Liesje
Blue Crack Addict
How would they even know though? How many pregnant women in third world countries get ultrasounds, or any prenatal care at all?
Obama reverses abortion policy
- Thread starter The_Pac_Mule
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
How would they even know though? How many pregnant women in third world countries get ultrasounds, or any prenatal care at all?
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!
AliEnvy
Refugee
Bluer White
New Yorker
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.
AliEnvy
Refugee
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.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Bluer White
New Yorker
By 'choice' do you mean using science to control for the baby's gender?
Or 'choice' like it's usually discussed and argued?
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Reread the last sentence of her post.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
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
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
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.
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.
Last edited:
OP
OP
The_Pac_Mule
Refugee
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?
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.
OP
OP
The_Pac_Mule
Refugee
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?
phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
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
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
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 groups aren't solely supporting abortions. It's ANY group that recognizes them and gives information about them. That reaches across a large spectrum.
If I were you, I'd be much more concerned about the real problems with how your tax money is being spent. This is not one of them.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
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.
Do not play victim. You made a point of not wanting your tax dollars to do this, so they made a point that they don't want their tax dollars to do that. Simple as that, don't pretend that your point is more valid.
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?
What kind of news are you watching? I've heard about it...
OP
OP
The_Pac_Mule
Refugee
I was referring to the march for life.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
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?
I'm sure you had fun at the March for "Life."
You probably don't remember the Reagan years, do you? Every December 28, the anti-choice forces would gather for a huge March for "Life" or whatever it was called back then. They would march down the Mall in DC, and our President would phone them, his words of encouragement broadcast to the crowd. They would carry placards decorated with photos of aborted fetuses, they would chant their slogans of hate towards the women who had dared to take charge of their reproductive system. All this was on the news, and the merits of each side would be analyzed.
No one carried placards showing the women dead from bleeding to death after an illegal abortion gone bad, no one chanted slogans about women's bodies destroyed by illegal abortions. And, oddly enough, no one donated any money to causes which promoted education about birth control.
So you go to your Marches for "Life." You whine about African women being given family planning information with the one hundred dollars in taxes that you pay, you go ahead and complain that no one understands how sad it is to be a young man in America who supports forcing women to give birth.
We'll all listen.
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?
If Obama's decision was to be reversed, do you think your taxes would suddenly lessen? No, the money would be spent on something else. It's therefore an off topic observation, not an argument.
OP
OP
The_Pac_Mule
Refugee
Ok I get it. I can't say a fucking word about my views without someone totally ripping it apart.
I don't know how it was back then, but there certainly isn't any "hate" on our side..not to mention after 30+ years of the march, there hasnt been a single "incident."
Before Roe Vs. Wade, you could get an abortion if you could give reason to two physicians. If you were really that desperate for an abortion, women said they would kill themselves. And that worked, I know a woman who did that years ago. Not to mention she really regrets it, she said if the baby was born she would have named her Grace.
Many people call me close-minded. That sounds pretty close to the defintion of close-minded. I've tried to present all my points fairly calmly, but it gets hard when people use that kind of sarcasm.
I don't know how it was back then, but there certainly isn't any "hate" on our side..not to mention after 30+ years of the march, there hasnt been a single "incident."
Before Roe Vs. Wade, you could get an abortion if you could give reason to two physicians. If you were really that desperate for an abortion, women said they would kill themselves. And that worked, I know a woman who did that years ago. Not to mention she really regrets it, she said if the baby was born she would have named her Grace.
Many people call me close-minded. That sounds pretty close to the defintion of close-minded. I've tried to present all my points fairly calmly, but it gets hard when people use that kind of sarcasm.
I can only imagine the heights of jolly frivolity experienced on such a march.
Oh I've read about it in several places, enough to know that there is no way that there were 500K people there. Or anywhere close to that.
OP
OP
The_Pac_Mule
Refugee
that also suggests that something should be legal, simply because people will do it anyways. That doent make much sense.
My doctor isn't my priest.
OP
OP
The_Pac_Mule
Refugee
the media wouldn't tell you that would they? I was there, there were in fact almost half a million people there. I read a short article, which said "scores of people," which suggests that only a few hundred.You're not protecting people if you sit back and knowingly let them participate in back street abortions, and I swear the constitution says something about protecting people... right?
OP
OP
The_Pac_Mule
Refugee
abortions protect people?
but seriosuly, what are the statistics, how many people were getting illegal abortions?
Last year there were 200,000 people according to the March for Life groups.
So if you think they were able to increase their numbers 2.5x fold AND have all the media lie about the numbers, then go right ahead with believing that.
OP
OP
The_Pac_Mule
Refugee
well so far there are NONE offical statistics...
but I give you credit because your presenting your arguments in a dignified way... Thanks!
Similar threads
