Indian Immigrants Use Abortion To Enforce Male Sex Preference

[Themius]

No one is talking about speech, speech doesn't kill someone, speech doesn't provide the possibility of selective breeding.

Free speech is just as important as body autonomy, so...

[ItachiZaku]

I don't see a problem with this. Sounds normal to me.

[Taneras]

It's an entirely pointless consideration that says nothing more than one's feelings on the matter. "x is immoral" really just means "I don't like x" with an extra helping of feelings.

You literally just said "...and me because I don't like the idea of being murdered...".

How is your stance any better/different? Or as you yourself put it, more "logical"?

You can't be forced to give up an organ even if you deliberately created the situation where they need it.

I never said you could, I only offered an example of another factor to consider when making decisions about how we want the law to be written outside of "the right to life vs the right to bodily autonomy".

My stance is the people who claim that the only thing to consider in the abortion issue is bodily autonomy are essentially saying "in all instances bodily autonomy trumps the right to life" and opens up issues with the situations I've already pointed out. I think there's a lot more to consider on these sorts of issues.

You obviously didn't pay attention to what I said earlier about precedent and not just assuming you'll keep being on the winning side.

I mean this isn't hard to get around with thought experiments (which is what we've been mulling over so far), lets say we live in a world where these laws that benefit you won't get overturned, at least during your lifetime. Are you saying that in a world like that you'd have no problem with people killing each other since you'd be legally protected?

You might go on to say that society wouldn't be stable, and you couldn't enjoy the same standard of living that you enjoy now so you'd still be against it. Lets go a step farther with this thought experiment and say that in this particular world you'd still enjoy the same standard of living. Or just change this thought experiment to slavery, where you'd be protected under the law and, at least during your lifetime, your standard of living wouldn't drop because of slave labor.

At some point you'd have to admit that you have a moral code that you live by and wish would be installed into society. Either that or admitting that you're literally amoral - essentially a psychopath.

[Artaxerxes]

I don't see a problem with this. Sounds normal to me.

You have to look at this from a wider perspective. If abortions are used for preference of male children, in the long run there will be an imbalance of males to females in society. China represents this problem par excellence, being the consequence of its recently repealed one-child policy. Currently, there are 20 million more men than women in China, and this number is set to increase.

There are some benefits thought provided the ratio does not climb to more extreme levels. Supply and demand (for marriage in this case) affects even this. With a relatively bottomless pit of potential husbands to choose from, women in China have more bargaining power per se than in previous ages in their history. Who needs so called women's rights and democracy of those degenerate western countries?

[ItachiZaku]

You have to look at this from a wider perspective. If abortions are used for preference of male children, in the long run there will be an imbalance of males to females in society. China represents this problem par excellence, being the consequence of its recently repealed one-child policy. Currently, there are 20 million more men than women in China, and this number is set to increase.

There are some benefits thought provided the ratio does not climb to more extreme levels. Supply and demand (for marriage in this case) affects even this. With a relatively bottomless pit of potential husbands to choose from, women in China have more bargaining power per se than in previous ages in their history. Who needs so called women's rights and democracy of those degenerate western countries?

I agree, we need more hot chinese women.

[pateuvasiliu]

Why doesn't this "perfect example of bodily autonomy" get cheered on by feminists and friends?

It would be, if it was the same situation, but aborting males in favor of females.

[Taneras]

I didn't dress my dislike up to look more important than it is in order to use it as an emotional appeal.

It seems you've just replaced moral/immoral, right/wrong, ethical/unethical with like/dislike without changing anything else. You can go on and give me reasons as to why you think you'd dislike being murdered, and I can go on and give you reasons as to why I find murder unethical and there would probably be a lot of overlap.

I don't see anything significant about the distinction you're making outside of the words we're choosing to use just sound differently. The only way I see this actually mattering is if someone else argued that their morality should be given more weight than your likes/dislikes simply because they're using a different word than you.

I never said you said you could. I'm saying that your consideration is irrelevant, as abortion is already consistent with the current system and governing principle.

And at one point considerations about bodily autonomy were irrelevant in the face of the law, yet conversations entertaining those points of view were still discussed... That's what open minded people do. If you don't want to participate since the law is on your side, that's fine. But its a bit hypocritical based on what you've said earlier, about how the law isn't always on your side and there may come a time where you want your voice heard to over turn a law.

Unless you're willing to accept forced organ harvesting (and whatever other fun things come with essentially erasing the right to bodily autonomy), you can't be logically consistent in opposing abortion, even if you insist there's a special connection.

No, both are compatible.

Bodily autonomy prevents forced organ harvesting by protecting the one against whom an action is being proposed. If we grant the fetus personhood, thus automatically granting them the right to bodily autonomy, then the same protection would be allowed to them since the action being proposed is against the fetus and not the mother.

Sure, all this hinges on whether or not the fetus is a person (and I'm perfectly open to the notion that they're not), but that's my point. You can't dismiss personhood and only focus on bodily autonomy.

Saying something is right or wrong tells me absolutely nothing about it other than you like or dislike it. It's meaningless fluff that is nothing more than an emotional appeal.

Or simply a different choice of words. I think you're setting the bar too high for a simple sentence. "That's wrong!" is a fairly simple sentence and its not going to tell you much about that person's views about that type of behavior outside of the fact that they just dislike it. If they can go on to explain why they find it wrong/unethical/immoral using more words, I don't think you should try and derail the conversation because they're using different words than you are. If they're ONLY saying that something is wrong, immoral, or unethical and expecting that to stand on its own then treat it as you would any other assertion.

It is much more practical to simply talk about the consequences of rules or behaviors or beliefs, so that people may decide for themselves if that makes their life better or worse.

You're still stuck making value estimations/claims on the consequences of various rules of behaviors/beliefs. Again, I don't see any significant distinction between like/dislike or "better/worse" and moral/immoral or ethical/unethical or right/wrong. It seems we're saying the same thing.

[cubby]

If they want to select the sex of their child in this fashion, that's their business. Better they have a male child they love than a female child they'd be somewhat miffed about. We really don't need more moralistic meddling in issues of personal autonomy.

Couldn't agree more. It's their business how they decide to have children, just like it's ours when we do it.

[Sesshou]

My stance is the people who claim that the only thing to consider in the abortion issue is bodily autonomy are essentially saying "in all instances bodily autonomy trumps the right to life" and opens up issues with the situations I've already pointed out. I think there's a lot more to consider on these sorts of issues.

Once you start requiring reasons to be submitted for approval, the autonomy is gone. There isn't more to consider unless you're willing to deny bodily autonomy.

[A dot Ham]

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/24/in...ex-preference/



That's just all kinds of awful. Really should ban sex-selective abortion.

Ya because that worked out so well for China.


http://www.newsweek.com/2015/06/05/g...en-336435.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/china/2.../#67c4bb7a75d8
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ld-policy.html
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/c...-sex-dolls-583

The irony is that they kept male babies to "carry on the family name" and now these men can't find a person to actually procreate with and pass that name along to, and it only took 1 generation. /golfclap well played China.

[Taneras]

Once you start requiring reasons to be submitted for approval, the autonomy is gone. There isn't more to consider unless you're willing to deny bodily autonomy.

So back to what I said earlier, would this also apply to a mother and 5 year old trapped on an island? Would it be moral for her to let her child starve because she doesn't want to use her body to work anymore than she needs to collect enough food to just feed herself?

What about a medical professional out on a hike who comes across someone in need of CPR? Maybe they don't want to use their lungs like that. Heck, even expecting them to dial 911 might violate their bodily autonomy because they might not want to use their fingers in that manner.

How far does this go?

[Taneras]

I'm really kind of bored of this at this point. Your dicing up the posts isn't helping the matter. I think you're still walking right up to the point and failing to see it though, regarding the distinction between liking something and declaring it a moral. You win or whatever though. This is no longer entertaining.

Yea, it would have been easier to just have a discussion about the scenarios I had brought up originally rather than getting off into the weeds.

[Sesshou]

So back to what I said earlier, would this also apply to a mother and 5 year old trapped on an island? Would it be moral for her to let her child starve because she doesn't want to use her body to work anymore than she needs to collect enough food to just feed herself?

What about a medical professional out on a hike who comes across someone in need of CPR? Maybe they don't want to use their lungs like that. Heck, even expecting them to dial 911 might violate their bodily autonomy because they might not want to use their fingers in that manner.

How far does this go?

How far does it go? No where.

Autonomy doesn't mean free from responsibility. The mother chose to have a child and therefore can be expected to reasonably follow through. Similarly, medical professionals choose to agree to a code of ethics. You can hold someone to a decision they chose to make without taking away their autonomy.

[Tomservo]

It's their culture and who are we to judge?

[P for Pancetta]

It's their culture and who are we to judge?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

If you can't see the potential harm to society caused by selectively breeding for males you're probably due for a mental check.

[Kraenen]

Sounds pretty despicable and backwards. Indian women are beautiful and lovely people. Not sure why Canada can support sexism @Tennisace

[Tennis]

Sounds pretty despicable and backwards. Indian women are beautiful and lovely people. Not sure why Canada can support sexism @Tennisace

Ok. What do you suggest we do? I certainly don't support this.

[Kraenen]

Ok. What do you suggest we do? I certainly don't support this.

We need to crack down on sexism and patriarchy. Go out and march against this! Get Mr. Trudeau to save us from sexism and misogyny.