Sweden approves gender-based abortions
posted at 10:46 am on May 13, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Amanda Carpenter makes this the Hot Button issue at the Washington Times today, and it provides an interesting juxtaposition to a post I wrote last month. Sweden has approved gender-specific abortions, allowing parents to rid themselves of an unwanted daughter in a closely-watched ethics case:
Swedish women will be permitted to abort their children based on the sex of the fetus, according to a ruling by Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare.
The ruling was spurred by a request from Kai Wedenberg, head of the clinic where a woman twice requested, and received, an abortion based on sex.
Mr. Wedenberg asked for clarification from health officials after a woman, who already had two girls, requested amniocentesis and to be told the sex of her unborn child. She found out she was pregnant with another girl and asked for an abortion six days later.
The woman then became pregnant again, returned to the clinic and asked for another amniocentesis, which was not performed. Later, at her ultrasound, she asked the nurse to reveal the sex of her fetus, which was a girl. After learning this, the mother requested an abortion later that day and received it later that week.
Last month, I noted the opposition of the abortion-rights group Center for Reproductive Rights to the same practice in China, where the state’s one-child policy makes gender selection more important for parents. Sweden has no such restrictions; in this case, the woman already had two daughters and wants a son. CRR opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, putting their fright over what they call “fetus rights” over their objections to gender-specific infanticide.
At least Sweden remained consistent. Unlike the CRR, their decision reluctantly noted that the woman’s motivation was irrelevant if one accepts that someone can “choose” to end human life as a right. One wonders whether CRR will protest this decision in Sweden as they do in China, extending their intellectual confusion over the nature of “choice” as an absolute right.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Oh yes, Darfur is one. It’s going on in several places. And we’re not talking about some debatable embryonic mass.
We are talking about fully functioning humans.
So get real.
AnninCA on May 13, 2009 at 1:32 PM
I’m pretty sure that the question is not usually one-or-the-other, but one-or-neither. It takes a good deal of fine tuning to come up with a situation that is fatal to the mother unless she aborts, but the child survives her death if she does not abort.
Count to 10 on May 13, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Seriously, I don’t care. If the Republican party, which I’ve never even paid attention to, nevermind cared about, wishes to make this their core issue……be my guest.
I just think you’re going to disappear.
AnninCA on May 13, 2009 at 1:33 PM
coyoterex on May 13, 2009 at 1:22 PM
I think you’re right that most pro-lifers reasonably support health exceptions. It’s not reflected in the movement, though. If pro-lifers could come up with a law that would ban only contraceptive abortions (for lack of a better term) that didn’t create new ethical problems as bad as abortion itself, I’d support the law. I don’t see how it’s possible, though, and the pro-life political movement hasn’t shown any interest in any solution but complete abolition.
RightOFLeft on May 13, 2009 at 1:33 PM
AnninCA on May 13, 2009 at 1:30 PM
If you could more adequately address who you are talking to we’d have less difficulty “imagining” at whom that nebulous argument is directed.
viking01 on May 13, 2009 at 1:35 PM
So, basically, you fall into catagory B – selfishness. It’s all about you. I strongly suggest you never become a mother because at that point you don’t matter at all. It’s all about baby and you making sacrifices for that baby.
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 1:35 PM
What happened is that this movement just got way out there. They even protest the “Day After” pill, which ensures that life DOESN’T happen.
Right then, they totally lost credibility.
AnninCA on May 13, 2009 at 1:36 PM
I have news for you – I’m not a republican. I’m a traditionalist and I used to be a former libtard.
And there’s way more of us than you can possibly imagine.
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 1:37 PM
AnninCA on May 13, 2009 at 1:36 PM
You need better schooling. The zygote is intact. The “Day After” pill merely prevents implantation. Avoid red herrings and your arguments will seem more thought out.
viking01 on May 13, 2009 at 1:38 PM
But it’s not the core issue.
And it’s unintellectual to assert that it is.
bluelightbrigade on May 13, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Now you’re just lumping everybody into one category. Do you even have a point anymore. We know you support murder. Do you actually stand for anything worthwhile?
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Like any movement made up of more than one person there are differing views and I don’t agree with all of them. But at the core I support life over choice any day.
dpierson on May 13, 2009 at 1:39 PM
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 1:35 PM
I agree with your analysis. People who think it’s all about them can rationalize anything even genocide.
viking01 on May 13, 2009 at 1:39 PM
No it doesn’t. It ensures that conceived life just gets killed earlier.
bluelightbrigade on May 13, 2009 at 1:41 PM
She’s just blathering now. She must be very young and doesn’t want to lose her ability to be as careless with her body as possible. Forget babies! These people don’t think of all the deseases out there. Gross!
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Or just intellectually sloppy.
bluelightbrigade on May 13, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Bingo. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
Dark-Star on May 13, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Hey AnninCA, if you don’t want to be a “baby carrier” then it’s real simple – don’t get pregnant. The answer for your irresponsibility is not the killing of the child.
rockmom on May 13, 2009 at 1:44 PM
She’s being ganged up on. Even Napoleon warned against fighting a 2-front war.
She brings up some good points, and she’s seemingly convinced of them. It’s not easy to defend ourselves against scrutiny, and watch our arguments go up in smoke. But she’s engaged, and that’s a great thing.
bluelightbrigade on May 13, 2009 at 1:44 PM
My political views are what I describe as a Heinlein libertarian. I think the government that governs least governs best. In my opinion, the primary goal of the government is to protect its citizens, hence the statement of each individual having the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I also believe that personal responsibility for your actions is the duty of each individual.
When a woman becomes pregnant, both her and the father of the child need to take responsibility for their decision to have sex, and the consequences of that decision. That child, while being carried by the mother until birth, is a distinct individual, with different DNA, fingerprints, etc. Being a new, albeit, unborn, individual, they are entitled to the protections that it is the responsibility of the government to provide, foremost, protection of that life.
With the availability of birth control today, as well as the option of celibacy, aborting a child for the sake of convenience (which is what most abortions today are), is just an act of selfishness, and an abrogation of personal responsibility for the actions of the parents.
From what I remember, actual cases of abortions due to rape, incest, and the actual safety of the health of the mother are an extremely low percentage of the actual number of abortions performed.
coyoterex on May 13, 2009 at 1:46 PM
OK, but that’s about sex.
Which confirms to most moderates that you’re agenda is really to insist on sexual mores.
But it’s honest.
Just understand, you’ll lose. That’s why Bristol is a target right now.
I wait to see how this actually plays out.
I personally think there is nothing wrong with sex. It’s a God-given instinct.
AnninCA on May 13, 2009 at 1:46 PM
They can’t make exceptions without creating worse problems than abortion. How would you enforce a rape exception law? That’s asking for women to make false accusations of rape. A health exception would strip women of their medical privacy. Women shouldn’t have to hand over their medical records to a state bureau of obstetrics. And all of this is beside the point that not everyone agrees that human life begins at conception anyway. What right do you have to force your answer to this difficult philosophical question on everybody else? This country isn’t free anymore when controversial moral questions are decided by 51% up-or-down votes.
The whole “hand it over to the states” issue is incoherent to begin with. So you’re willing to let people decide collectively, state-by-state, whether abortion is murder, but you don’t trust your neighbors to decide for themselves? There’s no place in a constitution republic for such grassroots fascism.
RightOFLeft on May 13, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Oh, goodness…..I’m in no danger of pregnancy. *haha
I rather wish I’d be in danger of immorality. But that’s probably a fantasy. :)
AnninCA on May 13, 2009 at 1:47 PM
immorality……scuse
AnninCA on May 13, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Bristol is a target right now because of who her mom is, and the Left is trying to undermine the possibility of a GOP threat to Tho One in 2010.
Case in point: No one is saying anything about Biden’s daughter.
Let’s at least be honest. So you don’t like Palin. Fine. But at least be honest about why people don’t like her. She’s conservative about everything. She’s a leader, and her skills made Obama look amateurish by comparison (They still do, as the last 100 days have shown us.)
bluelightbrigade on May 13, 2009 at 1:51 PM
I’m not sure I want to comment on this lol :]
bluelightbrigade on May 13, 2009 at 1:52 PM
I like Palin, bluelight.
I wait to see how she resolves this one.
AnninCA on May 13, 2009 at 1:52 PM
*2012.
sorry.
bluelightbrigade on May 13, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Evil. Simply evil.
Not much else to say. This is one of those rare instances where Godwin’s Law doesn’t apply … since they’re not applying basic Nazi principles of eugenics.
FYI: I had a law school class with a well-known feminist professor; you’d know her name. This came up in class, while she was extolling the constitutional glory of abortion. Somebody raised his hand and asked: “what if the abortion is obtained solely to avoid a girl baby?”
She declared: “Well, in that case, it would be unlawful gender discrimination under the 14th Amendment …” The baby who a minute before was nothing but tissue … all of a sudden it had human rights.
My brain exploded. At that instant, I started leaning conservative.
Professor Blather on May 13, 2009 at 1:53 PM
*hehe….
I have great stories! :)
AnninCA on May 13, 2009 at 1:53 PM
That’s it! I’m boycotting Ikea.
jbtripp on May 13, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Let’s cut to the chase. If AnninCA had the power without any fear of reprisal would she have aborted Palin’s Down Syndrome child?
Would it be more justifiable if that act were hidden under some guise of privacy? Ask yourselves: If the Constitution states that our government “secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY” where in that phrase do the libertines intend to hang an asterisk to give themselves an out?
viking01 on May 13, 2009 at 1:55 PM
I guess I’m impatient with her is because I used to be her. I was raised in California too. The teachers I had indoctrinated me into this whole choice thing. They convinced me that a baby wasn’t a baby – it was just splitting cells and was akin to cancer. That cancer was splitting cells also and both met the definition of life.
Thank goodness I never bought into the whole permiscuous tripe and I never had to make that choice, but it was doctors who made me see the light. Even at a few weeks – days really, you can see that babies are babies right from the beginning. Truly a miricle.
So now I am rabidly on the other side of this argumment and have no patience with those who have bought into the same old tired tripe that I was, myself, taught as a teenager. It bunk and a pack of lies and I can’t tell you how much I resent those so-called teachers for their dishonesty.
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Some people don’t have a coherent moral or ethical structure: just their own set of preferences and the overwhelming narcissism it takes to presume that those preferences should be implemented with the force of law.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 13, 2009 at 1:57 PM
My mother told me a couple of nights about a TV news report that one out of four children in North Carolina live in households were people are hungry. This claim is fantastically insane and yet the media reported it like it was the truth. This 10% figure is a similar magic number–unless you live in a gay ghetto or get together with your buds to watch ballet.
Anyway, the way the stop sexual orientation based abortion is stop stigmatizing gay people and not some crazy government ban on aborting gay fetuses. And the reason to stop stigmatizing gays is a moral argument–not one based on the numbers of gay people.
thuja on May 13, 2009 at 1:58 PM
My brain exploded. At that instant, I started leaning conservative.
Professor Blather on May 13, 2009 at 1:53 PM
I am confused…if the girl is considered a citizen, then are they not a person…and therefore has a right to life?…man if only this was said in the supreme court.
Makes me want to go back to college, since I don’t need the grade, just to cause professors to sweat.
Conservative Voice on May 13, 2009 at 1:59 PM
What if there is no resolution? What if she decides that her principles are what they are and that she won’t bend them for anyone?
Is the pro-life/pro-choice debate over Palin even the most salient one? Or is it that she’s more mainstream American than a lot of people would like to admit.
I still contend that Barack Obama doesn’t know what it’s like to be an American. That’s not a birth-certificate arguement, either. It’s that his understanding of what makes most Americans tick is severely skewed.
Many young people I encounter don’t even know why they support pro-choice agendas. They do with their mouths, but will tell you they would never EVER think about aborting their child…at any stage.
That’s human. But it’s also a result of a cultural ambiguity about what we as American’s believe about ourselves.
We don’t even think there’s anything exceptional about ourselves. The last 10 years of emo rock should tell us that.
bluelightbrigade on May 13, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Nothing wrong with it, but when practiced without responsibility there are consequences. People seem to get whipped into a frothy rage when you mention that pesky detail. You have sex, you may get pregnant, you may get a disease, you may have emotional trouble if your partner has a screw lose. People don’t want to think about that, which is selfish and irresponsible.
Murder of an innocent child is not a responsible solution to a consequence of having sex. It has nothing to do with imposing sexual restrictions on anyone.
BakerAllie on May 13, 2009 at 1:59 PM
You are mistaken in that the movement is all about complete abolition. Just like any diverse group pursuing a common goal, you have groups that range from complete abolition, to those that support exemptions such as we were discussing. Pro-abortion groups have a vested interest in portraying pro-life groups as fanatic radicals, so they will always try and portray those most extreme as the norm. I believe the media enforces those stereotypes, due to their own bias. Look at how the freaks that bomb clinics or murder doctors are headline news, while environmental groups that commit violence are rarely reported upon.
My experience, having worked for one of these organizations for a while, is that the staff was primarily women (I was one of 3 men working there out of about 2 dozen), and the individual views ranged from devout Catholics who did not even care for any birth control, to people like myself, that were not very religious, but still thought that abortion was an bad thing, although in some cases, such as when forced upon someone without their consent (rape, incest), the lesser of two evils.
coyoterex on May 13, 2009 at 2:00 PM
thuja on May 13, 2009 at 1:58 PM
its accurate…don’t you know, because at any given moment, the impatient kid is hungry as their microwave dinner is spinning away.
Conservative Voice on May 13, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Ffffuuuu….
Well, someone better tell Drywall I’ve added (sadly) another company to my list.
Damn.
bluelightbrigade on May 13, 2009 at 2:01 PM
I never like ikea, anyway…..;^}
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 2:07 PM
John McCain was doing OK until the Lehman Brothers collapse. But that aside, I would think that women are overall just as ambivalent on the subject of abortion as most men are. Not all of them fit into the neat little militant pro-choice mold. Women have voted for pro-life candidates in the past.
And also, the Republicans don’t make it a core issue as much as those who are offended by the presence of pro-lifers do.
ddrintn on May 13, 2009 at 2:07 PM
we’re not going back to allowing our decisions to be made by strange men in robes.
I really do think it is that simple. Women say no.
AnninCA on May 13, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Just men in white robes? ( abortion doctors in case you missed it )
Conservative Voice on May 13, 2009 at 2:13 PM
I’m a woman and don’t know any women who’d vote for a pro-choice candidate.
One of my biggest issues with obama (besides the marxist stuff) was his support of the infanticide in Chicago. The actual murder of a baby born alive. Monstrous!
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 2:14 PM
I wonder how AnninCA would have felt about slavery if the year were 1859.
joe_doufu on May 13, 2009 at 2:14 PM
She would logically have to be in support of it since the state has determinded that a baby is the property of a woman.
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 2:16 PM
You don’t have the choice to end a human life on a whim. Your right to do as you wish with your body is subservient to another human’s right to life.
When does a fetus become a human if it isn’t one at the beginning? That’s the question. It’s pure logic. That this issue falls along political or gender lines is a shocking indictment of the logical or moral failings of the electorate.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 13, 2009 at 2:19 PM
I agree. All you have to do is nothing and in 16 years you have to take him/her down to DMV to get his/her drivers license.
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 2:21 PM
I fear for this nation as well. I have heard too many people tell many that the Earth is overcrowded. It isn’t. But these environMENTALists buy into that crap. And many would love to see limits on children.
Somehow I doubt Obama would veto something like that. Although, I think we are a ways off from that.
jeffn21 on May 13, 2009 at 2:25 PM
joe_doufu on May 13, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Interesting argument. It would depend on how many fifths of a person is a baby and how many fifths of a person is a slave.
viking01 on May 13, 2009 at 2:25 PM
You made your choice. You decided to have sex, you decided to not use protection, you decided to not force the guy to “pull out”.
So when does the baby get to make a choice?
jeffn21 on May 13, 2009 at 2:28 PM
That three fifths of a person thing was only for the benefit of white house members regarding state representation. It certainly didn’t apply to the slaves themselves who were always thought to be property and not people. They weren’t even allowed to testify in their own defense. To those who owned slaves it was the same as allowing a chair to testify.
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 2:35 PM
jeffn21 on May 13, 2009 at 2:25 PM
I’ve read somewhere…its easy enough to verify, that if you move everyone to Texas, each family can have an acre….or something like that. In any case we aren’t over-populated, and families constrict their size on their own…you don’t need abortion to control the population.
The other PSA that drives me nuts, and its shown during Saturday morning cartoons…that the rain forest loses X amount of forest a day…I forget the number, doesn’t matter, because if you do the math, Brazil would of been all burnt down already.
Conservative Voice on May 13, 2009 at 2:36 PM
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 2:35 PM
I was referring to that, say, per Ann’s potential valuation table… on the scale of life worthy of convenience versus not worthy of convenience. Said mostly to differentiate how some through history (e.g. Dred Scott) will redefine things (often through the courts e.g. Roe v. Wade) to modify the Constitution to suit the fashion of the day and the whims and fancy of stylishness.
viking01 on May 13, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Big fat ditto on this!
I can’t stand when liberals stereotype people based on gender, don’t you? (referring to AnnInCA btw)
Candy Slice on May 13, 2009 at 2:46 PM
I know. I’ve made the same observation to her at least half a dozen times and she and others have simply refused to bite.
Stated plainly (again) the state has made the determination that a baby is the property of the mother. To give birth to or murder. This is no different than slave laws.
I remember having this discussion with some maroon over at another blog and he actually was of the opinion that a mother had the right (as the baby was, indeed, her property) to murder her baby up to a year after it was born.
There are some scary people out there!
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 2:52 PM
I think she is very young and only hangs out with people who think as she does. Libs do this so they get the constant cheerleading regarding their pet issues. It wouldn’t occur to her that at least half the female population (I’ve heard of numbers as high as 55%. The public sentiment is definately leaning towards outlawing this) does not agree with the abortion policy and think of it as murder.
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Too bad for those 20 million or so women in this country who’ve had their decisions made for them by strange women in clinic gowns.
CDeb on May 13, 2009 at 2:57 PM
It ought to tell you….”I’m defending something really ghastly.”
CDeb on May 13, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Pro-choicers, when they started acting robbing people of their humanity for the crime of being inconvenient.
CDeb on May 13, 2009 at 3:02 PM
“This 10% figure is a similar magic number–unless you live in a gay ghetto or get together with your buds to watch ballet.
Anyway, the way the stop sexual orientation based abortion is stop stigmatizing gay people and not some crazy government ban on aborting gay fetuses. And the reason to stop stigmatizing gays is a moral argument–not one based on the numbers of gay people. – thuja on May 13, 2009 at 1:58 PM”
No one knows the real percentage of people who are gay. I believe that abortion is immoral. And, to abort a child for being of the “wrong” desired sex is incomprehensible to myself. But I am sure that it is done millions of times a year in this world of ours. China alone has an imbalance in their population right now of 50 million more men than women.
SC.Charlie on May 13, 2009 at 3:02 PM
A lot of young women (teens) chant the mantra of choice, but if it came down to actually doing the deed, many would choose life. It is an awe-inspiring to know a teeny tiny human is free floating inside you. It changes you. Or, shall I say, IT SHOULD change you.
Ris4victory on May 13, 2009 at 3:11 PM
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Indeed. Part of the reason I made the reference to 1930s-1940s Germany earlier had most to do with how the Reich came about instituting their killing machine in one of the best educated societies in history. Much of Europe’s problems stem from how they’ve annihilated a substantial percentage of their populations for convenience sake leading to warfare and holocaust. In so doing they’ve edited out much of their brain power through killing off many of their best and brightest. How many abortions has this nation performed? Forty million or more? Probably a low figure. That’s the population of entire nations. Since much of our non-government abortion trade caters to the socialite (i.e. monied / successful) seeking to hide indiscretions one has to wonder how many potential Einsteins or Feynmans or Lindberghs or Pasteurs have been excised from this life for mere convenience. At our peril. When that many lives are snuffed there has to be a genetic cost. One need only look at Britain’s and the rest of Europe’s regression to see how massive, mechanized depopulation followed by submission has depleted their future.
viking01 on May 13, 2009 at 3:12 PM
What I said could be said about any christian INCLUDING born-again christians (which, BTW, is just another way of saying Protestant).
*sigh*
Read again what I said.
DethMetalCookieMonst on May 13, 2009 at 3:13 PM
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (a pro-abortion group), rape and incest combined account for about 0.5% of abortions. “Health” of the mother accounts for about 4%.
CDeb on May 13, 2009 at 3:16 PM
the issue has to do with my own choices, my own life, and whether I agree that the State has a right to deem me a “baby carrier,” and control my life.
That is the issue.
AnninCA on May 13, 2009 at 1:25 PM
yogi41 on May 13, 2009 at 3:27 PM
I thought the same thing when I saw Obama giving a campaign speach bemoaning the shortage of students become scientists and engineers in our country. Well, since we kill 3,000 a day in this country, if even 1 percent of those people were to become scientests or engineers, that’s 30 every day that we’re killing, and 450,000 since Roe.
CDeb on May 13, 2009 at 3:28 PM
CDeb on May 13, 2009 at 3:16 PM
I wonder how much of that percentage quoted due to “health” by Guttmacher is for psychiatric “health.” When lions eat their young the motivations tend to be for the self rather than their pride (pun optional).
viking01 on May 13, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Wonderfully concise reasoning! The murdering of our future is indeed a national sin we must bear in that it has depleted us as a society and nation.
Of course the “other” side bring out strawman arguments about child abuse and crime. A non sequitur, IMHO.
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 3:31 PM
It’s really getting more and more difficult to argue against the fact that western civilization has collapsed or is collapsing rapidly. Good Lord, when will the madness of humanity end?
Goodeye_Closed on May 13, 2009 at 3:37 PM
I brought this up earlier – along with the anology that the state has determinded that babies are the property of their mothers – aka slaves.
She ignores logic and just keeps regurgitating the same self-centered talking points over and over again.
If she was so damned serious about her body/her rights she would take the step of having her tubes tied. That would settle the matter without the lose of life.
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 3:38 PM
I bet it wouldn’t take much for someone to get you to indulge in your “God-given” instinct” with them…..if that’s how you look at.
Does labeling something an instinct somehow negate responsibility?
Goodeye_Closed on May 13, 2009 at 3:44 PM
vapig on May 13, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Thanks.
What is particularly scary about this is gender as the basis for the abortions because that is clearly eugenics.
Since NOW, NARAL (aka SNARL) and the so-called feminists have claimed a mantra of “women’s rights” things should really hit the fan if it is future women whom are being killed. I suspect, though, that NOW and other so-called feminists groups will treat this as they did Clinton and subordinate employee Lewinsky. They’ll ignore it as though it never happened. Which would be no surprise since NOW and NARAL constitute little more than lobbyists for the big-money abortion industry.
viking01 on May 13, 2009 at 3:47 PM
They won’t be bothered. They had no problem with the press and some of their own throwing every sexist slur at Palin when she was running. They only care about women’s rights if you tow their ideological line.
BakerAllie on May 13, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Before someone uses a big word like “eugenics”, they should look it up in the dictionary.
thuja on May 13, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Before someone make silly comments they should too.
dpierson on May 13, 2009 at 4:04 PM
In the real world of human experience, the 330 million people who live in the European Union do not constitute “depopulation”. Is there any word larger than two syllables which you use that you know what it means?
I rejoice everyday in the 40 million or so abortions that we’ve had in America since Roe v. Wade. We live on a finite planet with an environment that deserves our care.
thuja on May 13, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Shot yourself in the head right now – one less carbon sucker to cause problems.
dpierson on May 13, 2009 at 4:08 PM
I’m not religious and for most of my life I was a liberal, but at no point in my 30+ years of existence did I try to convince myself that ending the life of child in my womb is not a moral issue. Have you seen a woman after having a miscarriage? How come some fetuses’ deaths can be so devastating and others can be so meaningless? Just look at an ultrasound, even in the early stages, if your heart tells you it’s ok to end his/her life, then don’t kid yourself, you are not practicing your right over your body, you are practicing your right to be cruel. I’m not advocating ending all abortions, I could never look at a woman who was raped and force her to keep her baby, but I do think that as a civilized society, we should never treat abortion as if it was a visit to the dentist, that way we won’t end up like Sweden or even worse, like Nazi Germany.
Michelle Dubois on May 13, 2009 at 4:08 PM
You rejoice? Sing exaltations? Please, please let there be such a thing as karma. Please.
nico on May 13, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Ah, but it’s never personally applicable. Only those who can’t protect themselves die. What a nihilistic piece of excrement. A planet deserves care. People? Not so much.
nico on May 13, 2009 at 4:14 PM
thuja on May 13, 2009 at 4:06 PM
should we also kill the handicap, the old, the ugly? And you didn’t want to call it eugenics, how ironic.
Again, take the number of families in the world, then divide into the number of acres in Texas…the finding might surprise you. We have enough resources to feed the world, to clothe the naked, and still have 90% of the world unpopulated.
Conservative Voice on May 13, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Conservative Voice on May 13, 2009 at 4:16 PM
A square foot box is all that is needed to grow enough food for an adult. This is why we can grow cows, who require more land than an adult…because there is plenty of land to go around. thuja, you need to drive out of the city for a month.
Conservative Voice on May 13, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Before making snide remarks about comments, it might be best to have your own facts in order.
Per a quick link found in Medical News Today:
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck….
coyoterex on May 13, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Is it really that hard for some people here to look up the word “eugenics”? I strongly support a eugenics program against people incapable of using dictionaries.
Major hint about the meaning of the word “eugenics”: by definition, killing the elderly is not eugenics.
thuja on May 13, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Yes killing the elderly or young is murder.
dpierson on May 13, 2009 at 4:28 PM
thuja on May 13, 2009 at 4:23 PM
you do realize that old men can still get a girl pregnant? And wasn’t there like a 90 something year old woman recently who had a kid in India?
Conservative Voice on May 13, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Absolutely not! It’s Orwellian to call areas where the population is growing as becoming depopulated. And excluding some regions of the former Yugoslavia, no area in Europe has any had any catastrophe that has lead to significant population decrease since World War II.
Maybe I should start calling abortions “giving birth”?
thuja on May 13, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Imagine being the child of this woman:
The daughters: my mom hated us so much, or was so tired of having us, she killed my three little sisters.
The son: my mom wanted me so much, she killed by two sisters to get me.
How is this woman fit to be a parent at all? What is motivating her to want a son so bad that she is willing to kill her children? The thing is, it’s not even the life/death issue, it is the pure barbarism of them hacking the child to pieces – or burning it’s skin off – for the crime of being born the wrong sex? And for it to be far enough along to distinguish sex organs, it is far enough along to have nerve endings and suffer in addition to losing its life.
Queen0fCups on May 13, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Shh…you will interrupt his reveling in his own inanity.
The nihilistic attitude about population control always seems based upon the assumption that those promoting it are somehow more worthy of life than others. It is another brand of selfishness. “Keep those people off my lawn.”
coyoterex on May 13, 2009 at 4:35 PM
That’s only true if gayness is a genetic issue.
That has not been proven. In fact, most science finds the exact opposite.
Even if it was a genetic issue, please let me tell you my uber-liberal in-laws were greatly relieved that their son was not gay. And they claim to be gay-rights activists…and they weren’t relieved for HIS sake.
But get a real argument here, please. The gay gene thing is sci-fi.
bluelightbrigade on May 13, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Once again I am struck by the compassion of the left. When it comes right down to it, they’re maladjusted children.
Selfish
Envious
Deceitful
Spiteful
Compulsive
Pernicious
nico on May 13, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Is there any word larger than two syllables which you use that you know what it means?
thuja on May 13, 2009 at 4:06 PM
You scoff? Then I must sneer “Poppycock” (emphasis, last syllable) at your vacuous preening.
Back to reality. Close to a million wiped out in just the Battle of the Somme. Multitudes in WW I lost to disease and cold. A million starved or froze in the Siege of Leningrad of WW II. Excised from the gene pool. Eugenics by proxy. Substantial lessening of the (then) population of the professional and upper classes.
A finite planet? Sun burns out in 8 million years. Mark your calendar. Hide under the desk. Whatever.
If “thuja” is as poor in lifestyle as he is in forensics his days probably are more finite (so to speak) than he hopes.
Put down that dictionary, thug, and think, if possible. If they’re dead they can’t breed hence eugenics. Even the elderly (males at least) can breed. Except when they’re killed for some Mother Earth phony’s whims of supplicating Geos.
viking01 on May 13, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Link your proof that the population of Europe is growing via birth rate. Everything I have read indicates that most of Europe has a birth rate below sustainable rates, per the quote I included. I have provided evidence of my point of view. Feel free to show proof of yours. Just because you say it is so, does not mean it is true.
coyoterex on May 13, 2009 at 4:38 PM
thuja on May 13, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Technically speaking, the old may not fit your definition of using breeding techniques to wipe out certain undesirable characteristics based on genetics…but it doesn’t mean there aren’t some people out there who uses eugenics to wipe out the “weak”…and “weak” is defined by whoever is doing the killing.
Conservative Voice on May 13, 2009 at 4:39 PM
If everyone who thought that way would kill themselves they would actually put their money where their mouth is. But they are cowards and want everyone else to die instead. Human excrement – you said it.
dpierson on May 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Well, this really is all about words. I assumed that when people debate killing the elderly, they mean the elderly who are in really bad shape–not some Logan’s Run scenario which is pretty impossible given that old people vote more than other groups. And of course the Logan’s Run world would be an evil place.
To state my point bluntly, by definition, eugenics is a practice intended to improve the gene pool. People have to be able to contribute to the gene pool for eugenics to be relevant.
thuja on May 13, 2009 at 4:41 PM
We are talking killing two fetuses because they were not the sex she wanted?!! Forget carrying a baby to term, this is just downright selfish. The woman apparently was healthy since she had two other children, and had no trouble conceiving more. Gee, wonder if she told her two little girls; “yeah, we got rid of those other girl babies, but don’t worry, we will get you a brother”. Life should be determined by God, not some selfish woman, who thinks her womb is a candy store, to pick and choose whatever flavor she’s in the mood for.
Susanboo on May 13, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Death for thee, but not for me. I’m special.
I can spell eugenics.
nico on May 13, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »