This is just sick...

B.A._Baracus

sunshine and showers wrote: »

That's not feminism, that's mental illness.

Best post in the thread so far. 100% agree.

bjork

The abortion of unwanted girls taking place in the UK http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9794577/The-abortion-of-unwanted-girls-taking-place-in-the-UK.html

A health minister said that these differences in rates of male and female births among mothers of certain nationalities may “fall outside the range considered possible without intervention”.
It forms the first official statistical evidence potentially backing up concerns that sex-selection abortions are being carried out in Britain.

After this newspaper received information that the procedures were becoming increasingly common for cultural and social reasons, undercover reporters filmed doctors offering women terminations based on gender.

“Abortion has become so routine in Britain with 600 taking place every day that people have accepted the mantra that it’s just a matter of choice but that’s not what the law says,” he said. “There is a fundamental debate to take place here.”

El Guapo!

I read about this story yesterday and immediately knew it'd end up here without anyone even checking if it's true......which it's not.

http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/abortedboy.asp

AnonoBoy

Even on the linked to page in the OP it says that it's probably a hoax.

I wonder who could have decided to make up something like this. Hmmm......

Duggy747

Everything about that story was too suspect, especially considering the story and blog both came out of nowhere on the same day and seem to hit all the right buttons that would make it more viable to go viral.

Good ol' clickbait modern journalism

The_Valeyard

Real or not, it is raise the issue of aborting over gender which is very controversial.

The_Valeyard

Duggy747 wrote: »

Good ol' clickbait modern journalism

Really surprised it didn't appear on thejournal.ie

floggg

The Corinthian wrote: »

So you fully support a woman's right to choose, but reserve the right to look down on her if you disagree with her reasoning. How progressive

I also support a persons right to free speech but will "look down" on them if they use it to say something stupid or offensive.

That's not a right I reserve to myself - it's a natural reaction when you see somebody exercising what you believe to be poor judgment.

It's in no way incompatible with a belief that they should face freedom of choice in that area though.

For example, I "look down" on somebody who spends their time posting selfies of themselves on social media (unless they are hot and shirtless). It should go without saying though that thy should definitely have the right to do so if they wish.

One eyed Jack

floggg wrote: »

That is some eloquent sounding nonsense. You can care for people whilst still respecting them enough to make their own choices - even if they choose to act in a morally repugnant way.

You really can't. Allowing people to behave in a morally repugnant way is not caring for them and is certainly not respecting them. That's simply a hands-off approach that's all too common in society where people turn a blind eye but still claim to care about people.

We allow people the choice to do so everyday - we are all free to commit adultery, refuse to parent our children, to use others for sex and dump them when we want etc (and that's only considering the sexual realm).

We do not. We don't allow people to do any of those things, we try to prevent people from doing those things by deeming them to be socially unacceptable. Your idea of a socially liberal society only exists in your own mind, determined by your own standards.

I have neither the right nor the responsibility to control others lives - not would I want it. I can offer my opinions and assistance, and would do that if a friend or loved one found themselves facing an unplanned pregnancy, but any attempt by my to dictate their actions of impose my subjevtive judgments on them would be far more morally pregnant than most choices they could make.

If you're planning on having children yourself, then not only will you have that right, but you must accept that responsibility. Your own standards for what you personally find morally repugnant are no more valid than anyone else whose standards you disagree with. You do it all the time when you tell other people that they have no right to impose their moral standards on other people. That's simply you imposing your moral standards on them.

My stance is that each woman should have the right to choose for herself. To say I am imposing a value judgment on anybody is oxymoronic.

But you are imposing a value judgment on another person when you say that they should have the right to choose for themselves. If you didn't want to impose a value judgment on someone else, then you can only express the view that you have the right to choose for yourself. Speak for yourself, and it is other people's responsibility to speak for themselves.

I wish them to have the right to make their own judgment and make whatever decision they decide is best.

Until the decisions and judgments they make affect you? Because that's what follows from your allowing people to choose for themselves and abdicate any social responsibility. If that same ideology were applied to everyone in society, then society wouldn't be long reverting to the stone age. Social responsibility is a necessity for social cohesion, and that's why we have laws based on social morality. Those laws may change as the prevailing social morality changes. Tbh I think if we were to have a referendum on the 8th in the morning, it would be defeated.

floggg

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well that's clearly untrue as there are many people who celebrate the fact that they've had an abortion, and as for your 99% figure, I don't know where you get that from when an abortion is a desireable outcome for a woman who does not want to continue her pregnancy.





Special circumstances much? Either the argument is that a woman is entitled to choose to terminate her pregnancy under any circumstances, or she isn't, and then your argument changes to when she is or isn't allowed to choose, according to your standards. No different then from those people you claim have no right to impose their standards on anyone else.

Who actually "celebrates" that they had an abortion? Is this with champagne and cake?

Or do they just think it was the right decision for them.

And abortion is not a desirable outcome. It is more desirable than carrying the child to term, but I am sure that the vast majority of people who have an abortion would rather not be in the position to need one in the first place.

What special circumstances and how has my argument changed?

A woman's right always trumps a foetus's rights and there is no guarantee any foetus will make it to term.

Even if you could guarantee it, the woman's rights still trump it. The only qualification I would make on that is regarding term limits, so that a woman should not be allowed terminate after a certain period (though im not qualified to draw that line) save on medical grounds.

Feel free to twist as you will though.

Jon Stark

The whole plane sequence made me think one word: yarn.

Won't stop this thread reaching 100 odd pages though like every other topic on the subject in AH.

floggg

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nothing wrong at all with having an opinion, but when you express that opinion, you are imposing your value judgments on other people.

Bringing children into the world and imposing our world view on them is no different to anything parents do every day. This woman is no different. It is her right to raise proper little man haters if she wants, and suggesting that in doing so she has mental health issues is quite simply arrogance. By that standard, anyone whose opinion is in direct contradiction to your own is suffering from mental health issues. That's the sort of thinking that led to justifications for people being locked up in the past.

I don't think you know what imposing means.

An opinion cannot be imposed upon anybody unless they are forced to either listen or comply.

So unless she pins down the probably non-existent Lana and shouts her judgment into her face, she is imposing nothing, simply expressing.

BeerWolf

I wonder if identifying the gender of foetuses should banned, before this becomes all too common ?

It's doing wonders in China with a 37m difference between males and females. But then again, people seem to have no problem there disposing of female babies like garbage...

bjork

BeerWolf wrote: »

I wonder if identifying the gender of foetuses should banned, before this becomes all too common ?

It's doing wonders in China with a 37m difference between males and females. But then again, people seem to have no problem there disposing of female babies like garbage...

It's seems unethical to revel gender when some people use it as a method to determine if they will abort it or not. It's unethical to record the sex of aborted fetuses and not practiced (in UK as per previous link).

Other than vanity reasons, what medical justification have they for revealing the gender?

fedor.2.

Must be long days, for a lot of ye, just waiting around to be outraged by something.

How anyone, having read the piece, could actually believe it was true, is amazing.

Most of ye just read the headline and went crazy.

Galwayguy35

Morag wrote: »

Saying abortion should not be allowed due to her action is like saying, cars should not be allowed cos people crash them.
She has issues she needs professional help not to be splashed about on newsites.

The way to stop gender selection abortions is to fight sexism but it's not an easy thing to do, and in the mean time women esp in certain countries will be abused, beaten, thrown out of their home, abandoned for having a girl.
That needs to be tackled not access to abortion. Because stopping access to safe and legal abortion does not stop abortions, it means women resort to risk taking which puts their lives at risk.

How do you know she needs professional help?

Chances are she is well aware of her views and actions so why do you make excuses for her?

DeadHand

El Guapo! wrote: »

I read about this story yesterday and immediately knew it'd end up here without anyone even checking if it's true......which it's not.

http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/abortedboy.asp

Thank Christ for that.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good outrage.

One eyed Jack

gozunda wrote: »

Where are your 'many' celebrating their arbortions? Been to any good 'abortion' parties down your local recently? You question another posters figure of 99% but then retort with the scientifically defined 'many'!

Been around YouTube lately? Been around many social media sites where women advocating for choice are celebrating the fact that an abortion was "the best thing they ever dld"? Only last year we had a thread on a woman who was celebrating "her choice"! I don't like it myself, I find it crass in the extreme, but we must acknowledge that these people DO exist, and we also must acknowledge that they aren't necessarily mentally ill. They do the pro-choice argument no favours, but we can't afford to pretend they don't exist simply because we find their attitudes utterly repulsive to us personally.

But yes there may be very real reasons why a termination (abortion) may be the best choice. But such choice can never be an easy decision to make.

Actually it can, it can be a very easy decision to make, and again we must acknowledge that there are people that argue that if choice is to mean anything, then it must be choice regardless of circumstances and free from guilt and shame. In order to take the guilt and shame out of abortion, then we must reserve judgment in all circumstances and not simply pretend that the only reason women should have a right to choice is because they're suffering. That's the situation we have at the moment - special circumstances and conditions apply and only if there is the possibility that the woman could die should she be permitted to an abortion.

What kind of choice is that if there are conditions attached?

floggg

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You really can't. Allowing people to behave in a morally repugnant way is not caring for them and is certainly not respecting them. That's simply a hands-off approach that's all too common in society where people turn a blind eye but still claim to care about people.

So should we outlaw adultery? Outlaw one night stands unless both parties clearly agree to never contacting each other again before hand? Outlaw lying?

And who is the arbiter of what's moral? If I think aborting where there is a risk to the mother's life is moral, but somebody else disagrees, who gets to decide?

What about if i think all abortions are moral but you think none are? Which morality do we impose?

What about cheating/adultery? Some people are ok with it, others think adulterers should be stoned - which moral standard should we set our rules by?

What if my brother is cheating on his girlfriend - I care about him, but I think cheating is immoral in most cases. Should i tell his girlfriend, regardless of the consequences for him? Should I physically restrain him?

Or what if he gets a job working for a cigarette company or weapons manufacturer? Should I stop speaking to him? Petition the government to outlaw his job? Physically restrain him again?

Please tell do explain how removing his choice to make his own decisions in each of those cases is caring for and respecting him.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We do not. We don't allow people to do any of those things, we try to prevent people from doing those things by deeming them to be socially unacceptable. Your idea of a socially liberal society only exists in your own mind, determined by your own standards.

How is that any different from my position on this (fake) story? I believe a woman should be legally allowed have an abortion if she wishes, but I will deem abortions for absurd reasons such as this to be socially unacceptable.*

In what way does that differ from believing that a person should legally be allowed commit adultery if they wish, but deeming adultery to be socially unacceptable?*

I am taking "socially unacceptable" in this context to be frowned upon and viewed unfavourably, seeing as there is no actual sanction for adultery or prohibition.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you're planning on having children yourself, then not only will you have that right, but you must accept that responsibility. Your own standards for what you personally find morally repugnant are no more valid than anyone else whose standards you disagree with. You do it all the time when you tell other people that they have no right to impose their moral standards on other people. That's simply you imposing your moral standards on them.

Good thing I am not planning on having any.

In any event:

(a) it should be evident I was talking about third parties and not the specific parental responsibility towards their children;
(b) I would neither have the right or ability to impose my moral standards on my hypothetical child - the best I could do would be to try and impart my values to them and hope that they grew up sharing similar view points. I would have to respect their right to form their own views though, subject to my parental responsibility to ensure their welfare and safety until the reach they age of maturity.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But you are imposing a value judgment on another person when you say that they should have the right to choose for themselves. If you didn't want to impose a value judgment on someone else, then you can only express the view that you have the right to choose for yourself. Speak for yourself, and it is other people's responsibility to speak for themselves.

This is a semantic nonsense.

Firstly, allowing somebody the right to make their own choice isn't imposing anything on them. The use of the word "choice" should make it fairly clear they aren't bound to act in accordance with my wishes.

Secondly, how exactly does one go about advocating for rights for themselves specifically but not for others in the same position? I really don't think standing outside Leinster House with a sign saying "Legal abortion for floggg (only)" will get me very far - not least because I don't have a womb.

Unless you expect each woman to petition the government for individual dispensation, no woman can have a right to an abortion unless and until abortion is legalised. The only way to give a choice to any individual is to give the choice to all - and let each of them decide what is right or wrong for them.

Otherwise it is not a right, but an unfair privilege conferred on the few.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Until the decisions and judgments they make affect you? Because that's what follows from your allowing people to choose for themselves and abdicate any social responsibility. If that same ideology were applied to everyone in society, then society wouldn't be long reverting to the stone age. Social responsibility is a necessity for social cohesion, and that's why we have laws based on social morality. Those laws may change as the prevailing social morality changes. Tbh I think if we were to have a referendum on the 8th in the morning, it would be defeated.

Are you trying to extrapolate some wider anarchist principle from my posts on this specific topic here? There is none there, so save yourself some time. I advocate a woman's right to choose what happens to her body, not that we dispense with the need for a legal system entirely.

As there is only one person who will be required to carry a foetus to term, there should only be one person who gets to have the final say on whether or not to actually carry that foetus to term.

And social cohesion does not require interference on private personal matters such as abortion. It is a private matter, and legalised abortion does not threaten social cohesion.

Intrusion into others sex lives and reproductive organs does though.

dont bother

Shrap wrote: »

True, but it's hardly surprising there are people aborting based on gender in a culture where girls are seen as less useful/a huge financial undertaking to raise.

No they're not.

Sexism doesnt exist.
it's all in ye're heads!!! absolute madness.

Shrap

dont bother wrote: »

No they're not.

Sexism doesnt exist.
it's all in ye're heads!!! absolute madness.

Sorry now, wut? Have you actually read this thread? We were talking about certain cultures such as China and India where one gender is favoured over another. Get it right before going off the head eh?

bur

Now she's getting death threats...online feminists always go to that one to garner sympathy.

dont bother

Shrap wrote: »

Sorry now, wut? Have you actually read this thread? We were talking about certain cultures such as China and India where one gender is favoured over another. Get it right before going off the head eh?

haha, im not "going off the head"...

i hadnt quoted part of her other post, so it looks weird.

BUt yeah, i dont believe that sexism exists. it exists only because people want it to.

Shurimgreat

Abortion of foetuses who are girls is quite common in India and China.

I don't see a similar outrage over that, which in my opinion is equally sick. There's a huge gender gap in both countries because of it, indeed it may have a factor to play in the increased number of rapes in India for example. Young men who can't find a wife or girlfriend.

Shrap

dont bother wrote: »

haha, im not "going off the head"...

i hadnt quoted part of her other post, so it looks weird.

BUt yeah, i dont believe that sexism exists. it exists only because people want it to.

"Her" is me. Jaysus, check yer facts much? :pac:

And btw, if you're unwilling to believe sexism exists perhaps I can interest you in a bit of prime real estate? Beautiful location, one careful owner...
http://cdn.sluggerotoole.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Homeless-Collage-630x630.jpeg

Shrap

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Abortion of foetuses who are girls is quite common in India and China.

I don't see a similar outrage over that, which in my opinion is equally sick. There's a huge gender gap in both countries because of it, indeed it may have a factor to play in the increased number of rapes in India for example. Young men who can't find a wife or girlfriend.

I think you do see plenty of outrage over the class of gender inequality that puts such massive societal pressures on families to produce boys, not girls. It's just that it's a challenge that is faced by those countries themselves and they will need to exact a massive cultural shift to counteract this problem. Not a lot we can do about it except live by example (equality between the genders, I mean).

Philo Beddoe

dont bother wrote: »

BUt yeah, i dont believe that sexism exists. it exists only because people want it to.

Ignoring the self-contradiction in that quote, if I was to say "women are inherently inferior to men and hence should always be subservient to their male superiors", that wouldn't be sexist?

AnonoBoy

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Real or not, it is raise the issue of aborting over gender which is very controversial.

Yes. And my blog about suffocating the homeless because I'm a menanist islamphobe will also raise a controversial issue - that of suffocating homeless people because they are muslim women.

It will however also be completely fabricated.

bjork

Shrap wrote: »

I think you do see plenty of outrage over the class of gender inequality that puts such massive societal pressures on families to produce boys, not girls. It's just that it's a challenge that is faced by those countries themselves and they will need to exact a massive cultural shift to counteract this problem. Not a lot we can do about it except live by example (equality between the genders, I mean).

That'd be fine if it was confined to those countries. People move and bring their cultures with them. There is evidence of this happening in England. What can be done here to integrate them in to our way of thinking? What solutions have the "pro-choice" movement put forward to combat the same from happening here, if abortion was to be legalised? Because the choice is taken away from the woman in this instance and given to family and cultural pressure.

Shrap

bjork wrote: »

That'd be fine if it was confined to those countries. People move and bring their cultures with them. There is evidence of this happening in England. What can be done here to integrate them in to our way of thinking? What solutions have the "pro-choice" movement put forward to combat the same from happening here, if abortion was to be legalised? Because the choice is taken away from the woman in this instance and given to family and cultural pressure.

I don't see how the cultural inequality of women in these ethnic groups in our countries is the responsibility of the pro-choice movement or standpoint to fix. Any place where choice is taken away from the woman clearly is the exact opposite stance to a pro-choice sensibility, but cultural clashes happen regardless of what you or I think. FGM is another issue for our countries, and many other issues such as arranged/forced marriage, for example.

I cannot understand why you think traditional ethnic gender inequality is the sole preserve of the pro-choice movement to tackle :rolleyes:, but to try and answer your questions (not on behalf of any pro-choice ethos, just an Irish citizen's...) EDUCATION is the only way to combat any of these issues, and INCLUSION.