Dems reject ban on gender-selective abortion.

[Darth Executor]

At least the parents who hate gays and would be terrible people to their own kids would be less likely to have them.

I'll keep the ideal that it's ok to decide for other people that they should die because they'll suffer more if I don't in mind when I rule the world and execute the entire left wing population.

[Whag]

I'll keep the ideal that it's ok to decide for other people that they should die because they'll suffer more if I don't in mind when I rule the world and execute the entire left wing population.

This is one of the apologias for infanticide in the Bible: that the babies would suffer more if they grew up in a pagan culture, and since they'll go to Heaven, it's better that they were killed. Today, it is not acceptable to kill an ethnic group by saying God sanctioned it. Morality has evolved and is not so black and white as you make it.

Sea brings up a good hypothetical point: a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim couple screening for gender disorder would be in for a rude awakening by suddenly having to confront their religion-based prejudices. I wonder how tempted they'd be to abort and send the child quickly to Heaven rather than have it struggle with a strong innate attraction to its own gender and probably go to Hell.

[joel]

Conspiracy is not mere thought. It requires action in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Fair enough. And that is sufficient to answer the objection in this thread.


The reason I think conspiracy is a bad law is that it's just a way to tack on additional punishment that the actual underlying crime does not warrant.
For example in the case of Ed and Elaine Brown, they acted consistently on their belief that the government had no authority to take their money. Instead of just charging them with not paying taxes, which I think carried a small penalty, they were also charged with a whole slew of bogus "crimes" which all added up, resulting in them being sent to prison for the rest of their lives.
For example, because this husband and wife did it together, it was "conspiracy."
And because they had firearms in the house, they were guilty of possessing a firearm while committing a crime.
etc.

[Teallaura]

...
And gun ownership has "direct links" to school shootings. Marriage has "direct links" to divorce. The nature of the link is important. Suppose there were an over-the-counter set of blue and pink pills. Women who conceive while taking one or the other will usually produce offspring of that sex. I don't see how this leads to murder, kidnapping, slavery, or assault.

Are you serious? You really don't know?

The linkage is CAUSATIVE. Sex selective abortion has an inevitable effect - it reduces the number of girls in the given pop. That's fine until you finally figure out that any hope of having grandsons involves finding a daughter-in-law. When one can't be found legitimately, they are kidnapped. If that doesn't work, they are bought off the black market (we call that 'sexual slavery', kiddies). If the 'wife' proves intractable - assault is common. Infertility (obviously the girl's fault, reality having little bearing) can lead to murder (getting rid of one wife - legit or not - to replace with another a la Henry VIII). All of which is well documented in a number of Eastern European and Asian nations.

Such communities aren't exactly attractive to the average American girl so what exactly do you think will happen here? That's right - the same exact thing, albeit on a smaller scale.

[Teallaura]

This is one of the apologias for infanticide in the Bible: that the babies would suffer more if they grew up in a pagan culture, and since they'll go to Heaven, it's better that they were killed. Today, it is not acceptable to kill an ethnic group by saying God sanctioned it. Morality has evolved and is not so black and white as you make it.

Sea brings up a good hypothetical point: a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim couple screening for gender disorder would be in for a rude awakening by suddenly having to confront their religion-based prejudices. I wonder how tempted they'd be to abort and send the child quickly to Heaven rather than have it struggle with a strong innate attraction to its own gender and probably go to Hell.

Wow. You don't see those much anymore. A post that manages to get every single factual point wrong.

The analysis is off the deep end, of course. Someone else gets to answer this one - I can't handle that much stupidity in one place.

[rogue06]

Yup. Even with RvW in place, 75% of abortion clinics nation wide have been closed in the last 25 years.

I think a lot of this has to do with the advances in technology. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to maintain that the fetus is just a lump of cells and not a real baby.

[Teallaura]

I'll keep the ideal that it's ok to decide for other people that they should die because they'll suffer more if I don't in mind when I rule the world and execute the entire left wing population.

Aww, come on, DE! If you kill them all we won't have anyone to laugh at!

[Darth Executor]

This is one of the apologias for infanticide in the Bible: that the babies would suffer more if they grew up in a pagan culture, and since they'll go to Heaven, it's better that they were killed. Today, it is not acceptable to kill an ethnic group by saying God sanctioned it. Morality has evolved and is not so black and white as you make it.

Sea brings up a good hypothetical point: a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim couple screening for gender disorder would be in for a rude awakening by suddenly having to confront their religion-based prejudices. I wonder how tempted they'd be to abort and send the child quickly to Heaven rather than have it struggle with a strong innate attraction to its own gender and probably go to Hell.

As it stands right now the people screening for gender disorder (being female, in particular) and executing the unborn girls who don't fit the bill are mostly buddhists, atheists and hindus.

[Seasanctuary]

The linkage is CAUSATIVE. Sex selective abortion has an inevitable effect - it reduces the number of girls in the given pop. That's fine until you finally figure out that any hope of having grandsons involves finding a daughter-in-law. When one can't be found legitimately, they are kidnapped.

And, again, that won't be a problem in the slightest unless sex selection is widespread and severely uneven. What you're suggesting is along the lines of regulating a couple's choice to have no children or ten children because of what would happen if most couples made that same choice.

[Nathan Poe]

Far more likely that the law goes unenforced. It's an unenforceable law to begin with.

So the Right demonizes the Left for rejecting a law that nobody would've been able (or willing) to enforce in the first place.

And here, you've completely lost me.

Conservatives don't have the best image when it comes to women's issues -- I'm not saying they deserve this image, but this is politics we're talking about: perception trumps reality 99% of the time.

Here they are trying to pass a law that could only be enforced if nearly every woman who has an abortion is to be investigated as a potential criminal suspect -- and for what? To counter a "problem" which doesn't even exist in this country? I mean really, when was the last time you heard of anyone in the US having an abortion based on gender?

Makes them come off as strikingly anti-woman -- and that's not an attitude that wins elections.

[Nathan Poe]

Taking off my ethical hat and putting on my pragmatic political strategist's hat, I see how either side could make a claim for the other's being part of a "war on women" on this one, but if the Republicans were smart they'd try harder to run with this one.

Funny, I'm thinking the smartest thing that can do is let this one drop quietly. It's a non-issue that cannot end well for them, win or lose.

Since the mainstream narrative hasn't been working in their favor, it could be a way to expand the narrative to bring human rights in general into it, and not just abortion.. arguing how their foreign policy might reduce FGM or something like that.

Except this isn't foreign policy, it's domestic. If the US were more like, say, China, where gender-based abortion was a common and well-known practice, this law could've gone somewhere in showing them to be compassionate for women. But as things are, the law helps nobody, and, as I pointed out, does more harm to women than good.

Connecting it to FGM, which, let's face it, isn't so much as a blip on the foreign policy radar for either party, is a load that nobody's gullible enough to swallow.

But I am not a political strategist. Perhaps it's just as well anyway.

Nor am I, and perhaps it's just as well too -- but I know a colossal waste of time when I see one.

[Thersites]

So the Right demonizes the Left for rejecting a law that nobody would've been able (or willing) to enforce in the first place.

Sure. That sort of pointless position-taking in Congress is one of the reasons I'm so disillusioned with national politics. Both sides know how to manipulate the legislative process to be able to claim credit for fighting for whatever issues their important constituencies care most about, and it's more than annoying.

[Nathan Poe]

Sure. That sort of pointless position-taking in Congress is one of the reasons I'm so disillusioned with national politics. Both sides know how to manipulate the legislative process to be able to claim credit for fighting for whatever issues their important constituencies care most about, and it's more than annoying.

And that's what makes the Right look all the more amateurish -- gender based abortion isn't even an issue in this country. It's just a transparent attempt to manufacture a "problem" so they can blame the other side for rejecting the "solution."

I already expect national politicians to be lying, manipulative reptiles -- I only ask that they at least be good at it.

[Thersites]

And that's what makes the Right look all the more amateurish -- gender based abortion isn't even an issue in this country. It's just a transparent attempt to manufacture a "problem" so they can blame the other side for rejecting the "solution."

I already expect national politicians to be lying, manipulative reptiles -- I only ask that they at least be good at it.

It all depends on how the respective news agencies/ lobbying groups cast it. From your point of view, it's stupid. Other people will agree that it is wrong for a woman to abort her unborn child just because she'd rather have one of the opposite sex (and considering that a majority of Americans apparently only favor abortion in the rape/incest/life of mother cases, this will actually reach a large audience), and will not consider the question of whether it's a good or bad law.

[Jaecp]

How frequent are the sex selective abortions that this law is trying to stop?

You've already mentioned the law is unenforceable.

If someone is trying pass an unenforceable law that targets a problem that doesn't exist, well, isn't that one of the stupidest things we can see our elected officials wasting their time on?