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

[timtofly]

Don't you think the age that women have babies should be decided by themselves instead of the state? That teenage pregnancy is something which should be minimized whenever possible?

You seem to be suggesting that this may eventually mean the end of civilization as we know it, or at least the demise of the middle class. Is that your actual position? If so, do you have any evidence to support it?

Civilization will hardly end if there was no middle class, and I am not suggesting or making any points. I was asking questions to see if any one has thought that far ahead. Obviously it has been pointed out that lowering crime is a blessing. I can say from experience that waiting until you are in your 30's to have 3 children has been ok, but not very practical.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think it is absurd to even insinuate it. There is obviously no problem with population loss in the US and the vast majority of the world today, as the population continues to increase. And if it actually did start to decline instead of the opposite, it certainly wouldn't be a major problem.

 

[Dreadnought]

I don't think you understand anything.

No, I don't think you understand anything.

See how convincing that was?!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So, explain the point of his post, because I too am still in blissful ignorance.

 

[peter grimes]

If we are putting off unwanted children until even the 30's, there is no guarantee, that the parents or even the chidren are going to be 100% healthy during the process. The crime rate may be down, but it seems to me the burden then goes to insurance companies. Since there is an increase in underfunding in that area these days, would any one care to do an analysis of that blessing?

There's no guarantee that younger parents will remain healthy, nor that they will birth healthy children. That doesn't exist now, so I don't really see the point in bringing it up...

I am not suggesting or making any points.

oh, sorry, my bad.

This doesn't place any extra burden on the insurance companies, unless of course you have a source for your claim of 'underfunding' and such. I find it hard to believe a for-profit industry would undercharge its captive customers clients.

And the burden is on you to do an analysis. It's the same concept as in other discussions. If you make a point of saying that something is a problem then it's up to YOU to show that, not us...

I am not suggesting or making any points.

Rats! I did it again

 

[strijder20]

I think it is absurd to even insinuate it. There is obviously no problem with population loss in the US and the vast majority of the world today, as the population continues to increase. And if it actually did start to decline instead of the opposite, it certainly wouldn't be a major problem.

Actually, the U.S.A. is one of the only developed country which still has a moderate population growth: IIRC, the growth of many European countries and Japan is coming to a grinding halt, and if I recall correctly, there is even a nation with negative population growth.
There are also a lot of slightly less developed countries with negative population growth already: once Africa and Latin-America start to get a reasonable development level, we will probably face negative global population growth, although that will probably still take a few decades.

But I agree with you, I do not see why this would be a problem.

 

[Zelig]

Actually, the U.S.A. is one of the only developed country which still has a moderate population growth:

This is mostly because of poor people in America, it appears.

Looking at US census results on fertility rates, blacks are a little above replacement level fertility, hispanics are way above, and everyone else is below replacement level. (This is simply fertility, so doesn't count immigration/emmigration.)

 

[Dreadnought]

So, explain the point of his post, because I too am still in blissful ignorance.

Come on, now. You honestly expect me to believe that?

I hope you're begging the question. If not then, well, I suggest you reread the final line of his post and think long and hard about it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yes Obi One. I will study the teachings.

 

[Dreadnought]

Yes Obi One. I will study the teachings.

Obi-Wan? Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time...a long time.

P.S. This is the best post I've seen on the forum in awhile.

 

[downtown]

Real talk, is there any proof this is a problem in the us?

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is clearly yet another "real war on women".

Christopher H. Smith, a Republican, represents New Jersey’s 4th District in the U.S. House. He is a co-sponsor of the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act.

It is a sad day in America when he president of the United States endorses sex-selection abortion by opposing the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act. It is no less sad that this bill did not pass the House — although a significant majority, 246 members, did vote for it — given its laudable aim of outlawing this egregious assault on baby girls.

Sex-selection abortion is cruel, it’s discriminatory and it’s legal. It is violence against women. Most people in government are unaware that it is part of a deliberate plan of population control. This is the real war on women.

Last year, an undercover sting operation by Live Action exposed several Planned Parenthood affiliates who were eager, ready and willing to facilitate secret abortions for underage sex-trafficking victims— some as young or younger than 14. As the prime sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, I found the willingness of Planned Parenthood personnel to exploit young girls and partner with sex traffickers to be absolutely appalling.

Now Live Action has released new sting-operation videos — part of a new series, “Gendercide in America” — that show Planned Parenthood personnel advising undercover female investigators how to procure a sex-selection abortion. Caught on tape, one staffer tells an investigator to wait until her baby is 5 months along to get an ultrasound that reveals the sex of the child. Then, if it’s a girl, kill it.

This week, a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman said in a statement to the Huffington Post: “No Planned Parenthood clinic will deny a woman an abortion based on her reasons for wanting one, except in states that explicitly prohibit sex-selection abortions.”

In other words, Planned Parenthood is okay with exterminating a child in its huge network of clinics simply because she’s a girl. What a dangerous place for little girls. Let’s not forget that Planned Parenthood aborts approximately 330,000 children every year.

For most of us, “it’s a girl” is cause for enormous joy, happiness and celebration. But in many countries, this phrase can be a death sentence. We can’t let that happen here.

“By August 1969, when the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Population Council convened another workshop on population control, sex selection had become a pet scheme,” Hvistendahl writes. “If a reliable sex-determination technology could be made available to a mass market,” there was “rough consensus” that sex-selection abortion “would be an effective, uncontroversial and ethical way of reducing the global population.”

Fewer women, fewer mothers, fewer future children.

These cruel, anti-woman policies have had horrific consequences.

A study of immigrant Indian women in the United States who had tried to learn their unborn babies’ gender, published in 2011 by Sunita Puri and three other researchers, found “that 40 percent of the women interviewed had terminated prior pregnancies with female fetuses and that 89 percent of women carrying female fetuses in their current pregnancy pursued an abortion.”

According to Puri, “One-third of women described past physical abuse and neglect related specifically to their failing to produce a male child. The most common forms of neglect were the withholding of food, water, and rest during a woman’s pregnancy with a female fetus, although women also described being hit, pushed, choked, and kicked in the abdomen in a husband’s attempt to forcibly terminate a pregnancy. Some women reported that they were denied prenatal care if the fetus had been identified as female, and four women reported that their families either did not take them to the hospital when they were in labor with a female child or pick them up after delivery.”

It is inconceivable to me how our Nobel Prize-winning president utterly refuses to protect little girls from the violence of sex-selection abortion.

No, there is nothing partisan about this obviously propaganda at all. It is even apparently an insidious plot by Indian-Americans to not have any female children.

Thankfully, there are still a handful of Indian-Americans who don't abort every female fetus:

Family of valedictorians, sisters all earn same honor

Ammini and Daniel Cherian were proud when their eldest daughter was tapped to be a valedictorian.

All her hard work had paid off, they thought.

Three years later, their second daughter earned the same honor.

"Oh, she also made it,'' they said, relieved to have another recognized for her efforts.

And their reaction when their youngest daughter was named a valedictorian?

"We weren't surprised,'' said Ammini Cherian.

"I have never in my 18 years of teaching heard of three sisters holding that spot down in such a rigorous academic program as ours,'' said history teacher Tom Paloumpis, who taught all three girls.

Everyone asks the Cherians, "How did you do it?''

"Always,'' Ammini said, laughing. "They want to know, 'What do you feed them? What do you give them?' ''

There's no secret formula, she said.

Her daughters credit their parents, South Indian immigrants who came from humble means but believed in the value of education.

"I think we were able to give them good basics,'' said Ammini, a clinical nurse educator at Tampa General Hospital, where her husband is a systems analyst.

"We always made sure they were doing their work. But we didn't have to push them much.''

How can we possibly allow this outrage to continue to occur?

 

[Dreadnought]

I've worked with Chris Smith in the past. He's a good man, much beloved in his (Democrat-leaning) district.

 

[Cutlass]

Funny. That article above makes him seem like the scum of the earth. I'd spit in his face before I would vote for him.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I can certainly see why he is "much beloved" in the very same way that Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh are. This is clearly a religious war they are engaged in with Satan himself.

 

[downtown]

Wait, what was so controversial about what he said? We know that sex-selective abortions are a problem in other countries, particularly Asian ones. If Asian immigrants are continuing the practice here (which one of the studies seems to indicate), then perhaps some sort of action (if not a heavy handed ban) would be appropriate.

I don't see a problem with helping a 15 year old girl who was a victim of sex trafficking get an abortion....but I also think that defending aborting more developed fetuses just because they are women is pretty hard as well.

 

[Cutlass]

Wait, what was so controversial about what he said? We know that sex-selective abortions are a problem in other countries, particularly Asian ones. If Asian immigrants are continuing the practice here (which one of the studies seems to indicate), then perhaps some sort of action (if not a heavy handed ban) would be appropriate.

I don't see a problem with helping a 15 year old girl who was a victim of sex trafficking get an abortion....but I also think that defending aborting more developed fetuses just because they are women is pretty hard as well.

I do not approve of sex selective abortions. But I also do not approve of claiming the president endorses them when he is only opposed to this one bill that has other implications besides what it is specifically named.

 

[JohnRM]

You have no problem with sexism? You have no problem with girls being valued less than boys?

You can't change that attitude with another law.

 

[civ_king]

It is clearly yet another "real war on women".





No, there is nothing partisan about this obviously propaganda at all. It is even apparently an insidious plot by Indian-Americans to not have any female children.

Thankfully, there are still a handful of Indian-Americans who don't abort every female fetus:

Family of valedictorians, sisters all earn same honor









How can we possibly allow this outrage to continue to occur?

Care to rephrase that?

 

[Arakhor]

Your only issue with that article is Formaldehyde's framing text??