Abortion

[steve_bank]

When China implemented a one child one family policy there were parents who killed male babies trying again for a male. Traditional in China apparently not a moral issue.

Female infanticide in China - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

China has a history of female infanticide spanning 2,000 years.[1] When Christian missionaries arrived in China in the late sixteenth century, they witnessed newborns being thrown into rivers or onto rubbish piles.[2][3] In the seventeenth century Matteo Ricci documented that the practice occurred in several of China's provinces and said that the primary reason for the practice was poverty.[3] The practice continued into the 19th century and declined precipitously during the Communist era,[4] but has reemerged as an issue since the introduction of the one-child policy in the early 1980s.[5] The census of 1990 showed an overall male-to-female sex ratio of 1.066, while a normal sex ratio for all ages should be less than 1.02.[6]

Current situation​

Roadside sign in Danshan, Yanjiang District, Ziyang, Sichuan, which reads "It is forbidden to discriminate against, abuse or abandon baby girls"

Many Chinese couples desire to have sons because they provide support and security to their aging parents later in life.[17] Conversely, a daughter is expected to leave her parents upon marriage to join and care for her husband's family (parents-in-law).[17] In rural households, which as of 2014 constitute almost half the Chinese population,[18] males are additionally valuable for performing agricultural work and manual labor.[17][1
A 2005 intercensus survey demonstrated pronounced differences in sex ratio across provinces, ranging from 1.04 in Tibet to 1.43 in Jiangxi.[20] Banister (2004), in her literature review on China's shortage of girls, suggested that there has been a resurgence in the prevalence of female infanticide following the introduction of the one-child policy.[21] On the other hand, many researchers have argued that female infanticide is rare in China today,[20][22] especially since the government has outlawed the practice.[23] Zeng and colleagues (1993), for example, contended that at least half of the nation's gender imbalance arises from the underreporting of female births.[22]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

The sperm and egg are dead?!?!

If not actually dead, doomed.

You're not addressing my point. Life "begins" at conception? That would mean neither the sperm nor the egg were alive.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Never confuse a play on words for an argument. We are not discussing whether something is alive, but whether it has a life.

I'm not the one doing the word play--that's a pro-"life" position.

You are mixing up "life" (as in alive) with "life" (as in an individual).

The other standard flaw of this sort is mixing up "human" (as in related to homo sapiens) with "human" (as in person.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When China implemented a one child one family policy there were parents who killed male babies trying again for a male. Traditional in China apparently not a moral issue.

Yeah, they don't have the religious-driven insanity. They don't see it as a person until it's functional.

 

[steve_bank]

When China implemented a one child one family policy there were parents who killed male babies trying again for a male. Traditional in China apparently not a moral issue.

Yeah, they don't have the religious-driven insanity. They don't see it as a person until it's functional.

So, if yiur kid has brown eyeas and yiu want blue toss it in a river and try again?

Are you realy justfying infanticide?

When the one child policy was in force I bekleive there were forced abortions.

 

[prideandfall]

So, if yiur kid has brown eyeas and yiu want blue toss it in a river and try again?

Are you realy justfying infanticide?

fuck, if they come out being kinda stupid or taking to hobbies you don't like or having a weird face, chuck them in a river and try again.
what, we're going to run out of people anytime soon? we can afford to be picky, there's no logistical reason that as a species we need to be churning them out as rapidly as possible.

i support abortion until somewhere between 9 and 12 years old... prior to that, humans are indistinguishable and entirely replaceable.

 

[Bronzeage]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

The sperm and egg are dead?!?!

If not actually dead, doomed.

You're not addressing my point. Life "begins" at conception? That would mean neither the sperm nor the egg were alive.

This is a false equivalency. While a the sperm and the egg are alive, neither are a life. As I said in another post, when my tonsils were removed at age 7, for a short time, the cells in my tonsils were alive. Taking them out and letting them come to room temperature before tossing them in the hospital incinerator, did not end a life.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When China implemented a one child one family policy there were parents who killed male babies trying again for a male. Traditional in China apparently not a moral issue.

Yeah, they don't have the religious-driven insanity. They don't see it as a person until it's functional.

So, if yiur kid has brown eyeas and yiu want blue toss it in a river and try again?

Are you realy justfying infanticide?

No, I am not. By the time it's born it's functional.

When the one child policy was in force I bekleive there were forced abortions.

Abuse by local officials (their system is seriously lacking in checks and balances), not government policy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

The sperm and egg are dead?!?!

If not actually dead, doomed.

You're not addressing my point. Life "begins" at conception? That would mean neither the sperm nor the egg were alive.

This is a false equivalency. While a the sperm and the egg are alive, neither are a life. As I said in another post, when my tonsils were removed at age 7, for a short time, the cells in my tonsils were alive. Taking them out and letting them come to room temperature before tossing them in the hospital incinerator, did not end a life.

Then you have an undefined term: "a life".

 

[TomC]

Then you have an undefined term: "a life".

It would be difficult to explain that concept, "a life", to someone who isn't sure whether or not sperm and ovum are alive.
It would be more productive if you stopped the word games, AKA semantic arguments.
Tom

 

[Bronzeage]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

The sperm and egg are dead?!?!

If not actually dead, doomed.

You're not addressing my point. Life "begins" at conception? That would mean neither the sperm nor the egg were alive.

This is a false equivalency. While a the sperm and the egg are alive, neither are a life. As I said in another post, when my tonsils were removed at age 7, for a short time, the cells in my tonsils were alive. Taking them out and letting them come to room temperature before tossing them in the hospital incinerator, did not end a life.

Then you have an undefined term: "a life".

I don't see any need to provide a definition, but feel free to provide one that precludes my tonsils from reproducing and raising a family of baby tonsils.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then you have an undefined term: "a life".

It would be difficult to explain that concept, "a life", to someone who isn't sure whether or not sperm and ovum are alive.
It would be more productive if you stopped the word games, AKA semantic arguments.
Tom

It's difficult to explain because you don't really know what it means, it's just an undefined term used to argue your point. It's normally equated with "alive" + something, but that something is never properly pinned down--because there isn't a solid argument in the first place.

Why are neither the sperm nor the ovum worthy of protection but the result of combining them is??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

The sperm and egg are dead?!?!

If not actually dead, doomed.

You're not addressing my point. Life "begins" at conception? That would mean neither the sperm nor the egg were alive.

This is a false equivalency. While a the sperm and the egg are alive, neither are a life. As I said in another post, when my tonsils were removed at age 7, for a short time, the cells in my tonsils were alive. Taking them out and letting them come to room temperature before tossing them in the hospital incinerator, did not end a life.

Then you have an undefined term: "a life".

I don't see any need to provide a definition, but feel free to provide one that precludes my tonsils from reproducing and raising a family of baby tonsils.

If you can't define the terms you're using you don't have much of a position.

It sounds like the standard definition of pornography.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What about a woman who keeps getting pregnant and can not afford or has no mental capacity to raise kids?

Why did you specify women?
That's a big part of why I find this conversation difficult. People talk about it as though it's strictly a women's issue when it's not.

It is all happening inside the woman, so that would be the source for it being a woman's issue. I mean, as much as you want to make this a male issue, pregnancy, at its basic level, is a female issue.

Axing Roe v Wade will increase suffering, anxiety, depression, and deaths. Where is the moral standing in that?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

Actually, "conception" is the most over-rated moment of life ever, because unless the fertilized egg adheres to the uterine wall, it ain't ever going to become life. It'll go the way of your tonsils.

 

[steve_bank]

Is there a difference between 'killing' a germinating seed or 'killing' a flower?

 

[Bronzeage]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

Actually, "conception" is the most over-rated moment of life ever, because unless the fertilized egg adheres to the uterine wall, it ain't ever going to become life. It'll go the way of your tonsils.

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

The sperm and egg are dead?!?!

If not actually dead, doomed.

You're not addressing my point. Life "begins" at conception? That would mean neither the sperm nor the egg were alive.

This is a false equivalency. While a the sperm and the egg are alive, neither are a life. As I said in another post, when my tonsils were removed at age 7, for a short time, the cells in my tonsils were alive. Taking them out and letting them come to room temperature before tossing them in the hospital incinerator, did not end a life.

Then you have an undefined term: "a life".

I don't see any need to provide a definition, but feel free to provide one that precludes my tonsils from reproducing and raising a family of baby tonsils.

If you can't define the terms you're using you don't have much of a position.

It sounds like the standard definition of pornography.

I just did, but you missed it.

 

[prideandfall]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

Actually, "conception" is the most over-rated moment of life ever, because unless the fertilized egg adheres to the uterine wall, it ain't ever going to become life. It'll go the way of your tonsils.

i think the whole "when does life begin" argument is a red herring from its starting point - it's a distraction meant to confuse the conversation away from the real issue, to derail any discussion of the real subject with a pointless argument about something that doesn't even matter.

when life begins is irrelevant to the discussion of abortion for two reasons:
1. as a society we have collectively decided there are many instances where it's acceptable to kill someone, so the whole 'life is inherently sacred' argument is out on its face because it already has exceptions, and despite the blustering from some people not all the circumstances where we've decided it's OK to kill someone have to do with defending yourself.

2. bodily autonomy already trumps the preservation of life (for example, organ donation) - we even respect that bodily autonomy in death, as we don't harvest fresh organs from corpses without consent.

i for one am sick to death of the "when does life start" debate, so i say fuck it... just concede the point and move on.
life begins at fertilization, fine. the second a sperm hits an egg it's a fully formed 3 year old, whatever.
we should still kill them at every conceivable opportunity.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is one thing thing which can be stated with clarity. Life begins at conception and abortion kills someone.

Actually, "conception" is the most over-rated moment of life ever, because unless the fertilized egg adheres to the uterine wall, it ain't ever going to become life. It'll go the way of your tonsils.

Your definition of the beginning of life results in an average infant mortality rate of about over 1.

 

[steve_bank]

What about a woman who keeps getting pregnant and can not afford or has no mental capacity to raise kids?

Why did you specify women?
That's a big part of why I find this conversation difficult. People talk about it as though it's strictly a women's issue when it's not.

It is all happening inside the woman, so that would be the source for it being a woman's issue. I mean, as much as you want to make this a male issue, pregnancy, at its basic level, is a female issue.

Axing Roe v Wade will increase suffering, anxiety, depression, and deaths. Where is the moral standing in that?

I know, but the broader question is whether the group has something to say about it considering it is about human life.

Plastic surgery for big breastsi s a personal choice and private, the choice is protected by medical privacy laws. Plastic surgery has no moral issue with others.

Is ending a new human life the same as choosing plastic surgery?

Is there a difference between killing a new germinating seed and a fully grown flower? I don't think so,. Life is ended.

The human quuetion is about a subjective comfort zone. From reporting the highest pro chouce support is first term. Less for second term and lowest for third term abortion.