subset of abortions are problematic, then how is it reasonable to ban all abortions if you can simply prevent the problematic ones? Your position is akin to saying that society should outlaw boxing because of laws against assault. I can only see such reasoning coming from someone who felt very strongly that boxing needed to be illegal in the first place. It is very ad hoc. There is no particular reason to demand "all or none". It is a very transparent false dilemma.

That being said, I still think it within any mother's rights to have a sex-selective abortion if she wants one. If there is a demographic problem, forcing pregnancies to come to term is not its solution, nor is denying information.

I somewhat agree. However, abortion is more morally questionable than boxing. Allowing abortion basically says "fuck you" to the millions who believe it to be murder. So to top that off, you go ahead and twist the law, contradicting yourself, all to further your own beliefs (not you personally.)

That's not right. You either say women have the right, or they don't have the right. It's not necessarily logical; however, it's the right thing to do on a philosophical level. I believe it's called integrity. If you're going to advocate such extreme principles, you should stick by them to the full. Not cover bits and pieces up when you realize your system didn't work the way you initially intended.

None of that matters though when you realize a mother could basically flip a coin to decide if you wants to abort. You can't ban sex selective abortion when a women can literally flip a coin to decide. This might not be the case everywhere, but in Australia, "unwanted" = "mental health issues" which equals "go ahead and abort!"

Vegosiux:
Yes, I am quite familiar with them taxonomical terms, I don't exactly see what use that graphic has for the discussion at hand.

But, you know, I don't consider a bunch of stem cells with no developed attributes an "individual". I actually don't consider anything that can't survive outside the womb (with some help from medical technology if need be, of course) an "individual".

Well Homo sapien =/= human. It's got unique DNA, and it's also uniquely developing. It's individual in the sense that it is itself, regardless of an attached fallopian tube or viability.

I'm no longer discussing this, however. You'll either see it as logical or you won't.

F4LL3N:
How can you claim abortion is right but sex selection is wrong? Regardless of the reason given, the results are exactly the same - a dead baby. Why does it matter if more girls are aborted than boys? It's women who are given the choice to do it, so women are to be blamed for any imbalances.
"

Because not all pro-choicers are the same. In most cases pro-choice does not mean that anybody can abort at anytime however they want. I for example think that up to a certain point of the development (3 months as in Germany sounds good but I am not yet sure which would be the best point) it is morally ok to abort for good reasons. With good reasons I mean of course medical reasons and when you can expect that the baby will be handicapped. However, I also believe good reasons are if the child would significantly alter the life quality of the parents or if the child would not receive the love and care it deserves. Since in the early stages the unborn is a very primitive life form and not yet has the level of consciousness which we wish to protect in born humans, I think it is moral to abort.

I do not believe that "but I wanted a boy" is a good reason therefore I do not think it should be legal. However, it is hard to test the intentions of the parents so I have no idea how one would enforce such law. It does show, though, that you can be pro-choice and against sex selection abortions without contradicting yourself.

F4LL3N:
Well our agreement didn't last long. While I understand the position; if it's destroying demographics it's a problem that should be addressed. I don't believe it should be banned if you're going to continue to allow any other reason for abortion. You either ban abortion full stop (excluding mother's physical health) or you accept the consequences. Law shouldn't be so flexible that it allows one view point to be twisted and turned so it's just right, while basically ignoring the point of view that's against it. I disagree with preventing ultrasounds while saying at the same time, "go ahead, if you don't want the pregnancy have an abortion!" If abortion is such a problem for your society, then ban it.

...Or, you know, try to prevent the ones that are problematic. Here, let me apply your logic to a different field:
Knife crime is a problem.
Therefore, cutting people in any way at all should be made illegal.
...Sounds stupid, right? Yeah, I thought so. Dealing in absolutes is rarely pragmatic to begin with, and what you're doing is even worse - you're taking a problem which needs a solution not out of any moral dilemma, but out of simple pragmatism. Applying a clearly unpragmatic solution to it is just downright dumb.

Not me. I do not like using the word 'fetus' as it dehumanizes the child. That's just caving into the people who still seem to think it isn't human, despite it being a biological fact.

Uh, Fallen, here's a little tip: words mean things. Fetus is a clearly defined term, and when speaking about the unborn, a completely accurate one. Baby is also a fairly clearly defined term, and when speaking about the unborn, a clearly inaccurate one. If you think it's dehumanizing, take it up with Webster - what you're doing is redefining words to create an emotional appeal, and it's transparent, stupid, and intellectually dishonest, and you'd be well-served to stop doing it.

F4LL3N:

Vegosiux:

F4LL3N:

Not me. I do not like using the word 'fetus' as it dehumanizes the child. That's just caving into the people who still seem to think it isn't human, despite it being a biological fact.

...saying "It's a fact" does not make it a fact. I'd very much like to see a scientific source of that "fact".

However, I believe that we shouldn't be using the words embryo and fetus interchangeably.

Well, here's abortion advocates admitting it's human. But I don't really need a source, it's simple logic. We're Homo sapien, any offspring produced by us will be Homo sapien too. Once fertilization occurs, it's a uniquely developing individual with unique DNA, and I would personally consider sperm to be pre-human.

If that's not enough for you, answer me this. If it's not Homo sapien, what species is it? I don't believe there's such a thing as 'non-species.' All living things have to be apart of a species and genesis. The only example that I'm aware of where a species doesn't produce a species of the same type is with hybrid breeding.

How would you define a tumour?

After all, a tumour is a self-replicating organism made up of human cells, human molecules, human DNA. It is its own separate organism, not simply an extension of the host who carries it.

Does this mean that we should define tumours as humans as well? After all, the differences between a tumour and a zygote/embryo (the correct terms for what people often label as 'foetuses' up to the 9 week period) are almost nil. They are both simply a collection of cells that replicate at an astonishing pace. If you class zygotes and embryos as human, then you're discriminating against tumours by not granting them the same rights.

F4LL3N:
Abortion itself is discrimination. You're choosing to abort an unwanted baby vs not aborting a wanted baby. Unwanted babies are a group of people in the same way blacks or Christians are a group of people. That's why it's comparable to genocide.

I suppose you'll also be campaigning for the genocide in the amazon, because trees are also a group of people...

i think its a little wrong, im opposed to sexism yet i still think they should be allowed to do it

but that was a good question i did have to think about that

Volf:

Kendarik:
You either believe in choice or not. If you believe its a woman's right to choose then you don't get to tell them that their reasons aren't good enough.

except in the long run in can result in male to female ratios like that of China

That is a direct result of the "one child" rule when combined with the tradition of male children being the retirement plan for parents. It is a unique situation caused by governments getting into people's reproductive rights.

There is no reason to believe that in general more people would prefer boys over girls.

xedi:
Because not all pro-choicers are the same. In most cases pro-choice does not mean that anybody can abort at anytime however they want.

I know this. However, in some situations you're saying the unborn doesn't have rights or it does but they're not as important as the mothers rights. Then in the next situation, they all of a sudden do have rights and it's immoral to do. That's contradictory. Being against late term abortions, for example, isn't quite so contradictory. There's a fairly valid reason; they're far more developed at this stage. Being against sex selective abortions... Well, to some people boys are more valued than girls. That might be sexist to you, but what does it matter when you've already declared unborn babies as non-human and not deserving of rights (not specifically you.) You can't strip someone of all rights than give them back their rights if it goes against something you believe in. Either they have rights or they don't. Anything in between shows inconsistencies within your belief and invalidates any argument saying they don't deserve rights or priority of rights over the mother.

Stagnant:
...Or, you know, try to prevent the ones that are problematic. Here, let me apply your logic to a different field:
Knife crime is a problem.
Therefore, cutting people in any way at all should be made illegal.
...Sounds stupid, right?

No, actually. Cutting people in any way whatsoever is illegal. It's assault. You could be referring to surgery, in which case I do not understand the comparison. Otherwise see my above statement.

Stagnant:

F4LL3N:
Well our agreement didn't last long. While I understand the position; if it's destroying demographics it's a problem that should be addressed. I don't believe it should be banned if you're going to continue to allow any other reason for abortion. You either ban abortion full stop (excluding mother's physical health) or you accept the consequences. Law shouldn't be so flexible that it allows one view point to be twisted and turned so it's just right, while basically ignoring the point of view that's against it. I disagree with preventing ultrasounds while saying at the same time, "go ahead, if you don't want the pregnancy have an abortion!" If abortion is such a problem for your society, then ban it.

...Or, you know, try to prevent the ones that are problematic. Here, let me apply your logic to a different field:
Knife crime is a problem.
Therefore, cutting people in any way at all should be made illegal.
...Sounds stupid, right? Yeah, I thought so. Dealing in absolutes is rarely pragmatic to begin with, and what you're doing is even worse - you're taking a problem which needs a solution not out of any moral dilemma, but out of simple pragmatism. Applying a clearly unpragmatic solution to it is just downright dumb.

[quote]Uh, Fallen, here's a little tip: words mean things. Fetus is a clearly defined term, and when speaking about the unborn, a completely accurate one. Baby is also a fairly clearly defined term, and when speaking about the unborn, a clearly inaccurate one. If you think it's dehumanizing, take it up with Webster - what you're doing is redefining words to create an emotional appeal, and it's transparent, stupid, and intellectually dishonest, and you'd be well-served to stop doing it.

You're correct; excluding the "stupid" part, that's more a matter of opinion. I would also argue it's only somewhat intellectually dishonest. While it is true that this is the normal, agreed upon definition of the words (pre-born = fetus, and post-born = baby.) It is totally plausible to call a fetus a baby. After all, a 24 week old premature baby is exactly the same as a 24 week old 'fetus' still in the womb. It's also a cultural thing. Parents would presumably say "baby girl", not "girl fetus." I've certainly never heard the latter. It's intellectually dishonest to ignore the fact it's completely acceptable to call a wanted 'fetus' a baby.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

How would you define a tumour?

After all, a tumour is a self-replicating organism made up of human cells, human molecules, human DNA. It is its own separate organism, not simply an extension of the host who carries it.

Does this mean that we should define tumours as humans as well? After all, the differences between a tumour and a zygote/embryo (the correct terms for what people often label as 'foetuses' up to the 9 week period) are almost nil. They are both simply a collection of cells that replicate at an astonishing pace. If you class zygotes and embryos as human, then you're discriminating against tumours by not granting them the same rights.

You don't understand reproduction at all, do you?

Blablahb:

F4LL3N:
Abortion itself is discrimination. You're choosing to abort an unwanted baby vs not aborting a wanted baby. Unwanted babies are a group of people in the same way blacks or Christians are a group of people. That's why it's comparable to genocide.

I suppose you'll also be campaigning for the genocide in the amazon, because trees are also a group of people...

Save the people.

I'm against it. Chances are people are against having a baby of a particular gender because of some perceived social disadvantage it will bring to them. Most of these "disadvantages" however are baseless and can be removed. It's pandering to an existing gender inequality, and not doing anything to solve it.

F4LL3N:
Unfortunately, this is inevitable. This will become normal practice in the future. Why? Because you can't say abortion is acceptable in every case except this or that. If it's okay to abort because you're not ready, why wouldn't it be okay to abort because DNA says the child will have red hair? In both cases the child is unwanted.

Ladies and gentlemen, remember that thread we had a while back asking why the "slippery slope" is a fallacy? The quoted material above is a textbook demonstration of what makes a slippery slope argument fallacious. We don't have a shred of evidence that permitting abortion will lead to a statistically-significant number of people aborting for hair color, and yet F4LL3N doesn't just argue that it could happen, he argues that there is no other possible way it could go.

Stagnant:
However, it's worth noting that there's a second level that far too often goes ignored in such debates: the pragmatic level. If such practices are flat-out destroying demographics, as may turn out to be the case with China and India, then the fact is that the government needs to step in and do something about it, morally right or not.

Agreed, which is something I believe I touched on in my first post on this thread (though I touched it lightly.)

The fact is, aborting to select for traits doesn't just randomly come from no where. Young potential parents, despite attempts by the anti-abortion crowd to paint them otherwise, are not vicious monsters eagerly looking for fetuses to abort. When people abort, they abort for reasons. And rational people who want to reduce the number of abortions taking place in a society would be better off addressing those reasons rather than trying to ham-fistedly ban the practice.

So look at why potential parents are aborting to select for child sex. This doesn't happen because people in China or India are all horrible misogynists who just hate anyone with a vagina and can't stand to raise a vagina of their own. It happens because there are cultural institutions in rural China and India where marriage customs and family arrangement customs make daughters a financial liability and sons a financial asset. Change those institutions, and you eliminate the force that's driving the abortions.

F4LL3N:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

How would you define a tumour?

After all, a tumour is a self-replicating organism made up of human cells, human molecules, human DNA. It is its own separate organism, not simply an extension of the host who carries it.

Does this mean that we should define tumours as humans as well? After all, the differences between a tumour and a zygote/embryo (the correct terms for what people often label as 'foetuses' up to the 9 week period) are almost nil. They are both simply a collection of cells that replicate at an astonishing pace. If you class zygotes and embryos as human, then you're discriminating against tumours by not granting them the same rights.

You don't understand reproduction at all, do you?

I'm simply using your own logic.

You said yourself that all living things must belong to a species. You specific words were that there's no such thing as a non-species.

F4LL3N:

If that's not enough for you, answer me this. If it's not Homo sapien, what species is it? I don't believe there's such a thing as 'non-species.' All living things have to be apart of a species and genesis.

So, is a tumour a living thing? Yes it is. Its cells grow, replicate and die in the exact same manner as the cells of any other living thing. We must therefore accept that a tumour is a living thing.

Now, being a living thing, we must decide what species it is. After all, you said yourself that all living things must belong to a species, and there's no such thing as a non-species. A tumour is alive, as we've already agreed, so it must belong to a species. What DNA makes up the cells and molecules of a tumour? Why, I do believe that it is human DNA. That would make a tumour, by your own definition, a living member of the species Homo Sapiens.

Does this mean the a tumour is a living human? Ordinarily, we would say no, as it lacks the arms, legs, brain and other defining hallmarks of the average member of the Homo Sapiens genum. Yet you have already argued that a clump of replicating cells can be classed as human. It doesn't matter that a zygote has no arms, no legs, no nervous system, no brain, and is nothing more complicated than a bunch of replicating cells. According to you, zygotes and embryos do not just have the potential to be human, they are human, by virtue of the fact that they are living things with human DNA.

All I am doing is taking your logic to its twisted conclusion: if a zygote can be classed as human, then why not a tumour? A tumour fulfils all the same criteria that you laid down for a zygote or an embryo to be classed not only as made of human material, but actual members of the human species. A tumour is composed of living human cells, it replicates and it grows. If we therefore accept your idea that zygotes, embryos and foetuses are not only potentially human but actually human, then I do not see why tumours shouldn't be afforded the same definition, and to discriminate against them is nothing more than bigotry against self-replicating cellular organisms.

F4LL3N:

xedi:
Because not all pro-choicers are the same. In most cases pro-choice does not mean that anybody can abort at anytime however they want.

I know this. However, in some situations you're saying the unborn doesn't have rights or it does but they're not as important as the mothers rights. Then in the next situation, they all of a sudden do have rights and it's immoral to do. That's contradictory. Being against late term abortions, for example, isn't quite so contradictory. There's a fairly valid reason; they're far more developed at this stage. Being against sex selective abortions... Well, to some people boys are more valued than girls. That might be sexist to you, but what does it matter when you've already declared unborn babies as non-human and not deserving of rights (not specifically you.) You can't strip someone of all rights than give them back their rights if it goes against something you believe in. Either they have rights or they don't. Anything in between shows inconsistencies within your belief and invalidates any argument saying they don't deserve rights or priority of rights over the mother.

I see your point. I have to think about it more but my first two answers would be either to assume that the unborn has rights but not the same as a born human which permit to kill it for more reasons than a born human which does not include sex selection, though.

The other possible answer would be that if we assume that the unborn does not have rights but since it could be dangerous for our society humans in general should have the right to select due to sex.

I feel that a combination of both might be the best argument. Unborns have rights just as animals do so the second argument does not seem to be correct, however, the conclusion (sex selection is dangerous and therefore should be prohibited) could be correct.

So we do not necessarily have inconsistencies. We have rights and duties for both unborns and parents. Unborns must not be killed for banal reasons. Parents must not kill unborns for sex selection Is there still an inconsistency?

F4LL3N:
I know this. However, in some situations you're saying the unborn doesn't have rights or it does but they're not as important as the mothers rights. Then in the next situation, they all of a sudden do have rights and it's immoral to do. That's contradictory.

No it's not. In the case of a normal abortion, the reason are heavily weighing interests such as the pregnancy as a whole being unwanted, serious problems with the mother, or with the fetus.

In sex-selective abortion, the reason is a religious dogma that preaches women's inferiority, much like the whole anti-abortion movement.

Come to think of it, isn't that ironic? First religion gives us freaks who oppose abortion because they think all women are inferior, and then, it gives us idiots who want their wife to get an abortion because don't want to have daughters since they think all women are inferior.

Blablahb:

In sex-selective abortion, the reason is a religious dogma that preaches women's inferiority, much like the whole anti-abortion movement.

What part of Chinese religion(s) dictates women are inferior?

Put down your normal hate of religion for a moment and examine this issue on its own and don't just make things up. The issue in both China and India is not religious, its secular.

F4LL3N:

Stagnant:
...Or, you know, try to prevent the ones that are problematic. Here, let me apply your logic to a different field:
Knife crime is a problem.
Therefore, cutting people in any way at all should be made illegal.
...Sounds stupid, right?

No, actually. Cutting people in any way whatsoever is illegal. It's assault. You could be referring to surgery, in which case I do not understand the comparison. Otherwise see my above statement.

Yes, I am referring to surgery. Let me make the analogy more clear.

Knife crime ( == Sex selective abortion) is a societal problem.
Therefore, cutting people in any situation (abortion in any situation) should be banned, regardless of whether or not it has anything at all to do with the actual problem at hand.

That's the analogy. It's just using your logic with analogous components, and keep in mind that by entertaining this argument in the first place, we're assuming from the get-go that abortion is the mother's choice.

You're correct; excluding the "stupid" part, that's more a matter of opinion. I would also argue it's only somewhat intellectually dishonest. While it is true that this is the normal, agreed upon definition of the words (pre-born = fetus, and post-born = baby.) It is totally plausible to call a fetus a baby. After all, a 24 week old premature baby is exactly the same as a 24 week old 'fetus' still in the womb.

...Except that it's not exactly the same thing - it's outside the womb. That's a fairly critical difference we're talking about here. I'd compare it to magma vs. lava, but really, that's a far less significant difference. But thank you for admitting that your usage of the word "baby" to emotionally charge the argument is intellectually dishonest.

It's also a cultural thing. Parents would presumably say "baby girl", not "girl fetus." I've certainly never heard the latter. It's intellectually dishonest to ignore the fact it's completely acceptable to call a wanted 'fetus' a baby.

Oh look, another false equivocation. Yes, let's compare posting on a debate forum, where objectivity and lack of bias is considered a virtue[1] to speaking to someone who is just giddy about soon having a baby. The parents aren't trying to avoid emotionally charging the statement in their position, nor is it necessary or really even requested in most situations. As such, they can get away with it. But on a debate forum like this, you can't.

[1] yes, I'm well-aware of the irony

Kendarik:
What part of Chinese religion(s) dictates women are inferior?

The bit where women are property of men, and restricted to the household and domestic stuff to the point where one Chinese word for wife actually means 'she who is inside'.

But I much less understand your comment about India. The entire role of women is built by religion there. It's that value system which has lead to people aborting daughters, but not sons. The link between religion and sex-selective abortion is very clear.

I'm generally pro-choice but sex-selective abortions seem like a frivolous abuse of what should be a last-resort procedure. You want a kid? Yes? Then a kid you shall get, and if it has the wrong kind of dangly stuff between its legs at birth, suck it up (...wait, that sounds wrong).

Invoking Slippery Slope is usually frowned upon when a fairly benign example is used as the "thin end of the wedge" that enables something objectionable to happen. In this case I don't see Slippery Slope as a fallacy because sex-selective abortion has, to my mind, already crossed the line into the realms of objectionability. It's not the thin end of the wedge, it IS the wedge.

As I keep saying: if something is only reasonable when observed through the distorting lens of culture (or tradition, or religion), then the culture needs to be changed, not the natural male/female birth ratio. There comes a point where cultural relativism can go fuck itself.

Personally my only big problem with sex-selective abortion would be that often-mentioned population difference that occurs in a country like China. As a U.S. citizen, I don't see that happening here. Some people inevitably want one sex more than the other but gender doesn't determine how much potential you have in this country and most people that want a child aren't going to be picky enough to abort a healthy fetus.

Blablahb:

Kendarik:
What part of Chinese religion(s) dictates women are inferior?

The bit where women are property of men, and restricted to the household and domestic stuff to the point where one Chinese word for wife actually means 'she who is inside'.

You have identified the cultural reality. I'm waiting for you to identify where that is of religious origin.

But I much less understand your comment about India. The entire role of women is built by religion there. It's that value system which has lead to people aborting daughters, but not sons. The link between religion and sex-selective abortion is very clear.

My understanding of the situation in India is that it is secular/cultural. You give a dowery with a bride, therefore they are a net cost. They also traditionally by culture didn't have the same work opportunities to contribute. This is true for those of more than one religion in India which supports the fact that its cultural, not religious, in origin.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked