Female Feticide is real Santorum isn't crazy It's an issue

[Immanuel]

The government exists only to protect our rights...first and foremost, the right to LIFE.

That is the primary function of the government.

That settles it. The two of us agree, that makes it true. If only that were the case.

Immie

 

[g5000]

For those who need catching up, we have over the past 13 pages presented studies by doctors, economists, and human rights groups which prove that sex-selective abortions are occuring in America in Korean, Chinese, and Asian Indian communities.

For those who REALLY need catching up, the above is a complete fabrication.

I have told you before, just because you clamp your eyes over the facts and refuse to look at them does not make them go away.

You asked for, and have been provided the evidence several times over.

Yours would have been the first butt hurt in this topic, but your head was in the way.

 

[g5000]

Inthemiddle, try not to get any blisters on your scrolling finger as you try to speed past yet another repeat of the evidence which has embarassed you so badly:

Sex-Selective Abortions Come Home - By Steven W. Mosher - The Corner - National Review Online

The physician, who practices in the Bay Area, wanted to find out why so many immigrant Indian women in the United States were so eager to find out the sex of their unborn children, and why so many of them choose abortion when they found out they were carrying a girl.

What she discovered over the course of 65 interviews conducted over several years profoundly shocked her. Fully 89 percent of the women carrying girls opted for an abortion, and nearly half had previously aborted girls.

Puri’s report, published in Social Science and Medicine this last April, makes for grim reading. Women told Puri of their guilt over their sex-selection abortions, how they felt that they were unable to “save” their daughters. Even the women who turned out to be carrying boys this time around could not shake their remorse over having earlier aborted daughters in this deadly game of reproductive roulette.

They also made clear that they were not free actors when it came to reproductive “choice.” Many, when it was learned that they were carrying girls, became the victims of family violence. Some — in an effort to make them miscarry — had been slapped and shoved around by angry husbands and in-laws, or even kicked in the stomach. Others were denied food, water, and rest in order to coerce them into aborting their unwanted girl babies.

Looking at the sex ratio at birth among U.S.-born children of Chinese, Korean, and Asian-Indian parents, they found that first-borns showed normal sex ratios at birth. But if the first child was a girl, the sex ratio jumped to 117, and if the first two children were girls, then the sex ratio jumped to 151. That is to say, for every 151 boys, there were only 100 hundred surviving girls. The rest had been eliminated.

Pressure to Bear Sons Leads Some Immigrant Indian Women to Sex Selection, Abortion, Study Finds

Cultural pressure to bear male offspring leads some immigrant Indian women in the United States to use readily available reproductive technology in an effort to select sons or abort female fetuses, steps that are legal in this country but illegal in India, according to a University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) study.

Women identified female in-laws and husbands as sources of significant pressure to have male children. This was especially true when in-laws lived nearby, but also occurred if they remained in India.

This research was supported by the UCB-UCSF Joint Medical Program Research Fund, the Berkeley Human Rights Fellowship, and the UCSF Pathways to Careers in Clinical and Translational Research Fellowship, a program of the Clinical and Translational Science Institute.

Most Americans rightly regard sex-selective abortions as odious; in a 2006 Zogby poll, an overwhelming 86 percent of Americans agreed that such abortions should be illegal. But they're not illegal - and as economists Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund indicate in the latest issue of PNAS, they are now occurring in the United States, too.

Almond and Edlund examined the ratio of boys to girls among US children born to Chinese, Korean, and Indian parents. For the first children of these Asian-American families, the sex ratio was the normal 1.05-to-1. But when the first baby is a girl, the odds of the second being a boy rose to 1.17-to-1. After two sisters, the likelihood of the third being a son leaped to 1.51-to-1. This is clear "evidence of sex selection, most likely at the prenatal stage," the authors write. Prenatal sex tests for pregnant women are now available earlier, more cheaply, and more conveniently than ever, "raising the prospect of sex selection becoming more widely practiced in the near future."

Choosing to eliminate unwanted daughters - The Boston Globe




Here is the peer-reviewed scientific journal article about the use of sex-selective abortions being used in the United States by Chinese, Koreans, and Asian Indians: Son-biased sex ratios in the 2000 United States Census

 

[g5000]

Inthemiddle, if you lie one more time, I will be forced to put the evidence up in the largest font possible.

 

[geauxtohell]

All the Doctor is recommending is a delay in the revelation of the sex of the child.

Nothing else.

Now if you left wingers want to abort based on disabilities or gender just call it eugenics and vacuum suck away.

But let's call it for what it is. Eugenics. Plain and simple.

So again.......

We are going to withhold information from a patient based on what they might do with it?

Why don't we with hold cancer diagnosis from patients? After all, they might committ suicide after hearing the news.

Sorry, that's not the way medicine is practiced anymore.

I doubt this doctor will have much luck with this.

How does the gender of the child affect the health of the mother during the pregnancy?

And to equate a diagnosis of a female fetus in the womb with a cancer patient committing suicide is an interesting leap.

Female baby potentially born = cancer diagnosis

We've come a long way baby.

When did I say the gender of a child hurts the mother.

I also didn't equate gender I the womb to cancer. If you want to be intentionally obtuse then go for it, but I am not biting.

 

[geauxtohell]

Rather than turning to my local politician for prenatal advice, I followed the guidance of my obstetrician, who sent me to a perinatologist, who recommended I have an amniocentesis. Because he had a medical degree and years of experience treating pregnant women, I followed his recommendation.

Why Rick Santorum would have killed my daughter - Sarah Fister Gale - Open Salon

 

[koshergrl]

Sure there's debate. You can tell because, you see, we're debating it. You may opt out if you choose.

And yes we get a say. It's called "voting". And when laws are bad, and when people are hurt because of them, good people will continue to fight them.

Sorry about your luck and misery.

 

[Immanuel]

So you want to deny parentss the right to know the sex of their kid so you can control the outcome.
Um who the **** do you think you or this doctor. I was just at an ultrasound yesterday and had you pulled this sbit, i would have decked you.

All the Doctor is recommending is a delay in the revelation of the sex of the child.

Nothing else.

Now if you left wingers want to abort based on disabilities or gender just call it eugenics and vacuum suck away.

But let's call it for what it is. Eugenics. Plain and simple.

I dont care what you call it. Call it butter biscuts for all i care. You have zero say say in the matter and the doctor can recommend whatever he wants to whatever boards he wants.as for his patients he can shut the **** up and do his job.

There is no debate ro be had.on this subject. You dont get a say in the matter.
i suggest you understand this simple concept.

I wonder if you would say the same thing on all other subjects particularly ones that have been decided by case law and to which you do not agree.

Somehow, I think if you strongly disagree with a particular law that is now on the books you would disavow this post or maybe claim it only applies to the abortion debate?

Thank God we live in a country where people who think the government is wrong still have a voice in the decision making process.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I dont care what you call it. Call it butter biscuts for all i care. You have zero say say in the matter and the doctor can recommend whatever he wants to whatever boards he wants.as for his patients he can shut the **** up and do his job.

There is no debate ro be had.on this subject. You dont get a say in the matter.
i suggest you understand this simple concept.

I wonder if you would say the same thing on all other subjects particularly ones that have been decided by case law and to which you do not agree.

Somehow, I think if you strongly disagree with a particular law that is now on the books you would disavow this post or maybe claim it only applies to the abortion debate?

Thank God we live in a country where people who think the government is wrong still have a voice in the decision making process.

Immie

this is bout liberty and choice. I'm for choice, not you. I'm for limiting government control, you are not. I'm about keeping my private life private, you do not.

thats the difference

You are so contradictory in two straight posts.

This one you claim to be about liberty and choice, but in the one right before it, you want to take my liberties away:

Ill trade you abortion rights for the government being to able to decide, where you smoke, eat, what you drink, what you drive, how you drive( seatbelts) where you work, etc.

How the hell can you claim to be for liberty and then want to take away the right of a smoker to smoke, or what they drive or whether or not they wear seatbelts?

You sure don't appear to be about liberty to me.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I have to run, I will look into how PB defends his statement of being for liberty and choice while having just called for the removal of both of those in the post right before it later.

This ought to be good.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

With all due respect, female feticide is becoming a world wide issue and should have nothing to do with left wing or right wing politics.

The United Nations is really flipping about this. And these women are being forced to abort after the discover of the female fetus. This isn't "choice" at all.

Here's Eastern Europe.

The trend could cause demographic problems for the small ex-Soviet state, UN Population Fund official Garik Hayrapetyan told a news conference in Yerevan.

"In ten to 20 years, we will face a deficit of women -- that means, of potential mothers," Hayrapetyan said.

Selective abortion is a problem in countries like China and India.

But it has also reached "worrying proportions" in Caucasus states Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly said in a resolution on gender selection in October.

The resolution said that pressure on women to have selective abortions should be seen as "a form of psychological violence".

Selective abortion of girls increases in Armenia: UN - FRANCE 24

Do you want to outlaw the procedure? How would you deal with this, specifically?

Just to delay the revelation of the sex of the fetus. Nothing will remove abortion rights in Canada and the Doctor who is recommending this has no ulterior motives other than to prevent the rise of female feticide.

Many women who are forced to abort the female fetus are under great pressure by husbands, parents, or in laws who want male offspring.

If that's true, you stupid ******* *****, then why call it FEMALE feticide? It would be more correct to call it Republican feticide.

You really hate women, don't you?

 

[tinydancer]

Do you want to outlaw the procedure? How would you deal with this, specifically?

Just to delay the revelation of the sex of the fetus. Nothing will remove abortion rights in Canada and the Doctor who is recommending this has no ulterior motives other than to prevent the rise of female feticide.

Many women who are forced to abort the female fetus are under great pressure by husbands, parents, or in laws who want male offspring.

If that's true, you stupid ******* *****, then why call it FEMALE feticide? It would be more correct to call it Republican feticide.

You really hate women, don't you?

For heaven's sake don't stroke out there. I didn't name it female feticide. It would help if you actually read thru the thread before having a giant colossal conniption and make a fool of yourself.

Why don't you ask that question of the Physicians, the United Nations, and International Human rights organizations?

Why don't you ask all those "stupid ******* bitches" at all those organizations? Do they really hate women?

Boy you come off really looking like an idiot on this one Ravi. It pays to read the actual OP.

 

[tinydancer]

Health-care workers should not reveal the sex of a fetus to parents until after 30 weeks of pregnancy to combat female feticide — the intentional abortion of female fetuses because of a preference for sons, the editor of the country’s top medical journal says.

The editor Dr. Rajendra Kale who was interim editor of the Canadian Medical Association Journal is a neurologist. And a highly respected physician.

The phrase "female feticide" is used world wide. Deal with it.

 

[geauxtohell]

Health-care workers should not reveal the sex of a fetus to parents until after 30 weeks of pregnancy to combat female feticide — the intentional abortion of female fetuses because of a preference for sons, the editor of the country’s top medical journal says.

The editor Dr. Rajendra Kale who was interim editor of the Canadian Medical Association Journal is a neurologist. And a highly respected physician.

The phrase "female feticide" is used world wide. Deal with it.

I have a better idea. Why don't we just ban pregnancy tests?

That will really solve the problem!

 

[tinydancer]

Health-care workers should not reveal the sex of a fetus to parents until after 30 weeks of pregnancy to combat female feticide — the intentional abortion of female fetuses because of a preference for sons, the editor of the country’s top medical journal says.

The editor Dr. Rajendra Kale who was interim editor of the Canadian Medical Association Journal is a neurologist. And a highly respected physician.

The phrase "female feticide" is used world wide. Deal with it.

I have a better idea. Why don't we just ban pregnancy tests?

That will really solve the problem!

I'm not of that mindset at all. And I just wish we could discuss these issues without maniacal responses like Ravi just posted.

I stand completely for free birth control as step one in the prevention of abortions. I have for years held this position.

Female feticide is a true issue. And a very disturbing one.

To move on to the discovery of down's syndrome or a disability via pre natal testing I am torn.

I've been blessed with three healthy children with no physical or mental defects. Well age 13 to 18 I was questioning my sanity on bringing 3 into the world as all parents do.

It is without a doubt eugenics to abort a fetus with down's syndrome. But when I put myself in "that family's shoes", it has to be agony to make that decision either way. It must be a nightmare.

Or to know the baby is going to have a horrid disability. And try to make an appropriate decision.

And I will not judge. But it is eugenics and we must face it and talk about what we are doing as a society at large.

I don't have any answers. But I'm truly happy that the conversation is starting to rock again about abortion and pre natal testing.

I think it is most important to keep these issues always out in the open.

 

[Immanuel]

this is bout liberty and choice. I'm for choice, not you. I'm for limiting government control, you are not. I'm about keeping my private life private, you do not.

thats the difference

You are so contradictory in two straight posts.

This one you claim to be about liberty and choice, but in the one right before it, you want to take my liberties away:

Ill trade you abortion rights for the government being to able to decide, where you smoke, eat, what you drink, what you drive, how you drive( seatbelts) where you work, etc.

How the hell can you claim to be for liberty and then want to take away the right of a smoker to smoke, or what they drive or whether or not they wear seatbelts?

You sure don't appear to be about liberty to me.

Immie

Sigh, i would prefer that there was no government control on any of it, But thats the price i am willing to compromise on.

Thats how serious i am about personal liberty. You want abortion? I want the rest of your life controlled.

OR we can just let people live their lives and not interfere with them...But i highly doubt you will agree to this.You can't.


Then there is what my wife said this morning. Say we ban abortion, Do you realize what the welfare system would turn into because every fetus comes to term?

See thats the amusing thing about the right. They want every fetus to come to term, and then on the flip side ***** about the welfare system. You can't have both. You cant demand all fetuses come to term and then leave them on there own.

"Conservatives we only care about you till you are out of the womb."

Compromise? You preach taking the personal liberties of other Americans just so that you can take the life of other human beings? Strange compromise if you ask me.

Banning abortion won't eliminate abortion. Overturning Roe won't stop abortion. Things would be so simple if we could just ban the attrocity of abortion and be done with it. Unfortunately, that won't solve the problem.

As for bitching about the welfare system, I challenge you to find anything I have said derrogatory about the system. My only complaint is that the system should be a hand up not a hand out. Unfortunately your side would rather enslave the poor and keep them suppressed and under your grip with the implied threat that if they don't behave, they will lose their handouts.

Immie

 

[Steelplate]

Plasma... No, they don't want your scenario... because those are "sins" that they partake in. They only want to control "other people's sins"....like Homosexuality and abortion and the latest, Contraception.

 

[Immanuel]

Plasma... No, they don't want your scenario... because those are "sins" that they partake in. They only want to control "other people's sins"....like Homosexuality and abortion and the latest, Contraception.

And you think you are any different?

Get real.

Oh and by the way, fool, I don't smoke and never have. I do wear my seat belt every time I get in the car. About the only thing you two would regulate in his message that was quoted is that I drive an SUV... because it was given to me.

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

Health-care workers should not reveal the sex of a fetus to parents until after 30 weeks of pregnancy to combat female feticide — the intentional abortion of female fetuses because of a preference for sons, the editor of the country’s top medical journal says.

The editor Dr. Rajendra Kale who was interim editor of the Canadian Medical Association Journal is a neurologist. And a highly respected physician.

The phrase "female feticide" is used world wide. Deal with it.

I have a better idea. Why don't we just ban pregnancy tests?

That will really solve the problem!

I'm not of that mindset at all. And I just wish we could discuss these issues without maniacal responses like Ravi just posted.

I stand completely for free birth control as step one in the prevention of abortions. I have for years held this position.

Female feticide is a true issue. And a very disturbing one.

To move on to the discovery of down's syndrome or a disability via pre natal testing I am torn.

I've been blessed with three healthy children with no physical or mental defects. Well age 13 to 18 I was questioning my sanity on bringing 3 into the world as all parents do.

It is without a doubt eugenics to abort a fetus with down's syndrome. But when I put myself in "that family's shoes", it has to be agony to make that decision either way. It must be a nightmare.

Or to know the baby is going to have a horrid disability. And try to make an appropriate decision.

And I will not judge. But it is eugenics and we must face it and talk about what we are doing as a society at large.

I don't have any answers. But I'm truly happy that the conversation is starting to rock again about abortion and pre natal testing.

I think it is most important to keep these issues always out in the open.

Is it "eugenics" to abort a baby with t16 or18 that will be born with horrible birth defects and, with the best of care have a life expectancy of two years?

The absurdity behind this notion of Santorum's is that we can't trust patient's with information about their own pregnancy. That is insulting to me and it should be insulting to anyone else.

Also absurd is this notion that the end state of a screen is to make a decision about abortion. People who claim that obviously don't understand how screens work. They are not diagnostic.

We got a screen due to the fact that we were older. We wanted to be able to mentally and physically prepare for a special needs child. The quad was elevated and doubled the odds to 1/225. That is still exceptionally low. The amino was normal and our child was born healthy. Either way, we were able to be informed of all the facts halfway through the pregnancy.

The notion of terminating a pregnancy due to downs is atrocious to me. On the other hand, I would support terminating a child with a lower trisomy because they are going to suffer and die at 1 to 2 years.

That's just what I believe, other people have the right to their own belief on the matter.

I am finishing my last credit requirement for my M.D. this month. I find it insulting that some wonk in Washington thinks he knows better about my family's health than me. I find it insulting that I can't be trusted with my child's own healthcare. So is every other American that doesn't solely vote on the abortion issue.

 

[Immanuel]

Plasma... No, they don't want your scenario... because those are "sins" that they partake in. They only want to control "other people's sins"....like Homosexuality and abortion and the latest, Contraception.

oh i know, nobody ever takes me up on the offer. They want to control, but how dare you try to control them.

My goodness, but aren't you full of yourself?

As if you could actually give what you offer.

Your head must be double the size of a basketball at least and contain a brain roughly the size of the ball on my Tracball.

Immie