Female Infanticide

Beowolf · July 7, 2007, 11:52pm

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lucasa wrote:

Starting with reluctance to abort in the first place, yes.

It’s funny that technology would be developed to determine the sex of the baby at a more advanced state, but technology to remove whatever inferiority one gender (presumably women) suffers remains illusive. Rather like a culture established to destroy a group based solely on who they are, not what they’ve done or intend to do.

I think Boston raises an interesting question.

In a very wacky extension of it - and I have mentioned it here before - a representative in the Maine legislature introduced a bill that said were scientists ever isolate to a gene for homosexuality and parents could be notified before the child was born (in the same way they can learn of the child’s sex), an abortion would not be permitted on the basis on that the parents wanted to not have the child because he would be gay.

That example is just food for thought - I am curious as to what pro-choice individuals think of Boston’s question. While infanticide and abortion differ in form, if the motive is the same - get rid of women being born - what is their opinion of it?[/quote]

I’m pro-choice before the first tri-mester, for economic/age reasons only. IE: The mother is poor and can’t afford another kid, or she’s just too young for the responsibility (obviously I’m all for choice for incest abortions/rape abortions). You do know that just because we’re pro-choice, doesn’t mean we think abortion is moral?

I think aborting is immoral for many reasons, but I feel the choice is needed for those who have the reasonable reasons. If people start massively aborting gay/female children, then perhaps we should make abortion only legal if said gene testing hasn’t been done. I don’t have a very good answer for this one…

I hope a ‘gay test’ is never found.

I also hope Indian’s get more goddamn condoms.

lucasa · July 8, 2007, 2:39am

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

I’m pro-choice before the first tri-mester, for economic/age reasons only. IE: The mother is poor and can’t afford another kid, or she’s just too young for the responsibility (obviously I’m all for choice for incest abortions/rape abortions). You do know that just because we’re pro-choice, doesn’t mean we think abortion is moral?[/quote]

I agree with this except to add a condition to restrict the number of abortions. More than one person has described me as pro-life. That’s why I use the term reluctance.

I think t-bolt is looking for raving pro-choicers to smear abortion in their face when it’s blatantly murder. Can’t blame him.

Personally, I’d be equally interested to know if ardent pro-lifers think aborting female fetuses is more wrong than just abortion. Abortion as a “hate crime”.

That solution is easy enough. Giving someone a drug that causes their death? Accidental death. Giving someone a drug you know will kill them? Homicide.

It’d be easy enough if it were just a choice or behavior pattern. But then, ‘gay rights’ would be granting people rights based on their choice. What does that mean if we never find a gay gene or can prove that homosexuality isn’t biologically fixed?

Unless the government starts putting jackets on jimmies personally, some common sense will be required too.

lixy · July 8, 2007, 4:07am

[quote]lucasa wrote:
I agree with this except to add a condition to restrict the number of abortions. More than one person has described me as pro-life. That’s why I use the term reluctance.

I think t-bolt is looking for raving pro-choicers to smear abortion in their face when it’s blatantly murder. Can’t blame him.

Personally, I’d be equally interested to know if ardent pro-lifers think aborting female fetuses is more wrong than just abortion. Abortion as a “hate crime”. [/quote]

Why do you guys use terms such as pro-life and pro-choice? Why don’t you just say for or against abortion?

I’m believe a woman should have total control over what’s growing inside her body. She knows best. Of course, I’ll frown upon one that tries to abort a fetus on its eight/ninth month.

To answer your question: yes. I think discriminating on the sex is very VERY wrong.

???

I’m having a hard time relating that to the topic. Must be on a slow day…

No way a gene is responsible for sexual orientation! But then again, the only argument I have on that are the Holy Books. Not sure any of you will accept religious arguments.

Beowolf is totally wrong. Condoms aren’t the answer. Those people are evidently trying to have kids. They just don’t want girls!

What they really need is a crash course in morality where they could study Rousseau.

Beowolf · July 8, 2007, 7:41pm

[quote]lixy wrote:
Beowolf is totally wrong. Condoms aren’t the answer. Those people are evidently trying to have kids. They just don’t want girls!

What they really need is a crash course in morality where they could study Rousseau.[/quote]

So they were trying for more kids then? I didn’t quite understand.

Why were they trying for more kids? Is a male heir essential to their culture? If they knew they couldn’t afford more female children, and they were still trying to procreate, they must have had a damn good/crazy reason for wanting a boy so badly.

Wanna fill me in? I haven’t done much reading on Indian culture, beyond that it’s a popular vacation country for Israelis…

GDollars37 · July 8, 2007, 8:17pm

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
lucasa wrote:

Starting with reluctance to abort in the first place, yes.

It’s funny that technology would be developed to determine the sex of the baby at a more advanced state, but technology to remove whatever inferiority one gender (presumably women) suffers remains illusive. Rather like a culture established to destroy a group based solely on who they are, not what they’ve done or intend to do.

I think Boston raises an interesting question.

In a very wacky extension of it - and I have mentioned it here before - a representative in the Maine legislature introduced a bill that said were scientists ever isolate to a gene for homosexuality and parents could be notified before the child was born (in the same way they can learn of the child’s sex), an abortion would not be permitted on the basis on that the parents wanted to not have the child because he would be gay.

That example is just food for thought - I am curious as to what pro-choice individuals think of Boston’s question. While infanticide and abortion differ in form, if the motive is the same - get rid of women being born - what is their opinion of it?

I’m pro-choice before the first tri-mester, for economic/age reasons only. IE: The mother is poor and can’t afford another kid, or she’s just too young for the responsibility (obviously I’m all for choice for incest abortions/rape abortions). You do know that just because we’re pro-choice, doesn’t mean we think abortion is moral?

[/quote]

I’ve never understood how pro-choicers can have this attitude. If abortion is immoral, why is that? Because you’re terminating a human life, presumably. It’s either a bundle of inconsequential cells or a human life. If it’s the former, why any quibbles about morality?

Reminds me of C.S. Lewis, who wrote that Jesus Christ is either the son of God or he’s a liar and a lunatic. There’s no middle ground.

lixy · July 8, 2007, 9:16pm

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
I’ve never understood how pro-choicers can have this attitude. If abortion is immoral, why is that? Because you’re terminating a human life, presumably. It’s either a bundle of inconsequential cells or a human life. If it’s the former, why any quibbles about morality? [/quote]

There’s actually a Hadith where the prophet Muhammad claims that the fetus don’t get a soul until the fourth month. People infer that abortion is permissible before that stage.

Actually there is. I’ll refer you to the Quran which unambiguously attests that Jesus was a prophet, and NOT the son of God anymore than you or me. I’m not certain C.S. Lewis did a thorough read of the Holy Books and historical records before blurting such extremist manichean assertion.

[i]"Jesus is not God’s Son in the sense of how we think of a father and a son. God did not get married and have a son. Jesus is God’s Son in the sense that He is God made manifest in human form (John 1:1,14). Jesus is God’s Son in that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Luke 1:35 declares, "The angel answered, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.

So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.'" In Bible times, the phrase “son of man” was used to describe a human being. The son of a man is a man.

During His trial before the Jewish leaders, the High Priest demanded of Jesus, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” (Matthew 26:63).

Jesus responded, “Yes, it is as you say, but I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64). The Jewish leaders responded by accusing Jesus of blasphemy (Matthew 26:65-66).

Later, before Pontius Pilate, “The Jews insisted, We have a law, and according to that law He must die, because He claimed to be the Son of God” (John 19:7). Why would claiming to be the “Son of God” be considered blasphemy and be worthy of a death sentence?

The Jewish leaders understood exactly what Jesus meant by the phrase “Son of God.” To be the “Son of God” is to be of the same nature as God. The “Son of God” is “of God.” The claim to be of the same nature as God, to in fact “be God,” was blasphemy to the Jewish leaders; therefore, they demanded Jesus’ death. Hebrews 1:3 expresses this very clearly, “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being”

Another example can be found in John 17:12 where Judas is described as the “son of perdition.” John 6:71 tells us that Judas was the son of Simon. What does John 17:12 mean by describing Judas as the “son of perdition”? The word “perdition” means “destruction, ruin, waste.”

Judas was not the literal son of “ruin, destruction, and waste” - but those things were the identity of Judas’ life. Judas was a manifestation of perdition. In this same aspect, Jesus is the Son of God. The Son of God is God. Jesus is God made manifest (John 1:1,14)."[/i]

Sloth · July 8, 2007, 10:11pm

[quote]lixy wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
I’ve never understood how pro-choicers can have this attitude. If abortion is immoral, why is that? Because you’re terminating a human life, presumably. It’s either a bundle of inconsequential cells or a human life. If it’s the former, why any quibbles about morality?