Do people have a right to sex-selective abortion?

Page 5 of 5 [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,128
Location: Vancouver, BC

23 Oct 2013, 3:18 pm

91 wrote:
That seems quite simplistic to me. As an employer you would have the right to fire someone but that particular right does not extend to being free to fire someone because they were of a certain race or gender. People in this thread have stated that people would abort for other reasons to avoid oversight but the fact that people can be fired for another reason is no good argument against anti-descrimination laws.


With respect, I think that is an unsustainable analogy. In the employer-employee case, it is the subject of the decision whose rights are being protected, whereas in the case of abortion, it is the right of the decision maker that is being protected. Two very different circumstances.

As for your earlier comment,

Quote:
The idea that things will right themselves over time is just hopelessly optimistic and not at all comforting.


Why should we be taking any comfort here? I think I have been quite consistent in saying that while I personally dislike abortion, I will fully and unreservedly support the right of any woman to terminate her pregnancy for any reason, provided that the fetus has not passed the threshold of viability.

I don't take comfort in this. But I recognize it as the necessary and unavoidable result of a legal recognition of a right to life, liberty and security of the person.

I don't support other people exercising their rights because it accomplishes something I desire. I support other people exercising their rights because this is inherently good, in and of itself. I don't have to like it. I don't have to agree with it. I just have to recognize that this is a facet of the compromise that we all make to live in a pluralistic society that respects the Rule of Law.


_________________
--James


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,573

23 Oct 2013, 6:03 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
"If you say rights to own guns are acceptable, then you have no say in how they are used

Stealing cars.

Starting a black revolution

To say that it's an acceptable practice but only in certain cases you approve of is the very definition of hypocrisy.".


Done making your apples to elephants comparison?

Never did anything of that. Done making stupid arguments?


_________________
.


91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

23 Oct 2013, 7:55 pm

visagrunt wrote:
91 wrote:
That seems quite simplistic to me. As an employer you would have the right to fire someone but that particular right does not extend to being free to fire someone because they were of a certain race or gender. People in this thread have stated that people would abort for other reasons to avoid oversight but the fact that people can be fired for another reason is no good argument against anti-descrimination laws.


With respect, I think that is an unsustainable analogy. In the employer-employee case, it is the subject of the decision whose rights are being protected, whereas in the case of abortion, it is the right of the decision maker that is being protected. Two very different circumstances.


Not really because you missed the division in the questions. Abortion is a right to chose when you have a child, it does not follow that this right extends to a supreme monopoly to determine what sort of child you will have. The analogy to firing someone is apt because it illustrates how rights can be logically by looking at what they extend to cover. A right to fire is not a right to discriminate. Further, they would not be different circumstances if the analogy holds and we were to accept that a right to fire someone extends carte blanche through everything. The fact that you can recognise quite easily how it does not do so shows that you can place cognitive limitations on a right. A woman could still have a right to say when she is having a child and not be free to say that only blonde haired blue eyed babies will be born and they will all be men. The right need not necessarily extend to everything as it can still accomplish its primary function without the additional claim.

Quote:
Why should we be taking any comfort here? I think I have been quite consistent in saying that while I personally dislike abortion, I will fully and unreservedly support the right of any woman to terminate her pregnancy for any reason, provided that the fetus has not passed the threshold of viability.

I don't take comfort in this. But I recognize it as the necessary and unavoidable result of a legal recognition of a right to life, liberty and security of the person.

I don't support other people exercising their rights because it accomplishes something I desire. I support other people exercising their rights because this is inherently good, in and of itself. I don't have to like it. I don't have to agree with it. I just have to recognize that this is a facet of the compromise that we all make to live in a pluralistic society that respects the Rule of Law.


Of course you don't like it, it leads to you accepting a rather brutal and unpopular position... What I am trying to do, is reason, within your own worldview to show you that you need not accept such a fatalistic scenario.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

23 Oct 2013, 10:14 pm

91, do you support the right of a woman to terminate the pregnancy if the fetus is anencephalic? What if the fetus has Down's syndrome? What if the fetus is going to be born blind, or deaf, or paralyzed, or missing arms or legs? Do the parents get to discriminate to that degree, based on the misery of the life that the child would lead, and the amount of extra care it will require, and the financial costs of raising it?



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

23 Oct 2013, 11:20 pm

LKL wrote:
91, do you support the right of a woman to terminate the pregnancy if the fetus is anencephalic? What if the fetus has Down's syndrome? What if the fetus is going to be born blind, or deaf, or paralyzed, or missing arms or legs? Do the parents get to discriminate to that degree, based on the misery of the life that the child would lead, and the amount of extra care it will require, and the financial costs of raising it?


My own views are not that important here since we have moved well beyond them at this point. I am trying to reason a line where a mother can decide when to have a child but not what sort of child she will get. I can't see any reason why parents should not just live with the consequences of their decision to have a child and go from there. If you are not prepared to raise a sick child then you probably are not the sort to be raising a well one. If partners commit to one another in sickness and in health it makes sense they should make the same commitment to their entire family. If they cannot afford the risk of a sick child then they should opt not to have one.

However reasoning from within the paradigm that accepts a level of choice, I can see good reason for drawing a line at when and taking what off of the table. Discrimination is not acceptable, treating the unborn as unborn is itself consistent but treating each unborn differently because of disability, race and gender is overreach and sustains very nasty stereotypes about disabled people being burdens and girls being worthless. Take this prose from the British Disability Rights Commission:

"In common with a wide range of disability and other organisations, the DRC believes the context in which parents choose whether to have a child should be one in which disability and non-disability are valued equally."

What is important here is digest the reality that the pro-choice position in this discussion has two components to it. The first is a claim to have a universal right to decide when a child should be born. The second is an additional claim that there is a universal right to decide what sort of child is born. I see no reason to equate the two. Efforts to conflate the two claims into one obfuscate the issue and create an avenue for an absolute right to engage in positively disgusting discrimination. As such it is both practically useful and logically evident that one can be pro-choice as to first claim and anti-discrimination with regards to the second.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

23 Oct 2013, 11:40 pm

'what sort of child' includes 'anencephalic type child' vs. 'non-anencephalic type child.' It includes 'Down-syndrome child' vs. 'Non-Down-syndrome child.' It includes 'Deaf child' vs. 'hearing child.' If you don't allow parents to choose what sort of child they're going to have, you're going to force a lot of women to carry to term a lot of children doomed to suffer (Cystic fibrosis), doomed to be dependent on their parents for the entirety of their parents' lives and beyond (Down syndrome), doomed to not even have the ability to experience their own humanity (anencephaly).



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

24 Oct 2013, 12:07 am

LKL wrote:
'what sort of child' includes 'anencephalic type child' vs. 'non-anencephalic type child.' It includes 'Down-syndrome child' vs. 'Non-Down-syndrome child.' It includes 'Deaf child' vs. 'hearing child.' If you don't allow parents to choose what sort of child they're going to have, you're going to force a lot of women to carry to term a lot of children doomed to suffer (Cystic fibrosis), doomed to be dependent on their parents for the entirety of their parents' lives and beyond (Down syndrome), doomed to not even have the ability to experience their own humanity (anencephaly).


Well it is pretty obvious at this point that you see the two as claims as justified if not inseparable. Will you at least acknowledge that someone could be pro-choice and still separate the two claims out, even if you yourself would hold them to be valid, each on its own merit? You are being far too ideological here, it is clear what your position is and why you hold to it but you could at least attempt to reason outside of it as I am doing.

Further, I reject the language inherent in your post. Children who are disabled are not 'doomed' not are they are a 'burden'. Whenever I discuss abortion with pro-lifers my patience for such language reaches its end eventually. Sometimes I think the best argument for being pro-life is the positions put forward by the pro-abortion chaps.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

24 Oct 2013, 12:50 am

91 wrote:
Will you at least acknowledge that someone could be pro-choice and still separate the two claims out...

Sure. I disagree, but I don't own the term 'pro-choice.'
Quote:
You are being far too ideological here, it is clear what your position is and why you hold to it but you could at least attempt to reason outside of it as I am doing.

*snort*
right back atcha, 91.
Quote:
Children who are disabled are not 'doomed' not are they are a 'burden'.

Yeah, they are. Children in general are a burden. Every additional child a parent has means less resources in terms of time, money, and energy for themselves and for their other children; disabled children, more so. The rewards might outweigh the burdens, but don't pretend that the burden isn't there. Hell, even my niece is a little bit of a burden to me; I love her dearly, and I spend money on her that I don't spend elsewhere. I think about her daily, and since she was born I constantly fear for her safety just a little bit, to the degree that I'm a tiny bit nervous whenever I know she's even in a car. Part of my fear is for my brother, her father, because it would destroy him if anything were to happen to her. Children in general are doomed, even if they're not disabled. She's doomed to lose her parents and her aunts someday, and she's doomed to die; she's doomed to suffer and to experience heart-wrenching anguish, as well as light-hearted flights of ecstatic joy. Children who are disabled are greater burdens because they need more care, and children who are disabled are doomed to more pain and more suffering.
Quote:
Whenever I discuss abortion with pro-lifers my patience for such language reaches its end eventually. Sometimes I think the best argument for being pro-life is the positions put forward by the pro-abortion chaps.

Again, right back atcha. You are not being the paragon of reason here that you think you are.



crackedpleasures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,936
Location: currently Belgium, longing for the Middle East

24 Oct 2013, 8:55 am

One thing to keep in mind: why does a woman choose abortion? In most cases, it is a private decision and we simply don't know the reasons for it. Most doctors will not ask neither. So regardless what motivation, in most cases we will never know the motivation and reason for aborting. So to argue whether it is right to abort in which case, would make sense only if the woman has to justify her request. In many cases she won't be asked for a reason, which I think makes sense as it's often a very painful and hard decision she prefers not to talk about to strangers.


_________________
Do what Thou wilt shal be the whole of the Law.
Love is the Law, Love under Will. And...
every man and every woman is a star
(excerpt from The Book of the Law - Aleister Crowley)

"Od lo avda tikvateinu" (excerpt from the Israeli hymn)


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,128
Location: Vancouver, BC

24 Oct 2013, 2:10 pm

91 wrote:
Not really because you missed the division in the questions. Abortion is a right to chose when you have a child, it does not follow that this right extends to a supreme monopoly to determine what sort of child you will have. The analogy to firing someone is apt because it illustrates how rights can be logically by looking at what they extend to cover. A right to fire is not a right to discriminate. Further, they would not be different circumstances if the analogy holds and we were to accept that a right to fire someone extends carte blanche through everything. The fact that you can recognise quite easily how it does not do so shows that you can place cognitive limitations on a right. A woman could still have a right to say when she is having a child and not be free to say that only blonde haired blue eyed babies will be born and they will all be men. The right need not necessarily extend to everything as it can still accomplish its primary function without the additional claim.


No--really. It is not the "right to make a decision" that is being protected here. It is the right to life, liberty and security of the person, and that right resides with the woman, because her unborn child does not have legal rights that have crystalised. Meanwhile, in the limitations on an employers right to terminate employment, it is the employee's right to be free from illegal discrimination in employment matters that is being protected.

You can't just say that one type of decision making is like another, because you have to inquire into what right is being protected when a decision maker's authority is being constrained.

Quote:
Of course you don't like it, it leads to you accepting a rather brutal and unpopular position... What I am trying to do, is reason, within your own worldview to show you that you need not accept such a fatalistic scenario.


You presume to much. You have no basis to know why I dislike abortion. I see nothing brutal in a therapeutic abortion; and I care not one whit for popularity.

With respect, you have shown me nothing. You have yet to present me with anything like a cogent argument about why I should accept any limitation being imposed upon a pregnant woman's right to security of her person. Because I believe that the respect for this right is inherently good, in and of itself, you have a high bar to reach to demonstrate a justifiable limitation upon it.


_________________
--James


glow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,838
Location: England

28 Oct 2013, 3:27 am

sex-selective? what does that mean? apart from the fact you wouldn't know too early on what it is you could have an abortion. At first I thought the title said state selective, now that's a different matter, but you still would have to pay for your scan these days and I can't think of any women who would deny their right to have a termination as long as it keeps within the legal limits of an abortion; your not going to be saving any money. It's down to the woman to end her suffering, end of.



Mamselle
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 131

28 Oct 2013, 8:36 am

Pregnant woman's body ... pregnant woman's choice. No need for input from anyone else.