--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Judy, are you advocating banning ultrasound? > > > > > > No, I'm advocating not letting women use it to > > > selectively abort females (in other words, I'm > > > advocating not telling them what the ultrasound > > > reveals about the sex of the fetus). > > > > > > ...and out of every 100 women who want to know the sex of their > > child, how many of those do you think your proposed law will > prevent > > from doing this? > > I believe I answered this already, Shemp. Are you > having memory problems?
She does this every time. Whenever she doesn't want to answer a question or has her back up against the wall she either says she already answered the question or poses a question back at you and demands that you answer that question first before she answers your question. > > > > > > > > > That > > > doesn't change your point, just wanted to make > > > sure mine was clear. Ultrasound is an important > > > tool for other reasons. > > > > > > Because if so, then > > > > you've got a whole new set of problems, which is also happening > > in > > > > China for those women who didn't find out the sex of their > child, > > > > (or couldn't get an abortion) and then simply abandon the kids > > in > > > > droves--to the tune of over a million a year. > > > > > > Abandon the female kids, I assume you mean, right? > > > > > > Like I said, it's a complex problem. This just adds > > > another layer of complexity. I don't think the > > > solution is to continue to allow women to abort > > > females selectively, do you? > > > > > > Do you have any ideas for a better solution? This > > > is the least-bad one I've heard (Lawson suggested > > > it initially), given the overall situation in China. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sal > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 12, 2006, at 10:42 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > > > It would certainly *reduce* it. Abortions can be > > > > > done in back alleys with coathangers by unlicensed > > > > > practitioners. You can't do an ultrasound without > > > > > an office, an expensive piece of equipment, and > > > > > someone trained to run the equipment and interpret > > > > > the results. > > > > > > > > > > Of course, you can't stop practitioners from > > > > > whispering in their patients' ears. But if you find > > > > > that certain practitioners are aborting a high > > > > > percentage of female fetuses after administering an > > > > > ultrasound--or even if you found a high percentage > > > > > of pregnant women who did not carry the child to > > > > > term after an ultrasound (i.e., they went to a back- > > > > > alley abortionist)--you could impose sanctions on > > > > > the ultrasound practitioners. > > > > > > > > > > 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/
