Is sex-selective abortion an immoral thing to do?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I don't want this thread to derail into a general topic about abortion, as my incentive to making this thread was to see how pro-choice people rationalized thinking the same action is suddenly immoral if it has a different motivation behind it. But I''l leave it here that my overall position on abortion is that I pragmatically think it should remain legal until the later stages of pregnancy. I don't exactly know when that is, it's something I'm still doing research on, though at some point we do need to set a strict principle for ourselves.

Then you shouldn't have written another bloody abortion thread. Of course it's going to bring out all the lying religiofucks who know nothing about biology OR what the vast majority of abortions involve. Those kunts would love nothing better than to see women 'put back in their place', with tribes of starving children that they were often forced to take to the workhouse (if there was one handy). That is the 'good old days' to arseholes like ic.
Abortion is the business of the woman concerned and no one else.
Kristians can't stand it because it gives women control and choice over their own reproductive process. Beneath their faux concern is the truth that they don't mind abortion at all--as long as it's a backstreet one and the woman is more than likely to die a horrible death from infection and gangrene. After all, she needs to 'pay' for her sinful ways.
The ic's of the world don't seem to mind that thousands of viable embryos are flushed every day in fertility clinics. I wonder why that would be? Surely an embryo is an embryo to them?
If they were genuinely against abortion then they would be against speying cats (which are often pregnant at the time). Or could it be that their 'concern' is only religious, and that 'every (human) sperm is sacred'? Of couse it is, but they know that these days they wouldn't be able to get away with simply saying 'all human life is a sacred gift of God', so they make up ridiculous stories about buckets-full of severed arms and legs and screaming live embryos in blood-spattered operating theatres presided over by leering, sadistic doctors wielding chainsaws.....
Kristianity has always been intensely misogynistic which is why the anti-choice movement is a religious one (duh!).

[Immanuel Can]

There's only one question that matters at all: "Is he/she a human being?" The rest is nonsense. If what's inside the woman is a human being, male or female, then to butcher him/her and suck his/her bits into a sink is a horror on parallel with the worst atrocities in history, and maybe worse, since the victims are utterly helpless innocents. And that will remain true, regardless of any number of excuses.

I actually don't think that's necessarily true; You could make a good case that abortion is okay even if an embryo is technically a human life.

What we have to do is look at why we value regular human beings...

"We"? Who's the "we" who gets the privilege of deciding that other people are or are not worthwhile as human beings?

...and see if the same relevant attributes are applicable.

What "attributes"? Do you mean that if "we" don't think a person has "attributes" "we" consider "relevant" to something "we" want, then "we" get to classify them as sub or non-human and flush them into a sink after forcibly dismembering them?

And already, I don't believe they all are, but I think we get closer to that shared humanity the further along a pregnancy gets.

Here's the problem.

We're all probably okay with the idea that a baby is fully human once out of the mother's womb. But we can't find the line by which that decision is made. Why is the child squalling on the birth table a full "human," but ten seconds ago, when it had one toe still in its mother's womb, it wasn't at all? How does that make sense? And if we say it was human when it had in only one toe, what about when it had two or three, or a foot? What about when the legs were partially in? What about ten seconds before crowning...and so on.

There's no line. And because there's no line we can defend, there's also no reason why the child squalling on the table can't be called "non-human" as well, just as it is now being in places like Virginia. And ultimately, there's no reason why any child deserves any rights at all, and infanticide is in.

Actually, abortion is nothing but infanticide, so that progression makes perfect sense.

I don't like the idea of any abortion,

Now, that makes no sense. If abortion is not the killing of a human being, what's your reservation?

... I just think it's also clear that a late-term abortion is worse than an abortion that takes place in the first trimester,

Again, why? How did you find this magic line between six months and six-months-and-a-second, or between three months and three-months-and-a second?

I don't want this thread to derail into a general topic about abortion, as my incentive to making this thread was to see how pro-choice people rationalized thinking the same action is suddenly immoral if it has a different motivation behind it.

I get that. But the important point your test makes is this: if abortion is "okay," it's "okay" for any reason. The idea that we should protect female babies from being executed in favour of males becomes merely absurd: neither (we have believed) is human anyway...so nothing bad is being done by preferring one kind of "cluster of cells" over another "cluster of cells."

There are other such related problems. If a pregnant woman, one who wants her baby, is assaulted at, say, the seven month mark, and her assailant kicks the baby to death, has the assailant merely committed assault, or murder? And is this assault any worse than if the woman were not pregnant? Why?

These questions cannot be answered under the so-called "pro-choice" agenda, because its position is utterly irrational. That's no surprise. It's also utterly selfish. That's no surprise.

But I would argue it's also utterly disingenuous. There is not a single person who talks about it who does not actually know exactly what we're talking about. And thus, the real question is not, "Are we murdering children," but rather, "Can I make enough excuses up to silence my awareness of my wickedness, and to conceal from other people how wicked I really am being?"

...at some point we do need to set a strict principle for ourselves.

That's a certainty. But once we start down the road of killing our babies electively, there's no way to stop the slide, and then afterward to be able to justify that stopping point. So if we agree to killing children in utero, we're also willing to kill infants. And the situations in places like Virginia and New York have made it very clear that that's where we're going next, and going fast. In fact, we're there already.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Then you shouldn't have written another bloody abortion thread. Of course it's going to bring out all the lying religiofucks who know nothing about biology OR what the vast majority of abortions involve. Those kunts would love nothing better than to see women 'put back in their place', with tribes of starving children that they were often forced to take to the workhouse (if there was one handy). That is the 'good old days' to arseholes like ic.

What do you mean by another thread? I'm pretty sure I've never made a thread about abortion. If you mean just here in the gender forum, well I actually haven't seen one, so I wouldn't know. Though it sounds about right, based on where philosophy now has been heading for a while.

But in terms of the pro-lifers that I've come across in the real world, I don't think that's giving them enough credit. By an large, people in the movement do seem to have a genuine moral affliction on the subject. These opinions are also split pretty evenly between men and women, though women tend to be the ones who are the most outspoken, from my experience.

I think people also tend to conflate these opinions as something to be implemented into law, which isn't always the case; Plenty of people who are personally against abortion still want abortion rights.

Abortion is the business of the woman concerned and no one else.

Well again that is roughly what my position comes down to. Forcing a woman to bear a child she doesn't want sounds like an unbelievably cruel thing to do, and that's not a decision which should be taken lightly. I would probably take it a step back from you and say that people are more than free to give their opinions - I just don't want anything legislatively passed to ban abortions in my country.

Alright, now I feel like I'm contributing to derailing my own thread; Honestly I didn't want this to have anything to do with what should or shouldn't be legal, I wanted to ask this question to see if anyone was going to be consistent. I'd imagine most other pro-choicers are not like you, and would answer back saying that something like the sex-selective abortions in china are unacceptable.

If they were genuinely against abortion then they would be against speying cats (which are often pregnant at the time).

Well, that's just dumb; I don't like cats, except my own. People in general don't value animals like they value people, veg. And I think you're actually one of those people, because you're not that far off the deep end, yet.

[henry quirk]

Yes, exactly.

Consider Jane and Julie.

Jane wants to abort and she doesn't give a flip what you or I or Law have to say about it.

She'll abort and deal with the consequences as she can or must.

Julie does not want to abort and she doesn't give a flip what you or I or Law have to say about it.

She won't abort and will deal with the consequences as she can and must.

There's no 'we' in there.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Notice how religiofucks like ick only respond to the truly moronic posts by other males?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Then you shouldn't have written another bloody abortion thread. Of course it's going to bring out all the lying religiofucks who know nothing about biology OR what the vast majority of abortions involve. Those kunts would love nothing better than to see women 'put back in their place', with tribes of starving children that they were often forced to take to the workhouse (if there was one handy). That is the 'good old days' to arseholes like ic.

What do you mean by another thread? I'm pretty sure I've never made a thread about abortion. If you mean just here in the gender forum, well I actually haven't seen one, so I wouldn't know. Though it sounds about right, based on where philosophy now has been heading for a while.

But in terms of the pro-lifers that I've come across in the real world, I don't think that's giving them enough credit. By an large, people in the movement do seem to have a genuine moral affliction on the subject. These opinions are also split pretty evenly between men and women, though women tend to be the ones who are the most outspoken, from my experience.

I think people also tend to conflate these opinions as something to be implemented into law, which isn't always the case; Plenty of people who are personally against abortion still want abortion rights.

Abortion is the business of the woman concerned and no one else.

Well again that is roughly what my position comes down to. Forcing a woman to bear a child she doesn't want sounds like an unbelievably cruel thing to do, and that's not a decision which should be taken lightly. I would probably take it a step back from you and say that people are more than free to give their opinions - I just don't want anything legislatively passed to ban abortions in my country.

Alright, now I feel like I'm contributing to derailing my own thread; Honestly I didn't want this to have anything to do with what should or shouldn't be legal, I wanted to ask this question to see if anyone was going to be consistent. I'd imagine most other pro-choicers are not like you, and would answer back saying that something like the sex-selective abortions in china are unacceptable.

If they were genuinely against abortion then they would be against speying cats (which are often pregnant at the time).

Well, that's just dumb; I don't like cats, except my own. People in general don't value animals like they value people, veg. And I think you're actually one of those people, because you're not that far off the deep end, yet.

If you want to talk about 'value' then what does that mean? The people I love are 'valuable' to me, but no one but those who are close to them gives a toss about them. Clearly humans do NOT value other humans, or we wouldn't have wars, or idolise the military (professional people killers). There are far too many humans anyway, so in that sense many other animal species are far more valuable eg. those that we have slaughtered to the brink of extinction.

We should be PAYING people to have abortions.

[henry quirk]

Of course they/we don't.

Question is: does a human being have an intrinsic value?

Jane, from my example, probably sez 'no, what I carry has the value I assign and nuthin' more'.

Julie, from my example, probably sez 'yes, what I carry has a value independent of what I assign'.

Jane sez it's meat.

Julie sez it's a person.

Sure: we kill and abuse one another, but are we killing and abusing meat or persons?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Of course they/we don't.

Question is: does a human being have an intrinsic value?

Jane, from my example, probably sez 'no, what I carry has the value I assign and nuthin' more'.

Julie, from my example, probably sez 'yes, what I carry has a value independent of what I assign'.

Jane sez it's meat.

Julie sez it's a person.

Sure: we kill and abuse one another, but are we killing and abusing meat or persons?

No. One is saying she is in the position to be able to care for another person who is entirely dependent on HER for the next couple of decades and one isn't. 'Meat' doesn't come into it.

[henry quirk]

...I was clear: Jane aborts cuz she believes what she carries has no value beyond what she assigns. What she carries is hers to do with as she likes. Julie, inconvenienced though she may be, believes what she carries is sumthin' more than meat and therefore is not hers to do with as she likes.

Again: interpret as you like (better: foist up your own examples), but what you interpret is not what I intended (or wrote).

[vegetariantaxidermy]

...I was clear: Jane aborts cuz she believes what she carries has no value beyond what she assigns. What she carries is hers to do with as she likes. Julie, inconvenienced though she may be, believes what she carries is sumthin' more than meat and therefore is not hers to do with as she likes.

Again: interpret as you like (better: foist up your own examples), but what you interpret is not what I intended (or wrote).

How would you know what's going on in their heads? It's none of your business. Your actual position is loud and clear by your use of the word 'meat'. You obviously don't even know what 'meat' is. Offensive little prik. And spare me the 'everyone can do as they please' hypocritical bullshit. It wore thin years ago.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

"We"? Who's the "we"

Anyone questioning the morality of abortion.

What "attributes"? Do you mean that if "we" don't think a person has "attributes" "we" consider "relevant" to something "we" want, then "we" get to classify them as sub or non-human and flush them into a sink after forcibly dismembering them?

Well, I assume you don't just think that humans are valuable for the reason of 'just because;' Why is it that people have value, to you? Is it intelligence, the cultural implications, an endowed eternal soul, or an amalgamation of all the above - or so much more?

I think you made the point about self-defense; there seems to be things which takes that value away.

There's no line.

I think you're jumping the gun a bit. Just because you can't find exactly where the line is, doesn't mean it's not clearly there. It's something I need to do more research on, but as I said, it's self-apparent to most people that a third-trimester fetus is much different than an embryo. In fact, I'd say it's as self-apparent as the difference between the death of a toddler, and a miscarriage.

Actually, abortion is nothing but infanticide

I think that's a pretty extreme position. In the pro-life movement here in america, it's a phrase that is commonly enough repeated, but it's a belief that's very rarely held because I've known pro-lifers who have have expressed very similar sentiments, yet remain perfectly good friends with people who have openly had an abortion. There's generally this consensus among them (the pro-lifers) that women aren't the ones who should be punished, as well, which also doesn't seem to fit into that magnification.

I mean, do you have the exact same apprehension around a convicted felon who's murdered his own child, as you would a woman (or doctor, if you think that's where the blame lies) who's had an abortion? Personally, I wouldn't even want to be in the same room as the convict.

I get that. But the important point your test makes is this: if abortion is "okay," it's "okay" for any reason. The idea that we should protect female babies from being executed in favour of males becomes merely absurd: neither (we have believed) is human anyway...so nothing bad is being done by preferring one kind of "cluster of cells" over another "cluster of cells."?

Right. That is exactly why I made this thread.

I'd imagined most people do find sex-selective abortions particularly questionable, so I think those people need to harmonize in some way why that is.

That's a certainty. But once we start down the road of killing our babies electively, there's no way to stop the slide, and then afterward to be able to justify that stopping point. So if we agree to killing children in utero, we're also willing to kill infants. And the situations in places like Virginia and New York have made it very clear that that's where we're going next, and going fast. In fact, we're there already.

hehe, it always makes me chuckle when I find local american politics has seeped into the global think-tank. Some of you guys probably know more about american politics than most americans.

Anyway, the thing about the whole situation in Virginia is that the bill you're talking about didn't even present anything that new; What it refers to is the ability for a mother to turn off life support for a fetus that is born 'non-viable.' In the most extreme cases, this term refers to a baby that is going to die anyway, or a child that will live in a vegetative state. But then there are babies who could be born with a condition like treacher collins syndrome - a deformity that does not cause a low life-expectancy or any sort of mental disability, and they could be considered non-viable as well. It's crazy. We're depriving babies of life because they were born deformed - now what does that sound like, to you?

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

If you want to talk about 'value' then what does that mean? The people I love are 'valuable' to me, but no one but those who are close to them gives a toss about them. Clearly humans do NOT value other humans, or we wouldn't have wars, or idolise the military (professional people killers). There are far too many humans anyway, so in that sense many other animal species are far more valuable eg. those that we have slaughtered to the brink of extinction.

God, you have such a tribalistic way of thinking about things; Most people, as individuals, have not started any wars, or slaughtered any species to the brink of extinction. And no, most people do not idolize their own military.

You take these examples of human atrocities and apply them to the core of everyone's personality. It's gross.

[henry quirk]

How would you?

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Most wars aren't sanctioned by a democratic vote, veg. They happen under the authority of a powerful few that don't represent their constituents.

[Immanuel Can]

"We"? Who's the "we"

Anyone questioning the morality of abortion.

You surely can't be saying that "anyone questioning the morality of abortion" has the right to say who's human and who's not. If you were, that would suggest that one human's value can be determined by asking another, and that if they "question" the value, then there is none.

What "attributes"? Do you mean that if "we" don't think a person has "attributes" "we" consider "relevant" to something "we" want, then "we" get to classify them as sub or non-human and flush them into a sink after forcibly dismembering them?

Well, I assume you don't just think that humans are valuable for the reason of 'just because;' Why is it that people have value, to you? [/quote]
Well, as a Christian, I believe that all human beings have a value in the eyes of God. Human judgments don't even matter on this, so...

Is it intelligence, the cultural implications, an endowed eternal soul, or an amalgamation of all the above - or so much more?

\
...the answer is "none of that list."

I think you made the point about self-defense; there seems to be things which takes that value away.

Only one thing, because it's impossible to diminish the intrinsic value of one life as against another. So the "self-defence" situation is a wash -- one person will die either way. And that provides the only possible exception to the immorality of abortion, too: when a life is going to be lost anyway, or possibly two.

But this discussion, as you have established, is about elective abortion. And genuinely life-saving abortions are not "elective." You've got no options there.

There's no line.

I think you're jumping the gun a bit. Just because you can't find exactly where the line is, doesn't mean it's not clearly there. It's something I need to do more research on, but as I said, it's self-apparent to most people that a third-trimester fetus is much different than an embryo. In fact, I'd say it's as self-apparent as the difference between the death of a toddler, and a miscarriage.

The problem is that you think it's a clear line, but it's not. Two cases: Canada has no restrictions on abortion at all. And in Virginia, the governor wants the life of a post-born baby, viable and separate from the mother, to remain relative to whether or not the "mother" wants it to live.

So if there's a "clear" line there, what do you say it is? And how do you prove to Canadian or Virginian lawmakers that you're right, and they're wrong?

Actually, abortion is nothing but infanticide

I think that's a pretty extreme position.

Not if it's true.

There's generally this consensus among them (the pro-lifers) that women aren't the ones who should be punished

That's a separate issue from the rightness or wrongness of what they did. Neither "consensus" nor the rigours of "punishment" tell us anything definitive about that.

I mean, do you have the exact same apprehension around a convicted felon who's murdered his own child, as you would a woman (or doctor, if you think that's where the blame lies) who's had an abortion? Personally, I wouldn't even want to be in the same room as the convict.

I've frequently been in the same room as convicts (no, not because I was sharing a cell; I've been involved in felon reintegration), and been totally fine with that. They've paid their due, and they've faced justice. Some of them are actually quite decent people, who only got caught in a bad situation once. But to sit in the room with an abortion doctor, and pretend what he repeatedly does for a living is okay? It's pretty clear to me which is worse.

Some of you guys probably know more about american politics than most americans.

Yeah, that's true. And it's fun to watch sometimes. But the abortion thing is a slow-motion horror show.

Anyway, the thing about the whole situation in Virginia is that the bill you're talking about didn't even present anything that new;

Actually, what's new is that the governor has come out in favour of allowing women to kill (at least by neglect) viable babies who've survived botched abortions. That's appalling.

And no, these are not babies with horrible diseases, or babies that would not have survived anyway: they are people like this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyDdjsZut8Y

And it's no different from the same baby being killed 24 hours later. It's pure infanticide, plain and simple.