All abortions are equal,,,,,,,but

[Ishmael]

some abortions appear to be less equal than others. At least according to the British Parliament.

Sex selection abortions now illegal.

I suppose that some level of review is still to be met before this becomes the law of the land, but the vote count is an impressive show of bi-partisanship (181-1).

I broached this subject years ago (2002-2003) with some mixed results, as there always is when this subject comes up. My specific subject was 'gender preference' driven reason for elective abortions with passing reference to the practice of 'gender specific' elective abortions. And now the time is at hand.

What baffles me is the intellectual disconnect on display by the British Parliament. How can abortions for no reason whatsoever be perfectly legal while abortions for some specific reason be deemed to be illegal? The future of abortion is plain to see, at least in the UK. Parliament will necessarily now embark on creating a laundry list of reasons that the woman will be disallowed from using to obtain an abortion. And who is to determine with certainty exactly what the 'real' reason is? Obviously any woman with any mental capacity at all is NOT going to select from the disallowed list. How can such a law be enforced without the scepter of culturally/racially driven discrimination rearing its ugly head?

Ishmael

 

[Saint Peter]

If you do not want a child you should not have a child.

The planet will get along just fine without your unloved offspring.

 

[Ishmael]

If you do not want a child you should not have a child.

The planet will get along just fine without your unloved offspring.

Is it safe to say that you think the law is stupid then Petey?

Ishmael

 

[about_average]

Maybe the UK looked at some other countries.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110314132244.htm

 

[Ishmael]

Maybe the UK looked at some other countries.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110314132244.htm

Who cares? They are the first western nation to take this step.

Ishmael

 

[about_average]

Who cares?

It could be they care.
Or it could be, as said in the article you linked, to help "protect women who are under often violent pressure from partners to have a male child.".
Or maybe it's a combination of those two reasons plus others.

They are the first western nation to take this step.

"Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Finland and the Netherlands all have laws banning sex-selection abortions."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-rejects-ban-on-sex-selection-abortions/

 

[PoppingTom]

some abortions appear to be less equal than others. At least according to the British Parliament.

Sex selection abortions now illegal.

What's your problem? The abortion? Or that only sex selection at it is forbidden?

Most women do abortion because of necessity, or because they're forced. Not because they're bored. Making a sex selection illegal prevents from the most outrageous reason for an abortion. It's a sign of respect for the living.

 

[Erochic]

I know places where they will deliberately not tell you the sex until a fairly late date because of this fact.

 

[subdued_passion]

Sex selective abortions are illegal in India (Doctors and clinics found guilty of conducting these practices can lose their license.

If you do not want a child you should not have a child.

The planet will get along just fine without your unloved offspring.

I agree with this in general, but on a personal level I feel the need to persecute the asshole that could only love his or her son and not daughter.

 

[Ishmael]

It could be they care.
Or it could be, as said in the article you linked, help "protect women who are under often violent pressure from partners to have a male child.".
Or maybe it's a combination of those two reasons plus others.

You throw out 'reasons' while avoiding the intellectual trap that this legislation engenders. That makes you guilty of 'logic of convenience.' By employing that particular tactic one can justify ANYTHING based on situational and arbitrary circumstances.

To be perfectly clear, I am, and always have been, pro-choice. Perhaps not for the same reasons of others in that camp, but pro-choice none-the-less. And I find this law to be an abomination. You either support abortion on demand regardless of the reason, or no reason at all, or you don't. And if abortion on demand can be chosen for NO REASON what-so-ever, how can one then turn around and start applying specific reasons to deny an abortion on demand? The list of reasons to deny an abortion on demand is now open for expansion to the point where abortion will become a virtual illegal activity.

The reasoning behind the "protection from pressure from their partner' is also specious. If anything it's more likely to subject the woman to even greater abuse from their partners up to and including abandonment, leaving the state (taxpayer) to foot the bill for the child.

Ishmael

 

[about_average]

Did you get this bent out of shape and irrational when all the other western countries made it illegal?

 

[sigh]

I think, Ish, that what they tried to make illegal (in a roundabout, backass kind of way) is for someone (spouse in particular) to be able to force a woman to have an abortion. It would be really hard, though, for a government to prove or enforce a law prohibiting that, so they chose the most likely reason for an abortion that could result from that sort of pressure.

Selective abortions happen all the time, of course. Down Syndrome is slowly disappearing because of this. Once other genetic markers for congenital defects are identified, and as easily tested for during pregnancy as Downs, then they will slowly decline as well. This isn't really an issue about abortion. It's one of selecting your child's genome. Abortion is the selection tool of the moment. When pre-conception genetic manipulation becomes a more exact science, then abortion will drop out of this particular picture.

 

[Ishmael]

I think, Ish, that what they tried to make illegal (in a roundabout, backass kind of way) is for someone (spouse in particular) to be able to force a woman to have an abortion. It would be really hard, though, for a government to prove or enforce a law prohibiting that, so they chose the most likely reason for an abortion that could result from that sort of pressure.

Selective abortions happen all the time, of course. Down Syndrome is slowly disappearing because of this. Once other genetic markers for congenital defects are identified, and as easily tested for during pregnancy as Downs, then they will slowly decline as well. This isn't really an issue about abortion. It's one of selecting your child's genome. Abortion is the selection tool of the moment. When pre-conception genetic manipulation becomes a more exact science, then abortion will drop out of this particular picture.

I fully understand the reasoning sigh. That's not even the subject of the discussion I'm trying to have.

Ishmael

 

[about_average]

Selective abortions happen all the time, of course. Down Syndrome is slowly disappearing because of this. Once other genetic markers for congenital defects are identified, and as easily tested for during pregnancy as Downs, then they will slowly decline as well. This isn't really an issue about abortion. It's one of selecting your child's genome. Abortion is the selection tool of the moment. When pre-conception genetic manipulation becomes a more exact science, then abortion will drop out of this particular picture.

"Morality" aside, I can't think of any societal downside to congenital defects being removed from the gene pool via selecting your child's genome. Likewise I can't think of any societal upside to sex selection.

 

[subdued_passion]

"Morality" aside, I can't think of any societal downside to congenital defects being removed from the gene pool via selecting your child's genome. Likewise I can't think of any societal upside to sex selection.

Yup. If we want to understand why should gender selective abortions be made illegal we only need to look at the adverse effects of the disparity in the male to female ratios in countries where these practices went unchecked.

 

[Ishmael]

"Morality" aside, I can't think of any societal downside to congenital defects being removed from the gene pool via selecting your child's genome. Likewise I can't think of any societal upside to sex selection.

Yup. If we want to understand why should gender selective abortions be made illegal we only need to look at the adverse effects of the disparity in the male to female ratios in countries where these practices went unchecked.

I'll make one more attempt at clarification.

You folks would be making a HUGE mistake in assuming that I don't agree with some of the reasoning.

BUT​

I also understand the utter, and complete, intellectual dishonesty I would be engaging in to on the one hand to say I support abortion on demand and then to turn around and start concocting a laundry list of reasons why I would ban abortion on demand.

Ishmael

 

[RobDownSouth]

I fully understand the reasoning sigh. That's not even the subject of the discussion I'm trying to have.

Ishmael

So let's see if I understand you correctly then:

"Oh NOE! WOMEN ARE HAVING ELECTIVE ABORTIONS BECAUSE OF" sex selection - Germane to discussion

"Oh NOE! WOMEN ARE HAVING ELECTIVE ABORTIONS BECAUSE OF" birth defects - NOT Germane to discussion

Am I hearin' you right?

 

[sigh]

I fully understand the reasoning sigh. That's not even the subject of the discussion I'm trying to have.

Ishmael

On the contrary, it has everything to do with the discussion you're trying to have. You say there is no logic in allowing most abortions, but denying these. My point is, the logic in denying these particular abortions has nothing to do with the abortion debate at all, but is actually about something else altogether.

The law seems pretty silly, though. How can it be enforced? Only the woman coming for the abortion knows her real reasons for asking for one. If she wants to select the gender of her child, she simply doesn't have to mention that that's her reason. Hell, she doesn't have to give a reason at all.

 

[subdued_passion]

I'll make one more attempt at clarification.

You folks would be making a HUGE mistake in assuming that I don't agree with some of the reasoning.

BUT​

I also understand the utter, and complete, intellectual dishonesty I would be engaging in to on the one hand to say I support abortion on demand and then to turn around and start concocting a laundry list of reasons why I would ban abortion on demand.

Ishmael

No, Ishmael, I didn't assume you were for gender discriminating abortions. I did realise you were trying to have a discussion on why one form of it is okay while another is not but I chose not to touch that discussion as I'm afraid we'd end up in the same place as the post birth abortion one.

Instead of a thinking exercise these discussions do end up in a manner that makes the party speaking against abortion come across as a female hater. Once that happens all hope for a discussion is lost.

 

[Ishmael]

On the contrary, it has everything to do with the discussion you're trying to have. You say there is no logic in allowing most abortions, but denying these. My point is, the logic in denying these particular abortions has nothing to do with the abortion debate at all, but is actually about something else altogether.

The law seems pretty silly, though. How can it be enforced? Only the woman coming for the abortion knows her real reasons for asking for one. If she wants to select the gender of her child, she simply doesn't have to mention that that's her reason. Hell, she doesn't have to give a reason at all.

Which, as I already addressed, leaves the door open for the state to 'intuit' her non-reason. And you know as well as I do that if they can, they will.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

No, Ishmael, I didn't assume you were for gender discriminating abortions. I did realise you were trying to have a discussion on why one form of it is okay while another is not but I chose not to touch that discussion as I'm afraid we'd end up in the same place as the post birth abortion one.

Instead of a thinking exercise these discussions do end up in a manner that makes the party speaking against abortion come across as a female hater. Once that happens all hope for a discussion is lost.

This is true. And even if you're 'for it' there are a few mental defectives that will insist you're 'agin' it.'

Ishmael

 

[sigh]

"Morality" aside, I can't think of any societal downside to congenital defects being removed from the gene pool via selecting your child's genome. Likewise I can't think of any societal upside to sex selection.

When you play games with the gene pool, it's hard to predict the outcomes. Many of the "quirks" in genius level intellects are suspected to be closely linked to various genetic traits found in those considered to be defective. If we pull those markers from the pool, we might reduce the number of those who are considered defective, but could also reduce the number of those who have historically led to our greatest advancements.

In other words, we could end up with a whole bunch of really pretty but woefully average people.

 

[sigh]

Which, as I already addressed, leaves the door open for the state to 'intuit' her non-reason. And you know as well as I do that if they can, they will.

Ishmael

Explain this process to me, please. How can they intuit someone's reason if no reason is required at all. I agree they would do it if they could, but this is bordering on paranoia.

 

[Ishmael]

When you play games with the gene pool, it's hard to predict the outcomes. Many of the "quirks" in genius level intellects are suspected to be closely linked to various genetic traits found in those considered to be defective. If we pull those markers from the pool, we might reduce the number of those who are considered defective, but could also reduce the number of those who have historically led to our greatest advancements.

In other words, we could end up with a whole bunch of really pretty but woefully average people.

*chuckle* Kinda on the verge of the genetic imposition of 'social justice.' You gotta love it!

Ishmael

 

[sigh]

*chuckle* Kinda on the verge of the genetic imposition of 'social justice.' You gotta love it!

Ishmael

I used to be frightened for the future of our country and culture. Now I'm worrying about the future of our species. I need to find a nice hole and stick my head in it for awhile.