Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 23, 2014, 06:45:10 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Debate (Moderator: Beet)
| | |-+  House Debates Banning Sex-Selective Abortions
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Poll
Question: If you were in Congress, would you support the passage of the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act??
Democrat: Yes   -8 (11.8%)
Democrat: No   -13 (19.1%)
Republican: Yes   -19 (27.9%)
Republican: No   -5 (7.4%)
independent/third party: Yes   -10 (14.7%)
independent/third party: No   -13 (19.1%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 68

Author Topic: House Debates Banning Sex-Selective Abortions  (Read 3199 times)
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 33526


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: May 31, 2012, 04:18:40 pm »
Ignore

People should be able to have abortions for whatever reason they want.

Disgusting. This has my full support.

Gentlemen- when do you support a cutoff?

I don't support murder, so at the point when you can take the fetus out of the womb and it survives, then I support a cutoff. But as long as it's somewhere between a clump of cells and a tiny little thing that looks like a lizard, you should be able to terminate it for whatever reason you want.
Logged

Vosem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5405
United States


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: May 31, 2012, 04:48:46 pm »
Ignore

Unenforceable, therefore No (R).
Logged

Illegally selling arms to North Korea, providing most of the money to anti-Morales rebels in Bolivia, and using the remainder as hush money for his three ex-mistrisses. 
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11974
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: May 31, 2012, 05:07:29 pm »
Ignore

People should be able to have abortions for whatever reason they want.

Disgusting. This has my full support.

Gentlemen- when do you support a cutoff?

24 weeks.
Logged

nclib
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8826


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: May 31, 2012, 05:08:06 pm »
Ignore

No....though this is very unfortunate, there is no way to combat this practice without making all abortions suspect. This law is so vague and so easy to use throughout pregnancy that a blanket that if challenged could have the ability to overturn Roe v. Wade.

That's exactly why the GOP is doing this, hence my earlier coimment:

No (D).

Once again, the GOP is trying to manipulate the situation. There are probably very few sex-selective abortions in the U.S., and the GOP is trying to use that concept as an excuse to go after abortion doctors.
Logged



[George W. Bush] has shattered the myth of white supremacy once and for all. -- Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY)

"George Bush supports abstinence. Lucky Laura."
- sign seen at the March for Women's Lives, 4/25/04

realisticidealist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6645
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: 4.52

View Profile
« Reply #29 on: May 31, 2012, 05:26:34 pm »
Ignore

Yes, of course (I/D).
Logged

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return."
Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16844
United States


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: May 31, 2012, 06:56:27 pm »
Ignore

This is a stupid and obviously unenforcable idea. Of course I wouldn't support it.

This is the bigger reason for opposing this, IMO. How the hell do you enforce something like this? It's not a proposal for a problem, it's just some weird attempt to whittle down abortion law.
Logged

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27405
United States


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: June 01, 2012, 10:50:14 am »
Ignore

No, although if you make it difficult to obtain late term abortions, you sort of end up in the same place, unless medical science can determine the sex of a fetus in the first trimester.
Logged

Harry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19066
United States


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: June 01, 2012, 08:25:44 pm »
Ignore

How could you possibly enforce this?  The woman could just say that the sex of the fetus wasn't the reason.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19731
United States


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: June 01, 2012, 10:22:21 pm »
Ignore

Laws like this haven't worked anywhere in the world they've been tried for a very simple reason:  You can always claim the abortion is because of something else. 

I would probably support it anyway just for the symbolism of it.

True, altho if a ban on sex-selective abortions were focused on the abortionists, it would be possible to go after them if their ratio was too skewed.

Is the sex of the fetus really something that an abortion clinic keeps track of?
Logged

HOG & Blondie: A Tale of Atlas Future

What is your opinion of this thread?

Watch Dave being briefed by the mods.

Being a moderator is basically like one giant party.  Except you're the one ruining the party and everyone hates you.
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8100
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

View Profile
« Reply #34 on: June 02, 2012, 01:37:30 pm »
Ignore

What's funny is, this reminds me of some hálfvitar pro-lifers who seriously said that abortion isn't pro-woman because half of all aborted fetuses are female.
Logged

Free Bradley Manning
TheReporter
Rookie
*
Posts: 23
United States


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: June 02, 2012, 02:16:46 pm »
Ignore

It doesn't matter whatever you want your abortion for, you should be able to have it.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28449
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #36 on: June 02, 2012, 02:31:15 pm »
Ignore

No, although if you make it difficult to obtain late term abortions, you sort of end up in the same place, unless medical science can determine the sex of a fetus in the first trimester.

Standard ultrasounds can usually discern the sex at around the end of the first trimester.  Early amniocentesis could make the determination as early as the 10th or 11th week. Last but not least, there's a test that can be done using the mother's blood that is 98% accurate in determining a child's sex in the eighth week.

So despite what one might hope, limiting abortion to the first trimester does not do much to prevent sex-selective abortion.



Laws like this haven't worked anywhere in the world they've been tried for a very simple reason:  You can always claim the abortion is because of something else.  

I would probably support it anyway just for the symbolism of it.

True, altho if a ban on sex-selective abortions were focused on the abortionists, it would be possible to go after them if their ratio was too skewed.

Is the sex of the fetus really something that an abortion clinic keeps track of?

Probably not, but it wouldn't be difficult to keep track of if clinics were required to. The development of the external genitalia becomes visible around the eighth week, and of course a chromosome test on the aborted tissue could be done if the abortion was done earlier.
Logged

My November ballot:
Ervin(I) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
Yes: Amendment 1 (Gen. Assembly may allow and regulate charity raffles)
No: Amendment 2 (end election of the Adjutant General)
Goldwater
Republitarian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8657
United States


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: June 02, 2012, 02:48:23 pm »
Ignore

Unenforceable, therefore No (R).
Logged

Purch
Full Member
***
Posts: 196


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: June 02, 2012, 04:32:47 pm »
Ignore

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron
Logged

Those gravestones don't say democrat or republican those gravestones say American.
Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13619
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #39 on: June 03, 2012, 01:10:20 am »
Ignore

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron

Not if women's rights is more important to you than cultural relativism. 
Logged

IDS Judicial Overlord PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22509
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: -4.35

View Profile
« Reply #40 on: June 03, 2012, 12:52:27 pm »
Ignore

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron

Not if women's rights is more important to you than cultural relativism. 

     Even though banning sex-selective abortions is a clear violation of women's rights? Last time I checked, abortion on demand does mean abortion on demand, motivations be damned. This bill is a transparent attempt at abrogating of the rights of women.
Logged

Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13619
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #41 on: June 03, 2012, 02:37:33 pm »
Ignore

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron

Not if women's rights is more important to you than cultural relativism.  

     Even though banning sex-selective abortions is a clear violation of women's rights?

It's hard for me to see how banning sex-selective abortions can violate women's rights when the vast majority of those being aborted in those procedures (especially among East and South Asian populations) are baby girls.  Especially when  you consider that these women are driven to abort them by the patriarchal cultural mores in which they are raised that deem sons as being more important than daughters.  
Logged

TheDeadFlagBlues
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3672
Mexico


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: June 03, 2012, 02:55:45 pm »
Ignore

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron

Not if women's rights is more important to you than cultural relativism. 

Far from cultural relativism, it's utilitarianism for most of us.
Logged



Economic score: -6.26
Social score: -7.74
Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4961
United States


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: June 03, 2012, 04:42:34 pm »
Ignore

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron

Not if women's rights is more important to you than cultural relativism. 

Far from cultural relativism, it's utilitarianism for most of us.

Does this extend to aborting fetuses because they have Down Syndrome or some other disease? If we take fetal life as not being worthy of protection, then wouldn't make more sense to have an abortion if the fetus has Down Syndrome?
Logged

IDS Judicial Overlord PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22509
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: -4.35

View Profile
« Reply #44 on: June 03, 2012, 09:10:10 pm »
Ignore

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron

Not if women's rights is more important to you than cultural relativism. 

     Even though banning sex-selective abortions is a clear violation of women's rights?

It's hard for me to see how banning sex-selective abortions can violate women's rights when the vast majority of those being aborted in those procedures (especially among East and South Asian populations) are baby girls.  Especially when  you consider that these women are driven to abort them by the patriarchal cultural mores in which they are raised that deem sons as being more important than daughters. 


     It's at best a poor substitute to actually undermining those patriarchal cultural mores. People frequently seem to think that a legal change is as good as a cultural change, which is a rather short-sighted view of the matter. The legal change can act as a bandage over the wounds of injustice, but it doesn't actually change anybody's mind.

     Besides, in the context of the United States, which the bill in question pertains to, there is hardly any evidence of sex-selective abortion existing, let alone it being a systemic problem. As I said earlier, this bill is an attack on legalized abortion.
Logged

Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13619
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 03, 2012, 10:09:38 pm »
Ignore

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron

Not if women's rights is more important to you than cultural relativism. 

     Even though banning sex-selective abortions is a clear violation of women's rights?

It's hard for me to see how banning sex-selective abortions can violate women's rights when the vast majority of those being aborted in those procedures (especially among East and South Asian populations) are baby girls.  Especially when  you consider that these women are driven to abort them by the patriarchal cultural mores in which they are raised that deem sons as being more important than daughters. 


     It's at best a poor substitute to actually undermining those patriarchal cultural mores. People frequently seem to think that a legal change is as good as a cultural change, which is a rather short-sighted view of the matter. The legal change can act as a bandage over the wounds of injustice, but it doesn't actually change anybody's mind.

To use another example, article 15 of India's Constitution bans discrimination based on caste, and though caste discrimination has diminished as India has modernized, it is still quite common in rural areas.  Since caste discrimination still exists, was it a pointless legal exercise to have banned such injustice?  Or was it important regardless to send a signal to the population that caste discrimination needed to end? 

I argue the same applies to the ongoing genocide being directed against female infants.  In time, the practice will end but it is important that we begin somewhere -even if it is initially just a legal statement.   

Quote
Besides, in the context of the United States, which the bill in question pertains to, there is hardly any evidence of sex-selective abortion existing, let alone it being a systemic problem. As I said earlier, this bill is an attack on legalized abortion.

It isn't much of a problem now, but at some point it could become one.  I see no reason why we can't take pre-emptive action now to indicate to incoming immigrants from East and South Asia that the United States does not approve of the murder of baby girls, and will do whatever is necessary to prosecute those who engage in such actions. 
Logged

IDS Judicial Overlord PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22509
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: -4.35

View Profile
« Reply #46 on: June 03, 2012, 10:24:33 pm »
Ignore

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron

Not if women's rights is more important to you than cultural relativism. 

     Even though banning sex-selective abortions is a clear violation of women's rights?

It's hard for me to see how banning sex-selective abortions can violate women's rights when the vast majority of those being aborted in those procedures (especially among East and South Asian populations) are baby girls.  Especially when  you consider that these women are driven to abort them by the patriarchal cultural mores in which they are raised that deem sons as being more important than daughters. 


     It's at best a poor substitute to actually undermining those patriarchal cultural mores. People frequently seem to think that a legal change is as good as a cultural change, which is a rather short-sighted view of the matter. The legal change can act as a bandage over the wounds of injustice, but it doesn't actually change anybody's mind.

To use another example, article 15 of India's Constitution bans discrimination based on caste, and though caste discrimination has diminished as India has modernized, it is still quite common in rural areas.  Since caste discrimination still exists, was it a pointless legal exercise to have banned such injustice?  Or was it important regardless to send a signal to the population that caste discrimination needed to end? 

I argue the same applies to the ongoing genocide being directed against female infants.  In time, the practice will end but it is important that we begin somewhere -even if it is initially just a legal statement.   

Quote
Besides, in the context of the United States, which the bill in question pertains to, there is hardly any evidence of sex-selective abortion existing, let alone it being a systemic problem. As I said earlier, this bill is an attack on legalized abortion.

It isn't much of a problem now, but at some point it could become one.  I see no reason why we can't take pre-emptive action now to indicate to incoming immigrants from East and South Asia that the United States does not approve of the murder of baby girls, and will do whatever is necessary to prosecute those who engage in such actions. 

     It's not a pointless exercise, but it's not the complete solution. Beyond that, an effort has to be made to present arguments against the prevailing prejudices. Maybe I am mistaken, but it seems to me that some people think that passing a law is all that needs to be done.

     My point is, passing the law in question carries the negative impact of eroding away women's abortion rights. It may carry a positive impact in preventing the spread of this practice to the United States, but I think that at this early juncture we could avoid the issues of the proposed law by making attempts at educating immigrants from areas where sex-selective abortion is practiced. Let them know that forcing women to have abortions against their will inevitably violates various U.S. laws.
Logged

Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56823
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #47 on: June 04, 2012, 06:34:40 am »
Ignore

Far from cultural relativism, it's utilitarianism for most of us.

That would be an infinitely worse reason to support something than cultural relativism.

Of course that's not actually the reason, is it? It's part of the uniform: an extreme position supported by people who are absolutely not extreme because said position is the one that they are supposed to have. The less actual thought involved the better.

Obviously this is a generic comment about abortion as an issue in American politics and so applies equally to both sides...
Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
Ebowed
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16396
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -8.32, S: -9.30

View Profile WWW
« Reply #48 on: June 04, 2012, 10:55:38 am »
Ignore

If we were able to determine the sexual orientation of a fetus, would Trent Franks support a nondiscrimination act of the same nature?
Logged

A tidal wave of healthcare has swept across coal country. 
Purch
Full Member
***
Posts: 196


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: June 05, 2012, 06:49:35 am »
Ignore

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron

Not if women's rights is more important to you than cultural relativism. 

The whole idea behind people being "pro-choice" is that no one should be able to influence what a women decides to do with own her own body. It doesn't matter if what her motivation is convince, rape or incest so why is sex selective different? Or is it only a Women's choice when it's not inconvenient for the pro choice argument?
Logged

Those gravestones don't say democrat or republican those gravestones say American.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines