SevenSquared
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- May 9, 2011
- Posts
- 332
Quote:
How on Earth can anybody get anything politically partisan out of this thread?
Maybe by looking at your post and then scrolling up about 8 inches.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quote:
How on Earth can anybody get anything politically partisan out of this thread?
Maybe by looking at your post and then scrolling up about 8 inches.
Wow . . . you've posted a whole lot of boneheaded statements, Box, but that ranks right near the top.
And I laughed at the suggestion of the rest of the paragraph. Science has been capable of much of this for decades. Although it comes before the "fetus in the womb" business (and thus isn't connected with the "abortion until you get the order you placed" issue), my wife, the at-that-time nurse, and all of her nurse friends were prearranging the sex they wanted their baby to be forty years ago. Being traditionalists and liberal leaning, we decided we wanted a boy first and a girl second, three years apart, and to stop there. My wife said there were medical ways to stand a great chance of that happening. We had a boy and three years later almost to the day we had a girl--and that was that. But again, this was by using science at the front end, not aborting until we got what we wanted.
Abortion, by the way, isn't riskless to the mother, especially done repeatedly. And I can guarantee that there are folks in nearly every woman's life who have a stake in how she risks her life. No woman is an island.
Yes, I know the thread as you posted and headlined it had nothing to do with eugenics, Box. The point you continually have missed (or purposely overlooked), though, is that the topic of the article you referenced has everything to do with eugenics. You were the one who screwed this thread up from the getgo. This is nothing new for you, though.
I hope you are not going to say scientists can now take an egg and sperm and change the genes. In other words, if a man and woman, both short and with dark hair came to their ON and said they wanted to produce offspring who were tall and blonde, it could be done by making changes in his sperm and her eg? That and other changes in genes would be true eugenics, and I doubt it will ever happen.
"Straw person" LOL! PC FTW.I still say the news item had nothing to do with eugenics. It was about a woman trying to legally prevent other women from getting abortions, however she may have presented her opinion. In other words, eugenics, even the minimal level that would be involved, was being used as a straw person to hide the legislator's true agenda.
Maybe by looking at your post and then scrolling up about 8 inches.
Quote:
Do you mean those items about some Reps saying and doing some dumb things over the last 17 years or so? That has nothing to do with the thread; it is actually a threadjack.
Well in light of the fact I've been sent PMs telling me I have no business being in this thread if I don't have an opinion on American politics, I hope you can forgive my confusion.
Going back and rereading this thread our fundamental disagreement seems to be on the viability of eugenics.
You appear to hold the belief (correct me if I'm wrong) that the ability to control the characteristics of our offspring (beyond what we can already do anyway) is several generations away. So any attempt to legislate, or even discuss, whether abortions based on the characteristics of the baby should be legal should just be seen as nothing more than an attack on women's right to choose.
I hold the belief that 'eugenics' is in fact already here and the ability to terminate based on the sex and race of the baby is just the tip of a large iceberg of questions that we, as a society, have to face on this subject sooner rather than later. Therefore I feel that the beliefs (call it partisan political or pro-life movement or whatever you like) of the person proposing this legislation are irrelevant and it should be discussed on its merits rather than trying to drag it into a tired pro-life/pro-choice debate.
I understand (and have some sympathy for) your position, I just don't happen to agree with it.
I think carte blanche IS the best policy. Otherwise, it's not actually "right to choose." It's something more like... "Right to choose IF your reason is on this here list of approved reasons and if it doesn't you are simply not as important as that fetus, sorry about that." 1) Although there were millions of abortions in China, there are STILL millions of births as well. Then, now and on going.
2) Your reasoning seems to imply that those little girls regret the chance to never come to be. They don't. They don't exist in any way shape or form.
In fact they were never "little girls" in the first place, they were embryos.
So what if the population is imbalanced towards males right now? It's temporary, I assure you. Women make babies, and the babies tend towards 51% female.
3) How do you expect that we can "prefigure height, hair, blue (of course you think it has to be blue) eyes?" What tests can be developed to find those things out prebirth?
.
Twice a year and you'd wipe out the population in a remarkably short time.
Even if there were no problems of food, etc., you only have to look at a Giant Panda as a species that's run itself into a cul-de-sac.
I'm not sure I'm following you, my dear.
Republicans don't have doubts. They have convictions.
Similar to your conviction that American political party platforms do not inform political measures generated by American politicians.