People getting abortions based on the fetus's gender

What is with the racist bullshit about Europeans being superior? Because remember

Middle Easterners came up with most of the math that we use.
Many inventions the British used were simply modified or adapted versions of inventions they found while traveling.
Europe had centuries of constant war and strife, horrible living conditions (due to the feudal system), and dozens maybe hundreds of monarchs that were results of incest.

also back on topic. the sad truth is that if someone does not want to raise a child, chances are they won't. either they will be put in an orphanage or abandoned. not all people are what you call moral and take responsibility for their actions. for the sake of the possible child i would say it's better to not come into this world at all than to come in already with issues. not to say that orphaned children are inferior to regular ones, but nobody should be put through such suffering because their parents refused to take responsibility.

I'll enter and say:
I'm pro-life. If you cannot support a child both emotionally and financially, you shouldn't be having a child.
And aborting based on gender is just stupid. If any of my friends did that, I would slap them. Well, they wouldn't be my friends, cause I doubt any of my friends are that retarded.

As for the abortion battle going on before:
Supply and demand doesn't work that way. There are countless people looking for jobs here, there aren't many going. If abortions in general are banned, idiots will have more kids, which means MORE unemployed, Less oxygen, more idiocy.
If you haven't the funds, or mental stability to support a baby, having one is only going to send your life to shit, and make them grow up in a terrible environment.

My only issue with it is biodiversity. If we control it and limit it too much over time humanity suffers at the generic levels. Chromosome recombination in meiosis helps ensure that our species is well varied. If traits takes unnatural expenses in their prevalence (because it will inevitably go beyond gender) there could be unintended long-term effects possibly stagnating the gene pool.

As far as I know, there is no study showing how many humans are required to maintain a diverse gene pool.

There is a study that suggests the gene pool of the US (ancestors of native americans, likely) came from just 70 people.

https://www.fakku.net/posting.php?mode=quote&p=3430005

It heavily implies that unless we kill so many people that our population drops to below that number, likely there will be enough genetic diversity to keep humans around. Fairly sure no matter how liberal the US' laws are regarding abortion, abortion won't collapse the population to less than 70 people. You'd need an extinction level event for your scenario to come true.

Generally, I agree that we should put our children in the best possible position to succeed. However, if we were to quantify those positions based purely on an economic model, then we're following eugenic policy.

And for the record, for a *supposed* racist, it's interesting in how I reject eugenics. Which was brought into the fray for the specific purpose of a "super race".

A parent may be poor, the mother may barely be able to take care of her child. But she is the sweetest, most loving, most compassionate woman in the world. Filled with this love and compassion, the kid who grew up from a poor family would have become a social rights advocate who wins the nobel peace prize.

A hypothetical example, but there are many examples of people like this. From the cheap dirt ground, to becoming successful hard workers in our society.

The idea that economics should determine a parent's worth, or that of a child is grounded in 19th century thought.

Since, some of you are all so curious about my position I would call myself a Social Darwinist. I believe in the strength of society, the strength of individuals and allowing those individuals to succeed. Putting an emphasis on life, as the basis for life to continue is the only philosophical, political position an honest man can take.

Yumi: No doubt, Europe had it's flaws. Slavery is a part of our history and there's nothing we can do to change that. And no doubt other scientists, from all other walks of life have brought great things to the table.

But I dismiss the theory that Black Jesus purports, that mere geographic and social
differences alone account for European/Western Success. Although, recent history(NAFTA) gives him a base for his argument. But I'd say: Strip every civilization of their material advantages and we'd all go back to the stone age.

So why is it, that European/Western societies have evolved, triumphed through the greatest of difficulties? I'll invoke the words of John F Kennedy, as it regards going to the moon.



Could have taken the easy way out, could've said: "Oh, fuck it, what's the point? It's just a rock floating in the middle of space." But we didn't, and we've since learned alot about the solar system and our galaxy from the various scientists and astronomers who have followed.

But who took the lead? America. And if we didn't? Maybe the Soviets would have, who knows. But what if they didn't?(or, what if they kept said research to themselves?) Then no one would've been able to make advances in space research?

Let me explain NAFTA and it's effects on our economy very simply:
America: Adds jobs
America: Sends jobs overseas
American Job Net gain: 0(at best), sometimes it's even at a loss.

Even when other countries commence trade, they be sure to either A: Get more(or equal) to what they've sent back or B: Not to trade their infrastructure. It's common sense.

Except, common in Washington. We've lost 50% of our manufacturing force since 2001. Hard to create jobs without the resources to do so.

And then you visit australia and run into bogans who aren't poor as such, but live off welfare, and their kids become ratty little shits running through town bashing randoms, breaking da lawah, sleeping with girls at the age of 14, etc. And being that young, and stupid, they'll not use protection. Girl gets pregnant, she can't keep it, it'll ruin her schooling, and her life. At my old high school, a girl got pregnant, and was asked to leave formally because of it. and as such, she never passed year 11.



It's not so much their worth, but their competency/ potential. Think about it, dirt poor, lives in seedy neighbourhood where people get stabbed, houses get burnt etc etc... House is crap, drug dealers park down the road. Goes to a local school where everybody is seedy and does drugs, drinks, is bad. Peer pressure, and what seems to be the social norm would either make them be like everyone else, or get rejected/ bullied. Which unless you have the social know how to get yourself out of situations like that, you're pretty much fucked or going to become a stoner.
However, if you lived in a nicer neighbourhood filled with old people, or other families, and have the money to go to a better school, you'd be much more likely to have a better life, and be a better citizen.

Now,we're discussing teenage pregnancy. Which is different from say, a discussion on whether a couple of a social ranking(be it, rich, middle or poor class) should have a child. But it's an interesting topic, so let's discuss the social implications:

For my part, I believe there's a two-fold problem with teenage pregnancy as it is. One that could be fixed from a lawful, economic standpoint and the other which could never be fixed.

The first problem, is just that: A teenager(be it a male or a female) is simply not financially equipped to have a child. This is because the young adult has to go through life, school, either college. And even if the young adult gets a job(especially in the modern economic context), it won't be a high paying one.

I posted earlier about Job Equality, it should not merely be to equate certain jobs with one another. But just to be sure, we'll replace the Min. Wage with an Equal Opportunity Wage. Experience be damned, if you're capable of the job you'll be hired in much the same way a veteran worker would have.

In that new economic reality, we would actually see quite a recovery. Right now, people are hesistant to hire based on experience. Hire the youth, the economy will flourish.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/young-adult-unemployment-rate-at-127-percent-in-august-168900876.html

Among the youth, we're still facing a Great Recession. It's the tragedy unspoken of. And I believe our unemployment is the next economic bubble to burst.




Here in America, the truly poor class(for now anyway) is actually probably at a min of a few million people(I'd say maybe 12-15 million of 300 million), poverty actually has a new definition in America today in my opinion, given our credit cards, our computers and our load of cars. Doesn't look like a poor society, does it?

Here's an important statistic, rather than the unemployment rate: $50,000. That's our Debt Per Citizen. Our Net Worth is artificially inflated, in contrast to our labor forces.

So, these children aren't growing up in hut houses for the most part. But in modernized cities and indeed going to highly rated public schools. What we're missing, what's at the crux of our economic problems: Is our purchasing power.

We've got to revitalize our purchasing power, we've got to bring jobs back in America. When the candidates say "Oh, we'll reduce the Corporate Tax rate by 5-10%" I laugh. To compete with some of these other economies, we'll have to reduce it by 25%.

I believe our Corporate Tax Rate should be 10-15% at best. This would put us at the levels of Europe, China, etc for business friendly economies. And it's not "trickle-down economics", nor "trickle-down government", it's common freaking sense.

To do this, we've got to shake the shackles of Wall Street off our ankles, and I'm not a Liberal. I consider myself a Centrist. It's just, as a Human Being I see Wall Street as a parasite. It infests Washington, Main Street and anything else it can get it's grubby, parasitic hands on.

I'm only mentioning if preferential artificial selection were to become such a societal norm that everyone were to do it after several dozen, possibly even hundreds, of generations. That being said it's highly unlikely I'd just like to see scientific data weighing the potential benefits and drawbacks of such an effect. It's so stupefyingly unlikely, just a fringe thought about the very distant future.

The pdf linked to here cites dowry as a cause for sex-selective abortions in India,and in Asia where there is a preference for girls sex selective abortions have become more common

Edit-I just saw the data in the second link may be a bit old. If i can find more up to date information on that region i will replace it

Thanks Black Jesus.

OT: I'm still pro-choice but this just seems a bit crude...Well at least we're not living in a world like Gattaca yet.

Well, if it's because you want to have a boy but it's a girl inside your womb and you wanted an abortion, then you just wasted a life. Who knows that kid you killed may become a millionaire in the future.

I am not saying you can't do it, it's your body, you can even stab your womb with a hot iron if you want, but, the reason is just so silly it's irritating.

Ok in my opinion people should have their right to have an abortion if they want. But there are good and bad reasons for it and the childs gender is a bad one. There are some cases where I would understand it, like the mother has some heritable disorder that boys dont get as easily as girls. So the mother wants to have higher change of having a healthy baby, so she wants a boy [size=10](but imo in cases like this people shouldnt have a baby)[/h] But if its just "BUt I want a baby girl so I can dress her in pink" or something like that, then its wrong.

Aborting a unborn female child based on the opinions from others that it's hard is really some stupid shit ... but my question is .. how can a mother know that her unborn female child will be a pain in the ass? That is a question NOBODY in this world can answer, and I don't wanna know that either, since children are so random 24 hours a day unless we teach them control and discipline.

But one gotta ask is, why in the world are women seen as a being lower than a male?
If this reason alone is why people would have specific wishes on gender then that for me personally is really some messed up vision.

I cannot help myself but ask how did it come to this that we find ourselves in a situation where we must specifically choose a gender based on the status?

For me, something is seriously wrong with it and I don't believe that aborting a child based on such minor things like jobs etc. should be even considered on this scale.

It's pretty common knowledge that raising a child in general is very hard, constant crying, always hungry, barely sleeps ..... babies do all these things based on their animal instincts, it's not a big deal ... however most people are now living with the knowledge of not taking any risks and decide to play it safe and abort the unwanted child and get pregnant again with the right gender based on the status and not on, love.

I believe love is being slowly pushed away, ignorance is slowly but surely raising up, and people are losing that instinct to love and care for a child, regardless of it's gender.