Boges Posted April 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 clearly you want restrictions, but how do you go forward with it? Women will just lie about their reasons, if you're going to police motivations. At the end of the day, someone who doesn't want to be pregnant will find a way not to be. If they go through the healthcare system then make them pay for it. As member waldo mentioned, many of these people may already have to pay for their abortions because they aren't permanent residence. But if they are, I don't believe the taxpayer should be financing the weeding out of females from their bloodline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 So now punish the poor for not wanting a kid when they decide they can't afford to care for it? They clearly have the means to have a child, it's not that they don't want one, they just want a boy. The study even says that this tends to happen when mothers already have multiple children. I think assuming that a woman (who's likely being forced by members of her family) would go to a back alley to get an unsafe abortion because OHIP wouldn't cover their eugenics project is a huge leap of logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 Only to get pregnant again right away, rinse and repeat until they get a Y chromosome. How is that a good use of the healthcare system? Its a good use of the healthcare system because they're not in their bathrooms using coat-hangers and bleach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) Its a good use of the healthcare system because they're not in their bathrooms using coat-hangers and bleach. As I've mentioned, these aren't poor children that made a mistake, they're purposely gaming the system by using it over and over again until they get a desired result. People are always advocating that people who abuse the system by smoking or being obese should pay more than others because they cost the system more than others. It could be made clear that if you're getting an abortion after finding out the gender then you'll be forced to retroactively pay for that abortion should you get pregnant within a year or another determined period. It's clear that mistakenly getting pregnant isn't the problem here. Edited April 12, 2016 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 And as I have mentioned, I don't care what thier reasons are for wanting an abortion. I see no reason whatsoever for them to fill out that part of the paperwork. The woman wants an abortion she gets to have an abortion in a medically safe manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 My question is, are we cool with that as Canadians? Yes. I am not concerned about the ethnicity of a uterus, and cede control to the owner of the uterus to do with it as she sees fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 What about it? They wish to end their pregnancy they get to end their pregnancy. They don't really want to end a pregnancy, they don't want a girl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 Its a good use of the healthcare system because they're not in their bathrooms using coat-hangers and bleach. If that's their only reason, I don't really care if they are in their bathrooms using coat-hangers and bleach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 13, 2016 Report Share Posted April 13, 2016 Yes. I am not concerned about the ethnicity of a uterus, and cede control to the owner of the uterus to do with it as she sees fit. Agreed. I'm pro choice. I don't get to ask the reasons for the choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted April 13, 2016 Report Share Posted April 13, 2016 Frankly, I'm just happy that there is still some culture in Canada that appreciates males. The new generation of Caucasian girls don't want male babies anymore so we'll soon see where that goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted April 13, 2016 Report Share Posted April 13, 2016 They don't really want to end a pregnancy, they don't want a girl. I get the argument that if someone is pro choice then the reason for the abortion should not make a difference, but I agree that blatant misogyny is somehow less palatable as a reason for terminating a pregnancy. It's similar to being pro life except in cases of rape or incest - it's not logical if a life is a life, but it's just an emotional inclination. It's as though somewhere inside many pro lifers, there is some level of sympathy recognizing the woman taking priority over the fetus and in issues such as this, many pro choice people recognize that a fetus really is a life. Exceptions to one's beliefs only affirm the opposing point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted April 13, 2016 Report Share Posted April 13, 2016 I get the argument that if someone is pro choice then the reason for the abortion should not make a difference, but I agree that blatant misogyny is somehow less palatable as a reason for terminating a pregnancy. I am pro choice but there is no way the state should be paying for this kind of choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted April 13, 2016 Report Share Posted April 13, 2016 I am pro choice but there is no way the state should be paying for this kind of choice. I don't really care who pays for it, I just find the whole notion of gender-based abortion unethical (as per my previous post). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted April 13, 2016 Report Share Posted April 13, 2016 (edited) , I just find the whole notion of gender-based abortion unethical (as per my previous post). So do I. Edited April 13, 2016 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 13, 2016 Report Share Posted April 13, 2016 It's as though somewhere inside many pro lifers, there is some level of sympathy recognizing the woman taking priority over the fetus and in issues such as this, many pro choice people recognize that a fetus really is a life. Exceptions to one's beliefs only affirm the opposing point of view. just what is this presumptive "exception"... an exception to? In terms of the proverbial "when does life start"... where does this "gender based claimed exception" fit within those varying life-determining points of view that run the gamut from genetic determinism, embryological timing, neurological criteria or at/or near birth delivery? If one sees a lil' willy in an ultrasound image... how many weeks into gestation before that translates into that point that, as you say, "a fetus really is a life"? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted April 13, 2016 Report Share Posted April 13, 2016 So do I. In the case of physical or mental handicap, the mother's life is a consideration, as is the case of an unwanted pregnancy. However, as you mentioned earlier, these are wanted pregnancies. Aborting a wanted, healthy fetus based on its gender changes the dynamics of the relationship between mother/fetus within the discussion of abortion because typically, we are accustomed to using health/desire as the primary justification for terminating. If someone believes (as I do) that life begins at conception but the mother's life trumps the life of the fetus, then there is certainly an ethical shift if the mother chooses to abort a fetus simply because she does not want a baby girl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted April 13, 2016 Report Share Posted April 13, 2016 Ethics notwithstanding, there is also the social ramifications of gender-select abortions. You see this happening in places like China and India where there are not enough women and the end result is human trafficking and rape. Some of the biggest proponents today in India for an egalitarian society where women are valued are young men themselves. They do so because they simply can't find a wife. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted April 13, 2016 Report Share Posted April 13, 2016 (edited) just what is this presumptive "exception"... an exception to? In terms of the proverbial "when does life start"... where does this "gender based claimed exception" fit within those varying life-determining points of view that run the gamut from genetic determinism, embryological timing, neurological criteria or at/or near birth delivery? If one sees a lil' willy in an ultrasound image... how many weeks into gestation before that translates into that point that, as you say, "a fetus really is a life"? . I'm somewhere in the middle. I'm pro-choice in the sense that I believe abortion should be legal because a woman's life trumps that of an unborn fetus, but I'm pro-life in the sense that I believe life begins at conception.It all comes down to ethics. I see the unwanted pregnancy as the ethical dilemma of is it ok kill one to save another whereas I see the gender-selective abortion as killing for no good reason other than some backward misogynyistic cultural view. That's pretty much what it comes down to for me. Edited April 13, 2016 by BC_chick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 13, 2016 Report Share Posted April 13, 2016 (edited) I'm somewhere in the middle. I'm pro-choice in the sense that I believe abortion should be legal because a woman's life trumps that of an unborn fetus, but I'm pro-life in the sense that I believe life begins at conception. It all comes down to ethics. I see the unwanted pregnancy as the ethical dilemma of is it ok kill one to save another whereas I see the gender-selective abortion as killing for no good reason other than some backward misogynyistic cultural view. That's pretty much what it comes down to for me. ... but it's not killing and not a misogynist cultural view if one holds a position that life only begins... say at an embryonic 14 days gestation point... or at a neurological 24-27 weeks point... or at a fetal viability point outside a mothers womb at/or near birth delivery. . Edited April 13, 2016 by waldo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted April 13, 2016 Report Share Posted April 13, 2016 It all comes down to ethics. I see the unwanted pregnancy as the ethical dilemma of is it ok kill one to save another whereas I see the gender-selective abortion as killing for no good reason other than some backward misogynyistic cultural view. That's pretty much what it comes down to for me. The choice belongs to the person who is pregnant. The only ethics that matter are those of the person making the choice. Your or my or anyone elses ethics have no bearing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted April 13, 2016 Report Share Posted April 13, 2016 I believe its a womans right to choose abortion or not. Many here think that its a womans right to ask for permission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 13, 2016 Report Share Posted April 13, 2016 They clearly have the means to have a child, it's not that they don't want one, they just want a boy. The study even says that this tends to happen when mothers already have multiple children. I think assuming that a woman (who's likely being forced by members of her family) would go to a back alley to get an unsafe abortion because OHIP wouldn't cover their eugenics project is a huge leap of logic. "They" who is "they"? You propose a law that forces people to pay out of pocket for abortion services based on their race or ethnicity? Take one guess how that would hold up in court. Scribblet had the right idea. Do no allow sex to be disclosed until the last trimester, but even then there could be problems. Do you really want children growing up in homes where they're not wanted? How much do you suppose the public costs will be for the effects of a kid growing up in that environment, since this is about dollars and cents to you evidently? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 13, 2016 Report Share Posted April 13, 2016 I don't really care who pays for it, I just find the whole notion of gender-based abortion unethical (as per my previous post).You don't care who pays for it? So you want poor women to have to shell out money out of pocket for medically safe reproductive healthcare? I don't think you mean that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted April 13, 2016 Report Share Posted April 13, 2016 You don't care who pays for it? So you want poor women to have to shell out money out of pocket for medically safe reproductive healthcare? I don't think you mean that. If the only reason is she doesn't want a female child, damn right. That's no more necessary than cosmetic surgery. I'm with BC Chick on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted April 13, 2016 Report Share Posted April 13, 2016 The choice belongs to the person who is pregnant. The only ethics that matter are those of the person making the choice. Your or my or anyone elses ethics have no bearing. Then why not abandon all ethical standards and allow things like suttee and female circumcision? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.