Abortion II

[inked]

Female Genocide? You decide.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13264301

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by inked

Female Genocide? You decide.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13264301

yes. that's incredibly horrible - valuing children differently depending on their sex. this is a cultural and social problem, that can't be changed unless people's attitudes change. abortion, on the other hand, doesn't have much to do with it - desperate/sick people will find any way to reach their goals. without prenatal sex determination these children would just be killed/neglected when they're born, if they happen to be female.

just because people use medicines to kill people doesn't mean we should ban medicines. damnit, even though we primarily use guns to kill people they're not banned. so i'm not sure what you're trying to say by putting this in the abortion thread?

[inked]

I am saying that abortion has determinable measurable quantifiable adverse effects on females especially in utero in India. I am observing that abortion has consequences beyond the usual arguments about it. I am suggesting that one ought to consider the ramifications of abortion beyond the argument that the body is the property of the female only. There are clearly societal implications of abortion.

Is the abortion of 8+ million female embryo/fetuses a form of genocide? Or is it only "gynocide"?

And, yes, there are documented cultural exposure of female infants post delivery, notably in the Roman Empire, but elsewhere as well. Does the selective destruction of female embryos/fetuses/babies have the characteristrics of genocide?

gen·o·cide
   [jen-uh-sahyd]
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Search genocide on the Web
Origin:
1940–45; < Greek géno ( s ) race + -cide

—Related forms
gen·o·cid·al, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.

Link To genocide
Explore the Visual Thesaurus »
Related Words for : genocide
race murder, racial extermination


World English Dictionary
genocide (ˈdʒɛnəʊˌsaɪd)

— n
the policy of deliberately killing a nationality or ethnic group

[C20: from geno-, from Greek genos race + -cide ]

geno'cidal

— adj

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009


Word Origin & History
genocide
1944, apparently coined by Polish-born U.S. jurist Raphael Lemkin in his work "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe" [p.19], in reference to Nazi extermination of Jews, lit. "killing a tribe," from Gk. genos "race, kind" (see genus) + -cide. The proper formation would be *genticide .

Female is certainly a kind.

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by inked

I am observing that abortion has consequences beyond the usual arguments about it. I am suggesting that one ought to consider the ramifications of abortion beyond the argument that the body is the property of the female only.

are you now talking about the ramifications of legal abortions, or abortions in general? are you talking about the consequences of allowing abortions on unborn females?

what i'm observing is that abortion happens whether it's legal or not, and that the major cause of female infanticide in cultures where that happens are ultimately due to cultural views of the sexes, not abortion. abortion is of course one of the proximate causes, but to change something like this you should deal with the ultimate cause. so long as that is still there, taking away the means to reach that will only have a temporal effect (because people will always come up with new ways to reach their goals, sooner or later). this is the case for other situations as well.

that's what i think.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Defaulting to zero the one(s) who die in the abortion. Why? Convenience? Career? Movie profits? Bad hair day? Deviancy?

Perhaps "retroactive abortion" would shield those who deliberately and unprovoked-ly take another's life for their own entertainment, profit, advancement up the corporate ladder, or just happen to have a bit of road rage, or take up serial killing as a hobby?

Empathy has never been one of your strong points!

But I'll give you consistency!

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

that's what i think.

What you think is awesome pants.

[GrayMouser]

We have a problem with this in Taiwan:

Estimates that thousands of female fetuses are aborted each year in Taiwan have led to calls for health agencies to better regulate measures aimed at closing the nation’s gender gap, which is among the most skewed in the world.

Providing better subsidies, education and care for pregnant women should also be a priority, lawmakers from both parties said yesterday, with the newest government statistics showing that 1.09 males were born for every one female last year.

In most countries, a male--female ratio of 1.06 to one at birth would be the norm. The disparity led Bureau of Health Promotion Director-General Chiou Shu-ti to suggest on Saturday that more than 3,000 female fetuses were selectively aborted last year alone

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiw.../16/2003503373

The same thing occurs in other countries like Canada that have liberal abotion laws, but only among South and East Asian immigrants and the first few generations of their community.

It's as Nerdanel said: the problem is not abortion, it is cultures that denigrate women.

[GrayMouser]

[QUOTE=inked;665864]I am saying that [B] [gender-selctive][/B abortion has determinable measurable quantifiable adverse effects on females especially in utero in India.

Words in bold added - because obviously non-selective abortion doesn't have such effects.

I am observing that abortion has consequences beyond the usual arguments about it. I am suggesting that one ought to consider the ramifications of abortion beyond the argument that the body is the property of the female only.

So if a female's body is not her property, whose property is it? Her husband ? Father? Family? Society? the State? the Church?

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

:
:
So if a female's body is not her property, whose property is it? Her husband ? Father? Family? Society? the State? the Church?

I think he's saying the baby's body does not belong to the mother alone.

- - - - -

Interesting argument that some of you are making though. "abortions don't kill baby girls - parents kill baby girls"... sounds like those who oppose gun control for a similar reason.

[inked]

Valandil is correct. The comment is that the female's body is not hers alone in the case of an abortion. It would seem that the sanctity of female bodiness would protect the female life in the womb on that line of argument. It demonstrably does not since more females are selectively aborted.

[GrayMouser]

Oooops, sorry, my misreading.

To an extent I agree, with the proviso that this is a gradual process as the fetus develops toward personhood. I think there should be some restrictions after the second trimester, always giving priority to ther life, health, and choice of the mother.

It would seem that the sanctity of female bodiness would protect the female life in the womb on that line of argument. It demonstrably does not since more females are selectively aborted.

I don't folow this argument. Nobody is saying that females in the womb should have more rights than males, or that female bodies are more sancrosant. A male who gets pregnant should have equal rights to abortion.

[GrayMouser]

Came across this recently, for the Ayn Rand fans out there

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?
.......
Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/abortion.html

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Came across this recently, for the Ayn Rand fans out there




http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/abortion.html

Oh yes - Ayn Rand was certainly no Christian. And that's the Libertarian view on abortion as well. There are different kinds of Conservatives in the US. Ronald Reagan was a key for uniting Christians with the Conservative movement - primarily over the issue of Abortion. A few decades before, many Christians had been liberals and identified themselves with the Democratic Party. But many of those really felt alienated there when the Democratic Party became pro-abortion. Many of the Democratic leaders used to be pro-life (including Jesse Jackson, Senator Kennedy, etc), but shifted with the political winds.

So I find some of Ayn Rand's ideas intriguing, and I think she is on to something in some areas. But I am no disciple of hers, and she sure gets it wrong on abortion there.

[The Gaffer]

Interesting comment, Valandil. Agree re: Reagan bringing religious and fiscal conservatives together. As a matter of historical curiosity, what efforts did Reagan make to outlaw or restrict abortion?

[Valandil]

Reagan spoke about it regularly - and even wrote a book "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation" while in office. Here in the US though, it's been in the hands of the Supreme Court since they made a ruling on the Roe v Wade case back in the early 1970's (Jan of '73, I think). Reagan's Supreme Court appointees were actually a mixed bag, as far as the abortion issue goes - same with Bush Sr (so he did not make the issue a 'litmus test' for an appointment - though the Democratic Presidents since have not come near a pro-life nominee). Bush Jr appointed more pro-life leaning justices - so he is the only one who went much beyond lip service on the issue.

That had become a big fear of mine regarding the Replublican Party... that they would lock in many of the Evangelical Christians in our country over the abortion issue, get them comfortable with the rest of their agenda, but never make progress on limiting abortion. As long as no headway was made, it was enough of an issue to rally the troops. If abortion as a form of birth control was actually ended, they might lose some of those troops.

Cynical of me, I suppose - but aren't we all these days? And like I said, Bush Jr made appointments in line with limiting abortion. But these were replacing justices who already leaned that way, so there was no effective change in the way the court would rule on such matters.

[Valandil]

Ronald Reagan on the issue:

http://old.nationalreview.com/docume...0406101030.asp

[GrayMouser]

Thought experiment- let's say the official Republican party platform is fulfilled, and the Supreme Court rules that life begins at conception, and that therefore abortion is murder, as surely as killing an actually born child is.

(We'll skip for the moment the fact that almost everyone - certainly public officials- who holds this view, feel that the penalty for the woman who murders her child should not even be on the level of a parking ticket)

Say a woman leaves the US with her child, and returns without it- she would of course be subject to investigation- the police would certainly intervene to find out the missing child's fate.

Under the new law, presumably the same thing would happen to a woman who left the country pregnant and came back not pregnant. If she had an abortion while in Canada, say, it's a clear cut case of murder- but how would the authorities know?

It's pretty difficult to smuggle an already-born child out of the country, but extremely easy to take a pre-born one out- and not bring it back.

A young couple at the border, going on a quick trip to Canada, they seem flushed and nervous....

What's a border guard to do?- it strikes his/her trained and experienced eye as a possible case of kidnapping with intent to commit homocide.

"Step this way, ma'am, we'll just do a quick check to see if you're trying to take any undocumented persons out of the country...No, I'm sorry we no longer accept certificates of non-pregnancy- too may false ones circulating...."

[Valandil]

Well - we can always talk about loopholes, and special circumstances, and cases of rape and incest, etc, etc.

But the really difficult part for me to swallow - and many others of my own line of thinking, I believe - is that those we sincerely consider to be human are being destroyed at the rate of 1.4 to 1.5 million per year in the US alone. That's about 1000 more every day than were killed in the Sept 11 attacks of 2001. Every day.

So we can be intellectual and hypothetical about it from any different angle we want to be - but we're doing (and rationalizing) a lot of killing in this country - and in every country of the civilized world.

We basically want the right to have sex, without protection and without consequences. If it creates a life, we can very discretely, very quietly, very conveniently put it out of the way - and console our feelings by propogating a belief that it wasn't really a valid life anyway.

Your scenario - my guess is it would be doubtful that a woman leaving the country pregnant and returning without a child (in the womb or out) would be prosecuted. Nor do I advocate murder charges for mothers. I just think we need to get real about what we're doing - and start having our actions matter to us.

[The Gaffer]

Thanks for answering the above, Val. Interesting. I think I agree that older-school Republicans like Reagan and Bush Sr were paying lip service to the issue in order to garner political support. They had no intention of going any further because they knew how damaging it would be politically. Bush Jr played a similar game IMO, but he has had to go a bit further to retain credibility with the religious right. His tactic, it seems, was to focus on other issues, like gay marriage and abstinence education.

Originally Posted by Valandil

But the really difficult part for me to swallow - and many others of my own line of thinking, I believe - is that those we sincerely consider to be human are being destroyed at the rate of 1.4 to 1.5 million per year in the US alone. That's about 1000 more every day than were killed in the Sept 11 attacks of 2001. Every day.

I find that hard to swallow too. I can fully understand how that belief would be extremely painful to bear and I genuinely marvel that people are able to so without resorting to violent confrontation.

Re: loopholes, I think in that situation, people bunking off to Canada would be the least of your worries.

[Valandil]

Thank you for that response Gaffer. Of course we all want things the way we believe is best - but I'd much rather disagree agreeably than disagreeably. Of course, there are a few cases now and then of people acting out violently - but if they try to do so under the cloak of Christianity... well, I don't want to judge them, but they're missing some part of the message. It is sinful for us to combat sin in a sinful way.

I take it you think US society would have many other problems if we stopped offering abortions on demand? I would disagree. I think we would be a better society for it. Really - the very best way would be if people no longer wanted to have the abortions. If children were valued once again in our culture.

I can't totally agree about Reagan being among those Republicans. Politicians are all difficult to read, but I hesitate to attribute such political cynicism to him. Of course, one can argue that 'the proof is in the pudding' - and his Supreme Court appointments were not all pro-life (while the party line was - "elect us and we'll appoint pro-life justices!"). But Reagan was REALLY behind the push in the Republican Party to embrace the pro-life agenda. I'm only dimly aware of the twists and turns of things before 1973, but here is how I think some of that played out:
* 1968 & 1972 - Nixon elections - I don't think he was pro-life, but I don't think abortion had become a major political issue yet. That happened in Jan '73 - I guess real close to the date of Nixon's second inauguration.
* 1973 - Supreme Court removes almost all state restrictions on abortion in the Roe v Wade case.
* 1974 - Nixon resigns, Ford sworn in as President.
* 1976 - Reagan almost upsets Ford in the Republican Primary - having made abortion a big issue (as well as riding the anti-administration wave after Watergate). Ford adopts the platform and runs as a pro-life candidate. But Carter wins the election, as a Southern Baptist on a pro-choice platform for the Democratic Party.
* 1980 - Reagan rides a big wave to victory. Of course, abortion is one of the issues - certainly the one that galvanizes many Christian Americans behind Reagan. Another issue though is the sagging economy.

I think rather that a number of other Republicans in the party were not so pro-life as Reagan, and I think many of them had his ear. I think the party of Nixon-Goldwater would not have been pro-life. I think Reagan genuinely was. I have my doubts about folks like Gingrich and Limbaugh.