The ethics of a hypothetical pre-natal screening for Homosexuality

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

True. But that still does not excuse it which is what you seem to be doing here in your effort to bolster your assertion that abortion is "her decision, and hers alone."

I hold that every woman has the right to control her own body. However, infanticide is not abortion.

I also realise that some here will twist another contributor's comments to satisfy their own personal agenda.

[Electric Skeptic]

True. But that still does not excuse it which is what you seem to be doing here in your effort to bolster your assertion that abortion is "her decision, and hers alone."

Abortion and infanticide (particularly when caused by post-natal depression) are unrelated.

[rogue06]

I hold that every woman has the right to control her own body. However, infanticide is not abortion.

I also realise that some here will twist another contributor's comments to satisfy their own personal agenda.

Supporters, who appear to be growing, call it "post-birth abortion" "after-birth abortion" and other such euphemisms. We have at least one supporter of this practice, believing that a mother has a right to "abort" their child up to several months after being delivered, who is a regular poster here. And we have a political party that opposed passing a federal law making it illegal to kill a baby who survived being aborted because they claimed it limited a woman's rights.

[CivilDiscourse]

But that does not prevent the USA's high levels of violent crime. Those measures merely deal with the symptoms not the "disease" . It is interesting that you completely ignored the more problematic issues I cited.

However, you do seem to prefer the easy and simple solutions when you are addressing complex issues.

Prevent? No. But I never claimed anything of the sort, nor did I say that your actions have to prevent all genocidal abortions. But yours solution was to shrug your shoulders and say try to get societies opinions to change. That's tolerating, not fighting such actions.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Supporters, who appear to be growing, call it "post-birth abortion" "after-birth abortion" and other such euphemisms. We have at least one supporter of this practice, believing that a mother has a right to "abort" their child up to several months after being delivered, who is a regular poster here. And we have a political party that opposed passing a federal law making it illegal to kill a baby who survived being aborted because they claimed it limited a woman's rights.

Your first point presents unsupported allegations "[s]upporters, who appear to be growing"; and a selected instance, to wit one individual who posts to these boards.

Your second point oversimplifies what [from my reading] appears to be a complicated and ethically sensitive subject.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Prevent? No. But I never claimed anything of the sort,

I never alleged that you did. Again you are making erroneous assumptions. Or else you cannot manage basic comprehension.

I pointed out that the examples you offered to deal with the USA's high levels of violent crime do not address the underlying causes.

The same applies to "cosmetic" abortions, not all of which are willingly entered into by women but are often used in societies that place greater emphasis on male children, and/or where women may also have fewer legal rights.

[Starlight]

We have at least one supporter of this practice, believing that a mother has a right to "abort" their child up to several months after being delivered, who is a regular poster here.

If this is a reference to me, please don't misrepresent my position. I don't think it's a right.

[CivilDiscourse]

I never alleged that you did. Again you are making erroneous assumptions. Or else you cannot manage basic comprehension.

I pointed out that the examples you offered to deal with the USA's high levels of violent crime do not address the underlying causes.

The same applies to "cosmetic" abortions, not all of which are willingly entered into by women but are often used in societies that place greater emphasis on male children, and/or where women may also have fewer legal rights.

Then you offered up a meaningless opinion. You have a tendency to throw out red herrings.

But you never have answered, you keep dodging. If you don't tolerate the genocidal abortion, what would you do/suggest we do to stop it?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Then you offered up a meaningless opinion. You have a tendency to throw out red herrings.

But you never have answered, you keep dodging. If you don't tolerate the genocidal abortion, what would you do/suggest we do to stop it?

My opinion is no more "meaningless" than that of anyone else. That you may not agree with my opinion is, of course, an entirely different matter.

I have addressed your OP, pointed out your clumsy attempts to attribute things to me I have never written, and noted that you appear to have difficulty in comprehending what I write.

A woman has the right to control her own body. That remains my default position.

[CivilDiscourse]

My opinion is no more "meaningless" than that of anyone else. That you may not agree with my opinion is, of course, an entirely different matter.

I have addressed your OP, pointed out your clumsy attempts to attribute things to me I have never written, and noted that you appear to have difficulty in comprehending what I write.

A woman has the right to control her own body. That remains my default position.

So, you are willing to tolerate potential genocidal abortions. That is the natural conclusion.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So, you are willing to tolerate potential genocidal abortions. That is the natural conclusion.

As your scenario is entirely hypothetical there is nothing to be either "willing" [or indeed] unwilling about. I pointed out to you at the beginning of this thread that in such a situation you would need to address deeply laid cultural and/or religious attitudes.

In the real world such attitudes are already being applied to the aborting of female embryos because in those cultures females are deemed to be of less importance. That current situation would, in my opinion, have been a far more interesting thread topic.

[CivilDiscourse]

As your scenario is entirely hypothetical there is nothing to be either "willing" [or indeed] unwilling about. I pointed out to you at the beginning of this thread that in such a situation you would need to address deeply laid cultural and/or religious attitudes.

In the real world such attitudes are already being applied to the aborting of female embryos because in those cultures females are deemed to be of less importance. That current situation would, in my opinion, have been a far more interesting thread topic.

And yet you joined in here and discussed. How droll your life must be...

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And yet you joined in here and discussed.

I am not sure I actually "discussed" anything. I made some corrections and offered some opinion.

How droll your life must be...

Neither do I understand why you consider that, in some unusual way, my life is humorous.

[CivilDiscourse]

I am not sure I actually "discussed" anything.

You are quite right about that. Your actual contributions have been non-existent, and you dodge questions put forth, perhaps out of a fear of being challenged.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You are quite right about that. Your actual contributions have been non-existent, and you dodge questions put forth, perhaps out of a fear of being challenged.

The question you refer to is irrelevant. You are presenting a hypothetical scenario.