--- 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/
