House Debates Banning Sex-Selective Abortions
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:34:47 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  House Debates Banning Sex-Selective Abortions
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Poll
Question: If you were in Congress, would you support the passage of the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act??
#1
Democrat: Yes
 
#2
Democrat: No
 
#3
Republican: Yes
 
#4
Republican: No
 
#5
independent/third party: Yes
 
#6
independent/third party: No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 68

Author Topic: House Debates Banning Sex-Selective Abortions  (Read 8682 times)
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,618
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 31, 2012, 04:48:46 PM »

Unenforceable, therefore No (R).
Logged
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,753
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 31, 2012, 05:07:29 PM »


24 weeks.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 31, 2012, 05:08:06 PM »

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
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,713


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 31, 2012, 05:26:34 PM »

Yes, of course (I/D).
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: May 31, 2012, 06:56:27 PM »

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
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: June 01, 2012, 10:50:14 AM »

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
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,217
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: June 01, 2012, 08:25:44 PM »

How could you possibly enforce this?  The woman could just say that the sex of the fetus wasn't the reason.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: June 01, 2012, 10:22:21 PM »

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
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: June 02, 2012, 01:37:30 PM »

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
TheReporter
Rookie
**
Posts: 21
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: June 02, 2012, 02:16:46 PM »

It doesn't matter whatever you want your abortion for, you should be able to have it.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: June 02, 2012, 02:31:15 PM »

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
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: June 02, 2012, 02:48:23 PM »

Unenforceable, therefore No (R).
Logged
Purch
Rookie
**
Posts: 196


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: June 02, 2012, 04:32:47 PM »

A pro-choicer being against sex selective abortions is a hell of an oxymoron
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: June 03, 2012, 01:10:20 AM »

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
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: June 03, 2012, 12:52:27 PM »

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
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: June 03, 2012, 02:37:33 PM »

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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: June 03, 2012, 02:55:45 PM »

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
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: June 03, 2012, 04:42:34 PM »

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
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: June 03, 2012, 09:10:10 PM »

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
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: June 03, 2012, 10:09:38 PM »

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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: June 03, 2012, 10:24:33 PM »

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
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: June 04, 2012, 06:34:40 AM »

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
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: June 04, 2012, 10:55:38 AM »

If we were able to determine the sexual orientation of a fetus, would Trent Franks support a nondiscrimination act of the same nature?
Logged
Purch
Rookie
**
Posts: 196


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: June 05, 2012, 06:49:35 AM »

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
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: June 05, 2012, 07:13:02 PM »

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?

It's hardly a woman's free choice to abort her baby for whatever reason when she's been effectively brainwashed by her culture into believing that sons are far more valuable than daughters, and that therefore the latter should be aborted if at all possible.  That is where I draw the line in the sand. 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.067 seconds with 14 queries.