Selective-Sex Abortion?

Lonnie · #21 27th November 2006, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by CCGirl

Why should any of this be information you are privy to? It is a personal, private medical decision. The reasons are noone's business.

Whe[n] we say it is her choice, that means she does not have to justify anything to you.

Well, we are not meddling with peoples private affairs. I am simply asking for people to state their opinion of whether or not they find sex-selective abortions moral or not. And then to enlighten us with their justification of such a belief. If you don't want to you don't have to.

So... now I just gotta ask, why did you post? Your post does not appear to directly deal with the topic at hand.

" I will try to be clearer....IT IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS WHO HAS AN ABORTION OR THEIR REASONS FOR IT.I do not spend my time wondering about everyone else's personal and private MEDICAL DECISIONS."

Let me make this clearer, this thread is not about if the mother has a right to it or not(or if we should intervene, there are plenty of other threads to talk about such matters), it is about the morality of the subject at hand.

rambot · #22 27th November 2006, 11:48 PM

I consider myself to be pro-choice but for some reason, the thought of killing because of a certain biological trait is a real turn off.

I live in s. Korea and they have made it illegal for doctors to tell prospective parents what gender the baby is. It's quite obvious in my school where the cut off point is:
Gr.4-5-6
have at least 4 or 5 more boys than girls
while
gr. 3 and under all have virtually identical numbers.

Luckily, gender roles in S. Korea are, in some ways, becoming a lot more liberated: At least in so much as now children of BOTH genders have to take care of their ailing aging parents.

Phylogeny · #23 28th November 2006, 01:44 AM

I don't condone sexism but I believe in a women's right to choice. If she chooses to abort b/c of the gender, than I would not stand in her way, I just think it's a dumb reason to do it.

Asimov · #24 28th November 2006, 03:46 AM

Originally Posted by Lonnie

"And what are your justifications for those premises?"

In an abortion a child is intentionally deprived of life, which I believe meets the definition of murder.

I disagree with the definition of the term murder, since murder applies only to humans and specifically refers to immoral killing or unlawful killing. Wordnet uses that as a primary definition.

Your definition is too broad, or else you could even accuse God of murder and you'd be right using your definition.

What about your other justification?

You believe God defines moral and immoral acts. That is a premise, how do you justify that?

According to my rational and a little logic, much as like you said, it would be ridiculous to think that population is the only(or primary) deciding factor in a strong economy. A strong economy does have many other factors involved.

Please explain how you came to the conclusion that "the more people, the better" from my rational.

"Therefore I come to the conclusion that as population increases the economy may grow stronger, and that as the population decreases, the economy may weaken."

Here.

How is my idea "a little narrow"? I have not excluded any factors. Please explain to me how you came so such a conclusion, so that I may better communicate my thoughts more clearly in the future and to prevent future misunderstandings.

Well, you only concluded through mere population that a higher population is a good thing and a lower population is a bad thing...therefore abortions are wrong because they lower the population.

Clearly, and as you agreed, that is too limited since economics rely on more than just population. Not to mention that as has been indicated, the population hasn't dropped since we are experiencing population growth.

Even if you definition isn't narrow, it still doesn't apply since the population figures have shown an exponential increase.

However, both you and I have a right to speak of the morality of abortions. So what if it is the womens choice? I don't see what has to do with the morality of selective sex abortions (the Topic of this thread is about the morality of selective-sex abortion)?

Yes, and since I see nothing wrong with any form of abortion, I see nothing wrong with selective sex abortion. Specific cases in this sense doesn't matter.

There are approximately 6 billion 600 million people alive right. If those nearly 1 billion abortions would not have been performed there could have been roughly 2/13th more people alive right now. That would bump the global population over 7.6 billion. It would also mean that there would be more consumer, producers, entrepreneurs, and scientists alive today.

Naked assertion.

Even so, it could also mean more ecological stress, more poverty, more starvation, less jobs, more orphans, more kids needing adoption, more homeless.

More people does not equal a good thing.

I believe that the most free market economies would have been better off if those nearly 1 billion abortions would have never taken place.

There are no free market economies, and you only assume that based on your own belief that those people would have grown up to be all contributing members of society, and that having a billion more people would be a good thing.

So, you find "abortion (including sex selection) is not entirely a bad thing. " Does that mean you found it economically beneficial and morally right to have an abortion based on the sex of the child?

I can't say it is economically beneficial or deficient since I do not have the data that would indicate the results of an abortion economically, and neither do you.

I think an abortion is amoral, in that it is neither moral nor immoral. The act of abortion is completely neutral.

Asimov · #25 28th November 2006, 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by rambot

I consider myself to be pro-choice but for some reason, the thought of killing because of a certain biological trait is a real turn off.

So aborting someone because they have Down's Syndrome or any other debilitating genetic disorder is a turn off for you?

Lonnie · #26 28th November 2006, 05:28 AM

Your right. My previous reasoning(and broad definitions) for why abortion is immoral is inaccurate.

I personally feel convicted(likely from previous experiences, accumulated knowledge and from my relationship with God) that one should not end another human being's life. I believe a fetus is human (I do believe the DNA of a fetus would quite closely resemble that of a new born child). That murder (and/or killing) of another human is generally (but not always, there is usually the person "who") harmful in some way to some societies.

The definition of may is "used to express possibility" according to dictionary.com (I do believe it is the first definition given for it as well).
So I don't see what is wrong with me saying that as an population increases an economy has the possibility to grow stronger; as a population decreases there is a possibility for the economy to weaken. (Of course, much of this would depend on your definition of a strong or weak economy)

"More people does not equal a good thing."
It may also be said that
"More people does not equal a bad thing."
I would imagine that there are cases where less people would be better, and cases where less people would be worse.

I am unaware of any entirely free markets(well, maybe some tribal people may have them... maybe).

"I can't say it is economically beneficial or deficient since I do not have the data that would indicate the results of an abortion economically, and neither do you."

I concur.

" I think an abortion is amoral, in that it is neither moral nor immoral. The act of abortion is completely neutral."
That is quite interesting. Care to explain why you find it amoral?

Thank you Asimov

Oh yeah... I also think it is wrong to abort based on sex, skin color, or sexual preferences. Doing so would appear to be a form of sexism, racism and anti-gay.(sorry I, I know it is a little of topic)

David Gould · #27 28th November 2006, 05:31 AM

If a woman wants to have an abortion because they like the lollies they hand out at the abortion clinic, that is her choice. If a woman wants to have an abortion because they want a boy, that is her choice. The two are morally equivalent.

Asimov · #28 28th November 2006, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Lonnie

I personally feel convicted(likely from previous experiences, accumulated knowledge and from my relationship with God) that one should not end another human being's life. I believe a fetus is human (I do believe the DNA of a fetus would quite closely resemble that of a new born child). That murder (and/or killing) of another human is generally (but not always, there is usually the person "who") harmful in some way to some societies.

I would concur that in most cases, ending the life of another human being would be harmful to society. I would also add that I consider what constitutes murder to always be wrong for any society.

I do not consider abortion to be murder.

So I don't see what is wrong with me saying that as an population increases an economy has the possibility to grow stronger; as a population decreases there is a possibility for the economy to weaken. (Of course, much of this would depend on your definition of a strong or weak economy)

It has the possibility, but it depends on a lot of factors that we have no real ability in determining.

I would imagine that there are cases where less people would be better, and cases where less people would be worse.

I agree.

I am unaware of any entirely free markets(well, maybe some tribal people may have them... maybe).

Unfortunate since I support free markets.

" I think an abortion is amoral, in that it is neither moral nor immoral. The act of abortion is completely neutral."
That is quite interesting. Care to explain why you find it amoral?

In short, because I don't think a woman has the moral obligation to keep a human attached to her body for any length of time unless she wants it to be there, especially when that attachment costs her physically.

Oh yeah... I also think it is wrong to abort based on sex, skin color, or sexual preferences. Doing so would appear to be a form of sexism, racism and anti-gay.(sorry I, I know it is a little of topic)

It would appear to be, and I would say that any action motivated by sexism, racism, or anti-gay towards an independent human being would be wrong. Again, abortion is a different case.

Casimir · #29 2nd December 2006, 06:12 PM

First off, I'm not a fan of abortion - but having looked at the actual numbers (rather than the rhetoric), I prefer to keep abortion legal because it actually cuts down on the number of abortions.

That said, there is clearly a problem with abortions based on the sex of the fetus, because there are lots of countries where girls will be happily aborted, but very few parents, anywhere, who would abort a boy just because it's a boy. India has recently raised the issue, and this problem has also been tacitly acknowledged in China. Perhaps the biggest area for concern, however, is in Islamic nations, where the practice of aborting girls is so widespread (although illegal and unacknowledged) that it threatens to destroy their societies.

Aborting an excess of girls is especially harmful - if boys were being aborted, those surviving could take more than one partner, as has been the norm in most cultures for thousands of years. Excess males, however, tend to not want to share, and tend towards violence as they try to find a mate.

MarcylovestheQuakers · #30 2nd December 2006, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by Asimov

So aborting someone because they have Down's Syndrome or any other debilitating genetic disorder is a turn off for you?

I would be against abortion for any reason. Each life has a value. The phrase "woman's right to choose" frustrates me, as I don't feel its her right. By choosing an abortion she is speaking for someone who doesn't have a voice. She's making predictions on her future as how the baby will affect her life, which she can't possibly know, and in my opinion the decision is purely selfish.