--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > In a message dated 8/11/06 9:42:04 P.M. Central Daylight 
> Time,  
> > > > sparaig@ writes:
> > > > 
> > > > >  > It's a mothers right to choose. Women have the right to 
> > > decide if  
> > > > > > > they want to carry a child regardless of it's sex.
> > > > >  > 
> > > > > > Perhaps, but the social issue is overwhelming the  
> individual 
> > > rights 
> > > > > > in this case. The individual's right to choose  is leading 
> to 
> > > > > > exceedingly lopsided male-female ratios that may  
> > > > > > well destroy Chinese and Indian society if left  
> unregulated.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't know how the heck you'd regulate it.  Ban
> > > > > the aborting of female fetuses but not male? How
> > > > > long  would it be before you had an imbalance the
> > > > > other  way?
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Ban anything that can be used to determine the sex of the  
> fetus. 
> > > Ultrasound 
> > > > while the 
> > > > mom isn't allowed to look, would be OK, as  long as the doctor 
> > > doesn't reveal 
> > > > the sex.
> > > > 
> > > > Why not just ban abortion all together?
> > > 
> > > Judy thinks that a law banning the use of ultrasound to 
> determine 
> > > the sex of a child is actually workable.
> > > 
> > > Gee.  One of the reasons given by pro-choicers has always been 
> that 
> > > legalizing abortions makes it safe because women are going to go 
> > > underground and go to abortionists anyways when it's not legal.
> > > 
> > > Judy will have us believe that a society that will have 
> inevitably 
> > > have illegal abortionists if abortion is denied by law will 
> somehow 
> > > strictly enforce the banning of ultrasound machines -- a 
> procedure 
> > > that is entirely harmless -- in order to determine the sex of a
> > > baby.
> > 
> > It's called "the lesser of two evils," Shemp,
> > in a society that values children of one sex
> > over the other.
> 
> 
> That's not the point, Judy.
> 
> The point I'm making here is that even if you were to codify the 
> banning of ultrasounds for the purpose of determining a fetus's sex, 
> do you honestly think that this would prevent its widespread use in 
> society?
>

It's a bandaid at best, but so is the banning of the sale of cigarettes to 
minors. The long-
term fix is to convince Society not to want the destructive thing in the first 
place.

"Just say no" writ large.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to