--- 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/
