Sex-Selective abortions are officially legal in the United States!

CELTICEMPIRE

Zulu Conqueror
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
4,414
Location
Eastern Kentucky
From Yahoo

The House voted today to reject a measure that would have banned sex-selection abortions in the United States, pitting Republicans and Democrats in a showdown over a woman's right to choose, which opponents contended was "intended to chip away at woman's right to obtain safe, legal medical care."
The measure, known as the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), was defeated 246-178. Under suspension of the House rules to permit consideration of the bill more quickly, approval of the measure was subject to a two-thirds majority, and with 414 members voting Republicans fell 30 votes short of passage.
The bill was perceived by Democrats as political maneuver to coax liberal lawmakers into supporting the bill or face the prospect of an onslaught of campaign advertisements this fall highlighting a lawmaker's vote to support sex-selection abortions.
Still, only 20 Democrats took the bait and broke from their party to vote with the majority of Republicans. Seven GOPers opposed the measure.
The House debated the bill Wednesday, but a vote was postponed until Thursday afternoon.
After the plight of blind Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng captured international headlines this month, Republicans had hoped to capitalize on the momentum of that awareness to ensure that sex-selection abortions are not legal in the United States.
Many nations with staunchly pro-choice/pro-abortion rights laws and protections nevertheless ban sex-selection abortions. Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Finland and the Netherlands all have laws banning sex-selection abortions.
Earlier this week, a pro-life group released an undercover video purportedly showing a Planned Parenthood counselor in Texas assisting a woman seeking a sex-selection abortion. Gendercide, the practice of killing baby girls or terminating pregnancies solely because the fetus is female, is estimated to have produced a "gender imbalance" of more than 100 million girls around the world.
"For most of us, Mr. Speaker, 'it's a girl' is cause for enormous joy, happiness and celebration," Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said on the House floor Wednesday. "But in many countries including our own, it could be a death sentence. Today the three most dangerous words in China and India are, 'It's a girl.' We can't let that happen here."

Absolutely disgusting, even Norway, Switzerland, and the Netherlands have bans on this. In defending a "woman's right to choose" abortion rights activists have legalized something awful and sexist.

Can't wait to hear the argument in support of this.
 
I'm not surprised. I mean, if abortion is OK up until X, its OK until X, right?

Of course, my "X" is never, making that theoretical exercise useless to me.
 
I don't see the issue with it. I think it is disgusting that it even came to a vote in what is obviously a partisan effort during a presidential election year.

What basis should be used to determine if the woman knew the sex of her baby and that was the reason she decided to have an abortion? Polygraph? Waterboarding?

What about the states where they are even required to view ultrasound images prior to getting an abortion? Should those images be censored so the woman cannot determine the sex?
 
I don't see the issue with it. I think it is disgusting that it even came to a vote in what is obviously a partisan effort during an election year.

What basis should be used to determine if the woman knew the sex of her baby and that was the reason she decided to have an abortion? Polygraph? Waterboarding?

What about the states where they are even required to view the ultrasounds in some states prior to getting an abortion? Should those ultrasound images be censored so the woman cannot determine the sex?

You have no problem with sexism? You have no problem with girls being valued less than boys?
 
I have no problem with women given the choice of when to have abortions during the first trimester no matter the circumstances. Again, how could you possibly know her motives unless it is coerced out of her? Is that the next step to keep women from having abortions?
 
Apparently you can be male or female, and have human DNA, but not human rights. This very fact is very sad to me.

However, to Celtic, if these people are indeed not people, as pro-choicers indicate, why on Earth does it matter why?
 
You have no problem with sexism? You have no problem with girls being valued less than boys?
You have no problem with deliberately putting words into my mouth? This smacks of just another way to deprive women of getting abortions.

It also smacks of partisan politics. Why did this just now even become an issue?
 
OP said:
Can't wait to hear the argument in support of this.

If you anti-choicers weren't so intrusive this never even would have happened. But if any ground is given on the issue it will serve as a wedge to expand the invasion of the government into citizens' person lives. I thought you guys were against that?

Am I missing something?

Obviously nobody is FOR women terminating a pregnancy solely on the basis of gender. But that isn't really what this is about, now, is it?

This is like those stupid 'no sharia' laws. It's a proposed law against something that's incredibly rare, if it even happens at all. I've heard that it might happen in some Asian immigrant communities. But I honestly think that law-makers' time should be spent on things that affect more than just an alleged handful of citizens. Don't you?

I guess this is where I'm supposed to ask you to put a price on the life of an 'unborn child'. you know, since passing laws does cost money.

CelticEmpire said:
You have no problem with sexism? You have no problem with girls being valued less than boys?
Is this supposed to be ironic? A guy who thinks a woman can't make the right decision for herself calling out a supporter of women's health as *sexist*? :rotfl:
 
I can see the case for abortion in rapes and health issues, but getting an abortion because you don't like what gender you got is wrong. Maybe people should just adopt if they're afraid of getting the wrong gender.
 
I'm with Skwink, heck I think women should have a bit of leeway if it was a major mistake. But abortion for sex or any attribute of a similar vein is infanticide.
 
If I read the article right, nothing has changed in how US law handles abortions.
The title of this thread should read "Nothing Changed in US Law With Regard to Abortions".
 
If I read the article right, nothing has changed in how US law handles abortions.
The title of this thread should read "Nothing Changed in US Law With Regard to Abortions".

Yeah...

I mean, really, how can you prove an abortion is done because of the child's sex? In lieu of such proof, you're attempting to pass a law that wouldn't be able to actually do a thing about what it addresses. So what's the real point of the law?
 
"Under suspension of the House rules to permit consideration of the bill more quickly, approval of the measure was subject to a two-thirds majority..."

That means the Republicans didn't allow amendments to the bill & limited debate to 40 minutes. If you allow discussion & amendments (to be voted on, not even necessarily passed), it only takes a 50.1% majority. The Reps sabotaged their own bill. They didn't want this. It was a dog-&-elephant show.

Source, down at the very bottom, under "Suspension of the Rules"
 
Sexism by the people who fought against sexism. Some people need to understand that freedom goes two ways.

Well, have fun killing your animal (better yet if you're vegan), which somehow evolves into a human within nine months.

I think you've got the theory of evolution wrong? :confused:
 
But you do have to hand it to the Republican Party leadership. They certainly know how to create divisive issues to inflame their own base to think anybody who disagrees with them must be pure evil. But as Peter Grimes so eloquently pointed out, they are also typically dripping with irony.
 
If abortion is legal I dont see how you can dictate what reasoning is and isnt allowed for abortion. Im certainly not a fan of sex selective abortions but its really not any worse than abortions of convenience. Overall this law was clearly just a political move with no real intention of actually banning the practice at the end of the day.
 
Top Bottom