selective abortion in Canada (Page 3)

Here's a different link to the same video.
That one is for a Planned Parenthood clinic in Austin, TX. 

Here's another one from a Planned Parenthood clinic in NYC.

Liveaction.org just showed how you can see if abortion clinics are providing sex selective abortions.
Just watch those two videos.

If it's a war on women, then those who opposed the recent measure, including the president,
seem to support that war. 

Ahh, now I see...President Obama supports a "war on women."  Please Don.  That's preposterous.  He kept his two daughters just to hide his hatred of unborn females?  Please.

Are there bad apples in PP?  Of course.  Are there bad apples in every large organization?  You betcha.  Is it standard operating policy for PP to aid sex-selective abortions?  I'm guessing no.

All this avoids the original point I made...how can you legislate an end to sex-selective abortions?  I really want to know. 

What is preposterous is the president attacking Romney and attacking the Catholic Church with a 
"war on women" accusation, while at the same time supporting sex selective abortions.

How to end this?
First, pass a law that makes it illegal.
Then put people in jail who violate that law.

It would work just like any law.

Look, a young woman with a $10 key chain camera just showed in two cases that sex selective abortions take place in the US, and that in at least these two cases Planned Parenthood employees help provide it. It's proof of it.

Don, a majority of American Catholics (especially women) do not side with the Vatican on MANY issues, including most notably, access to contraception. To say the President "supports sex-selective abortions" is so misleading I am just left shaking my head.

Okay, so we pass a law that says sex-selective abortions are illegal.  Okay, how are you going to enforce this law Don?  Realistically, what person with half a brain is going to walk into a clinic and say, "terminate my baby if it's a girl."  9.9 times out of 10 (unless they are moles like in the video you posted) they would likely say, "I just can't have this baby, I would like an abortion."

The video you posted, again, is proof there are bad apples within the PP organization.  There are bad apples in EVERY organization...even large religious organizations.  Using the same broad brush, one might put forth certain religious organizations have a "war on boys" going on, but that's also not true or fair.  

I respect your point of view...and I too (like just about everyone here) would like sex-selective abortion to end...but passing an unenforceable law doesn't help anything.  The ulterior motive on the pro-life side is obvious though...create a precedent to start restricting abortion in any way, and the slope becomes more slippery.

That's not true.

It's true. This is the most pro abortion president ever.
He could have taken a stand for life in this case and chose not to. 

If you want sex selection abortion to end,
then don't you too want to restrict abortion? 
If so, then you're part of the majority opinion in the US. 

One role of the law is to be a teacher.

 

Numerous polls show American Catholics are far more progressive on social issues than the Vatican.  Just about every poll out there will bare that out.  I was going to list a bunch, but there are so many, where would I begin?

Of course I'd want to end sex-selective abortion.  An overwhelming majority of Americans would like that...but...how do you enforce that?  It's not possible Don.  Over time, as cultures blend, as the ol' melting pot works its magic, I think you'll find common sense will win out.  In certain homogenous cultures, this old way will likely persist, but over time, I like to think it will decline significantly.  In many cultures there's a dowry associated...there's literally an economic incentive to have male offspring.  I just don't see dowries hitting the mainstream and getting popular any time soon.

The law can be a teacher all it wants...but if the law is completely unenforceable, it's just plain silly.

That is misleading.

When you say "Vatican" I understand you to mean "Catholic teaching".
Is that fair enough?
If so, then you're saying that numerous polls show American Catholics are more progressive on social issues than is Catholic teaching.
In other words, you are saying that the majority of Catholics are dissenting from Catholic teaching.

Well OK, then define what a Catholic is.
If someone self identifies as a cultural Catholic, but doesn't actually believe in the teachings of the Church, what does that make them?  After all, doctrine doesn't get defined by a vote of the people in the pew. That's not how it works.

We know that the methodology used in polls that are being used to support a progressive agenda are biased.  Take a look at the problems with a poll funded by the Haas foundation.

Then those biased numbers get trotted out to make fallacious arguments.
It's one of the tactics used by progressives. 

When you poll Catholics who are actually practicing their faith,
then support for progressive social issues falls to very low numbers.

So I'll say again that your original claim is false.

How many sex selective abortions would not take place
if the doctors and nurses involved knew that they were at risk of jail time
and at risk of losing their licenses?

I bet a lot.

All it takes to root them out is a $10 key chain camera
and the courage and dedication of a freedom fighter
such as the woman in those two videos.

We really can greatly reduce sex selective abortions in the US.
All it takes is the will to do the right thing. 

Don, the world is not made up of Vulcans that go about life based on strict logical arguments. Whether you like it or not, there are grey areas, there are inconsistencies, and some time things don't make a lot of sense. Abortion is one of those subject.

If I had a magic wand, people would not have unprtected sex. People would only try to have a child when they really wanted to have a child. Everyone born would be to a home that wanted them. That is just unrealistic.

Politically I am pro choice... but only in a libertarian sense that I don't think a fetus has rights and I don't think a government should say what a woman can and can't do with her body. And yes that means if I support that politicaly, then I support it even for selective sex abortions. If she has the right then she has the right.

You want to make this a black and white argument that says if I find this practice wrong, then I must be pro life... no, I don't. I'm a human, I'm inconsistent, I belive there are grey areas. Legally I agree with the law, personally I find it wrong for selective sex abotions. Just like personally I find it wrong in this day and age for people to have unplanned pregnacies. I personally find it ridiculous that someone can be a parent that doesn't have the most basic self control to wait an aditional 5 seconds to make the proper choice. But I'm not calling for a law to ban unprotected sex. I'm not calling for the govertnment to ensure both partie want a child before they have unprotected sex. Just like I'm not calling for a law to ban certain abortions.... even though personally, I find it wrong for anyone to selectively abort a fetus "just because". The time to figure out you do not want a baby, is before you turn out the lights.

But I don't have a magic wand, and no matter how much I want it to be so... people are just not going to act according to how I think they should act. And no law will ever change that.

I expect most humans to be horrible people, them I'm pleasantly surprised when some of them are not.

I have an opinion on most things. I have to just to live my daily life. I think I should act a certain way for certain reasons that are improtant to me and I conduct myself accordingly.

It is a pretty huge arrogant step from there, to thinking I am the sole owner of all things moral, proper, and just and anyone else that does not conduct their affairs the way I would are stupid, lazy, horrible, evil....

(That is a general statement about the general topic and not a personal attack towards anyone in particular.)

I think this is one of those issues that can help move people to the pro life side of things.

I think people find sex selective abortion unconscionable because at some level we all recognize that we're dealing here with the life of another human person.
Otherwise, why would anyone feel uncomfortable about it?

We're not talking here about the health of a mother.
We're talking about taking the life of another human person merely because of their gender,
which I think we'd all agree in most cases is because they are female.

The pro choice position is inconsistent in a number of ways.
This is just one of them. 
You don't have to be a Dr. Spock emotionless automaton in order to at least try to live with a consistent moral foundation. 

Issues such as sex selective abortion bring up these uncomfortable inconsistencies.
I don't think they are grey areas.
It really is black and white. Especially in a case such as this.

You either support the legal killing of a human person because of their gender, or you don't.
However, if you do support killing based on gender,
then you've removed the foundational principle for defending other human persons at risk,
especially women.

You can't both claim that there is a war on women
and then support a method of legal killing that primarily targets females.

(You = universal you)

That's where we disagree. You went from A-Z... I do not agree with the killing of another human being because of their gender. That is murder regardless of reason. I agree with the law allowing the removal of a human fetus. That is not murder. That is abortion. Either you agree with abortion or you don't. I do. You may think it is murder... but legally you have no case. I don't think there should be.

While I don't have a problem with the law, I do have a problem with the practice. I think it would be awesome if no abortions were performed anymore other than incest, rape or life threatening circumstances... but then we are back to the magic wand. I don't have one.

I didn't call it murder, although it might be.

I called it the legal killing of a human person.

Other forms of legal killing include capital punishment, and self defense.
In those two cases the person being killed has performed some sort of moral act
that has been judged to render them without the right to life.
Whether that conclusion is true or not, I don't know.
However, at least there is a compelling reason for the justification of killing them.

In this case the justification is because a person in power over the person in question does not want to birth their gender.  The only moral agent in this case is the mother. The offspring has not engaged in any moral act whatsoever that could justify their killing.

I don't have a magic want either, but I do believe in the rule of law.

In this case, the law ought to protect the innocent human person, usually a female, from what we all seem to agree is the misguided wants of the their mother.

Like any law? You mean like where low income and minority populations get convicted at higher rates?

No, that's more along the lines of parking laws in the middle of Broad Street in South Philly.

C'mon, I think you know what I meant.

We don't turn our back on the rule of law just because it is not a perfect system.

Fair enough. That argument holds water if you believe a fetus is a human person with all legal right a human person holds. It is not according to law, and it does not. I do not believe a fetus is a human person that should hold rights the same as the mother. I just don't.

Now I will admit... that at some point... that get's sticky. Can the fetus survive outside the womb? How do we set an arbitray deadline? Third trimester, 33 weeks, 34 weeks, 34 weeks and 2 days... tricky.

No we don't Don, but we also can't turn our back to the reality that anti-abortion laws will come down heaviest on the underprivileged.

Look, I am not a fan of abortion but I also know that the horse is long out of the barn and it may best to work on eliminating the "need" for abortions rather than the act itself.

Well to the topic of this thread, do you think the "underprivileged" are the ones sex selecting abortions?

To the larger question, we know that the genesis of Planned Parenthood rests with its founder Margaret Sanger, who was a eugenicist and wanted to use abortion to help eliminate the underprivileged.  That was the whole point! 

I would guess not, in most cases, and would favor of a law against sex selective abortions, but I think it would be hard to enforce.