I'm back.

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.

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.

Does JU finally let me post with Firefox?

Great!

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

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.

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).

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.

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

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).

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).

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.

from post #4

Lula

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.

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.

"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.

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.