More Attacks on Women's Right to Choose

Yeah, definitely running off to an off-point battleground she enjoys more--and pretending that it was something "us guys" said. That's pretty much her debate style.
"Us guys" said;

I'm still trying to figure out when the women started getting themselves pregnant? When did the other half of that baby making process lose all his say?

If you want it, we're gonna pay, but if you don't want it, we got no say at all? Feminist, or just fucking selfish? This is all getting pretty lopsided if you ask me.
In my reply, I started off; "You guys who think..." which ought to limit my comments to those specific guys. Because "who think" implies that not all guys think that way.

If you aren't one of those guys, then I wasn't talking about you. I've reworded my original post for clarity, my intent was never to upset the menz. There are plenty of quotes for comparison.

And the topic is; More Attacks on Women's Right to Choose.

what do you think the topic is?
 
Last edited:
http://news.yahoo.com/utah-lawmaker-seeks-ban-sex-selective-abortion-224937309.html

As far as I am concerned, a woman has an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy, and her reasons are valid, whatever they may be. :(
The irony of this is that sex selection abortion targets girls, primarily. So women essentially have the right to wipe themselves out.

This would be laughably theoretical except that women actually do this in India and China.

And no one wants to talk about this because women's rights lose no matter which side you take.
 
The irony of this is that sex selection abortion targets girls, primarily. So women essentially have the right to wipe themselves out.

This would be laughably theoretical except that women actually do this in India and China.

And no one wants to talk about this because women's rights lose no matter which side you take.
In India and China, the male-dominated society is where that decision comes from. Women may acquiesce, but that's not exactly making a choice, is it.

And for the umpteenth time, the Utah bill is not about anything except finding weasel ways around women's choice.
 
As far as I am concerned, a woman has an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy, and her reasons are valid, whatever they may be. :(

I haven't bothered to look at the link - but as far as I'm concerned the above quote is the most sensible thing said on this thread. There are enough unwanted children in this world - actually there are too many humans on this planet altogether, why add more ?

In any case, I think the main problem is that too many countries won't allow abortions no matter the reason (not even rape, danger to the mother, or life threatening disability in the child). Once that is dealt with, we can begin discussing issues about potential misuse of abortion.
 
Although the article and Box, most certainly, and maybe even the woman legislator who introduced this proposal seem intent on putting this issue firmly in the "woman's right to choose" category, I don't--and that's why I said this isn't a good issue to emphasize under this flag. The issue is one of designer babies, and it shouldn't matter who is the one who decided to abort on that basis--the mother, the father, the grandparents, a U.S. senator--or the doctor.

It's a sticky issue that doesn't fit comfortably under a woman's right to choose, because it is a highly debatable one. What's beyond this? The woman's right to kill the male after mating? After all, it can be found naturally in nature.

The issue spans the spectrum from terminating a pregnancy because the fetus has been found to have two heads or no intestines (it happens--my wife left her job as head nurse of a newborn ICU unit in a research hospital when she became pregnant with our first simply because she could face the condition of some babies brought into the world and kept alive even though nature itself was trying to mercifully select them out)--to this one, aborting until you get the gender you want or blue eyes.

I think it's idiocy to treat this like the NRA (and some posters here) treat gun control--"I gets to have five submachine guns if I want them because the Constitution says so and we all know if I can't shoot the thugs myself who have stolen guns, we're all dead."

There's got to be some point along that spectrum where it is no longer acceptable in human society. And stonewalling it on the "woman's right to choose" platform is bogus--and undermines the more sensible issues fought under that flag.
 
Last edited:
I haven't bothered to look at the link - but as far as I'm concerned the above quote is the most sensible thing said on this thread. There are enough unwanted children in this world - actually there are too many humans on this planet altogether, why add more ?

In any case, I think the main problem is that too many countries won't allow abortions no matter the reason (not even rape, danger to the mother, or life threatening disability in the child). Once that is dealt with, we can begin discussing issues about potential misuse of abortion.

The article isn't about not having a baby; it's about designing the baby you'll accept and being content about aborting all of the fetuses who weren't moving in that direction.

And you are taking the same "all or nothing" stance the NRA takes on gun control here.
 
Correction, Stella: Box's headline is on a woman's right to choose. The issue is on designer babies. The headline doesn't fit the issue put on the table.

You're kneejerking and doing the "NRA Stonewall" on the basis of the headline, not the issue posed.
 
I only accept abortion if it's necessary for the woman's health.

Other than that, it is why there are the pill, condoms, diaphragms, and spermicides available.

EOD for me.

Interesting one - this is pretty topical right now because MArie Stopes have just set up their first clinic in Belfast.

It's caused a shit storm (as you might expect).

Out of the hot debate was a girl who had been impregnated by her father and wasn't allowed a termination because her health wasn't threatened.

Now that pisses me off. Who the fuck is anyone to hold sway over a girl in this scenario - or one of rape resulting in preganancy for that matter?
 
The article isn't about not having a baby; it's about designing the baby you'll accept and being content about aborting all of the fetuses who weren't moving in that direction.


The article is about a politician who thinks that designing a baby is even possible, and who wants to pass laws right this minute to prevent abortions for reasons that don't exist.

If you are truly worried that our society will embrace the concept of status babies, then that's a problem with the society that has fostered such a notion-- and that's a much bigger issue than a law like this one can handle.
And you are taking the same "all or nothing" stance the NRA takes on gun control here.
And that stance is working very well for the NRA, which is why they use it-- and so do we.

If someone knows that to give an inch is to lose the mile, what else do you expect? AS long as politicians try to pass laws without consideration for those affected-- and we have been witness to more than one thousand such laws in the past four years-- there will be no inches given.

Besides which, women, in general, actually want to have babies. it's a pretty fundamental thing for all humans.
 
Last edited:
The article isn't about not having a baby; it's about designing the baby you'll accept and being content about aborting all of the fetuses who weren't moving in that direction.

And you are taking the same "all or nothing" stance the NRA takes on gun control here.

Yep that's right - ALL women should have the right to have an abortion within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. No questions asked, except whether she has made the decision herself.

Until that goal is achieved, and all the anti-abortion terrorists are in jail where they belong, I do not think the rights of women are acknowledged and protected.

Anyway, I'm sure that by the time it's possible to make 'designer babies', they'll also be able to tell which fertilized egg has the desired traits. Because this would have to be done by the same technique that you use to help childless couples.
The idea that you would get your dream child by getting pregnant multiple times and checking if the embryo is what you want, is so ridiculous. So yes, you may have fertilized eggs that go to waste - if you classify this as abortion, well, then I'm out of the discussion.
 
And that stance is working very well for the NRA, which is why they use it-- and so do we.

That does say it all. The NRA is blindly on the right with their primary issue. And you are blindly on the left on yours. Both fit the definition of an unreasonable zealot.

And I reject both--because I have a brain, and I use it myself.
 
And that stance is working very well for the NRA, which is why they use it-- and so do we.

That does say it all. The NRA is blindly on the right with their primary issue. And you are blindly on the left on yours. Both fit the definition of an unreasonable zealot.

And I reject both--because I have a brain, and I use it myself.
That's a mighty superficial comparison.

You might as well say that your head and my asshole are the same because they both have a few hairs growing there.

:rolleyes:
 
Interesting one - this is pretty topical right now because MArie Stopes have just set up their first clinic in Belfast.

It's caused a shit storm (as you might expect).

Out of the hot debate was a girl who had been impregnated by her father and wasn't allowed a termination because her health wasn't threatened.

Now that pisses me off. Who the fuck is anyone to hold sway over a girl in this scenario - or one of rape resulting in preganancy for that matter?
I'm willing to add forced incest and/or rape/blackmail to the mix.

No one should have to deal with an unwanted child in either of those circumstances.

That leaves all the voluntary sex, and like I said, there's plenty of ways of stopping that.

Another good reason to EOD for me.
 
also, sometimes-- the birth control simply doesn't work.
That's why it's always a good idea to combine multiple forms of birth control, Stella. ;)

Otherwise you are just asking for trouble! It's why there are condoms with spermicide built-in.;)
 
That's why it's always a good idea to combine multiple forms of birth control, Stella. ;)

Otherwise you are just asking for trouble! It's why there are condoms with spermicide built-in.;)
Gosh, really? That must be something brand new! I guess those scientists really do think of everything.

Beats me why there are ANY abortions, after all that. :eek:

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
The twerp in Utah is trying to make a U.S. issue out of a very real problem in both China and India. Of course, in India it's worse because girl babies are often as not smothered at birth instead of being aborted. Nice one, that. In any event, the only problem for Americans along these lines is having some a$$hole stand up in a legislative body and fulminate about it. Idiot.
 
Yes... like not having it. ;)

Just saying -- that's really the only fool proof way.

There are other foolproof ways of having sex without risk of pregnancy. I'm extremely surprised that you, being an author on a porn site, seem unaware of that. :confused:
 
Last edited:
No say? That's a hot one. You want to talk about lopsided? Let's talk about the white men making the laws that restrict women's control over their own bodies. You fucking yutz.

I don't know if you or some others noticed it or not, but the pol. being cited in the OP is a woman. I don't know her race and I doubt that you do either. :confused:
 
The idea that you would get your dream child by getting pregnant multiple times and checking if the embryo is what you want, is so ridiculous.

And yet it already happens in the two largest countries in the world. It's just right now the only 'dream characteristic' that can reliably be tested for is sex (and the absence of certain genetic diseases). Do you honestly think that if there was a way to test other characteristics of the baby that would determine their likely success in life then people would not use it as a factor when making an abortion decision?
 
Last edited:
A woman who has an abortion just because she wants to-- for any reason-- is a woman who is not fit to be a mother at this time. Self defining.

This. If, by some hypothetical chance, some woman in Utah did want to abort her fetus because of its gender, what do we hope to gain from refusing her? Some kind of moral victory?

Coz, if this hypothetical woman doesn't want to carry a fetus based on it's gender (or any other reason for that matter) the likelihood of her taking adequate care of that unwanted infant once it's born is not good.

I'm pro-choice in any and all circumstances. Too many children go through hell because they are not wanted enough. Anything that prevents more children being born into circumstances like that has got to be a good thing.
 
Back
Top