Obama reverses abortion policy - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-24-2009, 01:26 PM   #91
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 10:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
I think what financeguy is trying to say, is people in third world countries - where often boys are favored more than girls - may abort the baby simply because it is a girl.

This is what makes me uneasy about Obama's plan. I am all for family planning, reducing birth rates, and so on. But I suspect that those in the third world may abuse the abortion access simply to get rid of the female babies. Which to me, adds up to infanticide.
How would they even know though? How many pregnant women in third world countries get ultrasounds, or any prenatal care at all?
__________________

__________________
Liesje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2009, 01:27 PM   #92
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 10:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
I think what financeguy is trying to say, is people in third world countries - where often boys are favored more than girls - may abort the baby simply because it is a girl.

This is what makes me uneasy about Obama's plan. I am all for family planning, reducing birth rates, and so on. But I suspect that those in the third world may abuse the abortion access simply to get rid of the female babies. Which to me, adds up to infanticide.
I think this argument is a bit silly to be honest with you.

First of all you can't even determine the sex of the baby until about 16 weeks (many don't find out until 20 weeks). That is well past the first trimester when almost all abortions are performed.

Second, even if you were bothered by the very small number of abortions performed beyond the first trimester, then you'd have to be working on the assumption that women in the third world have easy access to expensive ultrasound equipment and ultrasound technicians who would tell them the sex of the baby.

In conclusion, this is very tenuous argument to make. At best. And I don't think that this is what financeguy was talking about anyway.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2009, 02:10 PM   #93
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 11:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I think this argument is a bit silly to be honest with you.

First of all you can't even determine the sex of the baby until about 16 weeks (many don't find out until 20 weeks). That is well past the first trimester when almost all abortions are performed.

Second, even if you were bothered by the very small number of abortions performed beyond the first trimester, then you'd have to be working on the assumption that women in the third world have easy access to expensive ultrasound equipment and ultrasound technicians who would tell them the sex of the baby.

In conclusion, this is very tenuous argument to make. At best. And I don't think that this is what financeguy was talking about anyway.
Alrighty, you proved me wrong and I can live with that!
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2009, 02:20 PM   #94
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 03:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Your point can't be all that great if you have to resort to constant swearing and hyperbole to make it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
If I were truly lady-like, my language would reflect that. I must be a constant disappointment to gentlemen such as yourself.
martha = Mother Bear

__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2009, 02:27 PM   #95
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,886
Local Time: 10:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
I think what financeguy is trying to say, is people in third world countries - where often boys are favored more than girls - may abort the baby simply because it is a girl.

This is what makes me uneasy about Obama's plan. I am all for family planning, reducing birth rates, and so on. But I suspect that those in the third world may abuse the abortion access simply to get rid of the female babies. Which to me, adds up to infanticide.
I agree with you that there are some extreme groups who shouldn't see a dime from American taxpayers.

But Obama's executive order doesn't remove our discretion in doling out the funds. Hopefully it can be done in a bipartisan way.
__________________
Bluer White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2009, 03:10 PM   #96
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 03:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
First of all you can't even determine the sex of the baby until about 16 weeks (many don't find out until 20 weeks). That is well past the first trimester when almost all abortions are performed.

Second, even if you were bothered by the very small number of abortions performed beyond the first trimester, then you'd have to be working on the assumption that women in the third world have easy access to expensive ultrasound equipment and ultrasound technicians who would tell them the sex of the baby.
Thirdly, you'd then have to assume a woman makes the choice. There is some valid concern that with the knowledge of the gender of the baby, the decision belongs to the father/husband in countries where women have no rights.

During my ultrasound for my second daughter, the technician was very reluctant to express certainty that the baby was a girl. I understand that it's never 100% and people (that I personally know) have had surprises in the delivery room but when I pressed her on giving me a probability, she said "they" (as in clinic staff) won't give more than 50-50 before 20 weeks. I was baffled so I kept pressing and it turns out that there are times when girls are aborted for being girls in this particularly diverse Toronto neighbourhood.

I was shocked. I was disgusted. I was outraged. Then I was very very sad.

Now I'm even more determined that women take charge of their own fertility and have choice. I personally hope that we can all create the circumstances for as many woman as possible that the choice is life.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2009, 03:15 PM   #97
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 07:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post

Now I'm even more determined that women take charge of their own fertility and have choice. I personally hope that we can all create the circumstances for as many woman as possible that the choice is life.

__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2009, 03:20 PM   #98
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,886
Local Time: 10:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
I was baffled so I kept pressing and it turns out that there are times when girls are aborted for being girls in this particularly diverse Toronto neighbourhood.

I was shocked. I was disgusted. I was outraged. Then I was very very sad.

Now I'm even more determined that women take charge of their own fertility and have choice.
By 'choice' do you mean using science to control for the baby's gender?

Or 'choice' like it's usually discussed and argued?
__________________
Bluer White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2009, 03:21 PM   #99
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 07:33 PM
Reread the last sentence of her post.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2009, 03:22 PM   #100
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
just try and imagine how it feels in my place or any one else who is anti-abortion, when you go to pay your taxes...


i'm so not going to get into this thread, but please.

think of how i feel when my tax dollars go to invade Middle Eastern countries on the basis of lies.

/out
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2009, 10:33 PM   #101
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:33 AM
I've never read that women being 'forced' by male relatives to abort female fetuses is thought to be a major contributor to skewed sex ratios at birth in the countries currently showing the worst incidence of this problem--Armenia, Georgia, South Korea, India and China. Although, I'll admit I know almost nothing about the situation in the Transcaucasus. In Asia, severely skewed at-birth sex ratios (resulting from sex-selective abortion) are broadly associated with moderately-poor through to upper-middle-class people in the 'developing,' middle-tier countries (and their subregions of the same description)--as opposed to very poor people and/or 'underdeveloped' countries, who as anitram and Lies pointed out can't afford the ultrasound testing involved anyway. So basically, these are people who can afford access to modern medical technology and are comfortable using it, yet retain a 'traditional' mindset when it comes to family expectations--daughters will be married off and moved into their husbands' homes at a fairly young age, with a hefty dowry being paid to the husband's parents, and from there on out contribute nothing to their families of birth; sons may also marry fairly young, but in their case you get the dowry, their wives move into your household thus providing 'household help,' the sons carry on the family business, and finally it's the sons' expected duty to provide for you in old age (keep in mind, these countries are usually altogether lacking in 'eldercare systems' as we know them). So, there are complex traditional family support systems driving this preference for sons--daughters mean a net financial drain for the family, whereas sons offer net financial gain; it's not a simple question of abstract, reflexive 'taboos' against girls, and mothers are just as likely as their husbands to dread the prospect of bearing only daughters. India, China and South Korea have all passed laws banning the use of ultrasounds to determine sex, and it's illegal for doctors to report those results to their patients; but, like the anti-dowry laws that preceded them, these laws are poorly enforced (and hard to enforce), and the reality is that 'everyone knows' where you can find a doctor who'll happily offer an ultrasound-plus-abortion package for (at least in India) as little as $80. While that's still a lot of money to poorer and lower-middle-class couples, many of them will make the calculation that it's better to bite the bullet now and spare themselves far greater financial burdens later. South Korea has had some success bringing down their sex ratio (in the early '90s it hit 1.2 : 1, which I think was the highest at-birth sex ratio ever recorded for an entire country) though a combination of 'public education', enhanced law enforcement, and various incentives to encourage greater educational attainment and economic self-sufficiency for women; India and China are in the process of developing and deploying similar measures in their worst-afflicted regions, but they've a long way to go yet, and most demographers expect their sex ratios will continue to worsen for a while--both are currently at around 1.12--before they get better. (Biologically speaking, the at-birth 'norm' for humans ranges from roughly 1.03 - 1.07.) Regardless, it's extremely unlikely that humanitarian foreign aid could have any significant effects on this problem one way or the other.



As far as the relationship between abortion and adoption rates here in the US goes--it's actually almost certainly not true that blanket criminalization of abortion would mean a glut of infants in the foster care system. The infant relinquishment rate has held steady at around 13,000 infants per year for several decades now, despite abortion rates, net birthrates and single motherhood rates having fluctuated considerably during that same time period. And infants are almost always successfully placed for adoption within several months, maximum; it's the swelling numbers of older children in the foster care system that's the problem: most prospective adoptive parents strongly prefer a baby, while few are interested in, say, a 9-year-old with 'developmental issues' resulting from neglect or abuse in his or her birth family. Bottom line is, the data simply don't support the assumption that reducing abortion in itself means more women choosing to give up their babies for adoption--on the contrary, it seems much more likely that criminalizing abortion would only leave us with far more single mothers than we already have; that very few women would choose to relinquish their infants if they're going to have to go through carrying and bearing them in the first place.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2009, 11:37 AM   #102
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 10:33 PM
Quote:
i'm so not going to get into this thread, but please.

think of how i feel when my tax dollars go to invade Middle Eastern countries on the basis of lies.

/out
I totally understand, but I have no idea how many times I've posted that this isn't a thread about the middle east, and that the middle east has nothing to do with this topic...It seems everyone who quotes what I said turns it around on something that has nothing to do with this..honestly I don't want to discuss issues like this anymore because all us pro-life people do is get bashed.

oh and btw. Attended the March for Life on Thursday. Over half a million others attended. Two million at Obamas innauguration. They've been talked about that for weeks, and aren't done. I haven't even heard anything in the news about the March for Life.

But the "librul media" argument is total bullshit, right?
__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2009, 11:48 AM   #103
pgv
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,979
Local Time: 04:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
I totally understand, but I have no idea how many times I've posted that this isn't a thread about the middle east, and that the middle east has nothing to do with this topic...It seems everyone who quotes what I said turns it around on something that has nothing to do with this..honestly I don't want to discuss issues like this anymore because all us pro-life people do is get bashed.
Yes but you cannot make the argument of "our tax money is spent on this" as though it's the only thing your taxes are being spent on. It is completely off topic, as is that argument - which isn't an argument at all.
__________________
pgv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2009, 12:00 PM   #104
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 10:33 PM
Quote:
is completely off topic, as is that argument
how is it off-topic? I believe the topic is about obama reversing an abortion policy that uses our tax money on groups that support abortion...but me saying I don't like that is off-topic?
__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2009, 12:32 PM   #105
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 10:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
I totally understand, but I have no idea how many times I've posted that this isn't a thread about the middle east, and that the middle east has nothing to do with this topic...It seems everyone who quotes what I said turns it around on something that has nothing to do with this..honestly I don't want to discuss issues like this anymore because all us pro-life people do is get bashed.

oh and btw. Attended the March for Life on Thursday. Over half a million others attended. Two million at Obamas innauguration. They've been talked about that for weeks, and aren't done. I haven't even heard anything in the news about the March for Life.

But the "librul media" argument is total bullshit, right?
Yes, it is total bullshit.

Your tax dollars aren't funding abortions, they're funding organizations that dare to recognize that abortions exist. If anything, the media has lied to you and made issue more pro-choice than it actually is.
__________________

__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com