A Leauki's Writings
Published on June 20, 2011 By Leauki In Current Events

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.

I can see both sides. But I think the above is a strong argument, even if I disagree with parts of it.

I do agree with the main point. Abortion should be restricted somehow. It is NOT a neutral medical procedure.

And I think this is actually the first time I have taken a real stance on the issue, other than voicing my personal opinion based on my religion which I never intended to become law.


Comments (Page 1)
on Jun 20, 2011

I'm back.

on Jun 20, 2011

it will be a Gemini, but I want a Libra.' "

Can't argue with that person's choice!

On the serious side, while the "natural" ration may be 105, it is also "natural" to want to be provided for in old age.  In many cultures, boys are that avenue (women marry the sons and move in with the in-laws).  So I guess the most surprising aspect of the book/article is that anyone is surprised.

But I would like to ask what parts you disagree with.

And welcome back!  It is good to see you back in the saddle again.

on Jun 20, 2011

 

I'm back.

That's good.

Sex abortion, "gendercide" is something everyone should know about, so thank you for coming back and posting an article that packs such a powerful message.

on Jun 20, 2011

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.

Let's look at this one point at a time.

 

Aborting a baby .................Choice is choice. .....

The abortion industry has done a masterful job claiming for itself the term "Choice" as though intentional choosing to kill a baby in the womb by abortion is a good, an honorable solution to a problem.

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. ......

Here we see that "Choice", the intentional decision of killing a baby in the womb, is arbitrary. "Choice"  is made as best suits the convenience of the individual or the state. 

This is where "Choice" leads because abortion is said to solve the unwanted problem, whatever that might be. Proponents of abortion would have us believe the "choice" of abortion is appropriate for those with birth defects, or those  unwanted baby girls in the womb, or even those who would be born a Gemini.

 

The link has the following:

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.

..........................

So there it is. Ms. H wants only to curb the "abuse" of  "Choice" without infringing on a woman's right to have an abortion.!!!!

This is absurd. As if something like this would work when laws against the termination of pregnancy on the basis of sex are already in place but are being flouted. There is no genuine willingness from politicians to address this.

Why? Because of the money. Abortion has always been about money. Why do you think there has been so much furor about defunding Planned Parenthood?

on Jun 21, 2011

Does JU finally let me post with Firefox?

on Jun 21, 2011

Great!

on Jun 21, 2011

My last few replies were "submitting" forever...

on Jun 21, 2011

Dr Guy
But I would like to ask what parts you disagree with.

I disagree with the proposal that abortion of a child with a genetic disorder (like Down syndrome) is the same as abortion of a child because she is a girl or the wrong star sign. (Of course I don't even believe in the latter being a notable difference at all.)

I can understand a woman who aborts a child because of a genetic disorder. She does it because she feels she cannot handle more responsibility then she signed up for. It's not the same as aborting a healthy child.

Finally, I do not believe that an unborn child is a human being or even a lifeform before it starts growing (i.e. within the first trimester). It is only a potential life form.

Note that as a potential life form the foetus does warant protection. It may not be aborted for no good reason because potential life is worth more than no life at all. And only lifeless things may be treated arbitrarily and without respect.

If the life of the mother is at stake, abortion is not only allowed but mandatory, I believe, because the life of the mother is worth more than the potential life of her child. This is the usual Jewish position, orthodox and liberal.

 

on Jun 21, 2011

lulapilgrim
Sex abortion, "gendercide" is something everyone should know about, so thank you for coming back and posting an article that packs such a powerful message.

That's what I thought.

I also thought somebody should direct attention towards it because, frankly, I have found that that subject is usually forgotten when abortion is discussed.

This is an issue that makes abortion problematic regardless of what one's beliefs are (unless one's beliefs are that girls are worth less than boys).

 

on Jun 21, 2011

lulapilgrim
So there it is. Ms. H wants only to curb the "abuse" of "Choice" without infringing on a woman's right to have an abortion.!!!!

This is absurd. As if something like this would work when laws against the termination of pregnancy on the basis of sex are already in place but are being flouted. There is no genuine willingness from politicians to address this.

I don't think that position is absurd.

Even if abortion is totally legal, children should not be aborted for arbitrary reasons.

Aborting a child because she is a girl is almost completely arbitrary, more arbitrary than aborting a child for life style reasons.

If a woman decides to abort because a child doesn't fit into her plans, that's terrible. But if she decides to aborth because a boy would fit into a plans but a girl would not, that is, in my opinion, even worse. It's almost a caricature of the first.

There are many reasons for an abortion, some I accept, some I don't. But the gender of the child is beyond what I would find even UNacceptable.

 

on Jun 22, 2011

Leauki
Does JU finally let me post with Firefox?

I have been using Palemoon for a few months now.  A few quirks, but otherwise excellent!

on Jun 22, 2011

Leauki
I disagree with the proposal that abortion of a child with a genetic disorder (like Down syndrome) is the same as abortion of a child because she is a girl or the wrong star sign. (Of course I don't even believe in the latter being a notable difference at all.)

I can see arguments for it being the same.  Clearly the desire for a male is based upon economics (male providing for the parents, also no dowry), as is the case for the Down's syndrome (if the parent had the money, wet nurses and nurse maids are not an issue).

Leauki
Finally, I do not believe that an unborn child is a human being or even a lifeform before it starts growing (i.e. within the first trimester). It is only a potential life form.

While you and I disagree on that point, I reread the article and it seems the author is in agreement with you.  Hence my quandry of the disagreement (I may have missed it, if so sorry).

Leauki
If the life of the mother is at stake, abortion is not only allowed but mandatory, I believe, because the life of the mother is worth more than the potential life of her child.

I did not see that in the article, but I will disagree with  you there.  I think the decision is the mother's and father's (with the tie breaker going to the mother).  Mandatory is just too strong a word there.

on Jun 22, 2011

from post #4

The link has the following:

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.

Lula

So there it is. Ms. H wants only to curb the "abuse" of "Choice" without infringing on a woman's right to have an abortion.!!!! This is absurd. As if something like this would work when laws against the termination of pregnancy on the basis of sex are already in place but are being flouted. There is no genuine willingness from politicians to address this.

I don't think that position is absurd.

I do based on the point made by the writer of the link. He writes Ms. H. is attempting to serve two diametrically opposed ideas. We are talking about where "Choice" leads and we see that that "Choice" is arbitrary."Choice", the intentional decision of killing a baby in the womb, is made as best suits the convenience of the individual or the state.  

This is where "Choice" leads because abortion is said to solve the unwanted problem, whatever that might be.

Abortion serves itself because an unwanted baby for whatever reason is killed every time. No matter what, this is where Choice leads. That's why I think all abortion is absurd and allowing it as a so called "woman's right" is absurd.

Even if abortion is totally legal, children should not be aborted for arbitrary reasons.

But the tragic reality of it is, children are being aborted for arbitrary reasons. It's called "Choice" and it's really "abortion on demand", an individual or state solution to an unwanted problem.


on Jun 23, 2011

Dr Guy
I did not see that in the article, but I will disagree with you there. I think the decision is the mother's and father's (with the tie breaker going to the mother). Mandatory is just too strong a word there.

"Mandatory" is the correct term.

The mother and father use their own beliefs to make the decision and Jewish ethics make it mandatory to abort to save the life of the mother. It's not subject for discussion.

"Mandatory" here does not mean that the government makes it mandatory for people to decide so, it means that it is mandatory in Jewish ethics. Other systems might see it differently.

And here is the problem. Different religions have different definitions of when human life starts. Judaism differentiates between life and potential life, Christianity perhaps doesn't. Some atheist ethical systems (and some atheist lack of ethical systems) have different views again.

If abortion is totally legal, all religions and views can be accomododated and everyone can follow their own beliefs. (This is why the majority of Jews in the US vote for legal abortion even though they typically against abortion and their religion doesn't generally allow it.)

If abortion is made illegal because Christianity says human life begins at conception, the state is favouring one religion over others. In the US, it must not do that. (In Germany abortion is illegal because the state can favour one religion over others.)

If abortion is made illegal because a majority of voters are Christians and vote to make it illegal, the state is democratic but violating the rights of other religions (for example by condeming some Jewish women to death despite the fact that their own religion would save them if they were allowed to follow it).

In other words, making abortion illegal is not a solution.

But legalising it is not a solution either, because it will mean that people will simply kill unborn life on-demand.

I don't see a way out except making abortion legally difficult.

Note that I do not believe that abortion outside of cases where it must be done to save the life of the mother should be covered by any government-sponsored health insurance.

 

on Jun 23, 2011

lulapilgrim
But the tragic reality of it is, children are being aborted for arbitrary reasons. It's called "Choice" and it's really "abortion on demand", an individual or state solution to an unwanted problem.

I totally agree with the assessment. Legal abortion allow for abortion for arbitrary reasons.

Abortion should not be legal. It should be regulated.

This just reminds me of the San Francisco circumcision discussion where people claim that circumcision must be made illegal because of the (alleged) harm it causes children. I do wonder if supporters of that idea are as worried about the complete baby as they are about the tip of the baby's penis.

Meta
Views
» 473
Comments
» 27
Category
Sponsored Links