Page 3 of 5 [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Khan_Sama
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 882
Location: New Human Empire

11 Dec 2008, 11:06 pm

anna-banana wrote:
I don't like the fact that they did it for the male heir a lot more than just the fact that the woman is a dinosaur...


Like how people in Canada prefer a baby girl, the Chinese and Indians prefer boys. Traditional reasons. Again, in parts of India, like Kerela and Meghalaya, a baby girl is prefered due to the dominant matriachal society.

slowmutant wrote:
I strongly suspect it has something do with the fact that India has a ridiculous amount of people within its borders. Their sheer numbers are distorting their DNA.


Unfortunately, India has a high fertility rate. Government family planning attempts have completely failed.



MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,044
Location: Missouri

11 Dec 2008, 11:11 pm

^

Quote:
Unfortunately, India has a high fertility rate. Government family planning attempts have completely failed.


I don't want to come off as ignorant but isn't that because they won't use....erm..protection?


_________________
I live as I choose or I will not live at all.
~Delores O’Riordan


Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

11 Dec 2008, 11:43 pm

ShadesOfMe wrote:
Wow. That's pretty old. Good for her!

Quote:
In India, it's common to abort female fetuses, although it is illegal for doctors to reveal the sex of a fetus to pregnant parents.


Why is it illegal? to stop people from aborting based on the sex of the child? What about people who aren't going to abort? what if *they* want to find out? That is unfair.


Its a security against people aborting healthy children based on sex, yes. It may seem "unfair" to you, but in a culture where female gender can be a death sentence to an unborn child, its an unfairness that saves lives. If they just went round telling them all the sex, how many would carry to term? It would increase the abortion rate of girls exponentially.

Some laws are not there to be arbitrary, or mean, or controlling. They are there to help.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


Eggman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,676

12 Dec 2008, 1:30 am

i just cant care no matter how hard i try



MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,044
Location: Missouri

12 Dec 2008, 1:39 am

We know, but at least you cared enough to post.


_________________
I live as I choose or I will not live at all.
~Delores O’Riordan


gemstone123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,196
Location: UK

12 Dec 2008, 1:45 pm

I think it's unfair of them to have a child at their age just so that they can have a male heir. It sounds a bit selfish.



gemstone123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,196
Location: UK

12 Dec 2008, 1:51 pm

Macbeth wrote:
ShadesOfMe wrote:
Wow. That's pretty old. Good for her!

Quote:
In India, it's common to abort female fetuses, although it is illegal for doctors to reveal the sex of a fetus to pregnant parents.


Why is it illegal? to stop people from aborting based on the sex of the child? What about people who aren't going to abort? what if *they* want to find out? That is unfair.


Its a security against people aborting healthy children based on sex, yes. It may seem "unfair" to you, but in a culture where female gender can be a death sentence to an unborn child, its an unfairness that saves lives. If they just went round telling them all the sex, how many would carry to term? It would increase the abortion rate of girls exponentially.

Some laws are not there to be arbitrary, or mean, or controlling. They are there to help.


That's true.



m91
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 204
Location: London, United Kingdom

12 Dec 2008, 2:09 pm

Idiotic parents. Those children are almost guaranteed to become orphans before they are fully grown.

It's completely unnatural to have children at that age.


_________________
There are 3 types of people: Those who CAN count and those who CAN'T count.


Eggman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,676

12 Dec 2008, 3:10 pm

m91 wrote:
Idiotic parents. Those children are almost guaranteed to become orphans before they are fully grown.

It's completely unnatural to have children at that age.


a lot of medical advances are unatural and im sure glad we have them



m91
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 204
Location: London, United Kingdom

12 Dec 2008, 7:40 pm

Eggman wrote:
m91 wrote:
Idiotic parents. Those children are almost guaranteed to become orphans before they are fully grown.

It's completely unnatural to have children at that age.


a lot of medical advances are unatural and im sure glad we have them


A lot of medical advances are indeed unnatural, but they at least have a positive impact. This particular event has a negative impact on the children, as the chances are that the parents will die before the child becomes an adult.

I guess you could say it has a positive impact on the parents due to the fact that they have a child. But then it comes down to a person's gain at another's suffering.

As for someone who said that the government has no right to tell us not to reproduce, they never made an attempt to stop us reproducing naturally. But when people are reproducing artificially at an age which they are not suitable to be parents that's a different story. At the age of 72 as this mother is, people are unable to reproduce naturally because they are not suitable to be parents.


_________________
There are 3 types of people: Those who CAN count and those who CAN'T count.


Kilroy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,549
Location: Beyond the Void

12 Dec 2008, 9:32 pm

ShadesOfMe wrote:
Wow. That's pretty old. Good for her!

Quote:
In India, it's common to abort female fetuses, although it is illegal for doctors to reveal the sex of a fetus to pregnant parents.


Why is it illegal? to stop people from aborting based on the sex of the child? What about people who aren't going to abort? what if *they* want to find out? That is unfair.
Why is it illegal? to stop people from aborting based on the sex of the child? What about people who aren't going to abort? what if *they* want to find out? That is unfair.[/quote]

well places like that it will mean life or death for the child



Callista
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,775
Location: Ohio, USA

13 Dec 2008, 12:22 am

I think it was too much of a risk--too much risk of losing the babies or ending up dead herself--to be ethical.


_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com

Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com


Eggman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,676

13 Dec 2008, 1:32 am

m91 wrote:
Eggman wrote:
m91 wrote:
Idiotic parents. Those children are almost guaranteed to become orphans before they are fully grown.

It's completely unnatural to have children at that age.


a lot of medical advances are unatural and im sure glad we have them


A lot of medical advances are indeed unnatural, but they at least have a positive impact. This particular event has a negative impact on the children, as the chances are that the parents will die before the child becomes an adult.

I guess you could say it has a positive impact on the parents due to the fact that they have a child. But then it comes down to a person's gain at another's suffering.

As for someone who said that the government has no right to tell us not to reproduce, they never made an attempt to stop us reproducing naturally. But when people are reproducing artificially at an age which they are not suitable to be parents that's a different story. At the age of 72 as this mother is, people are unable to reproduce naturally because they are not suitable to be parents.


Could live to their 1003...
a 25 year old womwn may die in child birth

Ment 100



Last edited by Eggman on 13 Dec 2008, 2:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

tweety_fan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Oct 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,555

13 Dec 2008, 2:06 am

eeeeeeeek.



Eggman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,676

13 Dec 2008, 2:10 am

Eggman wrote:
m91 wrote:
Eggman wrote:
m91 wrote:
Idiotic parents. Those children are almost guaranteed to become orphans before they are fully grown.

It's completely unnatural to have children at that age.


a lot of medical advances are unatural and im sure glad we have them


A lot of medical advances are indeed unnatural, but they at least have a positive impact. This particular event has a negative impact on the children, as the chances are that the parents will die before the child becomes an adult.

I guess you could say it has a positive impact on the parents due to the fact that they have a child. But then it comes down to a person's gain at another's suffering.

As for someone who said that the government has no right to tell us not to reproduce, they never made an attempt to stop us reproducing naturally. But when people are reproducing artificially at an age which they are not suitable to be parents that's a different story. At the age of 72 as this mother is, people are unable to reproduce naturally because they are not suitable to be parents.


Could live to their 1003...
a 25 year old womwn may die in child birth

Ment 100


ment 100



m91
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 204
Location: London, United Kingdom

13 Dec 2008, 9:14 pm

So you are saying that it is ok to have a child at the age of 72 as the parents might live to ta 100. So when the parents are in their late 90s will they be physically strong and active enough to cater for 2 demanding teenagers?

And just how many countries have a life expectancy of 100? None. What proportion of people live to the age of 100? Very little. Countries in the developed world have life expectancies between 75-82. I just looked up the life expectancy in India, it's 62 for men and 64 for women (according to the World Health Organisation). And just how many people live to the age of 100 in India, while being fairly strong and fit? Not many.

They would most likely be struggling to walk and look after themselves, and the child would have to end up looking after the parents if the parent even lives that long. This means hat even if the parents live that long, the child won't be able to go to school.

As for a 25 year old dying during childbirth, there is nothing we can do to completely prevent that from happening, as that's nature, but we use the medical advancements we have to try our best. But what is the chance of that happening anyway? What's the most likely outcome? The mother and child will both most likely survive if the mother is 25 years old. If the mother is 72, the child is almost guaranteed to become an orphan, and only some ignorant parents will take such a risk.

So either the child will become an orphan, or if that doesn't happen, then the child will not be able to go to school as he/she will end up having to look after his/her feeble parents once they reach their 80s and 90s.


_________________
There are 3 types of people: Those who CAN count and those who CAN'T count.