Unnatural Selection

I'm back.

Can't argue with that person's choice!

On the serious side, while the "natural" ration may be 105, it is also "natural" to want to be provided for in old age.  In many cultures, boys are that avenue (women marry the sons and move in with the in-laws).  So I guess the most surprising aspect of the book/article is that anyone is surprised.

But I would like to ask what parts you disagree with.

And welcome back!  It is good to see you back in the saddle again.

That's good.

Sex abortion, "gendercide" is something everyone should know about, so thank you for coming back and posting an article that packs such a powerful message.

Does JU finally let me post with Firefox?

Great!

My last few replies were "submitting" forever...

I disagree with the proposal that abortion of a child with a genetic disorder (like Down syndrome) is the same as abortion of a child because she is a girl or the wrong star sign. (Of course I don't even believe in the latter being a notable difference at all.)

I can understand a woman who aborts a child because of a genetic disorder. She does it because she feels she cannot handle more responsibility then she signed up for. It's not the same as aborting a healthy child.

Finally, I do not believe that an unborn child is a human being or even a lifeform before it starts growing (i.e. within the first trimester). It is only a potential life form.

Note that as a potential life form the foetus does warant protection. It may not be aborted for no good reason because potential life is worth more than no life at all. And only lifeless things may be treated arbitrarily and without respect.

If the life of the mother is at stake, abortion is not only allowed but mandatory, I believe, because the life of the mother is worth more than the potential life of her child. This is the usual Jewish position, orthodox and liberal.

That's what I thought.

I also thought somebody should direct attention towards it because, frankly, I have found that that subject is usually forgotten when abortion is discussed.

This is an issue that makes abortion problematic regardless of what one's beliefs are (unless one's beliefs are that girls are worth less than boys).

I don't think that position is absurd.

Even if abortion is totally legal, children should not be aborted for arbitrary reasons.

Aborting a child because she is a girl is almost completely arbitrary, more arbitrary than aborting a child for life style reasons.

If a woman decides to abort because a child doesn't fit into her plans, that's terrible. But if she decides to aborth because a boy would fit into a plans but a girl would not, that is, in my opinion, even worse. It's almost a caricature of the first.

There are many reasons for an abortion, some I accept, some I don't. But the gender of the child is beyond what I would find even UNacceptable.

I have been using Palemoon for a few months now.  A few quirks, but otherwise excellent!

I can see arguments for it being the same.  Clearly the desire for a male is based upon economics (male providing for the parents, also no dowry), as is the case for the Down's syndrome (if the parent had the money, wet nurses and nurse maids are not an issue).

While you and I disagree on that point, I reread the article and it seems the author is in agreement with you.  Hence my quandry of the disagreement (I may have missed it, if so sorry).

I did not see that in the article, but I will disagree with  you there.  I think the decision is the mother's and father's (with the tie breaker going to the mother).  Mandatory is just too strong a word there.

from post #4

Lula

I do based on the point made by the writer of the link. He writes Ms. H. is attempting to serve two diametrically opposed ideas. We are talking about where "Choice" leads and we see that that "Choice" is arbitrary."Choice", the intentional decision of killing a baby in the womb, is made as best suits the convenience of the individual or the state.  

This is where "Choice" leads because abortion is said to solve the unwanted problem, whatever that might be.

Abortion serves itself because an unwanted baby for whatever reason is killed every time. No matter what, this is where Choice leads. That's why I think all abortion is absurd and allowing it as a so called "woman's right" is absurd.

But the tragic reality of it is, children are being aborted for arbitrary reasons. It's called "Choice" and it's really "abortion on demand", an individual or state solution to an unwanted problem.

"Mandatory" is the correct term.

The mother and father use their own beliefs to make the decision and Jewish ethics make it mandatory to abort to save the life of the mother. It's not subject for discussion.

"Mandatory" here does not mean that the government makes it mandatory for people to decide so, it means that it is mandatory in Jewish ethics. Other systems might see it differently.

And here is the problem. Different religions have different definitions of when human life starts. Judaism differentiates between life and potential life, Christianity perhaps doesn't. Some atheist ethical systems (and some atheist lack of ethical systems) have different views again.

If abortion is totally legal, all religions and views can be accomododated and everyone can follow their own beliefs. (This is why the majority of Jews in the US vote for legal abortion even though they typically against abortion and their religion doesn't generally allow it.)

If abortion is made illegal because Christianity says human life begins at conception, the state is favouring one religion over others. In the US, it must not do that. (In Germany abortion is illegal because the state can favour one religion over others.)

If abortion is made illegal because a majority of voters are Christians and vote to make it illegal, the state is democratic but violating the rights of other religions (for example by condeming some Jewish women to death despite the fact that their own religion would save them if they were allowed to follow it).

In other words, making abortion illegal is not a solution.

But legalising it is not a solution either, because it will mean that people will simply kill unborn life on-demand.

I don't see a way out except making abortion legally difficult.

Note that I do not believe that abortion outside of cases where it must be done to save the life of the mother should be covered by any government-sponsored health insurance.

I totally agree with the assessment. Legal abortion allow for abortion for arbitrary reasons.

Abortion should not be legal. It should be regulated.

This just reminds me of the San Francisco circumcision discussion where people claim that circumcision must be made illegal because of the (alleged) harm it causes children. I do wonder if supporters of that idea are as worried about the complete baby as they are about the tip of the baby's penis.

I did not want to repeat your entire post, and yet found it hard to pick one sentence that would define it all, so I did the worst thing, just snipped it all.  Sorry,

The legality or illegality of abortion cannot be decided upon until society decides what is or is not life.  It really has nothing to do with religion.  MY beliefs do.  But my beliefs, my religion is not society.  Therefore, making abortion illegal is an option.  If that is the final findings of society about what is life.  period.  Some religions (cults) like to sacrifice virgins, yet society does not allow them to follow their religion.  So it has nothing really to do with religion (other than how each member approaches it).

But abortion was never illegal in the United states.  You will not find that in many places, and especially not by the pro-abortion crowd, but the truth is often inconvenient to the rabid zealots.  Abortion has been illegal in some states in the United States, but it has never been a federal law.  Roe v. Wade basically usurped the states right to chose what their society thought about life.  Since the issue was never decided upon by the society, it continues to be a great source of conflict in this country for that reason.  the UK passed a law.  As did most other countries.  The US never has.

Finally, I again disagree with the mandatory part.  It may be a MANDATORY tenet in the Jewish religion, but that does not make it mandatory for anyone really.  People are constantly violating their faith's tenets (it is called sin).  So while that is your faith, I object to you imposing your will even on another member of your faith.  Clearly a life will perish due to the dilemma.  But the only ones that have a right to decide which life are those that own them.  And since the child has no voice, it falls to the only one with a voice.

My faith says Abortion is murder.  I personally agree with my faith.  However, I know many Catholics (Biden, Kerry, Kennedy, etc.) that would abort a baby for having a wart.  I think they are wrong (and evil, but that is another discussion), but it is not my right to restrict them from doing it.  I disapprove, but I cannot control.  That is why mandatory is too strong a term (IMHO).

Who said it would?

When did I do that?

The US are supposed to be a secular state. That means that either no religion should have any influence on politics based on it being a religion or all religions should be accomodated as well as they can be.

If abortion is illegal, many people cannot practice their religion (like Judaism which mandates abortion in certain circumstances) and many people cannot escape religion (like people who believe that a foetus is not a human being).

I only see three solutions for this problem:

1. A strong man makes a decision when life starts and hence when human rights start for biomass.

2. The people regularly vote (or their representatives do) on that subject.

3. We find a compromise somehow.

Very well stated Leauki 

it was the royal you - not you Leauki.

no, a secular state means there is no religious test of laws or public officials.  religion will always have influence as those following it are going to be making the laws.  So the constitution made sure that one religion (the majority at the time - Christian) could not write laws that would adversely affect other religions (banning atheism or Mormonism) within reason.

But the second part of your statement also goes to the issue at hand.  "accommodated as well as they can be".  In other words, no virgin sacrifices.  That also goes to abortion.  Should it be decided (or proven - the less likely scenario) that human life begins at conception, then abortion is murder - the same as virgin sacrifices - and no religious tenets can be used to circumvent that law.  Judaism also has a teaching about stoning those caught in adultery - yet that part of the religion (although not practiced today) is not permitted.

As for your 3 scenarios, the first is too much like religion and I hope never comes to pass (although with this president, it is not beyond the realm of possibility with his insistence on ignoring laws he does not like).  The last unfortunately is not possible as you are asking some to "half kill" an individual.  Which leaves the second one, and that is what this country needs.  However it has been denied that right and privilege due to extremely bad case law.  So it will take a constitutional amendment (or much less likely, a reversal of a bad ruling) to allow the American people to decide that for themselves.  At this time, should it ever be put to a vote, I can almost guarantee you that Abortion would not be made illegal.  However, by the same token, i can almost guarantee you that significant restrictions would be placed upon it in all states.  The problem is, those restrictions, in many states, would be arbitrary (such as the topic du jour - gendercide).  A woman who wants a boy will find an excuse to abort a girl.

Test reply

I've been reading about the attempts at population control in the Philippines and how the well funded abortion industry is currently trying to ram new legislation through that would cripple the birthrates.  Leauki, the "strong men" here would be those legislators in the Phillipines. The Phillipine Constitution in Article II, Section 12 provides that the "State shall equally protect the life of...the unborn from conception."  The Phillipine Congress wanting to leave no doubt about its intentions and no room for misinterpretation, defined the word conception in medical terms, as the fertilization of the ovum.

The Phillipines is the last country standing (majority Catholic btw) that recognizes and values appropriately that women conceive and nurture new human life.

Good job explaining that.

It's already been proven Doc, but the abortion crowd likes to engage in the obvious subterfuge.

Claiming that human life does not begin in the womb violates not only science, but common sense as well.

India: rewards offered in new bid to stop sex-selection abortion

July 04, 2011

The Indian Medical Association, the country’s largest group of physicians, is offering financial reward to anyone who can help identify doctors performing illegal sex-determination tests on unborn children.

Plagued by sex-selection abortions, which have caused a severe imbalance in the ratio of male to female babies, India has outlawed sex-selection abortion (although abortion is generally legal) and even banned sex-determination tests. But many doctors apparently ignore the law.

On July 1—“Doctors’ Day” in India—the Medical Association announced a plan to give $2,250 to anyone who could provide evidence leading to the prosecution of doctors who perform sex-determination tests. The group promised to keep the informers’ names secret.

The campaign against sex-selection abortions took on new energy when a doctor in New Delhi, who had been at the forefront of the campaign, was exposed for having performed the same illegal sex-determination tests that she had publicly condemned.

The nationwide census in 2011 confirmed the severity of India’s problem, showing that there are 7 million girl babies “missing” in the population under the age of 6, evidently as the result of sex-selection abortions.