Left's war on women: The abortion clinic

[_bcspace]

Live Action says Planned Parenthood and other U.S. abortion providers are willing to assist in the termination of baby girls for pregnant women who choose abortion because they want to have baby boys. And the pro-life abortion watchdog says its video series and a new website will expose it all.

“This was a multi-state, national investigation demonstrating that this is a widespread problem across our country,” Live Action president Lila Rose told The Daily Caller in an interview Monday.

“First of all, the statistics and studies indicate that we are adding to the growing problem across the world of sex-selective targeting of unborn girls for abortion. We are going to be demonstrating — starting with this video from Texas — that the abortion industry in the United States is aiding and abetting this horrific problem.”

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/29/pro-life-groups-hidden-camera-footage-shows-complicity-in-sex-selective-abortions/

[_Buffalo]

Seems perfectly in line with gospel principles.

[_krose]

What a crock.

I watched the hidden-camera video. Here's how it went:

A woman comes into the office and tells the worker that she is pregnant, that she already has a girl and wants to have a boy now, so if this one is a girl too she wants to terminate the pregnancy.

The worker doesn't condemn this woman, or judge her reasons for wanting the legal procedure, as she shouldn't. Instead, she informs the patient that the latest time they could do an abortion would be at 23 weeks, around the same time gender is usually determined, which would mean working against a tight time line if she still wants to abort after getting an ultrasound.

At the end of their interview, the worker tells the woman that she hopes the baby she carries will be the boy she wants (which would mean the abortion would be avoided, of course). The video editor loops this statement with an echo as if it's something ominous, evil and anti-girl.

Utter dishonest nonsense.

But so what? What if people do use abortion as a tool for gender selection, why is that a bigger issue than whatever other reasons they might have? Again, it's a legal procedure, for which nobody even has to provide a reason.

Also, they deliberately chose the scenario where they wanted a boy so they could manufacture the notion of a war on baby girls. The counsel from the clinic would have been identical if the woman had said she wanted to abort if it was a boy.

[_MsJack]

But so what? What if people do use abortion as a tool for gender selection, why is that a bigger issue than whatever other reasons they might have? Again, it's a legal procedure, for which nobody even has to provide a reason.

There are an estimated 100+ million women missing from the human population---over 50 million in China alone. (Just for comparison: we still seem to think it was pretty rotten that Hitler killed 6 million Jews.) Sex-selective abortion is one of the reasons those women are missing. That is why it's a big deal.

This isn't generally a problem in the United States, but it's still a disturbing trend to shrug off.

I actually agree in part with Planned Parenthood's response to this controversy: that people who are concerned about femicide need to be tackling the reasons why societies value women less than men. That is a better long-term solution than simply making sex-selective abortions illegal (though I still support the latter).

by the way, the PP worker was also in trouble because she advised the woman on how to commit Medicaid fraud.

[_ajax18]

There are an estimated 100+ million women missing from the human population---over 50 million in China alone. (Just for comparison: we still seem to think it was pretty rotten that Hitler killed 6 million Jews.) Sex-selective abortion is one of the reasons those women are missing. That is why it's a big deal.

I don't understand what's happening to me. I totally agree with that. Even when people aren't choosing the babies gender it still seems to me that there are way to many boys in the nursery at church. I don't know if it's that the Y chromosome was always lighter and faster or if there just aren't enough men getting killed off as there were in the past. But it sure makes for a volatile and unsatisfied society.

[_Buffalo]

But so what? What if people do use abortion as a tool for gender selection, why is that a bigger issue than whatever other reasons they might have? Again, it's a legal procedure, for which nobody even has to provide a reason.

There are an estimated 100+ million women missing from the human population---over 50 million in China alone. (Just for comparison: we still seem to think it was pretty rotten that Hitler killed 6 million Jews.) Sex-selective abortion is one of the reasons those women are missing. That is why it's a big deal.

This isn't generally a problem in the United States, but it's still a disturbing trend to shrug off.

I actually agree in part with Planned Parenthood's response to this controversy: that people who are concerned about femicide need to be tackling the reasons why societies value women less than men. That is a better long-term solution than simply making sex-selective abortions illegal (though I still support the latter).

by the way, the PP worker was also in trouble because she advised the woman on how to commit Medicaid fraud.

Yes, it's pretty bad. It was much worse when people were killing newborn girls, which was quite common all over the world until relatively recently.

[_Analytics]

But so what? What if people do use abortion as a tool for gender selection, why is that a bigger issue than whatever other reasons they might have? Again, it's a legal procedure, for which nobody even has to provide a reason.

There are an estimated 100+ million women missing from the human population---over 50 million in China alone. (Just for comparison: we still seem to think it was pretty rotten that Hitler killed 6 million Jews.) Sex-selective abortion is one of the reasons those women are missing. That is why it's a big deal.

This isn't generally a problem in the United States, but it's still a disturbing trend to shrug off.

I actually agree in part with Planned Parenthood's response to this controversy: that people who are concerned about femicide need to be tackling the reasons why societies value women less than men. That is a better long-term solution than simply making sex-selective abortions illegal (though I still support the latter).

by the way, the PP worker was also in trouble because she advised the woman on how to commit Medicaid fraud.

Historically, society valued men more than women because they were physically stronger. I think it boils down to the advantages associated with strength. Men were better hunters, better warriors, better farmers, and better factory workers.

But now, physical strength doesn't matter for most jobs. Women are better at making money in the new economy. They make the decisions about how many kids to have and whether or not to have an abortion. Women are needed to produce more kids. All she needs is a sperm bank, and in the not-to-distant future, she might not even need that. In the future, the women will keep a few men around to do things like move furniture, but society will be dominated by women in both numbers and power.

[_ajax18]

But now, physical strength doesn't matter for most jobs. Women are better at making money in the new economy. They make the decisions about how many kids to have and whether or not to have an abortion. Women are needed to produce more kids. All she needs is a sperm bank, and in the not-to-distant future, she might not even need that. In the future, the women will keep a few men around to do things like move furniture, but society will be dominated by women in both numbers and power.

I agree with that as well. Would it be fair to say that parental gender selection for boys and against girls is more common in less developed Asian countries? How many people do that in the U.S.A. or western Europe? I'd think being female is better in western society. It would seem to me that parents would want a girl if they had their choice, but how many parents in the U.S.A. really have the option to choose their babies gender? Are there legal ways to choose gender besides aborting a fetus?

[_Analytics]

I agree with that as well. Would it be fair to say that parental gender selection for boys and against girls is more common in less developed Asian countries? How many people do that in the U.S.A. or western Europe? I'd think being female is better in western society. It would seem to me that parents would want a girl if they had their choice, but how many parents in the U.S.A. really have the option to choose their babies gender? Are there legal ways to choose gender besides aborting a fetus?

In Asia, I think it's a cultural thing (that obviously depends upon the specific culture). I've been told that in China, sons have the responsibility to take care of their aging parents--daughters have the responsibility to take care of their aging in-laws. That works out fair if everybody has an eqaul number of sons and daughters. But if you can only have one kid, it better be a son: otherwise you have nobody to take care of you when you get old.

Linking some of these Old Testament threads, if China had a strong Social Security program and single-payer Long-Term Care program, there would no longer be an economic incentive to ensure you had sons.

[_krose]

There are an estimated 100+ million women missing from the human population---over 50 million in China alone. (Just for comparison: we still seem to think it was pretty rotten that Hitler killed 6 million Jews.) Sex-selective abortion is one of the reasons those women are missing. That is why it's a big deal.

This isn't generally a problem in the United States, but it's still a disturbing trend to shrug off.

First off, I wouldn't say something is a "trend" unless I could show it's increasing. Can you? But I certainly don't "shrug off" the problem where it actually exists. I've seen the reports of people drowning baby girls in the Yangtze River and mourned the tragic loss of life. I would have been happy to adopt a couple of those poor girls.

But as you say, it's not a problem in the US, so why make unenforceable laws here? That's easy... symbolism and blatant partisan politics. Another solution in search of a problem. (It reminds me of the idiotic laws passed banning Sharia Law in US states.)

Americans who desire to select the sex of their babies are most likely doing so to balance their families. I think most parents want an even number of boys and girls. I know I did, and it worked out just right. They might also have a preference for which one should be the first child. Whether they are willing to resort to abortion to accomplish that is another question. I'll believe that when I see it.

I actually agree in part with Planned Parenthood's response to this controversy: that people who are concerned about femicide need to be tackling the reasons why societies value women less than men. That is a better long-term solution than simply making sex-selective abortions illegal (though I still support the latter).

You really think sex selection is a more egregious reason for terminating a pregnancy than any of the other umpteen reasons that could be given? The end result is still the same; the fetus is just as dead.

When seeking an abortion, a woman has NO obligation at all to justify her reasons for getting one. Creating a law that isolates one reason and makes that reason illegal is not going to accomplish anything, except to make sure people give another reason instead of the real one. A law that punishes intent is easy to get around.