What do you think? Do you think it's okay to wait until you're far enough along in a pregnancy to see if you're carrying a male or a female? And if it's not what you want, get an abortion for that reason alone? I could never do that.
I guess if you don't believe that it's a living human being...
Although, I don't understand how any person could possibly think that. It's just sick. Pro-choice people should just be grateful that they weren't aborted.
There are pro-choice people who do believe that the baby is a living being. But hey thanks for being massively insulting... that always helps.
I said that in response to the question. It's the only reason I can think of that a person could rationalize aborting for sex choice. If you think it's a living human, then it's murder.
Then you have a very limited imagination and little experience empathizing with situations that you have never been in. The world is bigger than your life.
If you believe it is a living being, and you have to abort your baby girl because hubby wants a boy, then you are killing your baby girl so your hubby won't kill your baby girl later. It's wrong.
How can you defend killing a living being?
Because I have seen women beaten almost to death that had absolutely no where to go without their husbands. I have seen women who have had their children beaten in front of them who were powerless to stop it and only had their heads kicked in when they tried.
I am glad you haven't experience it but I am also sad that you are so convinced of your moral superiority that you cant step into their shoes and see how hard the choice would be.
Being abused doesn't justify you murdering someone else. I know women who have been in those situations, and none of them would kill their child. My wife was in one of those situations. Killing an innocent person is murder.
A woman can find help, especially in the US. There are shelters, there are churches, there are individuals who would help. If a woman showed up on my doorstep with her kids, we would take them in and help them. A lot of other people would help too.
And of course you know exactly what that would take right? You know exactly how an immigrant with no social or financial support would feel in a culture that is completely different than what she came from? Of course she would logically completely trust strangers who were telling her something different than everything she was told her entire life to protect her from a man who she is terrified of who has threatened to kill her.
Once again you are lacking empathy and the ability to understand another person's situation because you have never been in it.
Having your life threatened is not an excuse to commit murder. When a woman has a baby(I'll call it a baby as soon as that woman thinks it's a living being), she has the responsibility to take care of that baby. Murder is not taking care of it.
Yes of course you are right Jaxson. The world is all black and white and you are completely justified in making decisions on situations that you will never be in personally.
There you win! All women who chose to have abortions are murderers and all people who are unwilling to claim moral superiority are also moral-less murderers that don't care about infants. Feel better?
Do you feel better now?
I was only talking about women who believe the baby is alive. Killing an innocent living baby is murder.
I do believe that the baby is alive and I do believe that there are situations where I am unwilling to pass judgement on a mother's choice if she chooses to have an abortion. I am also unwilling to call her names for what must have been a horrible decision to make. I guess I am a murderer like that.
Point proven... please continue to restate the whole murder thing over and over. It obviously gives you some satisfaction to call abused women in horrible situations names.
Would you extend that same logic to a mother killing her child after it is born?
Nope... because then it would be illegal. I would say she probably should have aborted though. It would be more humane than having her child choked to death or bashed up against a wall until it was dead.
What if the law were changed so that it were legal?
Then it would still be more humane than having the baby choked to death or bashed up against a wall until it was dead.
That's not the only option. You seem to be more concerned with the law than with the morality of the action.
It's not my place to judge another persons morality. Besides you seem to have cornered the market on that. You seem to not be able to grasp that for these women sometimes it really is the only option.
Yeah, you don't judge other peoples' morality. Unless the topic is guns.
I'm sure my feelings on gun control are so relevant to this conversation about abortion... Sounds like I hurt your feelings at one point. I'm sorry if I don't have a bit of a clue what you are talking about. I really don't care either... but I'm sure you're going to tell me all about it anyway.
Nope, I just thought you might want to take a look in the mirror if you're going to call the kettle black.
Your feelings about gun control aren't relevant. You judging the morality of people based on that is directly relevant to you claiming that you don't judge the morality of peoples' actions.
Oh... you are the guy that let his kid starve so he could by a bus ticket right? No wonder you are so chuffed at me. Yeah I did kinda call you out on that. Sorry about that. Please starve your kid whenever you like... I was being kinda judgmental when I said that was wrong.
No, I'm referring to when you called the person who killed a shooter in a church immoral.
Yep... that sounds like something I would likely say. But then again I was probably over stepping my bounds there too. Everyone should definitely enter the Lord's house packing... and pointing out that someone carrying a gun into a place of worship is likely missing the big picture is definitely the same as calling an abused women who is trying to keep from getting beaten to death a murderer...
Gotcha. Once again you win.
Wow... that was a really long time ago. You really do carry grudges don't ya?
Right. So you don't judge peoples' morality. Unless it has to do with guns. That was my whole point, thanks for proving it again.
Actually, all I did was search hubpages for you calling someone immoral and that came up
*shrugs* It happens. In that case I obviously felt I was justified to judge. In this case I don't feel I am. I don't feel you are either. Of course maybe it's because I could own a handgun but you could never own a uterus... or maybe I feel that the circumstances are a little more personal. Regardless even if it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black... then at best they are both black. If I judged when I shouldn't have then it's my bad. My bad doesn't excuse yours.
In addition... as I have found the thread that you drudged up... There was no shooter in a church saving anyone's life... it was a thread about a minister asking his congregation not to bring guns to church. And I never called anyone immoral... I said bringing a gun to church was the moral equivalent of bringing a porno. The poster who I was arguing with also claimed that I had said the word immoral which is why it was in my post as a quote and he also said he had an abused wife. He was the one that chose to starve his kid to buy a bus ticket... I did pass judgement on that one... because starving a child so you can take a bus instead of being bothered to walk is pretty bad.
I qualify as being pro-choice, most of the time, despite being conservative. However, pro-choice has little to do with gender selective abortion. Rather, this seems more an option for people who feel that it is alright to end a childs life in order to tailor the perfect child for themselves.
Thank you, Jaxson, for completely derailing the thread with "pro-choice\pro-life" drivel, and failing miserably at actually achieving anything meaningful. Thank you, Melissa, for rising to the bait, and accomplishing more or less the same thing.
*Shrugs* Then don't have an abortion. And pray that if someone beats you almost to death that someone with more sympathy than what I seen displayed here is there to help you. Although karma dictates that they'll just call you names.
Hey, I told you I would take in any woman who was in an abusive relationship and help her get things worked out. I had a woman approach me at a grocery store asking for some formula for her baby cause they had left the father, so I bought her some things and gave her a lift to a friends' place.
But no, I would not excuse her if she had killed her baby because 'that's better than it going hungry'. I'm not going to excuse the murder of an innocent child. You are saying that it's the only option for the woman if she is being abused. What about leaving?
I can not begin to explain how much lack of knowledge about abusive relationships that statement shows. I also cannot begin to explain the depth of misconceptions about other cultures the statement displays.
You seem to be firmly convinced that your life is just like everyone else's so everyone else should make the same decisions that you would... logically... make. But since you will never be a pregnant abused women living in a foreign culture then there is absolutely no way you could ever understand... largely because you don't want to even try. It would mess with your black and white I'm right and you are wrong mentality.
Habee is from the US. I'm from the US. The stories that have hit the news are from the US. We're basically talking about these kinds of abortions in US culture here.
Just like when I'm discussing the corporate tax rate in regards to the us elections, the topic is taxes in the US.
So to clarify, I'm talking about selective-sex abortions in the U.S.
More specifically, I'm talking about the situations you try to bring up about abused women. Being an abused woman doesn't justify you killing your child to try and protect it. If you want to protect it, leave.
The practice is largely among Chinese immigrants in the us. Moving to the country does not erase your culture. Which leads me back to my post that you don't know and couldn't possibly understand so are in no way qualified to judge. Nothing you say will make me believe you are a pregnant abused Chinese woman so any argument you produce will be invalid to me.
You think it is murder. So what? Luckily your opinion really doesn't change anything... including my opinion. You think you are right and you will continue thinking it. I think you are wrong and I will continue to think it. Have a nice day.
No offense, but how does someone beaing a woman have to do with her killing her unborn baby? I don't correlate these two at all! Many people get beaten...that doesn't mean they should turn around and kill their baby for it! I just don't get what you are saying at all... one wrong doesn't justify two!
I know people who have been in worse situations than you listed! They were raped and left for dead...very poor as well... but she survived after a long hospital stay! She ended up pregnant from her rapest! She never once thought about abortion! She said the chilld was the only thing good that came out of an evil traumatic ordeal. That child doesn't remind her of the bad...but the good left in the world...that is what she says!
I believe everyone has the right to chose anything in their life... but who gives anyone the right to take another life...especially the most innocent of all? And where is their right to chose? Maybe they want to live!
And if we have such rights...then maybe some idiot down the street should argue in court that it's his right to kill his kids? Same concept! Maybe he got beaten...maybe he's poor and can't afford to feed them... so with your concept...killing would be justified...but wait...that's only the most innocent... a baby that can't defend itself whatsoever nor can it ask you not to.... wow!
So you are saying everyone should be forced to make the same decision as your friend and you couldn't possibly understand if they did something different.
Thanks for your input.
Thank you. Trying to justify murder is such a dangerous slope to even approach. Should we put people who are chronically ill out of their misery? It's more humane to just put them under and kill them than to let them suffer for years. Maybe they will be cured or go into remission, but we don't know that. Let's do them a favor by killing them.
Your lengthy argument with all of it's supporting facts and precedents has not caused me to agree with you.
Sorry
Am I allowed to express that I feel this statement contains pure win, without directly contributing in any way elsewhere?
And I'm not sorry if I insult someone who believes that A) the baby is a living human and B) it's ok to kill that living human because you wanted a boy/girl.
And you automatically assume that you are describing me there? Because I am pro-choice? Wow.
Did I say I was describing you?
I'm talking about people who would abort because of the sex of their baby.
For a person who makes that choice, they either think the baby is a living human being or not.
If they don't think it's a living being, then according to their own conscience they aren't killing the baby.
But, if they do think it's a living being, then they are killing a living human being. That's murder.
You said: I said that in response to the question. It's the only reason I can think of that a person could rationalize aborting for sex choice. If you think it's a living human, then it's murder
Obviously I can rationalize it. So yes you pretty much said that comment about me.
My comment said 'if I insult someone who...'. If you fall into that group, I'm not sorry for insulting you. If you fall into that group, then you believe that it can be ok to murder an innocent, living human being.
How can killing an innocent human baby not be murder?
The same way that self-defense isn't murder. It's amazing how your compassion exists for the baby but you have none whatsoever for the mother.
No, self-defense isn't murder.
Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.
See, I believe parents have the responsibility to take care of their children. That includes not murdering them. That includes killing someone if that person is trying to kill them.
Having gone through the debate, I'll have to agree with Melissa. It is never easy for a woman to abort her own child. It's pressure from all sides (including the family and husband) that forces her to kill the child before it can be born and face the horrors that will, no doubt, be unleashed.
Sex selective abortion is a serious issue in many Asian countries and the reasons that lead to it are many, but, a woman's free choice is not one of them. She is forced, beaten, humiliated and tortured should she give birth to a girl.
I recently wrote a hub about this issue. If you are interested,
http://silverstararrow.hubpages.com/hub … -Solutions
That is not the same! Self defense is still killing...it's just a justifed killing... and that person who was killed had to be putting your life endanger...immediate danger! How could an innocent baby...who you could adopt out be putting your life in danger! They don't have weapons... nor do they get the choice! Ask any child if they want to live... a baby can't tell you that! Who gives anyone that right! Just because you think it doesn't make it right! I'm sure to that baby that is being ripped apart or being soaked in acid it would want the choice... the choice to have a Mother who cared a little more about him or her than herself! Abortion is selfish! Sorry but it is... but not only is it selfish it's straight out murder!
Sounds rather...disrespectful? I couldn't imagine the type of person who would want to, or could do that. And I'm pretty much 'pro-choice' (but not pro-responsiblity free) but I understand why the other side thinks the way they do. If this existed it would be part of the reason.
Hi, Melissa. It does exist:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/2 … 52672.html
Thankfully, the employee was fired.
I can. I can imagine quite a few people that would. Welcome to Amurca.
You could never do that. Does any woman have the right to chose differently?
I was amazed when I heard this. I know that people in some countries are determined to have boys rather than girls. Of course, they're doing it partly because boys are considered better in every way. They're also doing it because they believe that a boy will take care of them when they are old.
However, if nothing else, don't they ever think about the idea of all those boys coming of age with not enough girls to marry? If enough parents abort their girl babies - and it seems the trend is up - they will end up with exactly that problem.
In countries where this has become a real problem they simply kidnap girls from other countries and force them to marry.
If the woman is pressured by cultural demands to choose a particular sex then yes, I think it's wrong. For one thing, as Healthy Pursuits pointed out, it could lead to a serious imbalance in the sexes within a particular culture and it also reinforces the notion of the 'superiority' of one gender over another. Where there's no pressure, it seems like an inadequate, even frivolous reason to terminate a pregnancy, unless, as Melissa said, there was some issue with a gender related genetic problem. I wouldn't do it and would guess that most women wouldn't but even if it was banned, it would probably still occur, since there's nothing to stop a woman from lying about her reasons for wanting a termination, especially as technology improves and the baby's sex can be discovered much earlier than before.
I totally concur with you habee on that one!
i have no problem with abortions but to do it just because it isn't the right sex is stupid. doing it because it wasn't planned, you got raped, you can't afford a baby is one thing but just because you hope the next one is a different sex, well that's messed up.it's like in India where they still kill new-borns if it is a girl. sickening.
I see no moral value in it...too much like shopping for a child or tossing out what you classify as leftovers. What happens when we can define the genes which establish the nature of the child...head-strong, low-key, or even the potential sexual perference. What happens when couples abort their child after the doctors tells them. I suspect that some who might favor abortion today might have to rethink where they stand the issue. Where is accountability in this issue? Have we finally become such a "yuppie" society that we pick our children like puppies out of a litter to include hair color and disposition, or maybe even sexual orientation. The public was aroused at immorality of cloning...for God's Sakes...where is they morality on this direction? WB
I read through most of this thread and it was moving too far off point. I'd like to come back to the original.
My brother lived in London for a while, during that time his wife got pregnant. The hospital she used had a policy of not revealing the sex of the child before birth. The reason for this was that there was a high proportion of immigrants from the Indian sub-continent in the locality. If they revealed that the baby would be a girl the family would go immediately for an abortion.
I am very much pro-choice. The emphasis is usually been on the mother's choice to abort. It also means that the mother has the right to bear the child. Pressure should not be brought to abort against the mother's wishes.
It seems to me that while I have respect for cultures and cultural diversity. Not all customs are worthy of universal respect. Some customs need to be opposed.
5 months is too late to make a decision on abortion, IMO. (not including if the mother's life is at risk)
A lot of birth defects aren't discovered until after 20 weeks. That's my major problem with the 20 week cut off. That and those women who are in horrible domestic situations that they can't get out of before then.
As far as selective sex abortions go I wasn't aware it was a problem in the U.S. I thought it was more prevalent in countries that limited children or had major problems with females. In those cases it's more societal pressures than anything.
I understand what you're saying, Mel, but if a woman is okay with having a boy, is it okay to terminate the pregnancy just because it's a girl?
According to Huffpo, it doesn't happen often in the US, but it does occur, mostly in Asian-American communities.
Personally I say no but then again personally I wouldn't choose to have an abortion if I were carrying an octopus.
The scenario in the article was obviously faked and designed to be as callous and inflammatory as possible... under the limited conditions of that fake I would obviously be forced to say that it is wrong... and that would be the reaction that the group was obviously seeking.
However if a women came in that was in an abusive relationship and her husband was threatening to kill her or her child if it was a girl (and that scenario is not unheard of in some cultures) then my answer might be different. If she knew that the child would likely be killed while an infant (which is also not unheard of in some cultures) my answer would also be different. If the possibility of carrying a gender related birth defect was significant... then again. Since I am not the woman carrying the child then I can't tell her situation or motivations. As such I hesitate to condemn her choice.
In cultures where it is not unheard of for an infant to be murdered for being the non-preferred sex? so....in other words, "Barbaric countries" where human life is no more vital than a rat or poisonous snake....whose people are ignorant, blood thirsty, religious zealots or dictators who decide the fate of all the masses? The reality is: there is no such thing as ABORTION is these backward countries, inhabited by lunatics.
As for Asian countries and their disdain for female infants, but reverence for a male child.....There can be no justification, nor excuse nor explanation for this, other than total ignorance, lack of respect for human life and a complete void of morality, tainted with barbarism.
Let's see now....what other insanity could they choose? I know!! Any man who fathers more than one female child.....must have his penis removed. Now, that makes sense. If women can be stoned to death and babies murdered.....let's even up the score! See how simple this lunacy can be?
Nah, I don't think that's likely to happen. These norms and rules have all been designed by men for themselves. They wouldn't condemn one of their own for committing such a 'sin' (even though biologically, he's the one responsible for the child turning out female). They'd rather remarry again and again until they can produce a boy child. Women are just a tool to be exploited in that regard.
I've read extensively on the subject and written a hub about female feticide too. I'm ashamed that it is still prevalent in many countries, even after we've climbed high peaks of liberalization.
You can test for sex much earlier by amnio. But either way, it's unethical except arguably in extreme cases--for example an unplanned pregnancy by a person with a horrendous sex-linked genetic disorder.
I couldn't do that either, Habee. I agree with MelissaBarrett -- I wouldn't choose to have an abortion if I were carrying an octopus OR a litter of puppies. Of course at this age, if I became pregnant, I'd have to choose between cutting my wrists or selling my soul to Ripley's Believe It Or Not!
I believe the question really is, Are baby boys worth more to society than baby girls? Once you have answered this, then you can answer the "selection" process.
If boys are deemed more valuable by a society or religion, then there is no question that that society or religion finds it acceptable to select (by whatever means: abortion, abandonment, abuse, starvation)the baby based on its sex. It's been done for thousands of years.
However, gender selection - whether you think its OK or not - eventually creates an imbalance. Many countries where gender selection is accepted are now finding it impossible to find partners for their sons. This, in tern, has created a new market for brides - often illegally presented for marriage.
When a society values both girls and boys, men and women, then the need for gender selection is gone.
So to me, it's less of a pro-choice or pro-life issue, and more of a human rights and human equality issue.
Sex education, birth control responsibility, and a economic and sex equality eliminate the vast majority of abortions in the world.
We are a long way away from any of that. So the question of "when does life start" or passing laws against abortion does little to help the underlying problem.
It just seems to me.
Many folks in this world are only concerned with their own pleasure, pain and denial of accountability, go figure.
I guess in the eyes of the believers, two wrongs actually make right.
I agree with you. I think it is just a game they are playing trying to pretend that it is a woman's right to choose. This is not about women's health or anything else other than a woman's right to do as she pleases with her body and if a child gets in the way, get rid of it. Sorry, I did not mean to get carried away. Usually I stay out of these discussions because there is no way both sides can come to an agreement.
Murder is a terrible thing that people have to live with the rest of their life & to kill their son or daughter because they prefer to choose what they have is very sad , If they waited till their child was born they would go to jail .
So many regret killing their baby later in life . I lost 2 babies so I hate hearing how many murder their babies out of choice .
This entire topic is getting a bit ridiculous people.
Sex-selective abortions are utterly absurd. End of story.
Any moron who uses this as an excuse should have their head examined.
If a woman is pregnant and that fetus/child/baby or whatever you want to call it has reached viability(meaning it could live outside the womb, but with assistance of medical people), then the abortion should NEVER take place.
The sex of a child is never going to be a legitimate justification for abortion.
Deleted
Your post is completely irrelevant to my post.
If you couldn't detect the sex of the baby until birth, would you still support the practice?
Ridiculous question and not one any person should have to answer. Why? Because in today's day and age, not knowing is by choice. Technology can tell them.
It is relevant. If we no longer had the technology, would that make it ok to wait until birth to see if it were the right sex?
Technology doesn't change the morality of the action. You say if a baby is viable it shouldn't be aborted. Does that mean that a 30-week old baby has more rights now than it did 100 years ago?
It's not the technology that matters, it's the baby.
It's irrelevant.
I've seen a lot of pathetic statements and the above is one of the most absurd. The technology is HERE and it's not going anywhere. To make up a "what if" is foolish.
No, it demonstrates that technology doesn't determine morality.
You say that it depends on viability. So if we can save babies at 15 weeks in 20 years, does that mean those babies have inherently more rights than 15 week old babies today? No, they are still the same.
Which is irrelevant.
Want to bet on that. The Law will change when the technology changes to do what you've said here. Just as it has change throughout the centuries.
I'm talking about morality. Just because the technology changes, does that mean it goes from being ok to kill it to not-ok?
It's still the same being, the law doesn't change that.
If the law said we could kill babies up to 1 year, would that make it 'ok'?
It doesn't. But if it did then the morality would be...as always... a matter of personal opinion.
Individual rights vs General morality. It's a hub I wrote. I also wrote- Absolute Truth About Morals. Be my guest and read them both. I'm positive that you might be struck oddly by them both.
Abortion was illegal. And now it's Legal. Apparently, morality has nothing to do with the law.
Be careful what terms you use.
If it was legal, then it boils down to a person's own choice. Regardless of what you think about it.
And the law is based on, generally speaking, the collective personal opinion of society.
Killing a baby wouldn't be ok at 1 year just because the law changed. That's the whole point. Human rights aren't dependent upon law, and laws that take rights away should be changed.
BS. It's supposedly based on the "best interest of society" taking into account hundreds of factors.
Again, you've no point made here. Why? Because you're using pathetic examples.
Rights are based on choices, as my hub on individual rights vs general morality states.
Well at right this moment my doctors would do nothing to save the baby I am carrying if I went into preterm labor. In three days they would. So if a doctor thinks that three days makes a difference who are you to argue?
Appeal to authority with no logical connection.
Are you saying that now the baby isn't a living being with rights, and in 3 days it is?
Babies have rights, and I'm going to stand up for them.
You were the one who brought up technology. Right now... apparently... my child doesn't have enough of a chance of living outside my body to bother with medical intervention... In three days he will reach that mark.
Yes, I know all about that. My wife went through 4 weeks of labor because they can't induce her early anymore.
But what you are saying isn't related to what I am saying. I don't think it's right for them to say 'sorry, your baby isn't viable'.
But my point is, it's not right to determine when abortion is and isn't ok based on viability. 100 years ago, that would say abortion would be allowed much later than it would be today. In the future, babies will be viable earlier. My point is that the morality of aborting a baby isn't related to technology. A 20-week baby 100 years ago is the same as a 20-week baby in 20 years.
This is untrue. Predicting the age of a fetus was not as accurate as they are today. So, in essence what you're saying is like comparing apples to oranges. Leaving you no ground to stand on.
I'm not talking about what you think is a 20-week baby during those years. I'm talking about a fetus in the same stage of development in different time periods.
If it's wrong to kill it in any time period, then it's wrong to kill it in every time period.
Actually, you're not. A doctor 20 years ago and a doctor 100 years ago are going to have TWO DIFFERENT interpretations of the stage, which something you seem to not be grasping. Thus, you're grasping at straws.
It's never been seen as wrong, except by those of the religious faith. Those(some) who have no religious faith don't agree.
It is completely right for them to say when my baby is and isn't viable. Why on earth would I want them to try to save him when he was likely going to die anyway and if he didn't he would be forced to live a life of pain and suffering? Geez don't you care about babies?
100 years ago, that would say abortion would be allowed much later than it would be today
Doubt it. Pretty sure it was illegal and only performed in back streets with knitting needles and a bottle of gin.
Which is how many would have it done today. After all if the murderous witch is going to kill her baby she deserves to die too.
I agree... but once again not my business to force my opinion on others. If the choice is based purely on gender preference with no other factors then it's a really crappy reason to have an abortion. However... once again... not my choice.
It should be noted that sex can usually be determined at 20-23 weeks and viability generally doesn't come before 25 weeks except by a very very few world record breaking 'miracle babies' that have been kept alive by extreme medical intervention.
Melissa, you're not forcing your opinions on anyone. You are simply expressing them. There's a difference I am sure you're aware of, so please do try to remember it.
No, but you should be answering the question as if it was a choice for you to make. And in the above you have.
I understand that.
The biggest problem I had with the argument is the whole attitude that there is no reason whatsoever why any women who thought of a fetus as a child to ever do this. I can think of a reason and stated it. Then again there are very few things people do in life that I can't think of some reason that it could be understandable. I guess I live in a gray world like that.
If people were killing babies after birth in America because of the gender, would you still hold the stance that it's their choice?
It's not a bad thing to stand up for someone else's rights.
Unless you're standing up for the woman. You know...the one who's already here.
She doesn't count.
LMC, his post said after birth which means the child is born. Please read more carefully, instead of just reacting.
I'm used to it... LMC never directly engages in discussion with me.
Oh please...I talk--you post articles. You don't like my talk...I post articles. You say my articles are crap...what's the use?
Please stop pestering me! Geezus...everyone's a critic!
The woman has rights, but that doesn't extend to killing. Should a woman be able to abort a baby at 8 months because she changes her mind?
Once the baby becomes a living being(that's the real debate), then its right to life must be protected.
Really?
Then why do we have the right to own guns? It's to kill if we have to, is it not?
Same rights---like it or not.
Not the same thing at all.
If someone breaks into my house and tries to stab my wife, that person is giving up their rights. I'm justified in defending myself or my family. That person isn't justified in killing us for no reason.
A baby isn't a criminal.
Should a woman be able to abort a baby at 8 months because she changes her mind?
Is she having an abortion because she has changed her mind, or because he doesn't want a girl? You consistently avoid the real issues.
Either way, do you think it's ok to kill a baby at that point? For either reason?
I think if you focus on the men, as opposed to the abused women who are pressured into abortions because of the gender of the baby, then you stand a chance of eliminating sex selective abortions to a large extent. It is not the victim of abuse that deserves ridicule and judgement, but the abuser. Your focus on powerless women perpetuates this kind of abuse and sex selective abortions. If you really want to protect the rights of the unborn, channel your energy into protecting the rights of females, pre and post birth.
I agree, so instead of berating women for "murder" why don't you start a thread discussing misogyny and the need to educate men? if women from some Asian cultures feel pressured into having abortions because their husbands "expect" male children, then your focus on abused women and abortion is a huge deflection from the real issues.
@ MeliisaB.
Exactly, if she bows to pressure just because her murderous husband wants a boy then she deserves everything she gets. Can't possibly blame hubby. Geez.
God yes... after all it is so easy to just leave your ABUSIVE husband. We all know how reasonable abusive husbands are about their wives leaving them. China is great about it! They didn't even issue restraining orders until 2008... but in those 3.5 years every Chinese woman now knows all about them...
And those restraining orders are great aren't they! Who knew a piece of paper could protect you from a fist. After all everyone knows that those completely reasonable and rational ABUSIVE husbands are most certainly going to listen to that piece of paper.
But you know that all the woman needs to do if her hubby comes after her is call the police... who will surely be sitting close enough to her house to stop him immediately but even if they aren't... really what can a pissed off violent man do to a women with just 5-10 minutes? It's not like he could kill her or maim her in that amount of time.
Haha, I saw you argue in that other thread about guns in churches that people shouldn't have guns to stop criminals because they can just call the police if something happens.
So you are okay with killing the husband then. Ok... gotcha. Makes perfect sense. Killing is wrong except when you say it isn't.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm saying that it's ironic that in the case of abortion, you think the mother should be able to kill her child to protect it from the evil hubby, but only because the police can't get there fast enough.
In the case of guns, you think she should wait for the police, and somehow they will get there fast enough?
And killing someone who is trying to murder you is justified. Killing someone who is trying to murder your child is justified. If you would rather let someone murder your child than take that persons' life then you don't understand the responsibility of being a parent.
Killing is wrong either way! However, killing an inncent baby who has no voice is immoral in my eyes. An abusive husband, even though its' wrong, has a voice and can defend himself if needed--that baby can't!
If an abusive husband is attacking his wife and children and the wife pulls out a gun, the husband can stop. The husband can leave. He's a big boy, and doesn't have to try and impose himself on anyone. If he doesn't stop attacking, there is no reason to condemn a woman for protecting herself and her children.
Much better to protect your children than to kill them.
Once again... killing is fine with you as long as it's someone who you think deserves it? Gotcha. No hypocritical logic there.
Just like it's fine to starve a kid so you can have an easy ride to earn money to feed him a week later.
Oy again with the exclamation marks.
Honestly I have nothing more to respond with because I see your argument as trite rhetoric. Nothing personal but I've heard it a million times.
Oy again with the pointless criticizing of someone else's writing style instead of discussing the actual subject matter.
I did discuss her response. I said I thought her response was trite rhetoric that I had heard a million times. The exclamation marks were new. If she says something that isn't rehashed rhetoric I will reply.
You seriously think a woman shouldn't protect her children with a gun if necessary? I know you can't be serious.
If someone, husband, brother, uncle--whoever, If someone comes into my home or at me or my children I would shoot them and not think twice about it. I wouldn't, however, kill an unborn child for any reason whatsoever. There's a difference between innocent and guilty. A man who is beating someone is guilty and should expect someone to defend themself!
I do not see your reasoning at all. It seems to me you are defending your cause by grasping at straws.
Yes obviously you are a much better mother than everyone else because you would pop out kids regardless of circumstance and kill an adult without hesitation...
Thanks again for your input.
Wow. No I am a Mother who would never kill my children. My children had no voice when they were a fetus. I had to protect them.
I would hate to be your child in a situation where someone was going to do them harm.
Ah yes... you would hate to be my children based on what Jaxson said that I said in a conversation that he claims he wasn't in with me in a thread that happened 8 or so months ago.
And yet you don't see why I deem your posts unworthy of serious conversation?
No, you can blame hubby too.
Just because she is being abused doesn't justify killing. Would it also justify her killing a newborn?
Why not? Same difference IMO. Killing is killing. And surely it can't be claimed it's self defense-it's an innocent baby. How could it possibly hurt you?
Do you believe that women would choose gender selective abortions if their (abusive) partners were willing to raise a female? Don't forget, there are many women who choose abortion in this situation because they fear for their own life. And until you have been in a situation like that, where your own life is in danger, you cannot possibly say how you'd react. They may also have other children who need to be protected and nurtured. That's pretty difficult to do when you're six foot under. Challenge the men who put their partners in this situation by controlling their wives using threats of violence, when you have done that, you are confronting the problem properly.
Because I only have 5 of the 10 kids I have been pregnant with. I murder every other one because really... 10 kids? Sheez I would have no patience.
Once you finally come to the common sense conclusion that abortion is murder, you will realize that by extension any act you commit to stop an abortion is really a life-saving action sanctioned by God. Lock 'n load. Let's get religious...
Sex-selective abortion is a common problem in many developing countries.
Habee! personally, I condone abortion ONLY IF, there is danger to the mother, or in case of an unwilling assault. I abhor use of "abortion" as a birth control by any means.
Goodness, this planet is really getting out of control.
Next, humans will be deciding generational legacy/lineage, or the ability to control family trees/populous, with a pill and a little gene "chic". And, no doubt, they'll find a way exclude females from procreation altogether. Science is getting scarier by the minute and way too powerful.
But, I do not see how nature is going to respond to this, as a positive addition to its already fragile system. There are always repercussions during changes to the natural state of things. Humans -especially females who's anatomy is hugely complex and amazing to begin with- are no exception {physically, mentally, emotionally, genetically, socially}.
Just My Thoughts.
James.
Demographers are fascinated with the result of one child policy in China. Faced with a choice of only a child to have, couples opt for a son for so many reasons - economic, age old dependency, status etc. The result is an imbalance of sex ratio in favor of boys. The problem is who will replace the population if there are lesser women. A population that is sustainable is 2 per woman granting she can have one daughter to replace her for her traditional role of bearing children.
I was part of a research in a developing country where abortion is clandestine and illegal, the maternal mortality rate due to risks related to abortion is one of the highest in the world. If it is legal then it is expected to be low. The number of abortion is almost 400, 000 a year, almost ten years ago. The reasons are varied from economic, too many children, health of mother, father is unknown, pregnancies due to rape, incest etc
Most of developing and agricultural countries are cultures where there is son preference for added help in the farms.
I think that the problem of abortion is complicated. It is not one dimensional, problem of moral etc.
I think here in the US, women are more empowered to decide for themselves, but not in some developing countries. To look at the context and examine it more deeply, we can understand why women do it!
Of course when I speak for myself, I don't think I will just abort a baby just because I prefer a boy or a girl. But in other places or culture women empowerment and husband to wife statuses are different which affect their decisions to abort or not to abort based on sex of the baby.
by A Thousand Words 11 years ago
Hello, fellow hubbers! So, this is something that's been bothering me for a while. First, I'd like to open that I am not a christian or religious person. I am simply me, a person trying to understand what people's stances on the matter and why it is a constant debate. To me, the answer is obvious,...
by Amber Musselman 14 years ago
OKAY... SO I WROTE A HUB ON ABORTION AND TIMOTHY LEFT A COMMENT (BELOW)AFTER THAT COMMENT IS MY RESPONSE----- TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK AND WHO DO YOU AGREE WITH!! timothy Carpenter says:I don't really think that abortion should be able to be done. I come from a...
by Jackie Lynnley 4 years ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
by promisem 7 years ago
The abortion debate is dominated by two extremes. On the one side, "pro life" extremists insist that abortion is murder. On the other side, "pro choice" extremists insist that abortion is a personal choice.I have met quite a few people who think they belong to one or the other....
by Kathryn L Hill 4 years ago
Pro-Lifers are against abortion. They say the life of the fetus matters. They say the will of the mother, (not to be pregnant and not to have a child,) doesn't matter. (Its too late at that point.) The soul of the fetus is basically on a course toward full development and this process should not be...
by Angie B Williams 13 months ago
I, personally, have been speaking out against Roe v. Wade since I was a young teenager in 1973. I've never wavered. I've never backed down, even when I was the only one in the room, defending precious LIFE! Now the matter of abortion goes back to the States, where it always belonged. Again,...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |