What do people on the "pro-choice" side think of gendercide?

Gendercide?

As in, choosing to abort based on the biological sex of your offspring?

They have the right to do it. Would I? No. But it still needs to be legal.

I think it’s one of the stupidest reasons I’ve ever heard to have an abortion. “Oh damn, it’s a girl? Get rid of it, and we’ll try again.” Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

Criminal isn’t it?

For those who are new to the topic:
Here.
Here
here
here

I completely abhor many of the choices that people make for themselves and their families, but I am 100% in favor of allowing them to make their own choices, whether I like them or not.

Particularly in the case of abortion-for-whatever-reason, I think forcing a woman to become a mother against her will isn’t going to lead to a happy outcome for her, and will very frequently end in disaster for the infant, the rest of the family (if there even is one, or ever might be) and for society at large. I do think there must be strict limits set on when that can be completed, certainly not “at birth or within days of live birth”, but as much as I detest the thought of abortion, I do support a woman’s right to choose for herself whether to be a mother.

You seem to have this recurring problem of thinking that everyone who is pro-choice has some sort of unified belief set. The only thing that everyone who is pro-choice agrees on is being pro-choice, and they may not even agree on the details of what that means.

In any case, it seems to me that abortion for the sole purpose of gender selection is rather foolish. Gendercide is not always truly a matter of gender selection, however. Many people would be perfectly happy to have a girl (females being the typical target of gendercide) if only they lived in a society that didn’t invest all of the power and wealth into males and male offspring.

It seems to me, then, that gendercide typically reveals something vicious and deeply problematic either about the society that encourages/necessitates it or in those individuals who truly have no other reason for obtaining an abortion than being displeased with the gender of their future child. It’s not the abortion itself that is vicious or problematic—thus I agree with @Seek_Kolinahr that it should remain legal—but it does point to a serious problem regarding gender perception that is in need of fixing.

Yet another unintended consequence of Abortion on Demand. It has societal implications as well which may turn out to be worse than the alternative.

@Jaxk There is no such thing as abortion on demand—certainly not in the United States. The process has become so limited and so wrapped in red tape (the one place Republicans, conservatives, and even some putative libertarians seem to think the government has the right to interfere as much as it can) that it’s more like “abortion after a drawn out process intent on humiliating a person for exercising their basic rights.” Odd that you would say anything even remotely in favor of such an imposition.

I agree with @Jaxk.

I understand the concept of gendercide, but the current society here in the Midwest makes this one a little too close to reality. My father had three girls before he got his beloved boy, which is kind of crazy to me.

Who says you need to get rid of it if it’s a girl? Haha.

There is nothing virtuous about being pro-choice. It should just be called “pro-my-choice” since it really means depriving the choice of the unborn person to just exist.

@flo As usual, your argument is absolute nonsense. For one thing, nobody chooses to come into existence. You didn’t, I didn’t, and neither did any person in history. It’s not possible. Whether or not we come into existence is, always has been, and always will be the result of choices made by one or both of our biological parents. As such, it makes no sense to speak of “depriving the choice of the unborn person to just exist” (and not just because that phrase is a grammatical mess).

Second, you are “depriving” an “unborn person” the chance of existing every time you fail to have sex and conceive. If you did not conceive today, then someone who could have been born had you conceived will fail to exist. The same thing goes for yesterday and tomorrow. By your logic, we should all be trying to have as many children as possible to save all of the hypothetical unborns from non-existence. This would mean saving all unused eggs and fertilizing them with unused sperm. It is an absurd result that shows how absurd the argument leading to it must be.

There should be certain times when abortion is Okay, obviously, like rape or maybe a teenage pregnancy with a deadbeat dad (happens all the time). And aborting it because of its gender is NOT one of those times.

@flo Personally I’m with you on that BUT we have to remember that LEGALLY a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy based on her own personal criteria, ridiculous or very real. Often the unborn are not recognized as ‘people’ who feel pain, perhaps to assuage the moral burden of terminating that spark that I call life.

People like us who are MORALLY inclined to the Pro life cause, may not be able to understand that or condone it, but we have to be able to love and support our fellow sisters who have to make that decision, often alone and afraid. Peace.

To continue some of @SavoirFaire‘s excellent argument, if one is in favor of strictly limiting abortion rights then there should be no reason for exemption. What would an infant care about its genesis? Whether conceived in rape, incest, cloning, artificial in vitro fertilization for later implanting, whatever, life is life.

As for “saving the life of the mother”, why is a mother’s life more valuable than that of her unborn fetus, in this respect?

If you want a so-called pro-life law, then make it pro-all-life to be logically consistent. See how much support that gets.

@Jaxk I get what you’re saying. One implication/complication is that if everyone only has boys, the next generation won’t have anyone to procreate with. However, most that would practice gendercide are not the type of people I would want to see have grandchildren anyways, so it’s kind of a self-solving problem.

@flo Lets just leave it at, “Whether ‘unborn’ and ‘person’ belong in the same sentence is a highly contested issue that is beyond the scope of this question and discussed ad nauseum elsewhere” and not start a flame war, okay?

@KNOWITALL abortion based on gender-selection is what the OP is about though. I distracted myself on the last post.

It’s appalling.

Oh, this question isn’t about aborting fetuses that might turn out to be transgendered. I’m sure that would be a popular option too!

@KNOWITALL I think it overgeneralizes to say that “the unborn are not recognized as ‘people’ who feel pain.” For one, the term “unborn” is very vague. Notice that @flo uses it to mean “everyone who does not yet exist.” Others use it to mean “everyone who has been conceived, but has not yet been born.” These are very different definitions, and it seems to me not at all surprising that someone might not consider someone who has not even been conceived to be a person. Moreover, most people who are pro-choice believe that personhood starts after conception, but before birth. As such, even the stricter definition might be broken down by some into “unborn non-persons” and “unborn persons.”

Second, we already know that a fetus cannot feel pain prior to the development of certain brain functions (even if it has mechanical reflexes that are typically indicative of pain). At many stages of a pregnancy, then, it is not at all problematic to say that a fetus is not a “person who feels pain.” If that is your criterion for the acceptability of abortion, then, our current scientific knowledge already tells us that a fetus does not qualify for at least 20 weeks (and likely not until 28 weeks). Pain may very well be relevant, but that requires a much more nuanced view than abortion opponents typically present.

The result of several thousand years of fostering partilineal social structures.

If you note, in the first article they state that prior to the availability of abortion they took care of this “problem” by infanticide.

Is this better or worse?

We have a very pro-choice culture here in Norway. BUT: our ultrasound scans that sex the baby are scheduled PASSED the date of cut off for unquestioned termination. I distinctly remember this from when I was pregnant. You either want a baby or you don’t. Get preggers and freak? Your choice. Want a specific sex of child? Nope. They are going to start putting blocks in your way.

I think that sex (not gender) selection will work against the society in the long term. When that happens it will be their fault.

Eh. I don’t care that much. Just don’t have the baby then abandon or kill it. That’s what abortion is for.

The example that comes to mind is China’s preference for male babies, although this question as worded could refer to many other examples. In China’s case, I don’t have much sympathy for the situation they found themselves in down the road, when there was a dearth of females to make the next generation of “desirable” boys. That said, I’m still pro-choice.

Something else to think about in this discussion of gendercide (which @tinyfaery correctly notes is a misnomer): the “pro-life”/pro-choice angle is very much an artificial addition to the debate. If gene selection technology comes to be common place, “gendercide” could be committed without a single abortion taking place. The real issue here is how people value males versus females and ultimately has little or nothing to do with abortion.

Done early enough, I think it’s fine. I’m also fine with IVF couples choosing to implant embryos of a specific sex. Or people adopting a baby of a specific sex. Their preference. I don’t see what the problem is.

I think that people that shallow and self-absorbed probably shouldn’t be having children anyway.

“Notice that @flo uses it to mean “everyone who does not yet exist.”

No I don’t use it to mean that of course. I mean as soon as it is conceived it is deprived of existing any longer, via abortion. You are the one who brought up that senario, @SavoirFaire This is about aborting, so aborting something that doesn’t exist?

You really thought we should ask the embryo/fetus?: “Hey embryo would you choose to be born or to be destroyed?”

@marinelife “It is appalling”, well said. It is misogyny.

@flo I get your point, but I think it’s more ‘designer babies’ conversation.

If you had a test tube baby and could pick everything about them, would sex be an issue?

@flo Here are your own words:

“It should just be called ‘pro-my-choice’ since it really means depriving the choice of the unborn person to just exist.”

The rules of the English language are such that this sentence means exactly what I represented it as meaning. If you meant something else, then you should have written something else.

As for the rest of your post, it continues to be nonsense. I wasn’t suggesting anything. All of my comments were simply drawing out the logic of your arguments. If you don’t like the consequences, then you’ll have to give up the arguments that led to them.

And regarding your response to @marinelife, note that many have agreed with you. The point that some have made, however, is that the questionable motives are quite separable from the abortion debate as they can be addressed apart from it.

@KNOWITALL test tube is different, that is “designer baby”. It wouldn’t be an issue a girl baby would be just fine.

What is odd is that those who are most protective of the welfare of the unborn don’t seem to care much for them once they are born.

I’m pro-choice and anti-sex-selection. Those are my personal views, not to be confused with whether or not I think sex-selection should be legal. Abortion should be legal, for any reason, up to a certain time in the pregnancy.

@SavoirFaire _what do you find appalling?

As far as I know, there are ways of forcing the gender of a fetus, and deciding if you want a boy or a girl. With that in mind, I would make it illegal to abort a fetus just because you don’t like the gender.

Not that we would be able to police that in my system, because I would allow abortion on the grounds that you don’t want a kid, so you could always lie and just say you don’t want a kid, rather than admit it is the gender.

If you want a boy, or want a girl, then go and have the appropriate procedure to insure you have a boy or girl, rather than just aborting like if its a lottery and you just need enough tickets to get the right gender.

It is the gender imbalance that is the problem, isn’t it? As George Bernard Shaw once said, without girls, we would become “fewer and fewer.” It seems that matters are so bad that there is a growing trade in kidnapping girls to provide wives for single males. Recent events in India suggest that that there is a generation of men who will never be able to have wives.
@KNOWITALL My father had three girls before he got his beloved boy. My parents had three sons before having me. I was the first girl born to my father’s family in 30 years – I understand my family was overjoyed.

@flo I find misogyny appalling, which is why I noted my moral disapproval of misogynistic societies and individuals in the first post I made on this thread.

Not my body, not my business.

Would I abort a fetus based on sex? No. Aside from rape (or knowing the child will have some horrendous disease), I don’t think I’d ever abort a fetus. However, I don’t hold the ridiculous notion that the law should be based my personal beliefs.

Why is the assumption that people would only selectively abort girls? Certainly it’s more common but I am sure it has gone the other way as well. If it’s not done out of misogyny does that make it less bad?

@flo If you are dying on the table in need of blood and I am your blood type, I can choose not to help you out. My body, my choice whether to let someone take blood out of it to help you. You don’t get the choice over my body, just like the fetus doesn’t get to choose. You, a full grown adult, part of the community, possibly you have children, a spouse, someone’s daughter. I don’t understand why prolife makes an embryo or fetus more important than the mother, or any other person living independently outside of the womb.

As to your original question; what I hate most about aborting for gender reasons is that usually the girls are aborted so the man can have his boy.

I can’t see too many people in America aborting because of the gender. As far as I know it is still around 12–15 weeks when gender can usually be determined, unless there is some sort of new test. I remember hearing about a controversial blood test. Anyway, there definitely are people who abort based on gender for genetic disease reasons. Some people do conception in-vitro, only selecting females or males to be placed in the uteris. To avoid a horrible disease I am all for it. Financially it is much much cheaper and safer for a woman to have an early abortion then go through an in-vitro cycle if there is a maternal blood test that can be done early. Again, I don’t know if there is an approved, effective test for that now.

Having said that, I much prefer abortion not be needed in general and better family planning up front take place.

To me it is no different than any other abortion for any other reason. It is none of my business. Better to not have the child than to have it and not nurture it. That simply results in another disengaged youth. We already have enough of them.

And abortion being acceptable in the case of rape but not otherwise is so illogical to me. If we are opposed to abortion because it kills an innocent unborn then why is the unborn less innocent in the case of rape???

@rooeytoo I don’t understand the rape exception either.

@JLeslie

“what I hate most about aborting for gender reasons is that usually the girls”

Just out of curiosity, would it be OK if it was the boys that were aborted instead of the girls?

@Jaxk No, fundamentally it is not about which gender. It’s just that in countries like China we see boys favored for what I consider to be macho reasons and women basically being submissive to their husband’s wants, or the desires of his family. In America if people did it, probably it would be to make sure a family had one of each, or didn’t have a 4th of the same sex, that sort of thing. I don’t know if boys are statistically more likely to have severe genetic diseases, but if so, then possibly more boys would be aborted. I know some genetic mutations (for lack of a better word, because I don’t know what would be the correct word) occur in boys because of the short Y chromosone like color blindness. I assume other recessive “abnormalities” also show themselves in boys for the same reason. Possibly some make the person sick.

Although, just to go back to my China point; I think even in America if couples were limited to one baby you might see more boys born. Not to the degree we observed in China, but still, I don’t think the number of boys and girls would be as close to 50/50 as they are now.

In all species except humans, female offspring are preferred. In livestock, the boys are snipped, fattened and eaten. Save a good one here and there for sperm production. Human females are such dopes to allow themselves to be suborned by males. We have tampax and we have birth control, they need us a lot more than we need them. Plus look around you, who starts the wars, who are the pedophiles, who are the rapists, who are the criminals. It’s really weird male children seem to be valued more than female???

@rooeytoo If you’re referring to my mention of rape, I was only saying that’s one of the few reasons I would get an abortion. The reason isn’t because it’s less “wrong” if rape is involved, it’s because that’s the only situation I can think of in which I wouldn’t want to have the child. I’m pro-choice, so abortion being morally wrong has nothing to do with my rape comment.

However, I disagree that getting an abortion when you were raped is the same as any other time. If a girl gets an abortion because she chose to have sex without a condom, many would say she should take responsibility for her own mistakes and give the child up for adoption if she doesn’t want it. Getting raped, however, was not a choice or a result of faulty decision making on the part of the victim, so why should she be forced to have her rapist’s baby?

Again, if it’s not my body it’s not my business and I believe both of these women should legally have the right to do what they want with their bodies. However, young women using multiple abortions as an “easy way out” because they don’t have the common sense to protect themselves is just plain stupid and should not be encouraged.

It’s only OK to abort a girl fetus if she was conceived by rape because she’d obviously be ugly. ~

Well, as someone who is pro-choice and believes that abortion is a medical procedure that should not be legislated but decided upon by consultation between pregnant patient and physician, I believe that the government should stay out of my uterus.

Slippery slope, I say. Suppose I needed (and by needed I mean my life or the life of my future children was at risk) to selectively reduce my pregnancy and my husband and I really, really wanted a little girl. Illegal to reduce the boy? Nope… none of your business.

As someone who has conceived, carried, birthed and raised a child conceived by rape when I was 16, I am always offended that people are pro-rapechild-abortion. But you stay out of my uterus and I’ll stay out of yours.

@livelaughlove21 So the girl who chose to have sex without a condom deserves to live with her mistake “I hate that word mistake for a pregnancy and child.” it’s like a punishment, she can’t have an abortion, because she should have known better. I am not trying to put words i to your mouth, I am trying to understand the logic in that, and also demonstrate that I think it is flawed. First, if she is 16, well teens do not really think about consequences, their outlook on life and risk isn’t fully matured yet in their brains.

I think @rooeytoo and I are saying, for those who believe the baby is a life, and it is never ok to kill, not even a fetus, then why is it ok to kill a fetus born from rape? It isn’t logical.

I respect that for you, you believe the only time you would consider abortion for yourself is if you were raped, and maybe you would feel differently in the situation, who knows, but what I am most interested in is the abstract thought process behind pro-lifers who are ok with the exception of rape.

@KNOWITALL I don’t like the blanket statement also. But, I think when we see children being raised in poverty, dysfunction, neglect, or unloving situations. I use or specifically because I do not mean and. I do not mean poor means unloving or dysfunctional or any other negative circumstance. Anyway, people fight to not allow people who don’t want or can’t handle having children and then these kids wind up too often in bad circumstances. The stamement is related to money in a big way I think. The baby is born and then the right wing doesn’t want to cloth and feed it, doesn’t want to spend tax money on it. But if the fact is the parents are not going to provide a reasonable amount of money, shelter, clothing, etc, for the children, and the tax payers are going to forbid the abortion, then it becomes the tax payers resposibility to take care of the baby maybe?

@JLeslie As I’ve said before, I managed to get to 40 years old without getting pregnant because I took personal responsibility for my body. My mom got pregnant at 17 and had me without a father, I was poor but not neglected and certainly I wouldn’t prefer to be dead.

I’m a liberal Republican, as everyone knows. How many Christians do you think would turn away a hungry naked child? No one I know, not even Mitt Romney, and certainly not myself.

If you want to help make a law that states that any child who is NOT aborted is automatically sent into the welfare system, feel free. Then reform that broken system as well so they actually get proper care. And the food stamp system needs reform. And the housing system needs reform.

What we’d like is for those broken systems to be fixed, so we can afford to take care of the truly needy, and that’s the factual truth that most liberals refuse to accept.

@KNOWITALL The thing is living in our nice subruban or rich lifestyles we are oblivious to much of the poverty and bad conditions. I say we, because I include myself as not being in the mix of helping poor and disadvantaged children to any great extent, as much as I care about them for altruistic and selfish reasons.

I think if they grow up in the system they are most likely going to stay in the system. That is why fewer in the system sounds better to me. That’s the thing, how are the Republicans going to fix the system? Just take it away? I would love for both sides to come together and really try to change the life of the next generation that is born into poverty and welfare. It is not simple.

I also never got pregnant when I did not want to, and think it is pretty hard to get pregnant when birth control is really used. I’m with you on that.

It does not change that a teenager makes mistakes, can be in denial, can be immature, irresponsible, and in my mind it is understandable. I guess you are saying, yes, they deserve to be punished, they deserve to have to live with their mistakes and face the consequences, no matter how life altering.

Edit: I wonder why you bring up Mitt Romney? Do you think liberals think rich conservatives don’t care about the poor or about children? I don’t think that at all.

To add to @JLeslie‘s point… it also doesn’t change that not all partners are supportive of the use of birth control or timing. Not all women have the ability to plan their pregnancies.

@Cupcake Not supportive? Uh oh, We might be drifting apart. I only give excuse to young teenagers. Anyone can screw up or have an accident, but adults do know better.

@Cupcake I like you fine as well. :) Although in past conversations, it’s been argued that fraud is not a ‘big problem’ here on fluther. Denial is hard to counter rationally.
*I could care less what my partner wants when it comes to protecting myself from disease and pregnancy. Seriously, that is SO lame.

@JLeslie What I’m saying is that if women don’t want to get pregnant, they should use a method OR EVEN TWO methods of birth control to make sure they don’t hurt themselves or anyone else by having intercourse. A baby shouldn’t have to pay with their LIFE because they have irresponsible parents. If you and I can do it, so can everyone else except victims of a sex crime.

@KNOWITALL I just think we disagree on this. A condom can break, someone might have sex even though they know better, and having the out of abortion is fine with me. I absolutely believe that at least half the people who swear they were using birth control and still got pregnant are lying, and then there is the other half that had bad luck. If it happens 5 times, even 2 times, then I no longer see it as an accident, I see it as almost purposeful. Purposeful neglect of sexual responsibility. I don’t think couples should have to worry about using two methods of birth control. A very dear friend of mine had a diaphragm and used condoms, many times she used both at once. She was so paranoid about getting pregnant and her personality in general is to be very responsible. She was the one of all my college friends who became pregnant unintentionally. She admits she didn’t use her diaphragm that day and says the condom broke. I don’t know if they really used a condom or not, I never asked her girl to girl. I once had a condom break.

Are you ok with morning after pills? That sort of thing? Do you have a line when it is too late to abort, or do you start at conception?

A life of misery can be worse than never being here at all I think.

@JLeslie I’m cool with disagreeing, but you see it worked for you and I, which is my point. It works for thousands of women every day as well, which is why the rate of abortions performed is mind-boggling.

Personally I’m Pro-Life and no, I don’t believe in the morning after pills. I don’t think there’s any circumstance that I can imagine, where I would abort a child of my flesh, no. Life begins at conception for me.

Even though I’m 40 years old, if God were to miraculously bless me with a child now, I’d have it and raise it with love, even though it is not my hearts desire to be a parent, nor my husband’s.

I love my mom, but my childhood with her as an alcoholic and no father in my life and little money, wasn’t always great, but I can’t imagine any circumstance (for me) where I would say “I’d rather be dead.”

One thing that really bothers me, is that a woman can abort a child and think she’s okay with it, and then all the emotion and guilt hit and there’s no way to go back in time. I just think too many people think it’s a quick ‘kill it and move on’-type situation, and it’s often not that easy to just ‘move on, you know?!

A couple of points need to be made. It has been 40 years since Roe v Wade. There are no children left where abortion was not available. Neglected, abused, or otherwise unloved children are not the result of Pro-lifers. Everyone of them could have been aborted had the mother so chose. New born babies are in demand. Those that make it into the foster care system are generally Special Needs. Abortion has not fixed any of these problems.

Personally, I understand the issues on both sides of abortion. It’s not like drowning puppies, although to be honest I couldn’t do that either. A young girl needs a way out from a mistake. If she got pregnant accidentally it was a mistake. I only ask that the decision is make early in the pregnacy. Before it requires a lethal injection to insure the baby is dead. I also think that if a 16 year old girl gets pregnant someone should know. Something has gone horribly wrong and just sending here to an abortion clinic won’t solve that. Someone needs to follow up and find out who and why.

Empathy is more than just throwing money at the problem. Have a baby get a check, won’t do it.

Just on the topic of birth control—for most people, most of the time, birth control prevents pregnancies. But there is NO FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL that is 100% effective. Even vasectomies and tubal ligations have failure rates. So it is a guarantee that there will be unplanned pregnancies even among people who were using birth control responsibly.

I also don’t think that has any bearing on whether abortion is a moral thing to do or not—no one should have a child as a punishment for being irresponsible.

@nikipedia I think it was Bill Cosby who had a vasectomy and then a fifth child.

@JLeslie I didn’t say she can’t get an abortion for that reason. In fact, I clearly stated twice that I believe she should legally have the right to have an abortion. What I said was simply my opinion – that this behavior should not be encouraged and abortion should not be used as birth control.

And I call bullshit on the notion that 16-year-olds don’t have the capacity to know the consequences of their actions. It wasn’t that long ago that I was 16 and I knew these things well. Treating them like infants isn’t helpful. The earlier they’re held responsible for their actions, the sooner they’ll learn to make better decisions. If you don’t use a condom, you could get pregnant – all 16-year-olds know this. Just because they think they’re invincible doesn’t mean they should be led to think it’s okay to get out of the consequences of their actions with the “oh, she’s only 16” defense. Should she keep the baby as “punishment”? No, but treating abortion like it’s nothing will keep them children.

I’d also like to point out that I didn’t mention an age in my answer.

@nikipedia Nor should a child die for a person being irresponsible, in my opinion. Then it’s not just a bit of harmless fun is it?!

And also abstinence is 100% guaranteed effective. I tried it until I was age 18 and then moved on to birth control and condoms throughout my 20’s, then married at age 28. I asked to be sterilized and I was too young, which has been a bit of a struggle, and it’s also optional so insurance won’t pay for it.

How about:
*Sterilization (voluntary) could be paid for by all insurance companies in the US at age 25.

*Families with a child under 17 that gets pregnant, should be responsible for all fee’s and guardianship of the child. (If parents can file for prosecution of sex under age, then they can pay for the child as well.)

@livelaughlove21 I understood you are not stopping anyone from getting an abortion, not to worry. I brought up age. I also said that my interest is trying to understand when prolife people are ok with the rape exception more than anything.

@JLeslie Rape and incest are both out of the control of a woman, so personal responsiblity has no impact in those scenerio’s.

@KNOWITALL I just don’t understand why personal responsibility has anything to do with the LIFE of the baby growing inside the mother. The baby is innocent whether it was created through love or violence.

@KNOWITALL Blanket statements or not, what @flutherother said is largely true. If we go back to what @CWOTUS said above, if the so-called “pro-lifers” want to be truly consistent about the “pro-all-life” position, then the anti-abortion crowd needs to stop being the “pro-life-until-birth” movement. This would potentially entail far-reaching social programs that very few would be willing to endorse as part of an anti-abortion platform. Regardless of what your personal position on the matter might be, the facts on the ground are that opposition to abortion is largely dominated by Christian Republicans who tend to buy into the “government aid is socialism” mentality that has become so popular lately. If you tried selling a comprehensive childcare program to them, it would never get off the ground.

In fact, it is almost laughable that you think liberals are the ones standing in the way of sweeping changes to the welfare system. Supporting such changes is what got them tagged as socialists in the first place. Only someone so immersed in anti-abortion propaganda could believe that liberals are so enthusiastic about abortion (spoiler alert: nobody likes abortion) that they don’t want to increase the amount of government aid going to new and young mothers. Liberals are all over that kind of thing, and they get beaten up for it by the Republicans at every turn.

And as for how many Christians would turn away a hungry, naked child—do you not realize that it happens every single day? It’s rarely as dramatic as someone ignoring a baby left on their doorstep, of course, but it happens every single time a Christian votes against welfare reforms or fails to help the millions of children in need across the world. Psychologically, it’s very easy to do these things. When a problem is not right up in your face, ignoring hardly takes any effort at all. And perhaps that’s why you don’t realize that Christians do exactly what you say they don’t do all the time.

Finally, you are in no position to say that abstinence is 100% guaranteed so long as you are part of a religion based on a woman conceiving without ever having had sex with a man. Leaving that aside, however, no child dies when an abortion is performed prior to the onset of higher brain activity because no person exists prior to that moment. Even if we don’t agree on the specific dividing line, however, it is worth noting that the Bible is against the view that life begins at conception and does not consider abortion to be a terrible crime (even demanding it under certain circumstances). So really, you can’t use your religion for this one.

@Jaxk It does not follow from Roe v. Wade being 40 years old that no neglected, abused, or otherwise unloved children are the result of the so-called “pro-lifers.” Just because abortion is legally available does not mean that pro-lifers have not indoctrinated their children into making bad choices or forcibly prevented people who wanted abortions from having them. You say that every one of them could have been aborted had the mother so chose, but you ignore the fact that wanting something to be true doesn’t make it true. The vicious and insidious effects of pro-life propaganda are still with us in many ways.

You say you understand both sides, but I’m not sure you do. Abortion has long been limited to the stages of pregnancy prior to the onset of personhood. The vast majority of people are opposed to late-term abortions in the absence of extreme circumstances. I certainly agree that empathy is more than money, though. One of the things I find so bizarre about the so-called pro-lifers is how many of them treat fetuses like sacred objects while treating infants as shameful mistakes. Moreover, they so often fail to realize that the reason so many people feel bad about their abortion is because they are surrounded by propaganda that calls them terrible people for having to make a difficult choice. If the anti-abortion crowd is truly interested in empathy, they’ll have to give up the guilt tactics.

@SavoirFaire Against my better judgement, I’m going to converse with you about this.

Yes, and as a Christian Republican in the Bible Belt, I don’t think it’s my job to take care of you, you should take care of yourself and I’ll give you tools, so you can do so. If you’re unable to take care of yourself, then I’m happy to help as long as you’re not committing crimes or perpetuating fraud.

I think that reform is a big job and there’s not a lot of people willing to do it, including liberals.

Every time I vote for a Republican, I hurt a child? Well heck, let me call Mitt on my cell, because he definately cares what little ole me thinks. sarcasm

Do you think churches do nothing for children? Um, they do quite a bit here and outside the US as well. And you don’t need to be religious or Christian to help a child either.

I do feel like children are precious and should be treated as such. I don’t treat any infants poorly. I know it’s a difficult choice and some women have severe consequences.

@KNOWITALL If I had intended to say that voting Republican hurts children, I would have said so. If I had intended to say that Christians hurt children every time they vote against their interests, I would have said that. And what do you know? I said the latter rather than the former—nor did I bring either political party into it.

You’ll notice I also did not say that churches do nothing for children. But just because some of your actions help doesn’t mean that none of your actions hurt. You claimed that Christians would never do a particular thing, and I pointed out that they often do. Often—not always. This is an important difference, and you aren’t engaging in honest dialogue if you ignore it.

@KNOWITALL I think a lot of people don’t understand how the ‘morning after’ pill works. It prevents a pregnancy from occurring, it doesn’t “abort” a pregnancy. Emergency contraception is birth control, not abortion.

@Seek_Kolinahr

First let me comment that Pro-Life is not neccessarily a religious argument. It is merely an argument taht says the unborn child has a right to life the same as anyone else. The vicous and incidious prolifers have not had much effect on the abortion rates either. 50 million abortions have been performed since Roe v Wade. In fact 22% of pregnancies result in abortion. At the current rate 33% of women in the US will have an abortion. I can’t help but wonder how high you think these numbers should get. Just to add detail to all this, almost half of all abortions are performed on women that have already had one or more abortions in the past. If everyone hates abortion, it would seem a lot are slow learners.

@KNOWITALL Right here, you said “no, I don’t believe in the morning after pills. I don’t think there’s any circumstance that I can imagine, where I would abort a child of my flesh, no. Life begins at conception for me.”

I was just pointing out that the morning after pill prevents pregnancy, (i.e., before conception). It’s really not much different than regular old birth control.

@augustlan I’m sorry but I used a period to seperate the sentences.

1) I don’t believe in morning after pills because I think it will give women an excuse to not be responsible.

2) And I also believe that there is no circumstance, even death, that would induce me to kill a child of my flesh.

Hope that clarifies the misunderstanding.

If gendercide is supposed to be the genociding of a certain sex, then it is obviously a terrible idea. If it is just an individual choosing not to have a child because of its sex, then I think that’s incredibly shallow. But I agree with @syz that I don’t really want shallow people having kids anyway.

@KNOWITALL Periods don’t work that way. That’s why you had to add the word “also” when you were clarifying.

There are women, including 15 year olds, who refuse to abort no matter the circumstances. Their reasoning: They have no right to take another life period, end of story. Splain that @SavoirFaire et al.

@flo Just because someone reasons in a particular way doesn’t mean they are correct. Just take any debate in which there are two mutually contradictory sides: both sides have beliefs and arguments for their beliefs, but they can’t both be correct. Are you really surprised that there are 15 year old girls who might be factually mistaken about a few things? There are many, many factually mistaken beliefs in people of all ages and of all sexes. There really isn’t anything here to explain. It’s just another empty rhetorical gesture from you.

Not ending a life and ending a life are of equal value?
You mean it is not better to end another person’s life?

@flo Abortion does not end the life of a person unless it occurs after the onset of higher brain activity (after which point I am opposed to abortion unless extreme circumstances require it). If you aren’t going to even try to understand what other people are saying, it might be best for you to just observe the discussion.

@SavoirFaire Dude, why don’t YOU observe, we’re women and you’re rude.

You made it clear. Women who choose to not end a life, (they would rather sacrifice a few months of their life, etc. ) can be incorrect. what is there to understand? Plain.

“Abortion does not end the life of a person unless it occurs after the onset of higher brain activity”. That is not a fact, that is a convenient “fact” for the “abort any time any where.” crowd.

@KNOWITALL Insisting that a conversation be conducted reasonably isn’t rude, and I’m sorry to see that you think otherwise. But I thought you said you were done talking to me?

@flo I of course said no such thing. You are putting words into my mouth because you are imposing your (false) beliefs onto my sentences. There are 15 year old girls who have bad reasons for never having an abortion. I do not deny that. I also do not deny that they have every right to make that decision. But I did not say that women who choose to not end a life can be incorrect. I said that 15 year old girls can be incorrect about whether or not abortion ends a life. So again, please try to keep up.

As for when life begins, it is indeed the subject of debate. As you may or may not know, I am professionally involved in that debate and teach bioethics courses that include discussion of abortion. Your accusation that my position is “a convenient ‘fact’ for the abort anytime anywhere crowd” makes no sense, not the least because my position includes a cut-off point past which abortion would not be allowed (meaning it can’t possibly be “anytime”). There are both philosophical and biological arguments in favor of my position, though I realize that you do not accept them.

I’m just wondering, for the people like @flo who think abortion is taking a life, do you think it’s equally bad not to use all the embryos made during IVF? Or is that less bad, or not bad at all?

@KNOWITALL, is it responsible or irresponsible to take the morning after pill if the condom breaks?

Seems as if some people believe life begins at ejaculation…

Every sperm is sacred.

Sorry, technical problems, but I’m home now.

@SavoirFaire Sir, telling someone they should only observe was what I consider rude.

@nikipedia All sex, even protected, contains risk of pregnancy so if you have sex you should be prepared to deal with the consequences. That being said, if a person were underage I wouldn’t blame them for using the morning after pill once. The second time is on them because they failed to learn the first time. Good question, it’s tough.

IVF is not condoned by the Church, from what I understand. We don’t believe in embryonic stem cell research from aborted fetuses either. Personally, I find it a little distasteful while orphanages exist in the world.

Remember, this is not about judgement, or judging each other, it’s discussion of a personal belief system based on social mores, morals, religion, personality, situation, etc…so please keep that in mind.

@livelaughlove21 It’s not about ejaculation, it’s when the sperm and egg become a heartbeat. This is a serious subject with serious consequences for everyone involved. Imagine how many Mozarts & President Obama’s have not been given a chance to live.

@livelaughlove21
If you and your husband conceived now and you decided it wasn’t the right time and had an abortion, how would you feel if you couldn’t have one EVER because you got an infection?

Even legal, there is not a 100% guarantee you’ll survive unscathed.

Do none of you read about the real horror stories that happen?
Have you watched an abortion video?

I wouldn’t do that to a dog puppy, let alone a human infant. Could you kill your dog and never think about it again?

There is so much more involved than the termination of an embryo, and believe it or not, a lot of women regret it later.

@KNOWITALL I wouldn’t abort a child if my husband and I were to conceive. That’s my choice. But I have no right to make pronouncements on the choices of other pregnant women. My reasons for not aborting may not apply to them, so who am I (or, who is the government) to decide what they can and cannot do with their body? It’s none of my damn business…or yours.

You’re right @KNOWITALL That is the most important reason for reducing the chances of getting pregnant as much as possible in the first place.
The world should not be deprived of the better ones among us, just because of I was luky enough not to get aborted but…let’s close the door once I get in selfishness.

We shouldn’t drive toward recklessness.

@nikipedia The goal of IVF to create a life not to end it once it is here.

(Edit to add: But,) I can’t answer the question you posed.

@SavoirFaire I have to stop responding to every statement.

@livelaughlove21 I didn’t say I was voting against a political candidate who was Pro Choice, so I’m not making it my business in that sense.

We’re having a discussion and I wondered why you were being so flippant. So are you like me in that you’re Pro-Life for yourself, but Pro-Choice for others

@rooeytoo @flo
My mom described being put in the position of an unwed pregnant 17 yr old as ‘scared shitless’ and ‘desperate’, so I can understand the mind set and am very sympathetic.

I still am very glad to be alive, and try to lend my voice to the unborn and defenseless children who will never be given the chance I have been given, because of my mother’s faith. I do take it very seriously.

@SavoirFaire Higher brain activity? I haven’t heard that one before. And, what month does that supposedly start?

Also, I kind of disagree Christians still treat babies born to unwed mothers as shameless mistakes. I think the shame is dissappearing, which has a created a new problem in a way. Now it is acceptable and trendy to have the baby. If you have it and give it up you are a superstar. Don’t get me wrong, I am in awe of people who hand over their baby, I don’t think I could do it. But, kids are getting all sorts of positive reinforcement about how wonderful it is to “choose life.” I am not saying they all should line up for abortions, I am only saying if oops, they get pregnant, they get to do a heroic thing amd provide a baby for a childless couple, and they didn’t take the “easy way out” as some people call it.

@KNOWITALL I didn’t tell her to just observe. I told her to just observe if she was going to insist on breaking the rules of General. If that’s rude, then the site necessarily exists in a state of perpetual rudeness simply for having rules. Nor do I think it is rude to ask @flo not to continually misrepresent what her interlocutors are saying. Indeed, it strikes me as far ruder to lie about what others have said and not be able to back up their fanciful interpretations.

@JLeslie Higher brain activity is what is required for sentience, a capacity for which is one of the necessary conditions for counting as a moral person. In the popular arena, many people still argue about viability and the like. Professional philosophers, however, have mostly left such criteria behind or else defined them far more precisely than the judges and politicians ever cared to do.

And if you read my post again, you’ll see that I never said that Christians treat babies born to unwed mothers as shameful mistakes. What I said is that I find it bizarre that so many “pro-lifers” have such dichotomous attitudes towards fetuses and children. The difference is twofold. First, the set of pro-lifers does not perfectly map on to the set of Christians. There are pro-choice Christians and pro-life non-Christians. Second, I was not making a universal claim. I was making a claim about a particular subset of the “pro-life” population.

@KNOWITALL I wouldn’t say that. I wouldn’t get an abortion, but not because I think life begins at conception and God has given me a gift that is a sacred life, etc. etc. I just believe in taking responsibility for my actions. I use birth control AND condoms to prevent pregnancy. If I didn’t, and got pregnant because of it, I would own up to that slip up and make the best of it. I would raise and love the child as if it was planned. As for other people getting abortions, I do have my own opinions about certain individuals that I’ve already stated, but I don’t believe I have any real say in the matter, and neither should anyone else.

I wasn’t trying to be flippant. It was partly an unsuccessful attempt at humor to ease the tension, but partly because I really do think that some people go a little overboard on this issue. My apologies if I offended.

@SavoirFaire In what gestational month do you argue sentience occurs? What exactly are you using as the definition of sentience? Awareness? Awareness to stimuli? Experiencing sensations? I think that happens pretty early on. Or, you are going with having even higher awareness? Viability has to do with the fetus being physically dependent on the mother, and that makes sense to me. It is determining if the baby is a separate being or not even while in utero. Is the woman necessary or not for the child to survive? That is a bit of a fuzzy grey line also I admit, but I still stick with it as my line that I draw. You are making a moral judgement of when life begins I think but I am making a judgement of when someone stops having a right to stop a life. I feel it is ok for me to not give you blood if I don’t want to, even if you need it, but I don’t feel I have the right to shoot you dead. If you kill a fetus that could be delivered and survive on its own outside the womb, then to me that is like using the gun.

@KNOWITALL I just want to make sure I understand. If plan B just prevents ovulation you are ok with it, is that right? But, if it prevent implantation that is where you draw the line? That is why you are against it, the possibility it prevents implanation? It’s not great at doing that from what I understand, but it is possible.

@JLeslie Well let me tell you, the devil is in the details right? How can you pinpoint the moment of creation of life? I don’t want to get all philosophical in another Q, so I’ll leave it at that.

@livelaughlove21 Personal responsiblity is okay for us but it’s bad for us to expect it of others, isn’t that correct? That is logical because humans are fallible, but it’s not too much to expect really is it?
That’s why we’re now recieving 401k tax breaks, because Obama is stressing our personal responsibility as well.

@KNOWITALL I don’t understand your answer. Also, I am fine with wherever you stand on the issue. If someone uses birth cntrols pills they are preventing ovulation. Is that ok? Or, is that abortion to you? If preventing ovulation is the same as abortion to you I am fine with it. You said you use some form of birth control, I don’t remember which. Maybe you are ok with barrier methods, but not the bc pill. I’m not trying to change your mind, I am interested in your position. If the creation of life is when I ovulate, a life dies every month for me and most women who are not pregnant.

You might have heard me tell the story of my sister who was a big sister with Catholic charities. Her little sister at about age 14 was verbalizing she might have sex. My sister discouraged it, but also asked if she knew about birth control. The girl basically said she wasn’t thinking to use any because that is like a double sin. In her 14 year old head she had worked out that if you are going to sin and have sex before marriage, don’t make it worse by going against the church and prevent a pregnancy. Who knows, maybe the boys are telling girls that? Maybe she came up with it on her own. In her Catholic young mind preventing pregnancy in any way was sinful and murder.

@JLeslie Oh, sorry. I forgot to answer that part of your previous post. Sentience, as I am discussing it, is the capacity for first personal experience. This includes things like the ability to experience sensations. While a fetus might have mechanical reflexes mimicking genuine pain response early on in a pregnancy, fetal EEG scans tell us that the sorts of brain activity required for actual sentience typically do not occur until around week 30.

One advantage of the sentience criterion, however, is that we don’t need to rely on the Supreme Court—or anyone else—to give us a vaguely defined window. Because of the fact that fetal EEG scans are possible and increasingly practical, we are in a position to make decisions based on the developmental progress of individual fetuses rather than standardized charts based on assumptions and idealizations. Another advantage is that the sentience criterion coheres with how we treat end of life issues: when the capacity for sentience goes, so too does the moral requirement to keep someone on life support.

It is also important to note that I am not making a judgment about when life begins. I am making a judgment about a sine qua non. By saying that sentience is a necessary condition, I am saying that it is a property without which something cannot be considered a person in the morally relevant sense. That is the same basic philosophical strategy behind the viability criterion, and the two are not mutually inconsistent. That is, they may both pick out necessary conditions for personhood without either of them stating what the jointly sufficient conditions for personhood are.

I’m also not convinced that the viability criterion and the blood argument go together very well. The blood example that you have given seems to be inspired by Judith Jarvis Thomson’s famous violinist thought experiment. Thomson’s defense of abortion, however, is meant to be time-independent. It posits a conflict of rights and concludes that we cannot trump someone’s right to self-determination by involuntarily connecting it to someone else’s right to life. It might be virtuous to do so, she says, but it would also be supererogatory.

@JLeslie Yes, correct, preventing ovulation is not abortion. Terminating an existing embryo that would otherwise grow to be a human being, is to be an abortion.

We use condoms, and my liklihood of pregnancy is slim based on my Leep procedure as a young woman, and his illnesses make full on sex infrequent, so it’s not a big deal. Due to family cholesterol and my age, birth control is discouraged and I hate pills anyway.

I told my niece to be ready to have a baby if she has sex, right or wrong, she has to be prepared for the possibility and I’m not goin to downplay it. Her mother offered to put her on birth control pills and she was disgusted with her for not having any faith in her to be strong.

We’ve had many talks about it privately, and sex,and how it can affect your life, and STD’s and drugs, and Teen Mom obsessed us both and we talked it through. Education and honesty is really the only way I know to teach a young woman, we didn’t discuss religion at all in any of these conversations. Cause and effect is logical to her.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t only, like, one in five fertilizations naturally implant in the uterus? The rest just kind of go out with the trash. Nature has an over 80% abortion rate, by @KNOWITALL standards.

@KNOWITALL Well, plan B will most likely prevent ovulation, that is what most people focus on. I think that is why some people are having a hard time with the idea that you are against plan B. Plan B doesn’t get rid of an already attached pregnancy like the “abortion pill” does. What I am assuming is that since it also has a chance to prevent implantation, that is where you have a problem with that method of preventing pregnancy. Like I said above, I don’t think plan B is very good at preventing implantation, but since it theoretically can do it, I can understand why you are against the method.

I have a Catholic friend who decided to get an IUD and she struggled with it. Well, I would say she ignored, that it can prevent implantation and tried to just focus on that it supposedly helps avoid conception also. She is fine with all sorts of birth controls, but does believe conception is the beginning of life. The IUD didn’t work for her anyway, the hormones were giving her bad symtoms, so she wound up getting the thing where they block your tubes.

Getting back to the topic at hand, which is not “all abortion” but “sex-based” abortion (or “gender-based”, since the words are generally synonymous in this context, after all) is, as @SavoirFaire has noted, a symptom of a different problem.

I’m not entirely convinced that this is a problem of a general social misogyny – although I grant that women’s rights are not very well respected in the countries where this practice seems to be the most widespread, in China and India. In India the marriage customs among the middle class are hugely expensive to the parents of the bride. Having a balance between sons and daughters can mean that the costs balance, but having multiple daughters not offset by multiple sons can easily bankrupt families who try to keep up appearances – and “face” is very important in India.

I think this helps to explain why the practice, as noted in one of @flo‘s links, seems to be increasing among the Indian middle class. As the middle class grows, and as customs tend to remain the same, that’s about what I would expect.

I don’t agree with abortion because you aren’t happy about it being a boy or girl. I don’t think that means we should start restricting abortions though. I feel that if we start restricting abortions for that, there would be a big push to deny abortions stating that the mother only wants it because she doesn’t was the boy/girl and not the baby in general.

@Seek_Kolinahr My understanding is that the most accepted number is more like 50%. Exact numbers are difficult to come by, however, because of how many miscarriages—also known as “spontaneous abortions”—are not clinically apparent. If implantation fails to occur during a particular window, then the menstrual cycle will continue unabated and remove the embryo despite implantation. Then there are the clinically apparent miscarriages that occur during the first and second trimesters. Nature is not very careful about gametes and zygotes.

@CWOTUS That’s right. In fact, marriage customs are one of the reasons I refrained from using the word “misogyny” in my original post and focused instead on investing all of the power and wealth into males and male offspring. If it is traditional for a woman to join her husband’s family and support his parents after marriage, that does not necessarily mean that the society hates women. It will, however, put special importance on having male offspring. This special importance is very likely to lead to misogyny, but it need not.

And I will reiterate that the issue of gendercide really isn’t an abortion issue at all. The same result could be brought about by gene selection technology even in the presence of a complete ban on abortion.

@SavoirFaire, interesting definition of sentience. I am not altogether convinced that EEG can do what you’re claiming in any person, let alone a fetus?

@SavoirFaire Around 30 weeks. Is that like roughly 30 weeks? What are you going to do? An EEG on a fetus to detrmine if it is ok to abort the 29 week old fetus? No matter what, viability or what you propose, there is a blurry line of what date it becomes not ok to abort. Or, what day it becomes a life, for the record I believe the fetus to be a living organism. The definition of life is actually extremely broad if we think of it regarding all life.

Many babies born at 29–30 weeks make it through and are nornal long term, athough it is very early. Medical intervention is what blurs the line the most I think. Let’s say the sentience, as you call it, will develop at 30 weeks even if the baby is born at 29 weeks, because science can sustain the baby’s life. Just missed it by seven days. I like more of a cushion.

I think most people look at it as whether the baby will suffer and be nornal. For me there is a point to which I am willing to say it is ok to abort, and then there is also a point where I would say I don’t think a preterm baby should be saved. Then there is probably about a month in between. I feel like you are suggesting it is cut and dry, and basing it on that one parameter is enough.

@JLeslie, I agree, to me suffering is the critical issue in deciding if something is deserving of moral consideration.

@nikipedia It’s a fairly standard definition in philosophy. Sentience is to be distinguished from sapience (the ability to think or reason), and covers anything that can be the subject of experience (including suffering). And again, I am offering it as a sine qua non. If you take suffering to be the critical issue, then you should agree that sentience is a necessary condition for moral personhood (as an absence of sentience would necessarily entail an absence of even the capacity for suffering). Perhaps you would argue that it is not a sufficient condition, but I could concede that without having to change my argument.

As for what fetal EEG scans can do, you’re the expert on neuroscience. From the various things I have read, however, the procedure has been feasible for at least 20 years and seems to be getting increasingly practical to perform. Even if our scanning capabilities are not yet to where we’d like them to be, however, that does not undermine the criterion itself. It would only undermine the current practicality of being fetus-specific in determining which fetuses are unquestionably permissible to abort.

@JLeslie Different fetuses develop at different rates. This is a simple fact. Regardless, there is no blurry line on my criteria. That is because I am proposing that we perform a fetal EEG to determine whether or not any particular fetus has developed enough yet to rule out an abortion (pending the existence of extenuating circumstances that justify it regardless of fetal status). So while “around 30 weeks” does mean “roughly 30 weeks,” you’ll note that I never suggested 30 weeks as a legal standard. I suggested a particular result on the fetal EEG scan as the standard and mentioned that the dividing line tends to fall around 30 weeks in response to you asking me where the dividing line would typically fall.

Note also that we are not talking about defining life. We are talking about moral personhood, which is quite a different issue. As such, you bringing that up seems like a bit of a red herring. The same goes for the supposed cut-and-dryness of my claim. Nothing I have said even remotely suggests that the result of a fetal EEG scan should be the only relevant factor in determining the permissibility of an abortion. What I have asserted is the far more modest claim that failing to exhibit a particular property—namely, the capacity for sentience—is enough to tell us that a particular fetus does not count as a person in the moral sense. By presenting only a necessary condition, I leave it open that there may be other criteria by which we may also judge an abortion to be permissible.

Do I think it´s right? No.

Would I do it? No.

Should it be legal? Absolutely.

Is it any of my business? No.

That being said, I wish we lived in a society where abortions were no longer necessary because people took personal responsibility for not getting pregant in the first place. I´ve practiced safe sex since (and plenty of it) I was 17 and have never once even had a scare. I´ve had a copper IUD for the past 4 years and it´s one of the best things I´ve ever done for myself and my relationships.

Despite growing up in an area where teens (and quite frankly several indigents) get pregnant like there´s something in the water knocking them up —myself and all of my friends have managed to stay baby AND abortion-free since into mid-twenties despite non of us exactly being virgins.

Nevertheless, this is a pretty personal issue to me:
My father pressured (forced and threatened) my late mother to have an abortion once before I was born and she complied after much guilt tripping, verbal abuse and coercion. He even tried to have me aborted because they couldn´t determine my gender via ultrasound. When I was born, he was VERY vocal at expressing his disappointment right there in the delivery room. The midwife had a few choice words for him and he did not pass around any pink cigars to his friends that day or ever.

That´s part of the reason he and I continued to have a strained relationship my entire life. Since a lot of his abuse stemmed from his hatred of me for being female. It could be pretty awkward around my birthday and such… “Umm, so I kind of wish you didn´t even exist but happy birthday, here´s $20.” The only reason he was excited for my younger brother to be born was because they confirmed he was male. I´m glad my mother chose to keep me, but then again, if it was truly her choice nonexistent little me would just have to understand with my nonsentient brain.

@SavoirFaire, although I could be completely wrong, to the best of my knowledge, it is not possible to do an EEG on a human fetus in utero. EEG requires attaching electrodes directly to the scalp using conducting gel, so to be possible at all, it would require a very complicated surgery. Again, I could be wrong.

Also, when you say, “EEG scans tell us that the sorts of brain activity required for actual sentience typically do not occur until around week 30,” I have trouble understanding what that brain activity would be in any person, let alone a fetus. What is “sentience signal” that you’re referring to here?

@nikipedia It might not be feasible at present. I had once read that it was becoming increasingly practical, but it’s quite possible that I misunderstood. Let us assume the worst case scenario and say that not only is it not currently possible, but that it will never be possible. All that assumption would do is take away one of the practical advantages that I mentioned for the view. It wouldn’t undermine any of the philosophical arguments for using the capacity for first personal awareness as a necessary condition of moral personhood. At worst, it would leave us in the same position that we are already in with viability: we would have to judge the permissibility of abortion based on typical fetal development rather than being able to make more specific determinations about individual fetuses.

@KNOWITALL I so understand the sympathy for the women in your mom’s position. I wouldn’t want to be in that position.

-What percentage of the pro-choicers happen to be also pro-the $$ that comes from abortion clinics, and related businesses?

@SavoirFaire et al:

Defense lawyer talk:
”...for using the capacity for first personal awareness as a necessary condition of moral personhood”.

@SavoirFaire, I don’t see what utility the philosophical position has if it can never be applied—i.e., suppose we all agree that a fetus is morally considerable when it reaches the point of sentience, but suppose it is also a given that sentience cannot ever be determined by technology. The moral question is solved, but the practical question is not, so how do we decide when it is and isn’t ok to abort?

@SavoirFaire How does this sentence Because of the fact that fetal EEG scans are possible and increasingly practical, we are in a position to make decisions based on the developmental progress of individual fetuses rather than standardized charts based on assumptions and idealizations jibe with what you just wrote to @nikipedia?

As far as I know fetal eeg’s are only preformed during labor for scientific research. However, I admit that I don’t know for sure whether there is some way to do it even earlier.

@flo – I don’t understand your question. Pro-money? From abortion providers? What constitutes a ‘related business’?

I mean, I’m pretty anti money ad an institution, but that’s likely a side effect of not having any.

If you’re asking what I think you’re asking, an abortion is a LOT more cost effective than a pregnancy carried to term. A hospital delivery alone can be upwards of $5,000 before you start adding in complications. Not to mention the physical and emotional trauma that birthing a child causes.

^^ And not to mention how much it costs to actually raise a child.

I think @flo is talking about doctors who make money doing the procedure and pharma selling abortion drugs for profit. So, not so much what is cost effective for the patient, but rather she is looking at the people in favor of abortion also have a financial gain to be made. If I am right I call foul on her thought process. If manufacturers of baby bottles and baby food are pro-life are we going to chalk it up to dollars? You can’t look at one side and not the other.

I say, let them earn a bit of money from curbing the number of humans on the planet. Shit…. we are wayyyyy too many. If the economy of this were objective, the value to the planet reflected in recompense, the people who make birth control and abortion available for humans would be quite well off… and never bodily threatened. But humans are crazy and suck at logic.

Not all people who are in favor of abortion are really pro abortion, out of sympathy for the women in need of abortion, just like car dealers/and manufacturers are unlikely to be pro-bike sharing, etc.

The misconception is that “pro-choice” is synonymous with “pro-abortion,” which it certainly isn’t. I mean, who out there thinks abortions are awesome? You’re not living until you have an abortion, brah!

Pro-abortion for whoever seeks it. “Pro-choice” is a misnomer definitely.

It pisses me off so much that people still abort a baby because it’s a girl. and let me tell you, I’m not surprised it is in the area of the world it is in (will not be mentioned) because that area is infamous for its misogyny and treatment of women. Acid attacks anyone?

Permalink
What do baby food/bottle manufactures have to do with abortion? Nothing. They are provide the needs of the babies already here.

@sparrowfeed right on the money.

“Abortion is wrong when they do it for their reason, but it is alright when I do it for my reason” thinking is also wrong.

@flo I never understand the idea of abortion being legal only in “certain cases”. I think it should be 100% legal up to a certain point in the pregnancy for any reason. No questions asked.

@LeavesNoTrace I see that you posted that way up above or am I wrong?

I don’t equate pro-abortion with being excited about doing it. For me pro-abortion means someone who is willing to do it. For instance, pro-choice is basically a political stance. Someone can be pro-choice, but never for a second consider one for themseves. When someone is pro-choice, we don’t know their personal feelings on the matter, we only know they want women to have the choice for themselves based on their own beliefs and personal situation.

@flo Nope but but looks like @augustlan already posted something very similar though.

Abortion is wrong when you’re doing it because of its gender.

Abortion is not wrong when you’re doing it because of reasons like rape or incest (or both in many cases).

Someone really wants to argue that? Are you serious?

@flo “pro-choice is no more a misnomer than is “pro-life”.

@rojo Agreed because true Pro-Life’ers wouldn’t be able to eat because either way, it’s a ‘life’ that would otherwise have existed. Maybe Pro-Human Life.

@flo These are complicated issues that require serious discussion. Being simple-minded won’t cut it, and referring to a detailed explanation as “defense lawyer talk” just shows that you have no intention of being nuanced at all. It’s very easy for either side to summarize its views, but it will always be complicated to explain them. Take, for example, @KNOWITALL. Her view is ultimately rooted in her religion and her belief in God. It’s easy to say “God makes it true,” but asking for an explanation of how He makes it true would require talk of ontology, cosmology, and all sorts of other things that you want to dismiss as “defense lawyer talk.” What you are advocating—knowingly or not—is an abandonment of reason in favor of talking points and sound bites. But that’s not how reasonable adults conduct important conversations.

@nikipedia There’s nothing stopping my view from being applied. The only thing that the worst case scenario would change is how particular we could be in our decisions. The fetal EEG point was supposed to highlight an advantage over using viability as the main criterion. If the fetal EEG is not actually feasible, then that only means the sentience criterion is in the same position as the viability criterion when it comes to practical application. It doesn’t put it in a worse position. In other words, there is no special objection available to anyone who already believes that abortion should be legal given the current state of technology and scientific knowledge. The sentience criterion would simply be applied based on what we already know about typical fetal development (which is how the viability criterion is applied) rather than being tailored to specific fetuses.

@JLeslie It doesn’t jibe. If you follow the conversation carefully, you’ll note that I very explicitly changed tactics. I said “let’s just give up on this for the sake of argument; even if we do that, it doesn’t change the overarching point.” The fact is that my entire argument could have been given without a single mention of fetal EEGs. That bit is merely a practical bonus (if feasible).

@SavoirFaire Sometimes wrong is just wrong, and most people see terminating life as wrong, which is why it’s a crime to kill another living human being, some people are vegan, etc…. Why do you need to make it so complicated?

*Just so you know, being a Christian isn’t easy (esp for me), but it doesn’t automatically condemn you to an unthinking robot either.

@KNOWITALL thank you!

@SavoirFaire But that is the specialty of most defense lawyers They might as well state.
“Being right is not necessarily correct.” So, they can’t have any relashinship with ethics.

Why do you think all these clearly guilty people are free? It is not always because of the prosecutors failure to prove guilt, it is because how much defense lawyers impress the more guilible and even not so guillible of us with their language.

Hitler could “conduct adult conversation”, any expert con-artist could “conduct adult conversation” as you call it.

@rojo so we agree that pro-choice is a misnomer. It is as if the pro-life-ers are saying no no no we don’t want to make choices, we are for being forced. So illogical, so misleading.

@JLeslie “If I am right I call foul on her thought process. If manufacturers of baby bottles and baby food are pro-life are we going to chalk it up to dollars? You can’t look at one side and not the other.” Whose words are those? what was my response? what is you repsonse to that?

@sparrowfeed should you the child be beat up by your mom, because you father beat your mom up, for example? Not the fault of the child no matter what.

@flo I don’t know what you are asking me. Was I correct in my assumption or not? You wrote, -What percentage of the pro-choicers happen to be also pro-the $$ that comes from abortion clinics, and related businesses? What did you mean by that?

Acheivement Unlocked : Godwin’s Law

Just incase you were wondering the internet is still functioning as usual. Carry on.

What do baby food/bottle manufactures have to do with abortion? Nothing. They are provide the needs of the babies already here. So, it s flawed logic to bring them up.

I guess you won’t answer my question. I am trying to understand what you said to make sure I did not make a mistake and interpret what you said incorrectly. I even wrote in my initial answer regarding this that I was guessing what you meant, it would be great if you tell me if my guess was right or wrong.

@flo – @JLeslie and I were both wondering what that sentence meant. Obviously, I’m pro-choice, and have never seen a dime from an abortion myself, so I am not sure how I could be pro-abortion-money, unless you’re talking about whether I approve of abortion providers being paid for performing their jobs. Which, of course, I do. Just as I’m in favor of any person being paid for performing their duty. As far as “related businesses”, I have no idea what that means.

I do know of many businesses related to the care and upbringing of infants, which is a lucrative industry indeed.

@fundevogel Do you see how many opportunities you had to show the flawed logic, of so many answerers, and it is part of one post of mine you needed to critique? (never mind that your logic is also flawed too.

Would you like me to show why your logic is flawed @fundevogel? Okay I will.
If person A says to person B:
“I know you don’t know person x, but you can have her as your kids’ tutor her because she led a country.”
“She led a country? You better give me a better reason for hiring her, because Hitler led a country too.

See, that has nothing to do with comapring an oppressor of an employer, or a restrictive laws in a country, etc. to Hitler and the atrocities of Hoclocaust, which is what your link in about.

I guess I won’t be getting an answer.

I did though, with the car manufacturers example.

And, I would have corrected you otherwise.

@flo Car manufacturer? I am totally lost. When you commented on people making money from abortions what did you mean? If you answered already and I missed it, just do me the favor and explain it again.

You did explain it to @Seek_Kolinahr, and like I stated, wouldn’t I have corrected you if your assumption/explanation was wrong?

“I think @flo is talking about doctors who make money doing the procedure and pharma selling abortion drugs for profit. So, not so much what is cost effective for the patient, but rather she is looking at the people in favor of abortion also have a financial gain to be made.”

Oh, ok, so I am correct in my assumption, I wasn’t clear you agreed. Why don’t you understand how baby bottle manufacturers make money by having more babies born? That doesn’t make sense to you? I completely disagree that places that do abortions and doctors fight to keep abortion legal to make money. Almost everywhere abortions are done, abortions are a minority of their services. Hospitals that do them make more money delivering babies. Clinics that do them make just as much money if not more doing the ultrasounds and preggers visits for the pregnant woman.

“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches.”

“Hitler could “conduct adult conversation”, any expert con-artist could “conduct adult conversation” as you call it.”—Flo

Just sayin’. Sounds an awful lot like a reductio ad Hitlerum. ei Hitler did it so it must bad. It’s reasoning like that killed a perfectly good mustache.

I just feel like abortion and the abortion debate has nothing to do with this; gendercide is prominent in parts of the world where abortion is sacrilegious and often illegal.

@sparrowfeed What countries are aborting based on gender and abortion is illegal.

Those countries seem like they would make abortion legal only if it was female but I could be assuming.

@sparrowfeed What countries?

@fundevogel ”...ei Hitler did it so it must bad.”
but the way I used it addressing @SavoirFaire, or the Person A and person B example I gave it means if a Hitler, (or an expert con-artist as I mentioned) could be it/do it, it is not necesarily good.

@flo Exactly. That doesn’t make sense. Hitler doesnt’t taint every little action he ever engaged in. I’m sure he also brushed his teeth and enjoyed music and for better or worse (obviously worse) he stirred people’s emotions. None of those things are inherently bad, it’s only when they are put to anti-social ends that they become immoral.

Being able to have and open and honest discussion isn’t a bad thing. And being able to talk about issues you feel strongly about makes for the best sort of conversations. That’s when you learn more about others’ views and your own. You challenge others and allow them to challenge you. Sometimes they change their mind sometimes you do. Sometimes it’s just good to let other people poke at what they find to be flaws in your argument. Those are things that might deserve closerer attention on your part. It doesn’t always mean they’re right, but if you can’t answer their challenges to these spots you should put some serious though into them to see whether or not they are genuine problems or just an element you hadn’t fully evaluated yet.

Me, I am a “Just keep it legal and safe” person with the stress on the safe. If that makes me pro choice, then that is what I am. I want a community where people are properly taught about sexual behaviour and effective socialisation. Earlier this week a 16 year old boy stabbed a 14 year old boy, in school, over a girl, herself 13. Because of threats against her life her parents have taken her out of school. What folly is this? Children learn these behaviours from elders just like us. I can see a future with ill read, poorly educated westerners throwing away the advances of the last few centuries out of sheer ignorance. Almost I ask myself if the human species is just naturally stupid.

@bea2345 I think that’s a big YES!

1) It’s extremely immoral
2) It’s a potent means to slow down population growth
3) It creates lots of miserable heterosexual men forced to live their lives as bachelors

On the other hand, @mattbrowne, it prevents a lot of men from living miserable lives as husbands. Six of one, a half-dozen of the other.

@CWOTUS – If all women have partners, this leaves masturbation and whorehouse visits. Isn’t that more miserable?

@mattbrowne

It would take about five seconds for the law to allow polygamy.

@Seek_Kolinahr, do you know the penalty for bigamy in this country?

ʍɐן-uı-sɹǝɥʇoɯ oʍʇ

@Seek_Kolinahr – I have no problem with a law for polygamy on two conditions:

1) The law is the same for men and women
2) The second marriage needs a signature of uncoerced approval from the first spouse

People who prefer monogamy can ensure this by never giving that signature.

We’d also need to think about the situation when a wive has two husbands and both like to have a biological child to pass on their genes.

Well, that’s ultimately the woman’s decision, like any pregnancy. I imagine there would be routine DNA profiles taken in order to determine biological paternity. Of course, all of the spouses would have parental rights and responsibilities (that is, rights to provide healthcare and responsibility to create a sound living environment) while the marriage was sound, and in the event of divorce parental right would divert to the biological pair only.

What happens if the wive tells her first husband, she just decided to only have children with her second husband?

That’s for the parties involved in the marriage to work out for themselves.

Polygamy is made for the benefit of the oppresser, for the domeneering,

It can get even more complicated. First there’s one wife and husband number one. Then she marries husband number two (number one agrees). Later husband number one wishes to marry a second wife. And later a third (the first two agree). Now there’s five people involved. Then they start having children. Lots of half brothers and half sisters. Later there’s divorce number one. Then number two. Then there are custody battles.

There are always messy custody battles. I see no reason why plural marriages shouldn’t be legalised. Of course, the biggest issue is trauma care. Each person would have to designate their own power of attorney – the person they feel is best capable of representing their wishes in case of medical emergency.

The open relationship model is a kind of polygamy arrangement based on informal commitments.

I do hope that the whole idea of ‘marriage’ is somehow outdated, outmoded and abandoned in an enlightened future. It simply makes less and less sense. One partner always ends up disadvantaged and screwed. That may be fine under the condition that the more advantaged partner actually looks after and cares for the one who sacrifices and does all the unpaid work, but I don’t know how that works, because I have never seen it, personally. Come on, ladies… it’s our bodies…. Shouldn’t we be happy bringing more woman into the world and empowering them? Frankly, when I found out I was carrying a boy, I was crushed and devastated because I knew the statistical risks of him carrying the genes for Autism were greater than 50%, (based on family history) but I wanted a child so desperately, I was going to look on the bright side of what ever happened….. and I did for a long time. Every day is hard. He is gifted and he is difficult but kids don’t come with a guarantee to be upgraded or replaced for faulty parts, but the parent who won’t deal with the reality or step up the the responsibility or love and accept the child for who they are CAN be ditched. I found out this past week how quickly and eagerly a father can be to sign away his parental rights so he can concentrate his efforts on riding motorcycles and going to rock concerts. We shouldn’t be selectively aborting babies based on sex (Especially in favour of boys over girls because I will happily make arguments to the opposite…). We should be finding ways to help children who have only one parent or no parents overcome issues and have fun, fulfilling lives so that they grow up feeling cared for and valued. On a personal note… There is this amazing woman who has been finding programmes and clubs for my son so that he has things to do this summer and more of a social life. I am not always up on what is going on locally because there is a bit of a culture and language barrier (I am an immigrant to the country I live in…) The programmes also get paid for by the State, now that I am, officially on paper, a single parent. She and her boss are going to get a HUGE bunch of flowers and some of my brilliantly crafted handmade soap. My kid may carry genes that mean he will not be like other kids in his generation, but he is my kid and he is extraordinary and a f*ing genius and I will work with it.

@JLeslie Countries where they kill female babies because of the patriarchal society.

@sparrowfeed Which ones? Name them. Am I really not being understood? What countries are abortions illegal but girl babies are aborted?

@cazzie – What about formalizing a commitment in a relationship?

@mattbrowne You are either committed and formalise it every day with your actions or you are not and you do not. No party or bit of paper is going to change that.

@cazzie – Rituals are another way of formalizing commitments. Why do they exist in virtually every human community in the world? In a way signing a piece of paper can also be seen as a ritual.