Gender-based abortions: right or wrong?

[-:Undertaker:-]

How would people feel if the question were turned around and asked (if it were possible to tell) that mothers ought to have the right to abort their babies based on the fact the baby was mixed race or gay?

I actually find some of the comments on this thread very scary and worthy of 1930s German eugenics.

[FlyingJesus]

I would repeat myself:

While not something that I'd take into consideration when choosing whether to abort or not (especially considering it's not 100% accurate on scans until after the cut-off time for abortions anyway) I don't see why it shouldn't be a valid reason if someone's really adamant on having one or the other. Frankly any reason is good reason, and it's not like we need to be forcing people to keep babies they don't want

And I'm pretty sure you can't tell if a baby is gonna grow up to be gay

[-:Undertaker:-]

I would repeat myself:


And I'm pretty sure you can't tell if a baby is gonna grow up to be gay

I think that's just awful, but I suppose that's the kind of moral relativism we get when people start pretending that babies in the womb are unhuman and simply just a 'foetus' and not a baby. Incredible.

If women don't want babies, maybe they ought to keep their legs shut? I keep hearing of mother's right, what about the rights of the unborn who can't speak for themselves like the children they are?

[FlyingJesus]

That's an extremely ignorant statement that doesn't take into account the medical facts and simply assumes that a foetus is a full human being when it clearly isn't. By that logic it's also an immoral waste of life to ever have a period without getting pregnant or for a man to not be constantly attempting to impregnate people as soon as he's recharged and ready, but because potential life is not the same thing as a human being that's all nonsense

[-:Undertaker:-]

That's an extremely ignorant statement that doesn't take into account the medical facts and simply assumes that a foetus is a full human being when it clearly isn't. By that logic it's also an immoral waste of life to ever have a period without getting pregnant or for a man to not be constantly attempting to impregnate people as soon as he's recharged and ready, but because potential life is not the same thing as a human being that's all nonsense

Not at all, a foetus aka a baby is fertilised - it's a human although in early development, no matter how much you try to skew it to make it seem acceptable to yourself. This debate has always been about language: when a woman is pregnant willingly (ie she planned and wanted it) she refers to the baby in her womb as that, the baby - as does everyone else. But if it's unwanted? it becomes the latin 'foetus' in order to make it seem less human.

As Ron Paul has noted when he was training to deliever babies, he was being shown births taking place and in one room they walked in on a baby being born who was very early and the doctors were fighting to save it's life, he walked into another and a baby more or less in the same area of development was being aborted - was taken out, and put into a bucket into the corner despite crying and left to die.



This whole debate is just moral relativism at it's worst.

[FlyingJesus]

Late-term abortions are a completely different matter to early ones, which is why there are laws on when they can be done. Personally I think the current timeframe is too far extended and should be pushed back to the time at which the brain begins developing senses, but that doesn't take away from the fact that there is a huge difference between a foetus and a baby - just saying no there isn't is not an argument whereas it is physically and medically extremely clear that potential human is not the same thing as realised human, hence foetal termination being the abortion of the becoming human process. Also putting a baby in a bucket to die is not legal nor is it how abortions work, you clearly have no idea what the process entails and are just blindly agreeing with your cowboy hero

[DoCToRFusiions]

How would people feel if the question were turned around and asked (if it were possible to tell) that mothers ought to have the right to abort their babies based on the fact the baby was mixed race or gay?

I actually find some of the comments on this thread very scary and worthy of 1930s German eugenics.

Do you know, I completely believe you. What is wrong with this planet? Where did we go wrong?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Late-term abortions are a completely different matter to early ones, which is why there are laws on when they can be done. Personally I think the current timeframe is too far extended and should be pushed back to the time at which the brain begins developing senses, but that doesn't take away from the fact that there is a huge difference between a foetus and a baby - just saying no there isn't is not an argument whereas it is physically and medically extremely clear that potential human is not the same thing as realised human, hence foetal termination being the abortion of the becoming human process. Also putting a baby in a bucket to die is not legal nor is it how abortions work, you clearly have no idea what the process entails and are just blindly agreeing with your cowboy hero

Um yes it is, and we all admit to it when we call the unborn who are wanted 'the baby' even in the early weeks and instead call the unwanted babies 'the foetus' to dehumanise it. Because this argument that it isn't human until a certain time period is complete garbage when you really think of it logically - babies develop at different rates in the womb although broadly follow the same development rate. So right - why is it that at a certain number of weeks a foetus suddenly becomes a baby? what mechanism is it that activates which turns that being from a foetus into a baby? And can the hour, time/process be pinpointed or captured on camera?

Also i'm barely influenced by Dr. Ron Paul on this although it's clear you blindly follow and change words in order to fit what you want to be the facts but which don't make any sense when you analyse them. I don't want to invoke Godwin's Law but it's telling also that when people/regimes have wanted to dispose of certain groups that they don't want around, they too changed the language in order to dehumanise their targets.

There are countless stories of babies, sorry 'foetuses' that have been born and survived before the 23/4 week abortion limit - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...-recovery.html - Little human beings like that and we're pretending they aren't human, it's a disgrace.

I don't know what world you live in, but to me that is a baby yet you'll sit there and pretend for political ideas like 'wimmins rights' that it isn't. You may be fine with babies that size having salt injected into their tiny hearts, or their body parts being blended up in the womb (in which there exist videos of them trying to move away from the object that is killing them) but i'm not.

[-Moniquee.]

I find it disgusting that people still think abortion is acceptable. If you don't want a child in the first place wear protection or don't have sex. If you get pregnant and don't want the child, give it to another family, I think it is called surrogates? There are so many people in the world who can't have children and would make lovely parents. It's horrible to think people could abort their child if you could find out if it was gay or a different race. The child is still yours.
So horrible that people are killing an unborn child, everyone has a right to live.

[karter]

Abortion is wrong. Everyone has the right to live, whether they are male or female. If you don't like the specific gender of a child, then give birth to it and give it up for adoption. At least it gets a chance at life. We are the humans. We don't play God. If we think we do, then no-one is safe.

And you're saying this because you're male. Typical.

A woman has a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies, you ain't influencing her decision buddy because you aren't the one holding a child in your womb for 9 months. It's her decision and hers only. Pregnancy disrupts a woman's life, her job, deteriorates her health and often harms the body. Excuse me but no one gave you the right to tell what's right and what's wrong. The fetus is in the mother's womb not yours.

Regarding the 'you're killing life' argument. We can't say if a fetus is a human being or not, it's a bunch of cells which cannot survive outside the uterus. Yeah sure, it could grow into a human being. But so can the millions of sperms and thousands of eggs in the male and female body. Looking at your perspective, if we use contraceptives we actually kill life. If you have a fetus in one hand and a new born baby in another and you have to drop one of them then you'll obviously choose the baby. Why? because the baby is living but the fetus well, biologically yes, but otherwise not.

I am honestly done with men who think they have a shot at winning this argument bc in the end the choice is a woman's. All you can do is sit and judge from the distance

--

On topic, I think it is wrong and gender based abortion is even banned in my country. Abortion should be done only if the mother is not ready (whether financially, mentally or health wise)