Post Reply
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Sweden dips to new low!
6 years ago  ::  May 14, 2009 - 10:49PM #1
Bodean
Posts: 9,709

Heard today on the news, that Sweden as approved the use of abotion if the child is not the sex that the couple wanted.


That's just wrong!


That has nothing to do with a woman's body .. that has everything to do with discrimination against the sex of the child.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 14, 2009 - 11:47PM #2
mountain_man
Posts: 40,292

May 14, 2009 -- 10:49PM, Bodean wrote:


Heard today on the news, that Sweden as approved the use of abotion if the child is not the sex that the couple wanted.




Accroding to many sources no one "approved" of gender based abortion. What actually happened is that a group of "health authorities" said it was not illegal according to the law.


Here's the whole, correct, story.


And, you'll find that most of us that are Pro Choice are against gender based abortion.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 18, 2009 - 12:25PM #3
Lonesentinel
Posts: 2,423

May 14, 2009 -- 11:47PM, mountain_man wrote:


May 14, 2009 -- 10:49PM, Bodean wrote:


Heard today on the news, that Sweden as approved the use of abotion if the child is not the sex that the couple wanted.




Accroding to many sources no one "approved" of gender based abortion. What actually happened is that a group of "health authorities" said it was not illegal according to the law.


Here's the whole, correct, story.


And, you'll find that most of us that are Pro Choice are against gender based abortion.




*chuckle* excuse me for my naivete on your position MM.


What is the problem, from your position, with choosing the sex of a child a woman wishes to birth?  I thought that you made it clear that a fetus is not a child until it is born? So why does it matter?

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 18, 2009 - 12:32PM #4
mountain_man
Posts: 40,292

May 18, 2009 -- 12:25PM, Lonesentinel wrote:


*chuckle* excuse me for my naivete on your position MM.


What is the problem, from your position, with choosing the sex of a child a woman wishes to birth?  I thought that you made it clear that a fetus is not a child until it is born? So why does it matter?




It matters. Just because one is pro CHOICE does not mean that we like abortion and think of it as nothing more than getting a hair cut.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 18, 2009 - 1:02PM #5
Lonesentinel
Posts: 2,423

May 18, 2009 -- 12:32PM, mountain_man wrote:


May 18, 2009 -- 12:25PM, Lonesentinel wrote:


*chuckle* excuse me for my naivete on your position MM.


What is the problem, from your position, with choosing the sex of a child a woman wishes to birth?  I thought that you made it clear that a fetus is not a child until it is born? So why does it matter?




It matters. Just because one is pro CHOICE does not mean that we like abortion and think of it as nothing more than getting a hair cut.




Fair enough - you have my attention and I do want to understand you.  I like to think that you have read my past posts here when I have debated from a Pro-life position.  I like to think that it was noticed that I did not quote from the bible (a useless exercize IMHO) and that I can see shades of color on this issue.  I admit that I have not spent countless hours in this forum as I have plenty of other battles to fight and there is not a law coming to vote soon on issues concerning this subject that I recognize presently.  So, I might have missed a post you have made that brought what I have read and understood as a unrelenting pro-choice position on all aspects of the issue to one a little less black & white. 


Before you made this assertion, I have avoided most postings of yours on abortion simply because I saw no common ground between us, and without common ground, what can be said but that we agree to disagree completely on the subject? This statement of yours gives us some common ground.  BTW, I have never thought that you, or anyone else on the PC side looked at abortion in a casual way.  Intelligent people realize medical procedures are serious matters with real possibility of serious consequences if 'complications' arise - and they still unexpectantly do arise even today.


So, just on this particular point I am simply trying to see your viewpoint.  Do you feel that using abortion to choose a child's sex as immoral, or something else?

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 18, 2009 - 1:59PM #6
mountain_man
Posts: 40,292

May 18, 2009 -- 1:02PM, Lonesentinel wrote:


 


Fair enough - you have my attention and I do want to understand you. .... So, I might have missed a post you have made that brought what I have read and understood as a unrelenting pro-choice position on all aspects of the issue to one a little less black & white. 




You probably missed the post where I echoed the feelings/beliefs of many (if not most) pro CHOICERS, in that none of us like abortion. We are not pro abortion, we are pro CHOICE. I also stated that, the way I think now, if I were a woman and pregnant that I probably would not choose to have an abortion. Since I've been male all my life, I don't know how much weight that claim can carry, but you get my point. I've also said that there is a POTENTIAL there that needs to be respected. However, that potential cannot have more rights than a fully developed, and living, human. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy would be giving that potential more rights than she has. That, and it is highly immoral to force a woman to do something with her body that she does not want to do.



Before you made this assertion, I have avoided most postings of yours on abortion simply because I saw no common ground between us,.....


So, just on this particular point I am simply trying to see your viewpoint.  Do you feel that using abortion to choose a child's sex as immoral, or something else?




Maybe, if you did like Obama said and stopped demonizing the PC side, you might have understood that we have much in common - none of us like abortion.


I would not say that sex based abortion is immoral, it's not right, I don't like it, and it should be discouraged. Make it illegal? I don't know about that. Now, if a couple has 5 girls and wants a boy - I'd say they should have only had two kids to begin with - but I could understand. If a couple believed that boys were better, as in many societies, I'd say that they should change the society.


I have two girls and have never regretted that in any way.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 18, 2009 - 2:30PM #7
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

There are many, legitimate reasons to eliminate a pregnancy based on gender.  Many sex-linked diseases can be expressed in male offspring, for instance, including hemophilia, sickle-cell disease, and others.  A family that chose not to give birth to a male child knowing that a male would bear a far more likely risk of one of these conditions cannot be faulted.


 

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 18, 2009 - 4:16PM #8
Lonesentinel
Posts: 2,423

May 18, 2009 -- 1:59PM, mountain_man wrote:


You probably missed the post where I echoed the feelings/beliefs of many (if not most) pro CHOICERS, in that none of us like abortion. We are not pro abortion, we are pro CHOICE. I also stated that, the way I think now, if I were a woman and pregnant that I probably would not choose to have an abortion. Since I've been male all my life, I don't know how much weight that claim can carry, but you get my point. I've also said that there is a POTENTIAL there that needs to be respected. However, that potential cannot have more rights than a fully developed, and living, human. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy would be giving that potential more rights than she has. That, and it is highly immoral to force a woman to do something with her body that she does not want to do.


Maybe, if you did like Obama said and stopped demonizing the PC side, you might have understood that we have much in common - none of us like abortion.


I would not say that sex based abortion is immoral, it's not right, I don't like it, and it should be discouraged. Make it illegal? I don't know about that. Now, if a couple has 5 girls and wants a boy - I'd say they should have only had two kids to begin with - but I could understand. If a couple believed that boys were better, as in many societies, I'd say that they should change the society.


I have two girls and have never regretted that in any way.




I don't think I have demonized the whole PC movement - just those who would equate a fetus to a 'parasite'.  We both have seen this conversation, and though the accusation was likely submitted by a PL'er, there were a few on the PC side who grabbed the label and hoisted it proudly to the annoyance of some who would stand beside them to protect the choice. New defining labels have come on to the scene - Pro-Life is one of them replacing the 'anti-abortionist' label as many of us are not true 'anti-abortionists' as we DO see shades of color in the issue.


Now, admittedly, many anti's also call themselves pro-life which dilutes the differences from someone who sees in black & white from one who sees in color, but leans toward restricting choice (where I stand).  In past posts that I have read, I admit that I have seen more stand up on the choice side to define themselves from a true 'abortionist's ' opinion (the vocal one much more rare than an anti). It seems to me that both sides need to look carefully at what an individual says and truly see if you are comfortable standing next to them due to where they set their line of acceptability on the abortion issue. Just my 2 pennies...

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 18, 2009 - 4:21PM #9
Lonesentinel
Posts: 2,423

May 18, 2009 -- 2:30PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


There are many, legitimate reasons to eliminate a pregnancy based on gender.  Many sex-linked diseases can be expressed in male offspring, for instance, including hemophilia, sickle-cell disease, and others.  A family that chose not to give birth to a male child knowing that a male would bear a far more likely risk of one of these conditions cannot be faulted.




How often do you feel that sex-linked diseases is a legitimate issue for an abortion?  Since you feel that there are many legitimate reasons, what are they?  Is it too difficult to list, let us say, 5 more of these reasons?

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 18, 2009 - 5:25PM #10
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

May 18, 2009 -- 4:21PM, Lonesentinel wrote:


May 18, 2009 -- 2:30PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:


There are many, legitimate reasons to eliminate a pregnancy based on gender.  Many sex-linked diseases can be expressed in male offspring, for instance, including hemophilia, sickle-cell disease, and others.  A family that chose not to give birth to a male child knowing that a male would bear a far more likely risk of one of these conditions cannot be faulted.




How often do you feel that sex-linked diseases is a legitimate issue for an abortion?  Since you feel that there are many legitimate reasons, what are they?  Is it too difficult to list, let us say, 5 more of these reasons?




I think sex-linked disease is ALWAYS a legitimate rationale for an abortion.  Every child born deserves to be a healthy child.  If a family chooses to give birth but knows the mother is a carrier for a sex-linked disease (or the father, there are a few female sex-linked diseases as well), choosing to know the fetus' gender to end the pregnancy is always an acceptable rationale.


Other reasons may include:


1.  A family tendency toward a serious mental illness that is more prevalent among one sex or the other.  Schizophrenia is an example.


2.  Living in a cultural system in which only males inherit and females receive nothing, and the only support for the unmarried sisters after the father's death would be a brother, and the mother's childbearing years are coming to an end.


3.  Living in a totalitarian state where there is only one child permitted by law, and the parents are farmers or need a son to perform some other form of manual labor or to support them in their old age (in China, culturally, girls support their parents-in-law).


4.  Although I wouldn't do this, I can understand emotionally why a family who had lost a child of one gender at an early age, say, SIDS, would want to give birth to a child of the same gender.


I don't think we are, any of us, in a position to second guess why a family would choose to sex-select.  The best thing we can do is let the people most intimately concerned with the decision make  the best decision they can, given their particular circumstances.


 

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook