First of all, no one is pro-abortion. Let’s be very clear on that. There are not people out there encouraging all women to have abortions, and that’s what “pro-abortion” would mean.
Secondly, I think that even people who are pro-choice would be against people having abortions on basis of sex, hair color, eye color, etc. And I think the cases where you would see something so ridiculous would be few and far between.
Actually you’re assertion that no one is pro-abortion is incorrect. China is pro-abortion via their long standing policy to abort baby girls as a form of population control- Males live, females die.
What you are not taught in college is that modern day Eugenics Societies are behind organizations such as Planned Parenthood. Yes, the same organizations that influenced T4 in 1939 promote abortions as a Woman’s Rights issue. I disagree and see abortion as a Human Rights issue.
Spend a few minutes and educate yourself about Eugenics Societies and Hitler’s T4 program.
JP
I don’t believe there is a CHINA policy to abort baby girls. Instead there is personal family planning by the Chinese to abort girl fetuses in hopes that the next pregnancy will produce a male. Who is obligated by Chinese society to care for his elderly parents. And girls grow into women obligated to care for their HUSBAND’s parents.
Any Chinese readers or sociologists who can weigh in on this?
I have read that CHINA is concerned about the coming inequality in marriageable females and what effect this will have on society.
Furnishedowner
Can we agree that the Chinese make abortion decisions based on the sex of the baby?
Now, the world population is somewhere around 6.8 Billion. At one time, scientists predicted that the planet couldn’t support more than 1 Billion people. They were wrong. That’s because scientific advancements that led to the advancement of humanity couldn’t be foreseen at the time. Clearly, the paradigm of science is vastly incomplete.
Unfortunately, those who possess the scarcity mentality and a flawed scientific perspective, continue to perpetuate the myth of overpopulation and the psuedoscience of man-made global warming.
Furnishedowner,
"I don’t believe there is a CHINA policy to abort baby girls. "
The policy is one child… this GREATLY influences sex selection… but unfortunately, it is not only relegated to China… From a previous post in this thread…
"OOPS!.. looks like they are already purposely aborting GIRL babies, just BECAUSE they are girls right here in America…
As repugnant as this is, it shouldn’t matter though, right? It’s a “choice” or are we headed toward protected classes of abortion based on political correctness???"
What would your reaction be to people aborting babies BECAUSE they determined they were homsexual? How does that differ from sex selection?
Cjj_81278 ,
“First of all, no one is pro-abortion. Let’s be very clear on that. There are not people out there encouraging all women to have abortions, and that’s what “pro-abortion” would mean.”
You should look into the history of Planned Parenthood… They have a financial interest in promoting abortions… no abortion, no money… They are ABSOLUTELY pro-abortion, not pro-“choice”… If they were REALLY about “choice”, they would let the women SEE what choice they are making… This was the reason the Direcor at the above Planned Parenthood, who had worked there for 7 years or so, had a change of heart after SEEING an abortion perform on ultrasound, and WHY Planned Parenthood wants to GAG her by going so far as taking her to court… It makes the “choice” all the more real when presented with all the facts, and I would argue, if it were required, you would see a DROP in abortions…
jfpen,
Yes, I agree that the Chinese have made abortion decisions based on the sex of the baby. I’m sure not saying that’s the right thing to do.
But think if you were Chinese, and limited to one child, and only boy children took care of their elderly parents…
As far as I know, no Social Security checks would be coming in. And you’re going to be 80 years old someday with no means of support…what would you do?
The Chinese have long memories of massive starvation. That’s part of the reason we had the Chinese labor migrations to the West Coast in the 1800’s, why we have their descendants here today.
The Chinese population control of the last 50 years is a fascinating story of government societal rights versus individual rights. They did stop the mass starvations.
Furnishedowner
Furnishedowner,
“But think if you were Chinese, and limited to one child, and only boy children took care of their elderly parents… As far as I know, no Social Security checks would be coming in. And you’re going to be 80 years old someday with no means of support…what would you do?”
This reason is removed for the Chinese who live here… Read the article above… Part of the problem with their policy is that not only has it been implicated in FORCED abortions, but female infanticide… babies killed AFTER coming out of the womb… both of these fly in the face of “choice” and human rights…
Now the quesiton remains… What would your reaction be to people aborting babies BECAUSE they determined they were homsexual? How does that differ from sex selection?
I think it is wrong, and short-sighted (creates imbalance in marriageable age young adults) to abort for sex selection.
It is not possible to determine if a fetus is homosexual or not. If that were possible, I would view it as wrong to abort for that reason, not to mention ignorant. In my opinion, homosexuality, like left-handedness, is a normal human variant.
And of course, female infanticide is dead wrong; it is murder. What is the point of these questions?
Furnishedowner
Furnishedowner,
“I think it is wrong, and short-sighted (creates imbalance in marriageable age young adults) to abort for sex selection.”
It is their CHOICE… it is their BODY, remember?
“It is not possible to determine if a fetus is homosexual or not. If that were possible, I would view it as wrong to abort for that reason, not to mention ignorant. In my opinion, homosexuality, like left-handedness, is a normal human variant.”
Your opinion aside, it is the womens CHOICE, remember? She can abort for WHATEVER REASON right now, remember? She doesn’t have to provide an explanation. They know SO MUCH in the first trimester already (primarily because the baby is more FORMED than we understood when Roe v. Wade was decided), are you naive enough to think that one day they will not be able to discern genetic traits (FYI, hand-dominance presents itself in the womb…)? If homosexuality is a normal “human variant”, such as left-handedness, who are you to interfere with the “choice”?
There are so many variations on this theme - too short, too tall, too fat, low IQ… but it’s ALL a CHOICE, right?
Or are you ready for protected classes of abortions that match your definition of which life is important?
“And of course, female infanticide is dead wrong; it is murder.”
How is a new-born any less of a “burden” or “hindrence” to a women’s CHOICE to have it? As we can see from the China example, the LESS you value life, the MORE you EXPAND the normal limits… this is a DIRECT result of government mandates…
I still don’t see how ending a life in a womb is any different than ending a life outside a womb… How do you explain someone being charged with a double-homocide if a pregnant women is murdered?
“What is the point of these questions?”
As we can see, it just ILLUSTRATES the absurdity of CHOICE… HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of babies aborted who had NO CHOICE… They had no CHOICE when they were conceived, NO CHOICE in how they were carried and NO CHOICE in whether they LIVED or DIED… How does that all change with birth???
You see, deep down, you instinctively KNOW abortion is wrong… the only result of an abortion is DEATH… but it is EASIER to come up with excuses for CHOICE than to face the barbarity and incivility of it… To make the point sharper, you are INCENSED with 15,300 gun deaths per year, but the MILLIONS OF BABIES aborted???
I guess the point was so you could go off on another anti-abortion rant.
Furnishedowner
Furnishedowner,
Why not just answer the questions? There were ten QUESTIONS in response to your position… hardly a “rant”… but calling it one I guess makes you feel better so you don’t have to answer the questions…
As far as the “point” goes… like I said, it ILLUSTRATES the absurdity of CHOICE… and your not answering any of the quesitons posed just underscores it all the more… :bs
Lately your posts deteriorate into rants. You call your questions simple, I call them repetitive and simple-minded. Not worth answering. We have plowed this field before, and you know how I feel.
I am for a woman’s right to choose in the first trimester. I am pro-choice. I value the rights of the woman in the first trimester over the rights of the non-viable fetus. That’s it. That’s all. Simple.
Furnishedowner
Furnishedowner,
“Lately your posts deteriorate into rants.”
I answer your posts point by point… detailed, yes, rant, sometimes… but I follow the same format no matter the subject…
“You call your questions simple, I call them repetitive and simple-minded.”
Repetitive because you DON’T ANSWER THEM… simple-minded? Then they should be easy to rebuff… The fact that you continually dodge these questions, shows that they are not so simple-minded…
“Not worth answering. We have plowed this field before, and you know how I feel.”
No, we actually haven’t… because just as before, you never answered the questions… I’m not alone, here, Furnishedowner… you are responding in multiple threads, with OTHERS telling you that you aren’t answering the questions also… If I was the only, then you MIGHT be able to begin making your case…
“I am for a woman’s right to choose in the first trimester. I am pro-choice.”
Then it shouldn’t MATTER the reason for an abortion, including if someone was a homosexual (I don’t agree with this BTW)… but you make the distrinction… and when asked why… nothing…
“I value the rights of the woman in the first trimester over the rights of the non-viable fetus.”
The fetus is not viable in the second trimester, and into the third… Does the fetus become a baby in your mind during the second and third trimester? It’s a valid question to ask you WHY you think the fetus becomes a baby worthy of protection over the mothers rights in the second and third trimester…
A more poignant question is… I still don’t see how ending a life in a womb is any different than ending a life outside a womb, so how do you explain someone being charged with a double-homocide if a pregnant women is murdered?
“That’s it. That’s all. Simple”
Simple would be to quit dodging the questions… it just leads people to believe that you don’t have a defense, or rather, rational reason of your position…
You don’t have to participate in this or any thread, but if you choose to do so, at the very LEAST, have the courage to engage and answer the questions, otherwise, all you are doing is ranting…
I noticed that also, I usually just pick 1 or 2 of his rant topics and confine my responses to those few issues. I tried to answer all his questions before and it takes more effort than it is worth. In order to answer them all you have to take him back to childhood and raise him over again.
Bluemoon06,
“I noticed that also, I usually just pick 1 or 2 of his rant topics and confine my responses to those few issues. I tried to answer all his questions before and it takes more effort than it is worth.”
What you refer to as rants, I refer to as being thorough, as alot of the topics on Random Ramblings necessitate it… I don’t just blurt out opinion without a basis, which is really more the definition of a rant… you’re entitled to your opinion though, as misguided as it is…
Unlike Furnishedowner, however, I DO answer the questions posed to me… when it comes to topics discussed, I’m more of a meat-and-potatoes man, as opposed to others who are simply vegetarian and/or just pick at the edges…
“In order to answer them all you have to take him back to childhood and raise him over again.”
True of us all… :beer
The definition of a rant is to talk in a wild or vehement manner. When you ask your questions in response to a comment but you have no desire to learn from the comment that is a rant. For example in the above posting furnishedowner made a statement and you asked a question about the second trimester versus the third. I assume you have some curiosity about that. If that is the case all the rest seems to be a rant followed by a statement.
You ask these questions but there is no desire to increase your knowledge base on the subject, it is just a technique for ranting. That is what she means.
I listen to people that I think are idiots or people I disagree with in order to understand how things work. Why people think like they do. I listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sara Palin, Nancy Pelosi, and Charlie Rangel regularly. I don’ t believe any of them should be trusted as far as I can throw them. I listen to them to learn how they think. There is no benefit to only listening to people you agree with all the time. People are not insane, they believe what they do for a reason. I want to understand what that reason is. What you do is ask questions as a way to show up a person instead of learn from that person.
Bluemoon06,
Since we’ve swayed off tops from the thread again, let’s put this to rest…
“The definition of a rant is to talk in a wild or vehement manner.”
This can be said of every post on which someone has an opinion…
“For example in the above posting furnishedowner made a statement and you asked a question about the second trimester versus the third. I assume you have some curiosity about that. If that is the case all the rest seems to be a rant followed by a statement.”
The example you cite - “I value the rights of the woman in the first trimester over the rights of the non-viable fetus”, contains it’s own contradition… I ask questions when I see something like this to learn something about the posters perspective but also to provoke thought… I already know what I think about it, but that doesn’t mean we can’t learn something new… when you are debating or disucissing issues, you only truly know what you truly believe when it is challenged… iron sharpens iron as it were…
In this case, the concept is “choice”… The name of the thread is “Getting real on abortion… sex selection”… the question that is asked in response to her above statement, and never answered by Furnishedowner, is she is assigning superior rights to the mother in the first trimester because the fetus is “non-viable”, but then goes on to say that the fetus (which she does not identify as a baby at this point) has superior rights in the second and third trimester, despite the fact that the baby is ALSO “non-viable” in the second trimester and into the third… This statement (or rant, according your understanding of the definition) PROVOKES the question… why? Which she never answers, which is why I then offer additional clarity of a why a pregnant woman with a baby who is murdered is considered a double-homocide… How is ending a life inside the womb any different than ending a life outside the womb… a death is a death… you cannot make someone MORE dead… So going a little deeper, based on Furnishedowners definition of rights from her posts, the rights are not based on viability, but development… which opens all sorts of questions on the subject… it also belies the barbarity and incivility of it all, including the canard of “choice”… When you start to examine what “choice” really means, it enlightens people to what they are really talking about… and maybe they learn something new, right Bluemoon06?
Bluemoon06, what you are using by saying this is a “rant”, is simply a tactic known as a straw man or a red herring… it has nothing to do with the thread or the response to posts, but just distracts from the subject at hand…
Something to think about… Your perception of a “rant” that follows the thread subject and is germain to the topic at hand is more valuable to the thread than a straw man or red herring that doesn’t…
You bait me into this. I tried and I tried to not give my views on abortion because It will probably make everybody mad. But here goes.
I always say it is important to understand why people do what they do. Conservatives almost never understand what the abortion issue is. They think it is about the baby. Liberals understand that it is not. It is about the women. I say that because if you want to stop a thing you need to know what causes that thing. It is an issue for poor single women. The only people that have abortions are single women. When a married couple have an accidental or unplanned pregnancy, they just have the baby. The woman goes from being a wife to being a wife and mother which are not inconsistent with each other. This is only an issue for single women. A single woman that gets pregnant accidentally and has the baby goes from being a hot girl to being a baby momma. That is way different. And on top of that it is an issue for poor single women. If a rich woman gets pregnant she will more than likely have the baby as well. A study was done that categorized the reasons women have abortions. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf the study found that 75% of women that have abortions have them because they can’t afford the baby or the baby will change my life. That means that there is a narrow subset of the population that are having abortions. The only way to fix the abortion problem is for us to raise our daughters to understand that their vjayjay has value. It is too valuable to pass out willy nilly. The guy must earn the right to be able to get on you. When Governor Spitzer paid $10,000 for a piece Girls Gone Wild was going to pay that girl $1million to appear in one of its films. Then they searched their database and found out that they already had her. She gave away a picture of her bare breasts for free and then found out it was worth $1million.
If conservatives would understand that the issue is the poor single girls and not the baby and put forth programs to curb that behavior then abortion would soon be a thing of the past.
News flash, GIRLS YOUR BODY IS TOO VALUABLE TO JUST GIVE AWAY and the offshoot of not understanding is that they end up pregnant instead of ending up married.
By the way that was a rant.
http://www.blackgenocide.org/negro.html
Malthusian Eugenics
Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and “purtiy”," particularly of the “Aryan” race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the “fit” to reproduce and the “unfit” to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the “inferior” races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.
Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics. Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th century cleric and professor of political economy, believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race. He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this “population crisis.” According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people. His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy. Grant quotes from Malthus’ magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826:
All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.
Malthus disciples believed if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be suppressed and isolated–or even, perhaps, eliminated. His disciples felt the subtler and more “scientific” approaches of education, contraception, sterilization and abortion were more “practical and acceptable ways” to ease the pressures of the alleged overpopulation.
***If you do some research, you’ll find that the same people behind Planned Parenthood are the same people who sponsored the Holocaust. Don’t take my word for it, educate yourself.