Liberal Opinions Please

There is no right or wrong answer to this question. Might be a little controversial, but it seems we have been having some interesting conversations in here lately.

And this thread may be closed by the mods, as this could be well, interesting. If the mods close it, my apologies in advance.

Here is my question. Most Liberals I know, are pro choice and against sexual discrimination. I agree with that, I just choose life, but that is not the point of this thread.

If you use a test to determine the sex of the fetus, which right is higher? Choice, or no sexual discrimination?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232502.php

What if there was a test to determine sexuality? Would gay rights trump choice? Would the sex of the fetus win over no sexual discrimination?

Which right do you see as the highest?

And to be fair, I will give my answer. I don't believe in abortion as birth control. For violated women, I support them having the option, as well as for honest health of the mother.

But, my opinion is based on my religion, and personal beliefs. I don't believe in legislating morality. So, while I don't like it, I have no problem with it. I choose life.

Baptists don't drink, what if they were in charge? Would loose my job. What if the Muslims were in charge...

Curious what your thoughts are on this.

 

I don't believe in abortion as birth control, but probably not the same way you mean. I think people who take no precautions when having sex and then get an abortion if they get pregnant need to be taken out back and shot. But in the case of birth control failure, I see no problem with it. If you've taken reasonable precautions and it still happens, you shouldn't be penalized.

That said, to me, "pro-choice" means exactly that. Choice. I am not campaigning in favour of abortion, I just think it should be an available option. The president of the local chapter of NOW said it best: "I can see why you wouldn't want to have an abortion. I can see why I wouldn't want to have an abortion. What I can't see is why you think you have the right to tell me I can't have one."

Now, the real question. I honestly can't see where knowing the gender of the baby would have any kind of influence on the decision to abort or not. For me, it would be the fact of there being a baby in general, and that would be a huge issue regardless of whether said baby was male or female. Thus I can't actually answer which right would be higher, except in the context of what I said originally regarding abortion as birth control. If someone chooses to abort a male baby because they wanted a girl (or vice versa) when they would have given birth had it been the gender they preferred, then they should be taken out back and shot.

*Please note: by "taken out back and shot" I don't mean literally. I just think those people are a waste of air.

 

I agree with you if precautions were taken and failed.

Thanks for you opinion! I am a bit surprised that we agree. And again, there is no right or wrong answer.

"If someone chooses to abort a male baby because they wanted a girl (or vice versa) when they would have given birth had it been the gender they preferred, then they should be taken out back and shot."

So, anti choice?

 

Not so much anti-choice as anti-idiocy. Idiocy probably isn't exactly what I mean, but it's almost 4am and I worked a ridiculous number of hours today.

I'm all good with being able to choose to have an abortion, but I find it ridiculous that someone would choose to have one because they wanted a girl and it was a boy. The decision should be based on the fact that there is a baby, period. Gender shouldn't enter into it. I keep seeing shades of China, where millions of girl babies are orphaned because their parents didn't want them, and it makes me sick.

So I guess technically I would be considered anti-choice, but only because the basis of the choice is assinine, if that makes any sense. Either abort a baby or not, but don't do it because you got the "wrong" kind.

 

Government and religions should stay out of the bedrooms of civilization. Life itself should be the trump card over any other decision and let it play out as it will. I am not religious unless practicing Buddhistic philosophy counts as such in your eyes, then so be it. However, I do have high moral values but I don't bother with trying to change someone else's views though I am compassionate.

As to branding myself a 'Liberal' by posting in this thread, I know that Americans use that word almost like a cuss word trying to brand someone as being unworthy and I'm sure that's not the way you meant it to be interpreted as.

It's too bad that I can't keyboard at 50WPM so you'll have accept my condensed version and read between the lines instead.

 

this is another area where it gets presented as a dichotomy wheres it more of a spectrum.

Gender choosing is okay in itself imo, its just boys get chosen at about 75% so you can see where that could go wrong. I never thought of gender choosing as discrimination, but thinking about it, how can it not be?

its one of those areas where you have to chose the right freedoms to restrict to give you the most freedom possible without anarchical repercussions.

 

I read tibbs post, I meant gender choosing where you change the gender, not get an abortion then have another kid for the gender of choice.

 

Augie, just asking opinions, not trying to label people. :cool

Back to the thread: Interesting responses so far. What I am curious about is say a female couple keep trying for a lesbian baby. Or if a couple decided to only have a male child, or a couple aborted a gay child. (assuming there was a test to determine sexuality)

What right is the highest? Choice, sexual discrimination, or gay rights?

 

I may have phrased my question wrong. As I see it, sexual discrimination would be choosing something based on gender. With the test they developed, I don't see how gender rights and pro choice could co-exist. Seems like a paradox.

Enjoyed the conversation so far. It might surprise some of you to learn that I am not a liberal, but lean much more towards the conservative side. :-D

But as we are just discussing views on rights, I don't see how it should get out of hand.

 

As far as I'm concerned, Fred, ALL of those "choices" would fall under the same category...taken out back and shot. There are no guarantees when having a baby, so you need to take your chances with what comes out if you choose to give birth to one. Just because you can find out ahead of time any "problems" that might occur, there is no excuse for aborting a baby you otherwise would have happily welcomed into your life purely because it's different than what you wanted.

The only exception to aborting based on in utero tests (for me) is in the case of severe deformities or other actual medical problems that can be determined. And even then, I believe it should be a choice. What I'm thinking about is my oldest sister's second pregnancy...she was one of those statistics whose birth control pills didn't work even though she was religious about taking them absolutely on time every single day. Consequently, when she found out she was pregnant and there weren't any other medical issues, she had been taking her pills daily for another 3 1/2 months. Before she told anyone she was pregnant, she went for an ultrasound, because birth control pills can cause some fairly serious birth defects. Turns out the baby was fine, and my sister opted to keep it. That baby is now a drop-dead gorgeous, incredibly intelligent 16-year-old girl. But had there been something wrong (the running joke in our family is that she could have had two heads, or fins, or something similar), my sister would have aborted rather than bringing an unplanned child into the world who would never get to live what she considered a full, happy life.

I also think of my oldest niece, who got pregnant at 18. All she'd wanted her entire life was to be a mom, so she was going to suck it up and have the baby. Then at her ultrasound we found out that her baby had less than the required number of fingers and toes, had malformed bone structure, and basically resembled not so much a human (although female). Before she could make the decision to abort, her body decided a miscarriage was in order. It almost took her from us as well.

Do I think children with birth defects don't deserve to live? Not at all! But I do think parents have the right to decide for themselves if they are emotionally, physically, and financially capable of caring for a child if that is the case. I think of that as vastly different from gender, sexual orientation, or any other kind of baby shopping...which is what the things you're describing sound like to me. Having a baby is a crap shoot, you roll the dice and you take your chances with what you get. D'you suppose Jeffrey Dahmer's mother or Charles Manson's mother wish they'd gotten an abortion? I would think so. But that's not how it works.

 

I would think one of the psychological questions before having an abortion would have to do with whether or not the decision is based on gender, if that is the case. Not that it'll catch everyone (hell, it doesn't catch everyone now!), but it would help.

All I can say is that, for me, and for really the vast majority of pro-choice people, gender bias would have no bearing whatsoever on whether to abort a baby or not.

And you're right...the subject has the potential to get out of hand if the wrong sort of comments come in, but honest, open discussion with everyone being respectful of everyone else shouldn't be an issue. Especially here, where most of us are grownups (and I use that term not as an indication of age, but maturity).

 

You don't seem to get my point Fred, LIFE is the main choice on the menu here. The rest of your options are inconsequential and those folks have a narrow POV.

Unfortunately some of those folks have cultural prejudices like in India where a gender test is easily obtainable and then aborted if it's female. You're taking it up another level in science and morality. I leave now.

 

Isn't the world complicated enough without scenarios that aren't currently possible?:-D

I don't see how that discussion is relevant to anything,even if it became possible I think it would be such a small number of people who would even consider it it isn't worth thinking about.

Also there is no need to abort anything,technology allows the gender to be pre programmed into the fetus,as I guess sexuality will soon be.

So one scenario isn't possible and the other has already been surpasses by technology making them both irrelevant IMHO.

PS

I don't think a baby has any rights or is even a human until it breaths its first gulp of air,I don't see how anyone should force their religious beliefs on anyone else and tell them how to live and if I would never abort my own baby unless it was suffering from chronic illness.

 

Actually, the real conflict would come from conservative Christians, who oppose both homosexuality and abortion on moral grounds. A liberal wouldn't have a problem with a gay child.

 

Interesting Tim... very!

OK, I am have read this thread. I am a liberal..lol.. and I would not touch responding with a ten foot pole... rolleyes

 

Well, you responded, why not post your opinion?

 

I did respond, I said it was interesting

This is a very complicated issue and the conversation then added layer and layers to the initial question. If I answered it would be a very long answer.

Short......I support a women's right to choose- however, I personally have a problem with late term abortions or people who use abortions as birth control. However, being they are closing down or cutting funding to Planned Parenthood ( 2% abortions the rest family planning, sexually transmitted disease treatments for poor women) I think we may be seeing more abortions.

To me, aborting a child because if it's sex is insane. That's me.
A women I know who is gay and a lawyer , adopted a baby girl. Is it discrimination because she did not adopt a boy.. for me, no, because as a women she would know how to raise a girl better then a boy she is a woman.

That's the best I can do without writing a thesis. ...

 

Thanks for you thoughts Mladyraven. I won't comment on the planned parenthood part, would get political quick!

"A women I know who is gay and a lawyer , adopted a baby girl. Is it discrimination because she did not adopt a boy"

Technically, are not all choices we make discriminating in a way? Discriminating taste used to be a compliment. If a woman decided to date only attractive men, is she not discriminating against the out of shape slob?

If we go back to my original question, about being able to choose the sex of the child you keep, or the one you abort, is that not denying life based on sex?

You can't just hire male workers only, that would bring discrimination suits against you. If you can't discriminate for a job, how can you discriminate on life?

That is the paradox I see.

 

Under the law, the fetus is not considered a person therefore it can't be discriminated against.

 

Ahh, but we are not talking law. If you can abort one because of the sex of it, which right is higher? Pro Choice, or no sexual discrimination?

 

Thanks, Fred - I should not have brought it up I just have my personal feelings about paradoxes ( PP) . However, I do not want this to go political , so, lets just leave that one alone!

Yes, I agree, we all use some form of "discrimination" when making choices.
If I decide not to date a man because he tells me he is a convicted felon, am I discriminating against felons or just making a personal choice?
As to your original question- I agreed with you. IMO if you keep or abort based on sex alone then you are discriminating.

As to my friend , I think she made a good choice for her and her daughter.
Her daughter is an amazing young lady, talented, straight A student and takes dance, plays soccer, is learning about make up... therefore, IMO, in this case I would support using "discrimination" to make that choice
As for me, I have a daughter... I wish I had a son... :-D

 

Pro choice.

If your a liberal that obeys logic then pro choice because a baby isn't self aware therefore there isn't as human being to abort,it has no memories,emotions a soul if you will and as JP said you can't discriminate against a collection of cells.

So there isn't a paradox,in liberal philosophy or even law. There's only a paradox if you mix religious pro life beliefs with liberal philosophies,that a foetus is a human from the moment of conception and the liberal ideal of sexual discrimination.

That doesn't mean you have to like it just because its logical or law,I don't like it:confused There are lots of screwed up things like that on this planet...

 

Interesting reply Rikky! While I don't agree with your assertion that it is a collection of cells until born, that is not the point of this thread. I can see how a liberal would not see it as a paradox like I do.

Thanks.


Mladyraven: "If I decide not to date a man because he tells me he is a convicted felon, am I discriminating against felons or just making a personal choice?"

If you refuse to date felons, then yes, you are discriminating. But, also making a personal choice. Not to go to far OT, but we all discriminate in our lives. I guess the legal part kicks in when it is related to a crime or contract, such as buying a house or getting a job.

 

"The word "good" has many meanings. For example, if a man were to shoot his grandmother at a range of five hundred yards, I should call him a good shot, but not necessarily a good man."
— G.K. Chesterton
Food for thought.........

 

Since all the grandmothers I've met are quite mean, I'd say that makes him wise if not intelligent. If the first shot didn't get her, at least he's got a five hundred yard lead.

On topic: I think the question isn't which right is higher. The question is: Is the right to choose, being influenced by the discrimination? If so, then the choice is being unduly influenced and should be considered heavily. If not, then the question becomes, does it matter?

In short: Is the abortion occuring because it's a girl/boy child, or because it's an unwanted pregnancy? And such questions can never be black and white for good reason.

 

Sexual discrimination no matter how it is "phrased" is wrong and very hurtful to the person or person's to which it is directed, please keep in mind that every action that we do is well documented in Heaven, Balth

 

Thousands of babies die all the time through no fault of the parents just natural birth attrition rate.

If god designed the system and he thinks its fine to allow thousands of babies to die daily how can an omnipotent being hold a simple creature such as man to a higher standard than he holds himself?

 

I can only agree with the first part, the second gives me pause. Are you saying that we're still going to be haunted by accountants? I thought God was loving and merciful.:confused

 

Aren't all religious text's FULL of sexual discrimination against women anyway:confused Most religious fundamentalists are staunch believers in the woman staying at home and obeying the man,that the man is the centre of the universe and women are just there to keep him company and as far as I can see if you believe the bible is the word of god that is how you must live.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_bibl.htm

I don't want to get into interpretations of the bible though just making a little point.