--- 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.
I beg your pardon?? We were discussing whether the Chinese government should ban it. Or at least that's what *I* was discussing. Were you thinking I meant to go over there and impose such regulation myself? > It implies that you know better. What it implies is that it *seems to me* to be the least-bad solution. Am I not allowed even to have an opinion? > 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). 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. That's the ONLY basis on which I've been arguing for banning the results of ultrasound. > 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? > 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? In terms of selectively aborting females, nothing. > 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'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. > 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." 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/
