Birth control rant - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

05/09/2012 11:34:30 PM · #1276

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by frisca:
abortion is neutral on sex-selection of babies. Baby girls were being flung over the precipice long before abortion was accessible or legal.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
haha. Dream on frisca...

As long as you defend a woman's right to have an abortion you are inadvertently defending their right to choose to abort based on gender. As long as that choice is available girls will bear the brunt of the cost to the tune of tens of millions in Asia. There's no way around that.

I don't see anyone here defending a right to choose to abort based on gender. Frisca and Shannon and Kelli are absolutely correct. What's happening in China (and some other places) is they're just transferring onto abortion a practice that has been in place forever, for cultural/social/economic reasons. Do you really think that if abortion were illegal and they wanted to get rid of their female infants, they couldn't find a way?

I think if your point was true we would see a sex selection bias evenly spread across the age spectrum, but we do not. The problem seems to be getting worse with the highest disparities among the population under five. This is likely due to the cheap availability of sonograms. It also indicates that a number of girls are being aborted that wouldn't have been killed if they had managed to make it to birth. The facts just don't support your assertion.

frisca

Nikon D70

05/09/2012 11:43:25 PM · #1277

so DrAchoo, what you are saying is that abortion shouldn't be allowed in north america because in other places, you believe people abuse the power to choose?

05/09/2012 11:48:25 PM · #1278

Do you think I am concerned what country an abortion takes place in to judge its moral merit?

BTW, I encourage you to read up on the missing women of Asia. We're talking 100 million girls and interestingly you intuitive hypothesis that it would be worse in poorer parts of India seems to be incorrect (actually I would have guessed you were right, but the stats don't seem to back it up). The sex ratio is worse in middle class parts of India versus rural parts.

05/09/2012 11:54:19 PM · #1279

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The problem seems to be getting worse with the highest disparities among the population under five. This is likely due to the cheap availability of sonograms. It also indicates that a number of girls are being aborted that wouldn't have been killed if they had managed to make it to birth. The facts just don't support your assertion.

Is Dr. just a nickname or what? Sonograms don't reveal sex until about week 16, and according to WHO about 90% of abortions worldwide are performed in the first 12 weeks.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/10/2012 01:09:26 AM · #1280

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The problem seems to be getting worse with the highest disparities among the population under five. This is likely due to the cheap availability of sonograms. It also indicates that a number of girls are being aborted that wouldn't have been killed if they had managed to make it to birth. The facts just don't support your assertion.

Is Dr. just a nickname or what? Sonograms don't reveal sex until about week 16, and according to WHO about 90% of abortions worldwide are performed in the first 12 weeks.

Don't be obtuse Shannon.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

05/10/2012 01:48:44 AM · #1281

Originally posted by Kelli:

Infanticide was practiced ... as "disappointment and fear of social disgrace felt by a father upon the birth of a daughter ...

I have a strong suspicion that a large number of "abortions," especially in early, historically patriarchal times, but probably also these days, are initiated ("suggested"?) by men, not women.

frisca

Nikon D70

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

05/10/2012 02:14:31 AM · #1282

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I never made any such hypothesis, intuitive or otherwise. Also, you avoid the reality that sonograms are not terrible useful to determine gender at an early stage. While I appreciate the link to Wikipedia, I don't rely on that as my source for accurate info on the subject.

Eta: I am familiar with the study cited in your reference but I think it's a more complex explanation than just to say that the availability of abortion has fueled the gap.

Message edited by author 2012-05-10 02:18:57.

05/10/2012 02:28:51 AM · #1283

I open to you sharing your more complex explanation. We've got plenty of time.

Sonograms can be moderately accurate determining sex (90% accurate in girls) down to about week 12. There are also hormonal tests that can be done down to week 10. The WHO statistics are to be taken with a grain of salt because of methodological issues of underreporting. Sex determining sonograms are illegal in both China and India. How do you propose WHO accurately determines the abortion rate in rural China when many might be preceded by an illegal procedure? It isn't just going to be offered up. Even if we take it at face value it only means the girls are being killed by infanticide. How is that any better? We can at least avoid laying the blame on abortion?

Message edited by author 2012-05-10 02:29:53.

05/10/2012 02:37:55 AM · #1284

You claim that cheap availability of sonograms which reveal gender as early as 16 weeks is likely causing gender selective abortions on a massive scale when 90% of such procedures worldwide are performed before 12 weeks, and that there's no way around this (China outlawed the practice in 2005, and India did so in 2002). You also just finished expending a large number of keystrokes to tell us how Asia is NOT LIKE THE U.S. regarding treatment of infants, then immediately proceed to use Asian practices to judge moral merit without concern for region as if their customs have any relevance here, yet I'M being obtuse?!?

By the way, abortion is illegal in India except when the mother's life is at risk or the child would suffer serious abnormalities. Not that it matters much... abortion rates are actually higher where the procedure is outlawed. According to a study published in Lancet this year, "Restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates."

05/10/2012 02:46:01 AM · #1285

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

How do you propose WHO accurately determines the abortion rate in rural China when many might be preceded by an illegal procedure?

That's what happens when you restrict legal accessâ�� any controls on who, when and why go completely out the window. Problems with alcohol increased during Prohibition for similar reasons.

05/10/2012 09:14:07 AM · #1286

Originally posted by scalvert:

You also just finished expending a large number of keystrokes to tell us how Asia is NOT LIKE THE U.S. regarding treatment of infants, then immediately proceed to use Asian practices to judge moral merit without concern for region as if their customs have any relevance here, yet I'M being obtuse?

I refuse to pay any attention to statements like this coming from someone who feels morality is merely make believe anyway. It is not surprising you fail to understand the application of universal moral princinples. It is also, to me, reprehensible that you would say the idea that infanticide is wrong is just as false as saying it is right.

Really, you've lost any ability to argue moral principles. Obtuse...indeed.

Stagolee

Kodak Easyshare C180

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

05/10/2012 09:53:05 AM · #1287

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
You also just finished expending a large number of keystrokes to tell us how Asia is NOT LIKE THE U.S. regarding treatment of infants, then immediately proceed to use Asian practices to judge moral merit without concern for region as if their customs have any relevance here, yet I'M being obtuse?

I refuse to pay any attention to statements like this coming from someone who feels morality is merely make believe anyway. It is not surprising you fail to understand the application of universal moral princinples. It is also, to me, reprehensible that you would say the idea that infanticide is wrong is just as false as saying it is right.

Really, you've lost any ability to argue moral principles. Obtuse...indeed.

For someone who refuses to pay attention to Shannonâ��s statements you did a lousy job. :/

05/10/2012 10:07:19 AM · #1288

OK, that was way out of left field and totally irrelevant to discussing YOUR statements on their own merit. I smell desperation liberally seasoned with sweat. But, hey, I'm apparently obtuse, so maybe you can enlighten me here on a relevant application of universal moral principles...

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It is also, to me, reprehensible that you would say the idea that infanticide is wrong is just as false as saying it is right.

Let's take the aforementioned case in Arizona that you riverdanced around. A woman 11 weeks pregnant is suffering severe pulmonary hypertension (hardly unique). The doctors agree on a near 100% chance that the woman will die if the pregnancy is not terminated (and of course the baby will die, too). Now, since you have been arguing yourself silly that this procedure always equals infanticide and therefore termination would be universally wrong, please explain the non-reprehensible course of action you would take.

05/10/2012 11:22:08 AM · #1289

..

Message edited by author 2012-05-10 11:30:10.

05/10/2012 11:23:20 AM · #1290

Originally posted by scalvert:

...since you have been arguing yourself silly that this procedure always equals infanticide and therefore termination would be universally wrong...

For the record will you show where I stated this. It's hard to argue when you put false words in my mouth. Where am I saying that abortion is universally wrong, period, end of sentence?

(I'll spare you the work, here is one, of a few, statements that would show your claim is false)

In post #1212:
"We have a single instance we're talking about. In that instance, the right thing was done despite the contradictory and confusing policy rules. I have stated for the record that I think the right thing to do was save the mother's life."

Here's another in post #1207:

Naw. I think that decision was wrong (ED: the decision to punish the sister who decided to save the woman's life) and I suspect, in retrospect, so do they since the sister has been brought back. You don't have to paint my opinion in the most extreme possible since its hardly that.

There seems tobe plenty of room for a position that doesn't force the Catholics to do things they object to while protecting the lives of patients under emergency situations.

Message edited by author 2012-05-10 11:28:58.

05/10/2012 11:30:16 AM · #1291

Well, we don't have to become vitriolic. People are tired of our dysfunctional relationship anyway. All I can do is state my position and my comfort with it.

Within the realm of the abortion debate, I believe that abortion and/or infanticide for reasons of gender selection is morally wrong and that this rises to the level of a no-brainer. I believe it does not matter what country or culture you are in; it is morally wrong everywhere (and don't think it doesn't happen in our own country. It does, although not likely to the extent of Asia and probably for different reasons (ie. family balancing rather than selecting for males)). I believe that the global burden borne by females in this matter is relevant to the conversation when abortion is discussed within the context of gender equality.

There you go. If people want to stand up and state they disagree, they are welcome to, but they do so at their own social peril.

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

05/10/2012 11:35:45 AM · #1292

Good to know that the Dr. won't favor aborting gaybies, assuming we'll be able to test for that likelihood in the future.

I mean, we already know that the more boys a woman has, the more likely it is the next one turns out gay. Personally I thought it was a bit weird that I was the first born of two sons, and that I'm the gay one... but then last year I found out I had a secret half-brother who was given up for adoption after our paternalistic 50's society kicked my mom out of college and shuttled her off to a home for wayward girls to have the baby behind closed doors. Oh yeah, the boy who knocked her up? He got to stay in college.

Now if only DrAchoo would extend a gayby's right to life to include liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

frisca

Nikon D70

05/10/2012 11:42:56 AM · #1293

I think the point many of us are trying to make, DrAchoo, is that legalized abortion is not a gateway to infanticide, nor it is the cause of greater infanticide. I am sure you must agree with this point at the very least.

Re: the complex explanation, I believe it is generally laid out in the wikipedia link you shared. If you are interested in greater discourse on the subject, we can take it to private messages or start a new thread. Please let me know what is your preference.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

05/10/2012 11:58:02 AM · #1294

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Where am I saying that abortion is universally wrong, period, end of sentence?

Right here:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It is also, to me, reprehensible that you would say the idea that infanticide is wrong is just as false as saying it is right.

Your direct implication is that infanticide must be either wrong or right, and that is not true at all. If infanticide is wrong, then the woman in the Arizona case should have been forced to die. If infanticide is right, then gender selection should be OK. Your own positions prove both statements false.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I believe that abortion and/or infanticide for reasons of gender selection is morally wrong and that this rises to the level of a no-brainer.

Nobody here has claimed otherwise, and you're the only one to raise the topic... apparently as a straw man against abortion since it has no relevance to this country or the issue at hand.

Message edited by author 2012-05-10 12:09:21.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

05/10/2012 12:25:34 PM · #1295

Infanticide SPECIFICALLY refers to the murder of infants, usually construed to mean "within a year of birth". By definition, abortion is not infanticide. I don't think you can make any sort of moral case that infanticide, per se, is EVER acceptable.

Message edited by author 2012-05-10 12:26:00.

05/10/2012 12:37:55 PM · #1296

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Infanticide SPECIFICALLY refers to the murder of infants, usually construed to mean "within a year of birth". By definition, abortion is not infanticide.

I agree with this, however Jason has been using the term in reference to gender selective abortions in Asia.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I don't think you can make any sort of moral case that infanticide, per se, is EVER acceptable.

Maybe. Some might disagree if it concerns an infant facing certain starvation, chronic pain from a fatal, incurable disease... or maybe a commandment from a certain deity.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/10/2012 12:42:46 PM · #1297

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Where am I saying that abortion is universally wrong, period, end of sentence?

Right here:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It is also, to me, reprehensible that you would say the idea that infanticide is wrong is just as false as saying it is right.

Your direct implication is that infanticide must be either wrong or right, and that is not true at all. If infanticide is wrong, then the woman in the Arizona case should have been forced to die. If infanticide is right, then gender selection should be OK. Your own positions prove both statements false.

I'll bold since the reply is nested. You miss my point. My beef with you is the contention that your Moral Error Theory would say that there is no moral dimension to infanticide at all; that saying it is right or wrong is nonsensical. I think that idea is "reprehensible" and dangerous.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I believe that abortion and/or infanticide for reasons of gender selection is morally wrong and that this rises to the level of a no-brainer.

Originally posted by Shannon:

Nobody here has claimed otherwise, and you're the only one to raise the topic... apparently as a straw man against abortion since it has no relevance to this country or the issue at hand.

It has no relevance to this country because...it doesn't happen in our country?

Message edited by author 2012-05-10 12:43:47.

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

05/10/2012 12:44:17 PM · #1298

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Infanticide SPECIFICALLY refers to the murder of infants, usually construed to mean "within a year of birth". By definition, abortion is not infanticide.

I agree with this, however Jason has been using the term in reference to gender selective abortions in Asia.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I don't think you can make any sort of moral case that infanticide, per se, is EVER acceptable.

Maybe. Some might disagree if it concerns an infant facing certain starvation, chronic pain from a fatal, incurable disease... or maybe a commandment from a certain deity.

I quoted this a bit further back... The legalization of abortion, which was completed in 1973, was the most important factor in the decline in neonatal mortality during the period from 1964 to 1977, according to a study by economists associated with the National Bureau of Economic Research.[106][107]

I'd think, plentiful birth control would lead to fewer abortions and fewer numbers of unwanted babies. It's all connected.

05/10/2012 12:45:10 PM · #1299

Originally posted by scalvert:

I have not, I've been using the term to be inclusive. I think gender selective abortion AND gender selective infanticide is wrong, but this doesn't necessarily mean I think they are synonymous.