Gendericide.....female foetus' are being aborted....just because they are girls!

They only talk about it when they can con some intellectually abused people out of their vote.

They never want to talk about it when ....lets say ....their Muslim Brotherhood buddies want to stone rape victims in the street for having been raped, or refuse to let girls out of burning buildings because they aren't wearing their hijab.

 

Leftist love women. Dead women.

 

China has been practicing infanticide for many years. Females, more often than males, are killed after birth as in Chinese culture males are more valued. As the one-child policy necessitates a greater need for selectivity....once it is determined a couple is having a female, often this fetus is aborted; purely on the basis of the sex of the child.

Years of population engineering, including virtual extermination of 'surplus' baby girls, has created a nightmarish imbalance in China's male and female populations

 

And all the right wingers here make excuses for a known scum bag who shows every sign of being a wife murderer somewhere not too far down the road.

Right-wing men with self-esteem issues want sons to carry on the family name and financial empires or are unable to imagine themselves being parents and mentors to girls, so they pressure their wives to have only sons.

Nothing liberal about it, so just stop that crap.

 

What scum bag is this? The guy aborting his daughter? I am pretty sure abortion falls squarely in your camp.

It isnt us who wines about oppression and needing protection and regulation of Baby Gap so they don't come get us.

Pressure their wives to have sons? You know the guy is responsible for the sex of the baby right?

There is nothing liberal about the left. Stop trying to distort the meaning of the word. You got one issue you are liberal on, the gays. Soon you will go too far with it though, and make them a permanent protected victim group to be forever distinct from the whole and to be pandered too and treated separately and unequally from the rest. By then the right will have come around and you will lose on that issue too

 

In and of itself I have no problem with aborting based on the sex of the ZEF, or hair color, or anticipated height, or anything else. However, there are larger ramifications when you talk about selecting for sex. So from that perspective I have the same problem with aborting based on sex as I would have with men being able to take pills that kill off all their X chromosome spermatozoa, leaving only their Y spermatozoa, thus ensuring they can only father male children.

Legally, an individual should be able to take what pills they want or have what medical procedures (such as abortion) they want for whatever reason they want. But that doesn’t mean that society at large may not pay a price for the culmination of all those individual choices. Our best bet is to try and eliminate the roots of sexism in the first place so societies don’t value one sex over the other.

 

What? So, you are OK with master race type choosing weirdness, but not sex because society will be hurt by it? Abortions are aging the population rapidly without the higher birth rate of immigrants here we would be like Japan with more deaths each year then births. You don't think that hurts the species?

 

Well, the “master race” type selecting you are talking about doesn’t really have a negative impact on our society. I wouldn't personally take part in that kind of selection but if all of a sudden there are more red heads than blondes, so what? If the average male height jumps up to 6 ft 1, so what? Having a severe imbalance between sexes can cause issues for a society, though.

As for reducing birth rates of humans? Yeah, I am perfectly find with that.

 

The one child policy is not about having a male child because it is against the law to have the sex determined prior to birth in China. The one child policy is more about curbing population growth because at that time, technological and commercial expansion could not keep up. It was the basis from the failures of the Great Famine in the 1950's and its repercussions afterwards.

 

No, it really isn't. Men are physically capable of more work and often have greater capacity to understand math and science. Women are capable of having many children (my grandmothers had 12 and 10 children), so the men without wives issue makes little sense from a procreation standpoint. Futhermore, men and women aren't getting married very much anymore.

- - - Updated - - -

Muslim traditions even less so.

 

And what has any leftist ever done to accomplish this lack of sexism?

- - - Updated - - -

By killing people for questionable reasons? What a patriot you are.

 

I don't believe in killing people for any reason other than self defense. But if something doesn't possess a mind it is most definitely not a person in my book. And I never claimed to be a patriot. Patriotism is too closely related to nationalism and jingoism for my comfort.

 

Absolutely illogical and incorrect. All human beings exist in a state before they can form rational thought (and obviously some struggle with it throughout life) but they are still human beings. Human being and person are synonymous.

 

Uhmmmm, OK So the men will be doing without sex, or will the women be taking on multiple partners?

 

Taking on? Where have you been for the past several decades?

 

So the mysogynism of chinese and indian societies is leading to them not having enough wives? I'm happy to know that the problem takes care of it self then!

 

http://www.smh.com.au/national/heal...-choosing-girls-over-boys-20131225-2zwrf.html

Here is an interesting article to come out of Australia. Reasons why girls rather than boys are the choice for IVF parents.

 

Isn't there some verse in the bible that says "If thou hast a female baby in thy womb, have a doctor use machinery to rip it limb from limb because I God hate female babies and I want to ensure that thou canst get to thine next Miley Cyrus concert, thou knowest, the important stuff?" You see, abortion is just done by religious folks who attend church, it's in the bible.

 

I personally find it reprehensible and wouldn't encourage anyone to do it, but as to whether it should be legal... Well, I'd only say that any law governing this should be general enough in nature to affect all non-essential abortions. If you're going to allow mothers to abort babies for reasons other than necessity due to risk to health or life of the mother, say, then I suppose you have to allow for gender selection as well, as that would fall under the category of non-essential abortion.

 

I really don't care about semantics. I also don't care about humans before they have developed a mind any more than I care about humans once they are dead and their minds cease. It is your mind that makes you a person, an individual, a feeling, sentient being, and thus worthy of rights. Without a mind you are just tissue. If the day ever comes that AI advances enough to produce a sentient computer with a mind, then I will argue they shouldn’t be created, and IF created and turned on I would argue they shouldn’t be turned off unless they choose to be. No mind, no rights.

 

But isn't 'a mind' just a set of atoms with electric connections? I'm sure, without being terrible knowledgeable on the subject, that there are plenty of ways one could deconstruct what you consider to be a 'mind', showing how illogical and arbitrary a concept it really is. For that much is true: it's a concept of humans, a useful abstraction for us, but which has very little to do with reality. My point being that it's not very useful to try to apply human abstractions unto the real world.

 

What a coincidence, I don't care about what you care about!!!! But fetuses are clearly people. Have a nice night.

 

The mind is an emergent property of a functioning brain. While the mechanisms behind it are complicated, the concept isn't.

 

But what exaclty is 'functioning'? How is that determined? Does it stop counting as a mind if I remove this, or this, or that? it's a concept that cannot be relevantly defined. I am making the case that the very concept of a mind doesn't rest on anything tangiable, but that it's a mere abstraction. And the further point is that you are basing your arguments on the same ground as those who say a fetus is a human. It's all arbitrary, subjective, human abstractions, which are blurry, illogical, and inconsistent, hard to apply to reality et cetera.

Yes, I'm pretty nihilistic on this.

 

All of those points make for really interesting conversations. And I don’t believe there is a hard line where the mind suddenly comes online. Unfortunately laws do have to draw arbitrary lines, assuming you are going to have laws at all. I can say without a doubt that a blastocyst does not have a mind. My four year old absolutely does have a mind. What about a newborn baby? It isn’t sophisticated by any means but they show evidence of having one both through behavior and brain scans. I tend to think that late term fetuses probably have a rudimentary mind as there is evidence that they have dreams. Where in that third trimester or possibly late second trimester does the mind begin to emerge? I don’t know, and as I said I doubt it is a hard line. But if you are going to regulate abortion a line does have to be drawn.

I can get pretty nihilistic as well, though.