[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: snip What Shemp doesn't get is that this has nothing to do with moral/ethical issues, _per se_, but with the serious consequences of a sex-biased culture acting as-a-whole to skew the birth rate in favor of one sex over the other. Of course I get that...it would be a disaster...but, sorry, those are the consequences of supporting abortion. And, yes, you necessarily get one with the other. Um, no, wrong. What you get without abortion is an even worse disaster. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: snip What Shemp doesn't get is that this has nothing to do with moral/ethical issues, _per se_, but with the serious consequences of a sex-biased culture acting as-a-whole to skew the birth rate in favor of one sex over the other. Of course I get that...it would be a disaster...but, sorry, those are the consequences of supporting abortion. And, yes, you necessarily get one with the other. Um, no, wrong. What you get without abortion is an even worse disaster. Oh, I see. Without abortion, we get a greater disaster because more human lives are created with a pretty much equal number of men and women being born versus the situation we'd get with abortion along with no law banning sex-screening which would result in LESS human lives created with less females than males being born. Wonderful logic there, Stein. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- 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, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. No, Shemp, those are lies. That's *your* tactic when your back's up against the wall. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: [...] What Shemp doesn't get is that this has nothing to do with moral/ethical issues, _per se_, but with the serious consequences of a sex-biased culture acting as-a-whole to skew the birth rate in favor of one sex over the other. Of course I get that...it would be a disaster...but, sorry, those are the consequences of supporting abortion. And, yes, you necessarily get one with the other. Can't get around that no matter how hard you try. So every country on earth is facing the same skewed gender issue that China is, and it's all because of abortions? While there would be SOME sociietal problems if there were an anti-male bias in China or India, the consequences will be disasterous because it is an anti-female bias. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- 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, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: snip What Shemp doesn't get is that this has nothing to do with moral/ethical issues, _per se_, but with the serious consequences of a sex-biased culture acting as-a-whole to skew the birth rate in favor of one sex over the other. Of course I get that...it would be a disaster...but, sorry, those are the consequences of supporting abortion. And, yes, you necessarily get one with the other. Um, no, wrong. What you get without abortion is an even worse disaster. Oh, I see. Without abortion, we get a greater disaster because more human lives are created with a pretty much equal number of men and women being born versus the situation we'd get with abortion along with no law banning sex-screening which would result in LESS human lives created with less females than males being born. Wonderful logic there, Stein. No, just very elementary logic, which you've completely missed, as usual. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: snip What Shemp doesn't get is that this has nothing to do with moral/ethical issues, _per se_, but with the serious consequences of a sex-biased culture acting as-a-whole to skew the birth rate in favor of one sex over the other. Of course I get that...it would be a disaster...but, sorry, those are the consequences of supporting abortion. And, yes, you necessarily get one with the other. Um, no, wrong. What you get without abortion is an even worse disaster. Oh, I see. Without abortion, we get a greater disaster because more human lives are created with a pretty much equal number of men and women being born versus the situation we'd get with abortion along with no law banning sex-screening which would result in LESS human lives created with less females than males being born. Wonderful logic there, Stein. No, just very elementary logic, which you've completely missed, as usual. Yeah, I missed it because you say above it would be a worse disaster without abortion. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. No, Shemp, those are lies. That's *your* tactic when your back's up against the wall. ...then prove me wrong. Answer my ...out of 100 women...question above. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- 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, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: snip What Shemp doesn't get is that this has nothing to do with moral/ethical issues, _per se_, but with the serious consequences of a sex-biased culture acting as-a-whole to skew the birth rate in favor of one sex over the other. Of course I get that...it would be a disaster...but, sorry, those are the consequences of supporting abortion. And, yes, you necessarily get one with the other. Um, no, wrong. What you get without abortion is an even worse disaster. Oh, I see. Without abortion, we get a greater disaster because more human lives are created with a pretty much equal number of men and women being born versus the situation we'd get with abortion along with no law banning sex-screening which would result in LESS human lives created with less females than males being born. Wonderful logic there, Stein. No, just very elementary logic, which you've completely missed, as usual. Yeah, I missed it because you say above it would be a worse disaster without abortion. Right. Which means *your* brand of logic isn't quite doing the trick. Here's a huge hint: One family, one child. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- 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, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. No, Shemp, those are lies. That's *your* tactic when your back's up against the wall. ...then prove me wrong. How can I prove you wrong? *You* know under what circumstances I ask you a question or tell you I've already answered it. You'd have to *admit* you were lying when you say I do that because I don't want to answer or have my back up against the wall. Answer my ...out of 100 women...question above. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: In a message dated 8/11/06 3:21:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time, sparaig@ writes: If you support abortion, you can't be against aborting female fetuses. You can if the ONLY reason is because they're female. 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. Hey, that might actually work. So let me see if understand this. Judy is all for the right of a mother-to-be to kill her fetus but she's for banning her right to know what that soon-to-be-dead fetus' sex is 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/11/06 9:42:04 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/11/06 10:25:43 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. Hey, that might actually work. What about the mothers right to know? Judy's policy: Mothers should be free to kill their fetuses but unfree to know what sex the baby she's killing is... 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: In a message dated 8/11/06 3:21:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time, sparaig@ writes: If you support abortion, you can't be against aborting female fetuses. You can if the ONLY reason is because they're female. 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. Hey, that might actually work. So let me see if understand this. Judy is all for the right of a mother-to-be to kill her fetus (Woman would be the appropriate term in this case.) but she's for banning her right to know what that soon-to-be-dead fetus' sex is What I'm against is abortion based on the sex of the fetus. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/11/06 10:47:17 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 rightsin this case. The individual's right to choose is leading toexceedingly lopsided male-female ratios that maywell 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?Yeah, in a country like China. That will work.. Certainly you wouldn't want some politician or dictator telling you what thesex of a child you are permitted to bring into the world or abort should be. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/12/06 1:06:28 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: In a message dated 8/11/06 3:21:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time, sparaig@ writes: If you support abortion, you can't be against aborting female fetuses. You can if the ONLY reason is because they're female. 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. Hey, that might actually work.So let me see if understand this.Judy is all for the right of a mother-to-be to kill her fetus but she's for banning her right to know what that soon-to-be-dead fetus' sex is This gives a whole new meaning to "central planning". __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/11/06 11:18:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. Hey, that might actually work. What about the mothers right to know?What about it? Now could you imagine that being said to a prospective mother in the USA? For all the doctor knows, she's coming in for a routine check up and wants to know the sex of her child. She doesn't have to make a decision to abort before she knows all the facts. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/12/06 7:21:12 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ban anything that can be used to determine the sex of the
fetus. Ultrasound while the mom isn't allowed to look,
would beOK, as long as the doctor doesn't reveal the
sex.Hey, that might actually work.
So let me see if understand this. Judy is all for
the right of a mother-to-be to kill her fetus("Woman" would be the
appropriate term in thiscase.)but she's for banning her
right to know what that soon-to-be-dead fetus' sex isWhat
I'm against is abortion based on thesex of the fetus.
But Judy, the mother doesn't have to give a reason why she wants to
abort a fetus. She doesn't even have to tell the ultra sound tech or doctor she
has any plans to abort and she has every right to know the sex of the fetus as
she would the general health of the fetus at the time of ultra
sound.
__._,_.___
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
Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
__,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/12/06 7:34:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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 sexover the other. So it is "evil" to abort a fetus because of it's sex? __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/11/06 11:18:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. Hey, that might actually work. What about the mothers right to know? What about it? Now could you imagine that being said to a prospective mother in the USA? For all the doctor knows, she's coming in for a routine check up and wants to know the sex of her child. She doesn't have to make a decision to abort before she knows all the facts. So you think it's fine for a woman to make a decision to abort or not based on the sex of the child? How prevalent do you think such decisions are in the U.S. compared to China? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/11/06 10:47:17 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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? Yeah, in a country like China. That will work.. Certainly you wouldn't want some politician or dictator telling you what the sex of a child you are permitted to bring into the world or abort should be. This really isn't the simplistic issue some would like to make it. There isn't any good solution that's actually feasible given the situation in China. The ideal solution would involve everyone in China practicing sound birth-control methods *and* the society having a means of adequately taking care of the elderly so they wouldn't starve if they had no male children to support them, and/or ensuring that female children have the same opportunities that male children do so females could support their parents too. But these kinds of changes aren't *feasible* in China, at least in the short run; they couldn't be accomplished in time to avoid massive hardship if abortion were banned entirely or if the status quo of women selectively aborting female fetuses were maintained. So what you have to look for is the least-bad *feasible* solution that will allow the society to function while you work for longer-term, more positive changes. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 7:21:12 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. Hey, that might actually work. So let me see if understand this. Judy is all for the right of a mother-to-be to kill her fetus (Woman would be the appropriate term in this case.) but she's for banning her right to know what that soon-to-be-dead fetus' sex is What I'm against is abortion based on the sex of the fetus. But Judy, the mother doesn't have to give a reason why she wants to abort a fetus. She doesn't even have to tell the ultra sound tech or doctor she has any plans to abort and she has every right to know the sex of the fetus as she would the general health of the fetus at the time of ultra sound. Which country are we talking about here, the U.S. or China? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 7:34:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. So it is evil to abort a fetus because of it's sex? Evil in this case meaning having negative consequences. Lesser of two evils is what we call a figure of speech. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/12/06 8:18:29 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Certainly you wouldn't want some politician or dictator telling you what the sex of a child you are permitted to bring into the world or abort should be.This really isn't the simplistic issue some wouldlike to make it. There isn't any "good" solutionthat's actually feasible given the situation inChina.The ideal solution would involve everyone in Chinapracticing sound birth-control methods *and* thesociety having a means of adequately taking care ofthe elderly so they wouldn't starve if they had nomale children to support them, and/or ensuring thatfemale children have the same opportunities thatmale children do so females could support theirparents too.But these kinds of changes aren't *feasible* inChina, at least in the short run; they couldn'tbe accomplished in time to avoid massive hardshipif abortion were banned entirely or if the statusquo of women selectively aborting female fetuseswere maintained.So what you have to look for is the least-bad*feasible* solution that will allow the societyto function while you work for longer-term, morepositive changes. I would imagine the Chinese think the current policy will fix the situation quickly.Once there is an over abundance of men and too few women, fewer children of either sex will be born and women valued more. It's a nasty and evil way to fix the problem, but the Chinese have a reputation for using nasty, evil ways to fix their problems. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/12/06 8:19:38 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What about the mothers right to know? What about it? Now could you imagine that being said to a prospective mother in the USA? For all the doctor knows, she's coming in for a routine check up and wants to know the sex of her child. She doesn't have to make a decision to abort before she knows all the facts.So you think it's fine for a woman to make a decisionto abort or not based on the sex of the child?How prevalent do you think such decisions are in theU.S. compared to China? Actually, I think no child should be aborted unless the mothers life is endangered, any where. However the accepted culture is that women control their bodies and reproductive rights and those are considered human rights, not political rights. The problem you have with aborting a fetus based on sex is the same one I have for aborting a fetus regardless of sex. I call that equal rights. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/12/06 8:19:39 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I'm against is abortion based on the sex of the fetus. But Judy, the mother doesn't have to give a reason why she wants to abort a fetus. She doesn't even have to tell the ultra sound tech or doctor she has any plans to abort and she has every right to know the sex of the fetus as she would the general health of the fetus at the time of ultra sound.Which country are we talking about here, the U.S. orChina? Are the rights we hold dear and sacred here too good for the Chinese? Don't we believe that reproductive rights are a human right which is universal. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 8:18:29 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [MDixon wrote:] Certainly you wouldn't want some politician or dictator telling you what the sex of a child you are permitted to bring into the world or abort should be. [I wrote:] This really isn't the simplistic issue some would like to make it. There isn't any good solution that's actually feasible given the situation in China. The ideal solution would involve everyone in China practicing sound birth-control methods *and* the society having a means of adequately taking care of the elderly so they wouldn't starve if they had no male children to support them, and/or ensuring that female children have the same opportunities that male children do so females could support their parents too. But these kinds of changes aren't *feasible* in China, at least in the short run; they couldn't be accomplished in time to avoid massive hardship if abortion were banned entirely or if the status quo of women selectively aborting female fetuses were maintained. So what you have to look for is the least-bad *feasible* solution that will allow the society to function while you work for longer-term, more positive changes. [MDixon wrote:] I would imagine the Chinese think the current policy will fix the situation quickly. Once there is an over abundance of men and too few women, fewer children of either sex will be born and women valued more. It's a nasty and evil way to fix the problem, but the Chinese have a reputation for using nasty, evil ways to fix their problems. So you're in favor of Lawson's solution, then, since it's clearly a lesser evil? 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/12/06 8:22:28 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So it is "evil" to abort a fetus because of it's sex?"Evil" in this case meaning having negativeconsequences. "Lesser of two evils" is what wecall a figure of speech. Allowing the Chinese to abort any child they want may have a very positive consequence from their perspective. When such a high value is placed on males and low value on females, the females are aborted under the one child policy, making an over abundance of males and too few females in the future. This means fewer women to bare children of either sex. It also means a humongous amount of unmarried youngmen fit for the military life. God! Isn't central planning wonderful? __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/12/06 9:03:42 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would imagine the Chinese think the current policy will fix the situation quickly. Once there is an over abundance of men and too few women, fewer children of either sex will be born and women valued more. It's a nasty and evil way to fix the problem, but the Chinese have a reputation for using nasty, evil ways to fix their problems.So you're in favor of Lawson's solution, then, sinceit's clearly a lesser evil? No, not at all. I was just expressing what I think the Chinese people and perhaps their leaders probably think. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 8:19:38 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What about the mothers right to know? What about it? Now could you imagine that being said to a prospective mother in the USA? For all the doctor knows, she's coming in for a routine check up and wants to know the sex of her child. She doesn't have to make a decision to abort before she knows all the facts. So you think it's fine for a woman to make a decision to abort or not based on the sex of the child? How prevalent do you think such decisions are in the U.S. compared to China? Actually, I think no child should be aborted unless the mothers life is endangered, any where. However the accepted culture is that women control their bodies and reproductive rights and those are considered human rights, not political rights. The problem you have with aborting a fetus based on sex is the same one I have for aborting a fetus regardless of sex. I call that equal rights. You're avoiding my question. We're talking here about a specifically national situation rather than abstractions. (For the record, I would vastly prefer that there be no abortions at all anywhere except for saving the mother's life, and I think most pro-choicers feel the same way. We just think there are better ways of avoiding the problem of unwanted pregnancies, on the one hand; and on the other, that banning abortion legally is a very *bad* way to avoid abortion.) 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 8:19:39 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I'm against is abortion based on the sex of the fetus. But Judy, the mother doesn't have to give a reason why she wants to abort a fetus. She doesn't even have to tell the ultra sound tech or doctor she has any plans to abort and she has every right to know the sex of the fetus as she would the general health of the fetus at the time of ultra sound. Which country are we talking about here, the U.S. or China? Are the rights we hold dear and sacred here too good for the Chinese? Do the Chinese believe in equal rights for women? Do they believe in the right of the elderly to a reasonably comfortable old age, by government means if necessary? Do the Chinese believe access to reliable birth control is a human right? Don't we believe that reproductive rights are a human right which is universal. Again, you're trying to make this into an abstraction. If the Chinese believed in and implemented the other rights I outlined, the issue of whether one has the right to abort selectively based on gender would be far less likely to arise in the first place. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 8:22:28 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So it is evil to abort a fetus because of it's sex? Evil in this case meaning having negative consequences. Lesser of two evils is what we call a figure of speech. Allowing the Chinese to abort any child they want may have a very positive consequence from their perspective. When such a high value is placed on males and low value on females, the females are aborted under the one child policy, making an over abundance of males and too few females in the future. This means fewer women to bare children of either sex. It also means a humongous amount of unmarried young men fit for the military life. God! Isn't central planning wonderful? So you acknowledge that not allowing the mother to know the sex of a child would be a lesser evil, I presume. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: In a message dated 8/11/06 3:21:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time, sparaig@ writes: If you support abortion, you can't be against aborting female fetuses. You can if the ONLY reason is because they're female. 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. Hey, that might actually work. So let me see if understand this. Judy is all for the right of a mother-to-be to kill her fetus (Woman would be the appropriate term in this case.) but she's for banning her right to know what that soon-to-be-dead fetus' sex is What I'm against is abortion based on the sex of the fetus. ...AND you want to codify the banning of this personal choice into law... How does that differ from codifying into law the banning of the personal choice of an abortion? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 9:03:42 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would imagine the Chinese think the current policy will fix the situation quickly. Once there is an over abundance of men and too few women, fewer children of either sex will be born and women valued more. It's a nasty and evil way to fix the problem, but the Chinese have a reputation for using nasty, evil ways to fix their problems. So you're in favor of Lawson's solution, then, since it's clearly a lesser evil? No, not at all. I was just expressing what I think the Chinese people and perhaps their leaders probably think. Which do *you* think is the lesser evil? 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/12/06 10:01:46 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do the Chinese believe in equal rights for women?Do they believe in the right of the elderly to areasonably comfortable old age, by government meansif necessary? Do the Chinese believe access toreliable birth control is a human right? Don't we believe that reproductive rights are a human right which is universal.Again, you're trying to make this into an abstraction.If the Chinese believed in and implemented the otherrights I outlined, the issue of whether one has theright to abort selectively based on gender would befar less likely to arise in the first place. Evidently the Chinese have made their decision. It's OK. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/12/06 9:54:37 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How prevalent do you think such decisions are in the U.S. compared to China? Actually, I think no child should be aborted unless the mothers life is endangered, any where. However the accepted culture is that women control their bodies and reproductive rights and those are considered human rights, not political rights. The problem you have with aborting a fetus based on sex is the same one I have for aborting a fetus regardless of sex. I call that equal rights.You're avoiding my question. We're talking hereabout a specifically national situation rather than abstractions. I don't think the problem is very prevalent in our culture yet. We can't make Chinese law. But we do recognize women's reproductive rights as a human right which is supposed to transcend political rights. So either we say *no* it's not a human right or only *sometimes*, thus giving the state the right to make laws restricting abortion and taking away human rights. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/11/06 11:18:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. Hey, that might actually work. What about the mothers right to know? What about it? Now could you imagine that being said to a prospective mother in the USA? For all the doctor knows, she's coming in for a routine check up and wants to know the sex of her child. She doesn't have to make a decision to abort before she knows all the facts. If abortion wasn't killing, no one would give a rat's ass about whether or not they knew the sex of the fetus. This whole discussion exposes the extreme discomfort various parties to this debate have when the same so-called freedom to choose is provided within another context: the right to know the sex of your fetus should be no less a right than the right to reproductive freedom. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: In a message dated 8/11/06 11:18:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jstein@ writes: 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. Hey, that might actually work. What about the mothers right to know? What about it? Now could you imagine that being said to a prospective mother in the USA? For all the doctor knows, she's coming in for a routine check up and wants to know the sex of her child. She doesn't have to make a decision to abort before she knows all the facts. So you think it's fine for a woman to make a decision to abort or not based on the sex of the child? An honest and decent person wouldn't twist and manipulate a debate such as you do above. You know and I know and everyone following this debate knows that MDixon is NOT for aborting a fetus based on its sex. He's using this as an example to make his point. So what is it in you, Judy, that would bring yourself to make such a suggestion? How prevalent do you think such decisions are in the U.S. compared to China? 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/12/06 10:04:29 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So you acknowledge that not allowing the mother toknow the sex of a child would be a lesser evil, Ipresume. Yes it would be a lesser evil if it meant saving the life of the fetus, but we don't make Chinese laws. I don't think the Chinese really look on the issue as being a major problem worth solving. If anything they probably look on their current policy as a damned good solution. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- 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, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: In a message dated 8/11/06 3:21:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time, sparaig@ writes: If you support abortion, you can't be against aborting female fetuses. You can if the ONLY reason is because they're female. 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. Hey, that might actually work. So let me see if understand this. Judy is all for the right of a mother-to-be to kill her fetus (Woman would be the appropriate term in this case.) but she's for banning her right to know what that soon-to-be-dead fetus' sex is What I'm against is abortion based on the sex of the fetus. ...AND you want to codify the banning of this personal choice into law... How does that differ from codifying into law the banning of the personal choice of an abortion? It's the lesser of two evils, as I said already. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- 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 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 9:54:37 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How prevalent do you think such decisions are in the U.S. compared to China? Actually, I think no child should be aborted unless the mothers life is endangered, any where. However the accepted culture is that women control their bodies and reproductive rights and those are considered human rights, not political rights. The problem you have with aborting a fetus based on sex is the same one I have for aborting a fetus regardless of sex. I call that equal rights. You're avoiding my question. We're talking here about a specifically national situation rather than abstractions. I don't think the problem is very prevalent in our culture yet. We can't make Chinese law. But we do recognize women's reproductive rights as a human right which is supposed to transcend political rights. So either we say *no* it's not a human right or only *sometimes*, thus giving the state the right to make laws restricting abortion and taking away human rights. It may always be a human right, but there are some circumstances where unrestricted access to a particular right (in this case knowing the sex of a fetus) has such negative consequences that it may be imperative to restrict it to keep the consequences from interfering with even more important human rights. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: In a message dated 8/11/06 11:18:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jstein@ writes: 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. Hey, that might actually work. What about the mothers right to know? What about it? Now could you imagine that being said to a prospective mother in the USA? For all the doctor knows, she's coming in for a routine check up and wants to know the sex of her child. She doesn't have to make a decision to abort before she knows all the facts. So you think it's fine for a woman to make a decision to abort or not based on the sex of the child? An honest and decent person wouldn't twist and manipulate a debate such as you do above. Shemp, I'm obviously no trying to twist and manipulate the debate. I'm trying to point out to MDixon the logical implications of his position. For him to say, She doesn't have to make a decision to abort before she knows all the facts (i.e., in this case, the sex of the fetus) logically implies he thinks it's OK to abort or not based on the sex of the child. You know and I know and everyone following this debate knows that MDixon is NOT for aborting a fetus based on its sex. He's using this as an example to make his point. Sure. But he clearly doesn't realize its implications. So what is it in you, Judy, that would bring yourself to make such a suggestion? Logic. Something you have a very difficult time with, I know. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip If abortion wasn't killing, no one would give a rat's ass about whether or not they knew the sex of the fetus. This whole discussion exposes the extreme discomfort various parties to this debate have when the same so-called freedom to choose is provided within another context: the right to know the sex of your fetus should be no less a right than the right to reproductive freedom. Of course it's uncomfortable. It's almost always uncomfortable when the consequences of exercising one right interferes with other rights. But the ethical solution isn't to throw up one's hands and say, Oh, well, it can't be helped so as to avoid the discomfort. The ethical solution is to find the least-bad compromise and just tolerate the discomfort. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ 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 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. Not true. I saw a special on this practise in India where it is very prevalent and in almost all cases the doctor who provided the service went from village to village with his portable ultrasound equipment. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- 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, 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 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. Not true. I saw a special on this practise in India where it is very prevalent and in almost all cases the doctor who provided the service went from village to village with his portable ultrasound equipment. OK, so you don't need an office. What about the rest of it? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ 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 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. Not true. I saw a special on this practise in India where it is very prevalent and in almost all cases the doctor who provided the service went from village to village with his portable ultrasound equipment. OK, so you don't need an office. What about the rest of it? Like illegal abortions, illegal ultrasound practise would, of course, be hard to do. But I would guess that illegal ultrasound would be easier and more ethical to do than illegal abortions. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip 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 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. Not true. I saw a special on this practise in India where it is very prevalent and in almost all cases the doctor who provided the service went from village to village with his portable ultrasound equipment. OK, so you don't need an office. What about the rest of it? Like illegal abortions, illegal ultrasound practise would, of course, be hard to do. But I would guess that illegal ultrasound would be easier and more ethical to do than illegal abortions. Read what I wrote, please. I gave you reasons why it would *not* be easier. The only one you countered was about having to have an office to conduct ultrasound. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: In a message dated 8/11/06 3:21:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time, sparaig@ writes: If you support abortion, you can't be against aborting female fetuses. You can if the ONLY reason is because they're female. 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. Hey, that might actually work. So let me see if understand this. Judy is all for the right of a mother-to-be to kill her fetus (Woman would be the appropriate term in this case.) but she's for banning her right to know what that soon-to-be-dead fetus' sex is What I'm against is abortion based on the sex of the fetus. What Shemp doesn't get is that this has nothing to do with moral/ethical issues, _per se_, but with the serious consequences of a sex-biased culture acting as-a-whole to skew the birth rate in favor of one sex over the other. While there would be SOME sociietal problems if there were an anti-male bias in China or India, the consequences will be disasterous because it is an anti-female bias. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/11/06 10:47:17 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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? Yeah, in a country like China. That will work.. Certainly you wouldn't want some politician or dictator telling you what the sex of a child you are permitted to bring into the world or abort should be. Which is why the law should be that no-one should be allowed to FIND OUT in the first place. That way, no-one gets to tell which child to have or not have. This isn't a moral issue. This is simple practical social engineering. Indian and Chinese Society value males so much and females so little that there's a genuine danger of skewing the population in a major way. China already has such a problem due to their former one- child-per-family law. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 1:06:28 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) , authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) , sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) , authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) , sparaig sparaig@ wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) , MDixon6569@ wrote: In a message dated 8/11/06 3:21:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time, sparaig@ writes: If you support abortion, you can't be against aborting female fetuses. You can if the ONLY reason is because they're female. 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. Hey, that might actually work. So let me see if understand this. Judy is all for the right of a mother-to-be to kill her fetus but she's for banning her right to know what that soon-to-be-dead fetus' sex is This gives a whole new meaning to central planning. LOL. Either you're being really stupid here, or you're deliberately misunderstading the point. Which is it? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 7:34:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. So it is evil to abort a fetus because of it's sex? It is evil for a government to be aware of an ongoing problem that might destroy the country and not do something about it. In fact, both the Chinese and Indian governments ARE doing something about it. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 7:21:12 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. Hey, that might actually work. So let me see if understand this. Judy is all for the right of a mother-to-be to kill her fetus (Woman would be the appropriate term in this case.) but she's for banning her right to know what that soon-to-be-dead fetus' sex is What I'm against is abortion based on the sex of the fetus. But Judy, the mother doesn't have to give a reason why she wants to abort a fetus. She doesn't even have to tell the ultra sound tech or doctor she has any plans to abort and she has every right to know the sex of the fetus as she would the general health of the fetus at the time of ultra sound. We're talking China and India here, not the USA or other culture that might wipe itself out with sex-skewed birth practices. Of course, if you see China as the Great Enemy, perhaps you should encourage such practices. Just be aware that the death throws of a country with a billion people wouldn't be pretty and might destroy the world. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/11/06 11:18:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. Hey, that might actually work. What about the mothers right to know? What about it? Now could you imagine that being said to a prospective mother in the USA? For all the doctor knows, she's coming in for a routine check up and wants to know the sex of her child. She doesn't have to make a decision to abort before she knows all the facts. The US doesn't have a problem with a large percentage of families opting for male-only children when they know the sex of the child. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 8:19:38 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What about the mothers right to know? What about it? Now could you imagine that being said to a prospective mother in the USA? For all the doctor knows, she's coming in for a routine check up and wants to know the sex of her child. She doesn't have to make a decision to abort before she knows all the facts. So you think it's fine for a woman to make a decision to abort or not based on the sex of the child? How prevalent do you think such decisions are in the U.S. compared to China? Actually, I think no child should be aborted unless the mothers life is endangered, any where. However the accepted culture is that women control their bodies and reproductive rights and those are considered human rights, not political rights. The problem you have with aborting a fetus based on sex is the same one I have for aborting a fetus regardless of sex. I call that equal rights. I can't speak for Judy, but I'm talking about social engineering issues here, not moral issues. My own personal athics concerning abortion should be obvious. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 8:19:39 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I'm against is abortion based on the sex of the fetus. But Judy, the mother doesn't have to give a reason why she wants to abort a fetus. She doesn't even have to tell the ultra sound tech or doctor she has any plans to abort and she has every right to know the sex of the fetus as she would the general health of the fetus at the time of ultra sound. Which country are we talking about here, the U.S. or China? Are the rights we hold dear and sacred here too good for the Chinese? Don't we believe that reproductive rights are a human right which is universal. You're no longer discussing the single-sex bias in China and India, are you... 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 9:03:42 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would imagine the Chinese think the current policy will fix the situation quickly. Once there is an over abundance of men and too few women, fewer children of either sex will be born and women valued more. It's a nasty and evil way to fix the problem, but the Chinese have a reputation for using nasty, evil ways to fix their problems. So you're in favor of Lawson's solution, then, since it's clearly a lesser evil? No, not at all. I was just expressing what I think the Chinese people and perhaps their leaders probably think. Well, you appear to be wrong, both by their stated beliefs, AND by their behavior (the government's that is). 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 8:22:28 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So it is evil to abort a fetus because of it's sex? Evil in this case meaning having negative consequences. Lesser of two evils is what we call a figure of speech. Allowing the Chinese to abort any child they want may have a very positive consequence from their perspective. When such a high value is placed on males and low value on females, the females are aborted under the one child policy, making an over abundance of males and too few females in the future. This means fewer women to bare children of either sex. It also means a humongous amount of unmarried young men fit for the military life. God! Isn't central planning wonderful? Except it hasn't worked out that way. And the CHinese HAVE backed off from the social planning thing, to a great extent. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
Judy, are you advocating banning ultrasound? 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. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: In a message dated 8/11/06 11:18:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jstein@ writes: 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. Hey, that might actually work. What about the mothers right to know? What about it? Now could you imagine that being said to a prospective mother in the USA? For all the doctor knows, she's coming in for a routine check up and wants to know the sex of her child. She doesn't have to make a decision to abort before she knows all the facts. If abortion wasn't killing, no one would give a rat's ass about whether or not they knew the sex of the fetus. This whole discussion exposes the extreme discomfort various parties to this debate have when the same so-called freedom to choose is provided within another context: the right to know the sex of your fetus should be no less a right than the right to reproductive freedom. Heh. I'm talking about the social consequences of having single-sex familes on a scale of 10's or even 100's of millions, and you've boiled it down to a abortion is bad and we all know it thing. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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). 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
On Aug 12, 2006, at 2:07 PM, authfriend wrote: Abandon the female kids, I assume you mean, right? 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? Yes, it beats them having the babies and then letting them starve or fend for themselves in understaffed, overcrowded orphanages where many will die anyway. And continue to allow implies a superiority of judgment neither you nor I nor anyone who isn't there is in a position to make. It implies that you know better. The pressure to raise sons in Chinese culture is immense. And with the one-child-per-family policy they've had for the past few decades, many women there are put in an absolutely horrendous position. Besides, I'm not really sure what I see as the difference between selective abortion (my term) and any other kind? It's all selective. Yes, there will be many and varied long-term consequences of this--many villages in China are feeling it already, as men grow up there and there are no women their age to marry--but apart from having some unmarried men, I'm not sure that's really a problem. And it sure isn't a problem compared to children dying in droves, which is what is happening now. US is not a great solution, but it is, IMO, the lesser of two evils given the Chinese government''s policy. What would you suggest in its place? There aren't near enough interested families to adopt all the children in China who need it. Sal 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). Then what would be the point of the US? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 12, 2006, at 2:07 PM, authfriend wrote: Abandon the female kids, I assume you mean, right? 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? Yes, it beats them having the babies and then letting them starve or fend for themselves in understaffed, overcrowded orphanages where many will die anyway. And continue to allow implies a superiority of judgment neither you nor I nor anyone who isn't there is in a position to make. It implies that you know better. The pressure to raise sons in Chinese culture is immense. And with the one-child-per-family policy they've had for the past few decades, many women there are put in an absolutely horrendous position. Besides, I'm not really sure what I see as the difference between selective abortion (my term) and any other kind? It's all selective. Yes, there will be many and varied long-term consequences of this--many villages in China are feeling it already, as men grow up there and there are no women their age to marry--but apart from having some unmarried men, I'm not sure that's really a problem. And it sure isn't a problem compared to children dying in droves, which is what is happening now. US is not a great solution, but it is, IMO, the lesser of two evils given the Chinese government''s policy. What would you suggest in its place? There aren't near enough interested families to adopt all the children in China who need it. Sal 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). Then what would be the point of the US? Neither Judy nor I ever advocated this. I'm not even sure that its done in China. India probably has such a policy, but apparently there are doctors that sell their services anyway. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/12/06 1:04:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: China already has such a problem due to their former one-child-per-family law. Do you think the Chinese think it's a problem? Do you think they could be looking further down the road and seeing that fewer female births now would lead to fewer births in the future? That is fewer women to give birth next generation. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
On Aug 12, 2006, at 4:07 PM, authfriend wrote: The pressure to raise sons in Chinese culture is immense. And with the one-child-per-family policy they've had for the past few decades, many women there are put in an absolutely horrendous position. Unquestionably (although Lawson says they've dropped that policy). Lawson is full of crap--the policy is alive and well. But in any case that's not really the issue. As long as the cultural preference for sons continues, the desire to get rid of daughters will be there, even if the government allowed 10 kids/family. This policy has certainly grossly exacerbated things, but it didn't create them. Besides, I'm not really sure what I see as the difference between selective abortion (my term) and any other kind? It's all selective. Yes, there will be many and varied long-term consequences of this--many villages in China are feeling it already, as men grow up there and there are no women their age to marry--but apart from having some unmarried men, I'm not sure that's really a problem. Well, but that's *the* issue. Maybe you're right and it wouldn't be much of a problem, but it seems to me it might cause massive and intractable social disruption and imbalance that would have all kinds of negative consequences. And all the unwanted girls that are placed in orphanages (and who survive) and grow up to become almost overwhelmingly prostitutes and drug addicts--and who then go on to have more unwanted children, perpetuating the cycle--what is that if not massive and intractable social disruption? That's the fate of nearly all the girls in China who don't get adopted, as blood is everything there. And it sure isn't a problem compared to children dying in droves, which is what is happening now. Might it mean even *more* children dying in droves later on, though? Later on when? There aren't near enough interested families to adopt all the children in China who need it. Definitely a big problem. Again, the question is, which is the bigger problem in the long run? I would say that that is impossible to determine until later on gets here. I'm really not sure, Sal. I'm open to hearing arguments either way. If aborting female fetuses would cause fewer problems, then I'd be for aborting female fetuses, as repugnant as that is. What would cause fewer problems is if the cultural preference for boys could be diminished somehow, but changing attitudes, esp. such seriously ingrained ones, takes time, education and resources. They're trying, but until it happens on a large scale I'm not sure there is much else the government can do. ABandoning children there is illegal, of course, but it doesn't seem to be stopping anyone. 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). Then what would be the point of the US? Checking for abnormalities, determining the health of the fetus, and just generally making sure the pregnancy is progressing as it should. See this from the Mayo Clinic Web site for details: http://tinyurl.com/kn3un The money quote in this context: Ultrasounds aren't recommended simply to determine a baby's sex — but it may be a bonus when an ultrasound is done for medical reasons. I *know* that USs aren't recommended just for that reason, Judy. I'm merely pointing out that it is used overwhelmingly for that purpose in *China.* 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/12/06 1:07:52 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This gives a whole new meaning to "central planning".LOL. Either you're being really stupid here, or you're deliberately misunderstading the point. Which is it? Neither, you miss the point that you want the government to get involved in social engineering by passing laws about what child you can or can not abort based up on it's sex. Or you don't really believe that women should have complete control of their bodies. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/12/06 1:14:43 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now could you imagine that being said to a prospective mother in the USA? For all the doctor knows, she's coming in for a routine check up and wants to know the sex of her child. She doesn't have to make a decision to abort before she knows all the facts.The US doesn't have a problem with a large percentage of families opting for male-only children when they know the sex of the child. Should Chinese and Indians be denied any rights we take for granted? __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/12/06 1:13:55 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But Judy, the mother doesn't have to give a reason why she wants to abort a fetus. She doesn't even have to tell the ultra sound tech or doctor she has any plans to abort and she has every right to know the sex of the fetus as she would the general health of the fetus at the time of ultra sound.We're talking China and India here, not the USA or other culture that might wipe itself out with sex-skewed birth practices. Of course, if you see China as the "Great Enemy," perhaps you should encourage such practices. Just be aware that the death throws of a country with a billion people wouldn't be pretty and might destroy the world. No I'm looking at it froma human rights perspective that is supposed to transcend political rights. Either women have an inalienable right to choose or they don't. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/12/06 1:27:17 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would imagine the Chinese think the current policy will fix the situation quickly. Once there is an over abundance of men and too few women, fewer children of either sex will be born and women valued more. It's a nasty and evil way to fix the problem, but the Chinese have a reputation for using nasty, evil ways to fix their problems. So you're in favor of Lawson's solution, then, since it's clearly a lesser evil? No, not at all. I was just expressing what I think the Chinese people and perhaps their leaders probably think.Well, you appear to be wrong, both by their stated beliefs, AND by their behavior (the government's that is). So it's no longer a problem? They have corrected the situation? Passed all the laws and educated the people enough? As Shemp mentioned earlier denying women the right to choose the sex of the child they choose to bring into the world will only lead to back ally ultra sounds and abortions. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/12/06 1:24:15 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually, I think no child should be aborted unless the mothers life is endangered, any where. However the accepted culture is that women control their bodies and reproductive rights and those are considered human rights, not political rights. The problem you have with aborting a fetus based on sex is the same one I have for aborting a fetus regardless of sex. I call that equal rights.I can't speak for Judy, but I'm talking about social engineering issues here, not moral issues. My own personal athics concerning abortion should be obvious. Bingo, and that is why I referred to what you want as central planning. A government telling people what the sex of their children can or can not be by putting limitations on who they can or can not abort. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/12/06 1:26:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I'm against is abortion based on the sex of the fetus. But Judy, the mother doesn't have to give a reason why she wants to abort a fetus. She doesn't even have to tell the ultra sound tech or doctor she has any plans to abort and she has every right to know the sex of the fetus as she would the general health of the fetus at the time of ultra sound. Which country are we talking about here, the U.S. or China? Are the rights we hold dear and sacred here too good for the Chinese? Don't we believe that reproductive rights are a human right which is universal.You're no longer discussing the single-sex bias in China and India, are you... You're starting to think. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/12/06 1:30:43 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, are you advocating banning ultrasound? 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.Sal Exactly. They call it infanticide. A problem China has had for hundreds maybe thousands of years. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/12/06 1:27:39 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Except it hasn't worked out that way. And the CHinese HAVE backed off from the social planning thing, to a great extent. You just posted earlier that they are correcting the problem of allowing women to choose to abort female fetuses. That means they HAVEN"T backed off of social engineering. If the government is forcing women to give birth to babies they don't want in order to fill a need for equal ratio of boy to girl births, the government is most certainlypracticing social engineering. __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
In a message dated 8/12/06 1:42:06 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Heh. I'm talking about the social consequences of having single-sex familes on a scale of 10's or even 100's of millions, and you've boiled it down to a "abortion is bad and we all know it" thing. Why would a society that murdered tens of millions of people care if the next generation had a few hundred million or even a billion fewer women giving birth to the next generation, especially if they had a population problem? __._,_.___ 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 Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 1:04:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: China already has such a problem due to their former one- child-per-family law. Do you think the Chinese think it's a problem? Do you think they could be looking further down the road and seeing that fewer female births now would lead to fewer births in the future? That is fewer women to give birth next generation. The Chinese certainly see it as a problem right now and in the future. They've changed the one-child law, IIRC, and there are plenty of discussions of the social/societal implications of the imbalance vs their attempts to socially engineer population reduction that they tried. Google is your friend. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 1:04:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time, sparaig@ writes: China already has such a problem due to their former one- child-per-family law. Do you think the Chinese think it's a problem? Do you think they could be looking further down the road and seeing that fewer female births now would lead to fewer births in the future? That is fewer women to give birth next generation. The Chinese certainly see it as a problem right now and in the future. They've changed the one-child law, IIRC, and there are plenty of discussions of the social/societal implications of the imbalance vs their attempts to socially engineer population reduction that they tried. Google is your friend. Sal claims they haven't changed it, but it's strictly implemented only in urban areas (where, apparently, most people are pretty happy with it). The expectation, at least as of a 1997 article I read, was that it *would* be changed soon. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/314/7095/1685 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 1:07:52 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This gives a whole new meaning to central planning. LOL. Either you're being really stupid here, or you're deliberately misunderstading the point. Which is it? Neither, you miss the point that you want the government to get involved in social engineering by passing laws about what child you can or can not abort based up on it's sex. Or you don't really believe that women should have complete control of their bodies. Actually, I merely said that China and INdia might pass a law (didn't claim it had been passed) to forbid determing the sex of a child using ultra-sound. I never said anything about regulating abortions directly IIRC. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 12, 2006, at 4:07 PM, authfriend wrote: The pressure to raise sons in Chinese culture is immense. And with the one-child-per-family policy they've had for the past few decades, many women there are put in an absolutely horrendous position. Unquestionably (although Lawson says they've dropped that policy). I was wrong. Not sure where I heard it. Lawson is full of crap--the policy is alive and well. But in any case that's not really the issue. As long as the cultural preference for sons continues, the desire to get rid of daughters will be there, even if the government allowed 10 kids/family. This policy has certainly grossly exacerbated things, but it didn't create them. The situation, according to the Chinese in 2002, has never been as clear-cut as you and I both assumed: http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Oct/46138.htm Zhao: First, I'd like to explain China's family planning policy. China's family planning policy is not the one child policy as understood by some people. The government advocates each couple to have one child in accordance with the family planning policy. However, any couple facing genuine difficulties, mainly those in rural areas whose first child is a girl, can apply for the birth of second child by going through the necessary formalities. If couples in urban areas are both the product of a one child family they are entitled to produce a second child. Besides, the policies in ethnic minority areas are actually more flexible. Since specific birth policies are set by each province according to local circumstances, the conditions vary from province to province and from city to city. Even within one province, different areas may have different circumstances. Within a single area, different ethnic minority groups may also be subject to different policies. Also, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy Besides, I'm not really sure what I see as the difference between selective abortion (my term) and any other kind? It's all selective. Yes, there will be many and varied long-term consequences of this--many villages in China are feeling it already, as men grow up there and there are no women their age to marry--but apart from having some unmarried men, I'm not sure that's really a problem. Well, but that's *the* issue. Maybe you're right and it wouldn't be much of a problem, but it seems to me it might cause massive and intractable social disruption and imbalance that would have all kinds of negative consequences. And all the unwanted girls that are placed in orphanages (and who survive) and grow up to become almost overwhelmingly prostitutes and drug addicts--and who then go on to have more unwanted children, perpetuating the cycle--what is that if not massive and intractable social disruption? That's the fate of nearly all the girls in China who don't get adopted, as blood is everything there. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1031313 Morning Edition, March 19, 1996 · Renee Montagne reports on alleged Chinese human rights violations against its orphans. The United Nation's Human Rights Commission is meeting this week in Geneva to discuss a new resolution dealing with China. Some Chinese orphanages have been accused of exterminating unattractive children, and those who are hard to care for. On the other hand: http://jfi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/3/301 Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 27, No. 3, 301-340 (2006) Child Adoption in Contemporary Rural China Weiguo Zhang University of Toronto at Mississauga, Ontario Based on qualitative information from in-depth interviews and quantitative data from a survey of 425 adoptive families conducted in summer 2001 in rural China, this study attempts to explain the social and demographic patterns of adoption and investigate the roles of the State and families in adoption processes in contemporary rural China. Within the changing context of the new political economy, culture, and social conditions brought about by market reforms (1978) and the one-child policy (1979), this study shows that adoption is now increasingly used as a strategy for the childless as well as reproductive couples to reach ideal family size and particularly ideal sex composition of children. Moreover, Chinese families are willing to adopt girls, though strong son preference persists. Overall, it appears that individual adoptions of children in rural China follow increasingly individual desires rather than State directives. And it sure isn't a problem compared to children dying in droves, which is what is happening now. Might it mean even *more* children dying in droves later on, though? Later on when? There aren't near enough interested families to adopt all the children in China who need it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 1:14:43 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now could you imagine that being said to a prospective mother in the USA? For all the doctor knows, she's coming in for a routine check up and wants to know the sex of her child. She doesn't have to make a decision to abort before she knows all the facts. The US doesn't have a problem with a large percentage of families opting for male-only children when they know the sex of the child. Should Chinese and Indians be denied any rights we take for granted? Should anyone for any reason? 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 1:27:17 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would imagine the Chinese think the current policy will fix the situation quickly. Once there is an over abundance of men and too few women, fewer children of either sex will be born and women valued more. It's a nasty and evil way to fix the problem, but the Chinese have a reputation for using nasty, evil ways to fix their problems. So you're in favor of Lawson's solution, then, since it's clearly a lesser evil? No, not at all. I was just expressing what I think the Chinese people and perhaps their leaders probably think. Well, you appear to be wrong, both by their stated beliefs, AND by their behavior (the government's that is). So it's no longer a problem? They have corrected the situation? Passed all the laws and educated the people enough? As Shemp mentioned earlier denying women the right to choose the sex of the child they choose to bring into the world will only lead to back ally ultra sounds and abortions. I was wrong about the law being changed, although there are claims that the implementation is less uncivilized than before. There's also indications that Chinese families are adopting girl children more, which implies more tolerance of girl children in the first place. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 1:24:15 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually, I think no child should be aborted unless the mothers life is endangered, any where. However the accepted culture is that women control their bodies and reproductive rights and those are considered human rights, not political rights. The problem you have with aborting a fetus based on sex is the same one I have for aborting a fetus regardless of sex. I call that equal rights. I can't speak for Judy, but I'm talking about social engineering issues here, not moral issues. My own personal athics concerning abortion should be obvious. Bingo, and that is why I referred to what you want as central planning. A government telling people what the sex of their children can or can not be by putting limitations on who they can or can not abort. Actually, I was talking about the *determination* of the gender in the first place. Obviously, if abortions are legal, you can't stop people from having them for any arbitrary reason, but if they don't know the gender, they can't have one for that reason, just because. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 1:30:43 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, are you advocating banning ultrasound? 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. Sal Exactly. They call it infanticide. A problem China has had for hundreds maybe thousands of years. But has never been a problem in more civilized partsof the world... 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 1:27:39 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Except it hasn't worked out that way. And the CHinese HAVE backed off from the social planning thing, to a great extent. You just posted earlier that they are correcting the problem of allowing women to choose to abort female fetuses. Never said anything about that, either way. That means they HAVENT backed off of social engineering. If the government is forcing women to give birth to babies they don't want in order to fill a need for equal ratio of boy to girl births, the government is most certainly practicing social engineering. Don't know anything about that and never claimed I did. My proposal was merely about the legality of using ultrasound to determine the gender of the unborn. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 1:42:06 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Heh. I'm talking about the social consequences of having single-sex familes on a scale of 10's or even 100's of millions, and you've boiled it down to a abortion is bad and we all know it thing. Why would a society that murdered tens of millions of people care if the next generation had a few hundred million or even a billion fewer women giving birth to the next generation, especially if they had a population problem? Social conflict. Lots of unmarried men. and decreased exposure to women their own age will cause even MORE disrespect towards women. The Taliban have that problem according to some accounts. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
Do a Google search on one child policy+China and see how many articles you get. If it's been changed, it's not by much. Apparently in rural areas you can have two if the first is a girl, but it's been like that for a while. Sal On Aug 12, 2006, at 5:57 PM, authfriend wrote: Sal claims they haven't changed it, but it's strictly implemented only in urban areas (where, apparently, most people are pretty happy with it). The expectation, at least as of a 1997 article I read, was that it *would* be changed soon. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: In a message dated 8/12/06 1:27:39 P.M. Central Daylight Time, sparaig@ writes: Except it hasn't worked out that way. And the CHinese HAVE backed off from the social planning thing, to a great extent. You just posted earlier that they are correcting the problem of allowing women to choose to abort female fetuses. Never said anything about that, either way. That means they HAVENT backed off of social engineering. If the government is forcing women to give birth to babies they don't want in order to fill a need for equal ratio of boy to girl births, the government is most certainly practicing social engineering. Don't know anything about that and never claimed I did. My proposal was merely about the legality of using ultrasound to determine the gender of the unborn. Apparently selective abortion of female children is punishable by imprisonment, or fines in the case of an institution that permits it. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/314/7095/1685 The ugliest aspects of the policy have received great attention: female infanticide, forced abortions, and selective abortion of female fetuses. There is no doubt that all of these have occurred, but they have now disappeared completely in many places. This is because people are accepting birth limitation more readily and because of the strict legislation covering these acts. Not only do individuals risk imprisonment, but health institutions allowing such practices are liable to heavy fines. Abandonment of baby girls and babies with defects persists, but this was common long before the one child policy. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do a Google search on one child policy+China and see how many articles you get. If it's been changed, it's not by much. Apparently in rural areas you can have two if the first is a girl, but it's been like that for a while. See the quote from one piece that Lawson posted. As I said, it's strictly implemented only in urban areas. Sal On Aug 12, 2006, at 5:57 PM, authfriend wrote: Sal claims they haven't changed it, but it's strictly implemented only in urban areas (where, apparently, most people are pretty happy with it). The expectation, at least as of a 1997 article I read, was that it *would* be changed soon. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
I don't get Lawson's messages. See the quotes from about 300,000 articles posted saying that the policy is alive and well. Since much of China is urban, that's a pretty big only. And that wasn't even the issue in any case, as you know. Sal On Aug 12, 2006, at 6:48 PM, authfriend wrote: See the quote from one piece that Lawson posted. As I said, it's strictly implemented only in urban areas. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't get Lawson's messages. The more fool you. See the quotes from about 300,000 articles posted saying that the policy is alive and well. Yes, yes. Nobody's arguing that it isn't. Since much of China is urban, that's a pretty big only. It isn't even just urban vs. rural. Here's what Lawson quoted: http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Oct/46138.htm Zhao: First, I'd like to explain China's family planning policy. China's family planning policy is not the one child policy as understood by some people. The government advocates each couple to have one child in accordance with the family planning policy. However, any couple facing genuine difficulties, mainly those in rural areas whose first child is a girl, can apply for the birth of second child by going through the necessary formalities. If couples in urban areas are both the product of a one child family they are entitled to produce a second child. Besides, the policies in ethnic minority areas are actually more flexible. Since specific birth policies are set by each province according to local circumstances, the conditions vary from province to province and from city to city. Even within one province, different areas may have different circumstances. Within a single area, different ethnic minority groups may also be subject to different policies. And that wasn't even the issue in any case, as you know. It's a significant part of the issue, as you know. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
On Aug 12, 2006, at 7:12 PM, authfriend wrote: I don't get Lawson's messages. The more fool you. Yeah, I feel really deprived. See the quotes from about 300,000 articles posted saying that the policy is alive and well. Yes, yes. Nobody's arguing that it isn't. Since much of China is urban, that's a pretty big only. It isn't even just urban vs. rural. Here's what Lawson quoted: http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Oct/46138.htm So? The quote says what I've been saying: that the policy is alive and well, with certain exceptions. Lawson's comments gave the impression the policy was being abandoned. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't get Lawson's messages. See the quotes from about 300,000 articles posted saying that the policy is alive and well. Since much of China is urban, that's a pretty big only. I posted an itneview with the guy in charge as-of 2002, plus the abstract of a study from 2006. There's no doubt a lot of variation in a country with 1 billion+ people, but 300,000 2nd-hand articles don't mean much. If that were the case, all the 9/11 conspiracy theory sites would prove the issue one way or the other. And that wasn't even the issue in any case, as you know. Sal On Aug 12, 2006, at 6:48 PM, authfriend wrote: See the quote from one piece that Lawson posted. As I said, it's strictly implemented only in urban areas. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 12, 2006, at 7:12 PM, authfriend wrote: I don't get Lawson's messages. The more fool you. Yeah, I feel really deprived. You have no idea. See the quotes from about 300,000 articles posted saying that the policy is alive and well. Yes, yes. Nobody's arguing that it isn't. Since much of China is urban, that's a pretty big only. It isn't even just urban vs. rural. Here's what Lawson quoted: http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Oct/46138.htm So? So??? The quote says what I've been saying: that the policy is alive and well, with certain exceptions. It says there's a *lot* of exceptions, actually. Turns out to be nowhere near as draconian as we had been imagining. Lawson's comments gave the impression the policy was being abandoned. I thought you didn't get his posts. Or do you only get the ones you can contradict? In any case, you seem not to have received either of the two posts in which he acknowledged he had been mistaken about the policy being abandoned. One good reason not to killfile people, BTW. You can end up with a lot of egg on your face. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
On Aug 12, 2006, at 7:54 PM, authfriend wrote: I thought you didn't get his posts. I read them in *your* posts and those of others, Judy, geez--don't you read your own posts? How am I supposed to avoid them there? Stop quoting him and there would be a lot less of a problem. Or do you only get the ones you can contradict? Yeah, that's the ticket...pull another of your let's-start-an-argument stunts. It says there's a *lot* of exceptions, actually. Turns out to be nowhere near as draconian as we had been imagining. Which was not the main issue, of course--the cultural preference for girls was, and it's *especially* noticeable in many rural areas, in which apparently somewhat larger families are allowed. Even so, in many villages boys still outnumber girls supposedly by 4 to 1. In any case, you seem not to have received either of the two posts in which he acknowledged he had been mistaken about the policy being abandoned. One good reason not to killfile people, BTW. You can end up with a lot of egg on your face. Somehow I'll manage to live with it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
Oops, I meant, of course, boys. On Aug 12, 2006, at 8:15 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote: the cultural preference for girls was
[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 12, 2006, at 7:54 PM, authfriend wrote: I thought you didn't get his posts. I read them in *your* posts and those of others, Judy, geez--don't you read your own posts? How am I supposed to avoid them there? Stop quoting him and there would be a lot less of a problem. Well, heck, maybe you should just stop reading the posts of everyone who quotes Lawson's posts, since his seem to be such a terrible problem for you. Or do you only get the ones you can contradict? Yeah, that's the ticket...pull another of your let's-start-an- argument stunts. Just a comment on the nitwittery of killfiling. It says there's a *lot* of exceptions, actually. Turns out to be nowhere near as draconian as we had been imagining. Which was not the main issue, of course--the cultural preference for girls (You mean boys, I think.) was, and it's *especially* noticeable in many rural areas, in which apparently somewhat larger families are allowed. Even so, in many villages boys still outnumber girls supposedly by 4 to 1. Don't know about that statistic. In one recent census, the proportion of males to females throughout China was 106:100. The natural proportion in China is 104:100. It adds up, certainly, over a billion people, but it's not as bad as I had been imagining. And the excess of males is going down. In any case, in this discussion you really can't isolate any specific issue; they all affect each other. In any case, you seem not to have received either of the two posts in which he acknowledged he had been mistaken about the policy being abandoned. One good reason not to killfile people, BTW. You can end up with a lot of egg on your face. Somehow I'll manage to live with it. I imagine you've had quite a bit of experience. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China
With Lawson's, yes. It's not something I normally do--only with the more inane, compulsive posters like him, which, thankfully, are few. I'm hardly alone. In fact, of the ones who receive email, I'd wager more have him blocked than not. Sal On Aug 12, 2006, at 8:33 PM, authfriend wrote: I imagine you've had quite a bit of experience. 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/
