User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 3:46:16 AM EDT
[#1]
So what?
If it's not convincing to argue that it's wrong to kill human beings, it's far less convincing to argue that abortion is wrong because it skews the sex distribution. For someone who argues for abortion choice based on principles of personal autonomy and reproductive freedom, this information is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 3:46:44 AM EDT
[#2]
Blame whitey!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 3:49:12 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: So what? If it's not convincing to argue that it's wrong to kill human beings, it's far less convincing to argue that abortion is wrong because it skews the sex distribution. For someone who argues for abortion choice based on principles of personal autonomy and reproductive freedom, this information is irrelevant. You're right , but there are enough femi-nazis out there that might be swayed by this. Obviously the author is one of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 3:53:57 AM EDT
[#4]
Pro-choice people swayed by this argument must believe that it is possible to be a girl, but not a person.
The war being waged, according to them, is not against girls, but potential girls, I guess. If what they're killing are not people, I have no problem with it. They're getting medical procedures to support their livelihoods, same as what happens in America.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 3:56:13 AM EDT
[#5]
Any government intervention in this matter is an unallowable intrusion on personal liberties and family prosperity.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 4:18:07 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: So what? If it's not convincing to argue that it's wrong to kill human beings, it's far less convincing to argue that abortion is wrong because it skews the sex distribution. For someone who argues for abortion choice based on principles of personal autonomy and reproductive freedom, this information is irrelevant. I feel that abortion is murder. Yet I feel similarly to you about the point of the book. This is one of the examples of unintended consequences of technology when mixed with cultural tendencies and greed (yes, not wanting to pay the dowry for your daughter is greed). Feminists asked for abortion to be both legal and commonplace, now they can deal with the consequences of people making those choices. OTOH, look forward to dropping population numbers in the wealthy in India and China, since they are apparently heavily involved in this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 4:38:18 AM EDT
[#7]
Very interesting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 4:42:53 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Feminists asked for abortion to be both legal and commonplace, now they can deal with the consequences of people making those choices. I'm for abortion right up to the 75th trimester, but I completely agree. If people have the right to make up their own mind, don't moan when they do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 4:45:52 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: Blame whitey! Or the West, at least. Shouldn't be too shocking that cultures which value male heirs to a fault will choose male children when they can. The egalitarianism of our culture (Western Civ) is an anomaly, globally speaking. Women have it rough in the rest of the world.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 4:49:43 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Blame whitey! Or the West, at least. Shouldn't be too shocking that cultures which value male heirs to a fault will choose male children when they can. The egalitarianism of our culture (Western Civ) is an anomaly, globally speaking. Women have it rough in the rest of the world. On the upside, getting an ultrasound in India is like buying a pack of smokes. There's a dingy shithole on every corner that'll do it and it's dirt cheap. Here I can't even get some fucking stitches without a bill showing up for $1600. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 4:54:55 AM EDT
[#11]
I love that her conclusion is to criminalize ultrasound results.
 Liberals... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 4:57:45 AM EDT
[#12]
Here is the most relevant excerpt from the review, it's about 1/3 of the article, we'll see if CoC lets it fly... Very interesting indeed.
There is so much to recommend in "Unnatural Selection" that it's sad to report that Ms. Hvistendahl often displays an unbecoming political provincialism. She begins the book with an approving quote about gender equality from Mao Zedong and carries right along from there. Her desire to fault the West is so ingrained that she criticizes the British Empire's efforts to stamp out the practice of killing newborn girls in India because "they did so paternalistically, as tyrannical fathers." She says that the reason surplus men in the American West didn't take Native American women as brides was that "their particular Anglo-Saxon breed of racism precluded intermixing." (Through most of human history distinct racial and ethnic groups have only reluctantly intermarried; that she attributes this reluctance to a specific breed of "racism" says less about the American past than about her own biases.) When she writes that a certain idea dates "all the way back to the West's predominant creation myth," she means the Bible.
Ms. Hvistendahl is particularly worried that the "right wing" or the "Christian right"—as she labels those whose politics differ from her own—will use sex-selective abortion as part of a wider war on abortion itself. She believes that something must be done about the purposeful aborting of female babies or it could lead to "feminists' worst nightmare: a ban on all abortions." It is telling that Ms. Hvistendahl identifies a ban on abortion—and not the killing of tens of millions of unborn girls—as the "worst nightmare" of feminism. Even though 163 million girls have been denied life solely because of their gender, she can't help seeing the problem through the lens of an American political issue. Yet, while she is not willing to say that something has gone terribly wrong with the pro-abortion movement, she does recognize that two ideas are coming into conflict: "After decades of fighting for a woman's right to choose the outcome of her own pregnancy, it is difficult to turn around and point out that women are abusing that right." Late in "Unnatural Selection," Ms. Hvistendahl makes some suggestions as to how such "abuse" might be curbed without infringing on a woman's right to have an abortion. In attempting to serve these two diametrically opposed ideas, she proposes banning the common practice of revealing the sex of a baby to parents during ultrasound testing. And not just ban it, but have rigorous government enforcement, which would include nationwide sting operations designed to send doctors and ultrasound techs and nurses who reveal the sex of babies to jail. Beyond the police surveillance of obstetrics facilities, doctors would be required to "investigate women carrying female fetuses more thoroughly" when they request abortions, in order to ensure that their motives are not illegal. Such a regime borders on the absurd. It is neither feasible nor tolerable—nor efficacious: Sex determination has been against the law in both China and India for years, to no effect. I suspect that Ms. Hvistendahl's counter-argument would be that China and India do not enforce their laws rigorously enough. Despite the author's intentions, "Unnatural Selection" might be one of the most consequential books ever written in the campaign against abortion. It is aimed, like a heat-seeking missile, against the entire intellectual framework of "choice." For if "choice" is the moral imperative guiding abortion, then there is no way to take a stand against "gendercide." Aborting a baby because she is a girl is no different from aborting a baby because she has Down syndrome or because the mother's "mental health" requires it. Choice is choice. One Indian abortionist tells Ms. Hvistendahl: "I have patients who come and say 'I want to abort because if this baby is born it will be a Gemini, but I want a Libra.' " This is where choice leads. This is where choice has already led. Ms. Hvistendahl may wish the matter otherwise, but there are only two alternatives: Restrict abortion or accept the slaughter of millions of baby girls and the calamities that are likely to come with it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576361691165631366.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 5:06:30 AM EDT
[#13]
For someone who argues for abortion choice based on principles of personal autonomy and reproductive freedom, this information is irrelevant. That's why it's called politics and not logic... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 5:40:22 AM EDT
[#14]
It's a simple variation on the "Save abortion for poor women" argument. Every time NARAL has a press conference, the speakers are all white and upper class except for the lone minority they trot out. She's put forth as an example of the disparate impact abortion restrictions have on disadvantaged women. On the surface they are being altruistic and caring of their sisters; unspoken is the charge of racism against the pro-life movement. But their deeper motives are far less palatable: not only do they want to reduce the reproductive rate of minorities, but they want to save abortion for themselves and their daughters. And it's not for life or health, it's for preserving their middle and upper middle class lifestyle - little Buffy can't go to Wharton wearing a Snugli.
This is more of the same.The author doesn't care about the fate of future women; she is angered by the fact that these societies value boys more than girls. And her motives aren't to fix the problem in China and India, but to preserve abortion in the US. In the end, she advocates restricting the choice of other women so she can keep what she has. They can have choice, as long as it's the correct choice. While it may not be paternalistic, it's certainly not honorable, nor egalitarian, nor caring - except for herself, that is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 5:46:45 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
I love that her conclusion is to criminalize ultrasound results.
Liberals... She's nuts. She thinks the problem can be solved by enforcement through stings and thorough vetting of a mother's intentions in China and India. Her arguments were interesting, but this idea shows she's just stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 5:50:00 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
I love that her conclusion is to criminalize ultrasound results.
Liberals... They gonna hate TX then. The new law requires that the look at the ultrasound before the procedure...... TXL |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 5:53:16 AM EDT
[#17]
It's sadly ironic that the end result of modern feminism has been infanticide of women through abortion.
It makes sense on a certain level thought - a society that doesn't value femininity doesn't need women. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 6:05:49 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love that her conclusion is to criminalize ultrasound results.
Liberals... They gonna hate TX then. The new law requires that the look at the ultrasound before the procedure...... TXL They already loathe laws like that, because they try to influence the choice a woman makes, using an emotional appeal to try to get her to take the pregnancy to term. Of course, these are the same people that approve of the new cigarette packaging, because it tries to influence choice via an emotional appeal. For that matter, the whole concept of "choice", as NARAL etc. would have it, is bankrupt. NO ONE is "free to choose" in that EVERYONE is subject to cultural influences, law, propaganda, peers, and biological imperatives. The pro-choice stance is that some of those influences are not acceptable (say, religion), and some are (their own, for instance.) While this may be the case, there is so little introspection in the pro-choice movement it's appalling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 6:15:48 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
She's nuts. She thinks the problem can be solved by enforcement through stings and thorough vetting of a mother's intentions in China and India. Her arguments were interesting, but this idea shows she's just stupid. No, sweetie...she's a liberal. Libs often suffer tremendous mental meltdowns when bedrock principles of their know-better-than-you outlook on the world come into conflict with one another. In attempting to reconcile what is irreconcilable they often reach bizarre conclusions like government intrusion into what they've claimed is a private matter because they don't like how many girls are being killed in abortion clinics around the world...an affair they've claimed no one should have any say in except the female. She's unable to bring herself to say something sensible because it would cause her to have to do something that is even worse than gendercide in the liberal mind: Admit that she was wrong. The entire liberal outlook is based on hubris...being more enlightened, intelligent, and educated than everyone else. Admitting fault doesn't go along with that. So she's not stupid...she's arrogant. That's why she comes up with ideas that are ridiculous. It's not about proposing a realistic solution to a problem...it's about making enough peace with the conflicting talking points in her head so she can keep pretending. She can still be pro-choice! ...just not that choice, because that choice is wrong. Choice is good, though. See? It all works out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 6:17:18 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love that her conclusion is to criminalize ultrasound results.
Liberals... They gonna hate TX then. The new law requires that the look at the ultrasound before the procedure...... TXL Ridiculous
Should I have to look at a picture of someone who's been shot to death before I buy a gun? Nothing but feel-good nanny-statism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 6:19:35 AM EDT
[#21]
The reasons are well known they are cultural Chinese & Indian immigrants continue to favor male children even in the US and there are cases of it even after 3 or 4 generations in the US.
The question is not how but what to do next we are missing 163 million females that should statistically be here. you can't fix the numbers even in one decade So how can we fix it today multiple husbabands? A big war? .free internet porn? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 6:31:32 AM EDT
[#22]
A billion testosterone-charged chicom utes with no access to nookie.
Is there a publicly traded Chinese fleshlight company? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 6:33:49 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I love that her conclusion is to criminalize ultrasound results. Liberals... They gonna hate TX then. The new law requires that the look at the ultrasound before the procedure...... TXL Ridiculous Should I have to look at a picture of someone who's been shot to death before I buy a gun? Nothing but feel-good nanny-statism. Your analogy would make sense if the law were to make someone look at a picture of an aborted fetus before buying a pack of wire coathangers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 6:38:37 AM EDT
[#24]
Actually if you think about it, that would increase natural selection. By having less females, there are more men to choose from, meaning only the best get chosen as mates. Yay! Abortion is making the human gene pool stronger!
Stupid argument. The article is stupid. And now I'm stupid for reading it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 6:49:42 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
The reasons are well known they are cultural Chinese & Indian immigrants continue to favor male children even in the US and there are cases of it even after 3 or 4 generations in the US. The question is not how but what to do next we are missing 163 million females that should statistically be here. you can't fix the numbers even in one decade So how can we fix it today multiple husbabands? A big war? .free internet porn? Violence is typically the answer. There is a strong correlation between violence and the ration of men to women in a society. Young single men tend to get into trouble (ref "stupid things you've done in a car" thread" and often don't live to be single older men. Having an attachment to a woman modifies male behavior - they take fewer risks and are more aware of negative consequences of actions. My personal theory is that, from a biological and primitive behavioral point of view, there are WAY too many men alive. For 595,000 of the last 600,000 years, women outnumbered men significantly. While the male birthrate is higher by about 5%, the death rate was far in excess of that. Men did the dangerous jobs, like hunting and defense, and got killed doing it. This is still the case, but agrarian and then urban society has mitigated the risks so that men still take the dangerous jobs, but fewer of them die. But biologically an population simply doesn't need as many males as females - the reproductive capability of a healthy male is effectively limitless, while a woman is limited to about 40 pregnancies in her life - and that's staying pregnant all the time. Genetic diversity and practical considerations bring those numbers down a lot, but the ratio is still there. So from a population standpoint, you need just enough males to provide genetic diversity, defend against danger, and gather those resources which require more strength and speed. In other words, fuck, fight, and hunt. Any males surplus to that are, well, surplus. And bad things happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 7:02:41 AM EDT
[#26]
Lame.
We will be getting the same result (parents get to select gender of children) soon without abortion. Parents will get to select a lot more than just gender too. Choice is good, freedom is good. Fuck her. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 7:06:13 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Actually if you think about it, that would increase natural selection. By having less females, there are more men to choose from, meaning only the best get chosen as mates. Yay! Abortion is making the human gene pool stronger! Stupid argument. The article is stupid. And now I'm stupid for reading it. Um yeah, that is the way women pick men...only the best...hahaha!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 7:07:45 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
On the upside, getting an ultrasound in India is like buying a pack of smokes. There's a dingy shithole on every corner that'll do it and it's dirt cheap. Here I can't even get some fucking stitches without a bill showing up for $1600. [/div]
You may be right, but I'm willing to bet that people usually pay for these procedures up front in India. Here, providers get to wait a couple of months for insurance companies to pay a percentage of the bill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 7:09:55 AM EDT
[#29]
163 million girls murdered - in all countries combined? That is a real Holocaust. Depressing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2011 1:11:36 PM EDT
[#30]
I find it absurd she complains about practices in India and China yet blames the West.
Like the "West" forces these women at gunpoint to abort if female. I liked the review. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
