subject:"\[FairfieldLife\] Re\: Save Dogs in China"

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine 
>  
> > > > 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, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine 
 
> > > 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, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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.
> 
> 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, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  
> > 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, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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.

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, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  
> 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?


>  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, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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.


Or as Jay Leno once said: "It should be 'Just say no, thank 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, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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.


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.



> 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, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> On Aug 12, 2006, at 9:43 PM, authfriend wrote:
> 
> > (You seem to have deleted the context showing
> > that I meant you've had quite a bit of experience
> > living with egg on your face.)
> 
> Almost as much as you, I would guess.

I don't often tend to end up with egg on my face,
actually.

> > I'm just mystified as to why anyone would think
> > enough of Lawson's posts are "inane" to warrant
> > blocking all of them.  Maybe they just go over
> > such people's heads.
> 
> Yeah, somehow we've all got it wrong and only you see the light.

I don't seem to be the only person who reads his
posts, Sal.  Maybe those of us who do are a little
more discerning.

  It's 
> not possible to do selective blocking, Judy.

I don't believe I suggested there was, Sal.
That was kinda my point, ya know?

  But in this case even if 
> it were I doubt it would make much difference.
>

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 9:43 PM, authfriend wrote:

> (You seem to have deleted the context showing
> that I meant you've had quite a bit of experience
> living with egg on your face.)

Almost as much as you, I would guess.

> I'm just mystified as to why anyone would think
> enough of Lawson's posts are "inane" to warrant
> blocking all of them.  Maybe they just go over
> such people's heads.

Yeah, somehow we've all got it wrong and only you see the light.  It's 
not possible to do selective blocking, Judy.  But in this case even if 
it were I doubt it would make much difference.

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:
>
> 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.
>

Visions of our hot date are dashed like Jon Arbuckle trying to get a date in 
the park...






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, Sal Sunshine  
[...[
> 
>  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.

Given that's child-raising age, its not a good statistic, though I agree its 
not as bad as it 
could be. Also, this is the NATIONAL average. There may well be some places 
where the ratio 
is really bad.

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 7:54 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.
>

I guess asking for your phone number is out of the question?






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:
>
> 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.

(You seem to have deleted the context showing
that I meant you've had quite a bit of experience
living with egg on your face.)

I'm just mystified as to why anyone would think
enough of Lawson's posts are "inane" to warrant
blocking all of them.  Maybe they just go over
such people's heads.





> 
> 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/

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/

[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

Oops, I meant, of course, boys.

On Aug 12, 2006, at 8:15 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote:

the cultural preference for girls was

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.

[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/

[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/

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.

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

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:
>
> 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/

[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 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 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/

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, [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/

[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 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 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 1:30:43 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 1:24:15 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 1:27:17 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 1:14:43 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, 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?
> >
> >>

[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, "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 1:04:51 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/

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.



  






__,_._,___

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 certainly practicing 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 1:30:43 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 1:26:34 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 1:24:15 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 1:27:17 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 1:13:55 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 from a 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 1:14:43 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 1:07:52 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

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 1:04:51 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.



  






__,_._,___

[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.

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/

[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

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:
>
> 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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> 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 to
> know the sex of a child would  be a lesser evil, I
> presume.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
>

In fact, I don't know what the Chinese solution is. I know that the Indian 
government, at 
one point, was banning the study of any practice or procedure that might 
influence the sex 
of baby before conception and I seem to recall issues about finding out the sex 
DURING 
pregnancy, but I may be wrong.

I was merely proposing the ultra-sound sex-determination thing as a possible 
solution to 
China's problem and even there, there's the issue of known sex-linked birth 
defects that 
might make a pregancy *dangerous* to continue.

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, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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/

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, [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/

[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 8:19:39 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 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 8/11/06 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 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 8/12/06 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 1:06:28 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
>  
>  
>  
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) 
> ,  "authfriend"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) ,  "sparaig"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) ,  "authfriend"  
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) ,  "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 8/11/06 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, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> wrote:

> > > > > 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"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
>  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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:

> 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, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> 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, [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"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" 
 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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/

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, "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/

[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/

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.



  






__,_._,___

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.



  






__,_._,___

[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/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Save Dogs in China

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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, [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, [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 8:19:38 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/

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.



  






__,_._,___

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 young men 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.



  






__,_._,___

[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 8:19:39 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.



  






__,_._,___

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 8:18:29 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.



  






__,_._,___

[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/

[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