• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

Should mothers be allowed to abort because of gender, race, or sexual preference?

  • Yes, abortion is a choice and the fetus isn't a person

    Votes: 6 42.9%

  • No, discrimination is wrong even if the baby isn't born yet

    Votes: 7 50.0%

  • Yes, under these circumstances:

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .
friday said:
In China, they know all about aborting girls in order to try again for a boy. Recent undercover videos are showing that Planned Parenthood is advising the same thing in the US for mothers who wanted one gender and are getting another. Kill it and try again. Should aborting girls (or boys) in order to try again for a different gender be legal? Or is that a form of sex discrimination? Same with race. What if they discover a gay gene? Should parents be allowed to abort a gay child and try again for a straight one?
Click to expand...
Unless the mother's life is in danger, no abortion should be permitted for any reason.
 
Wake said:
To me it just seems that people aren't done "progressing" on this issue until they've hit the very end of their political ideology. We can easily see the progression from the last 100 years. The progression will continue for the next 100+ years, I think.
Click to expand...

People will never hit the very end of their political ideology.
 
Interesting. Once this becomes legal within the next 20 years, we can focus on families only having a child per coupl in an effort to save the planet from carbon build-up. :roll:
 
Wake said:
Interesting. Once this becomes legal within the next 20 years, we can focus on families only having a child per coupl in an effort to save the planet from carbon build-up. :roll:
Click to expand...

They are already aborting them for whatever reason they want anyway. How would this make any difference?
 
Wake said:
Interesting. Once this becomes legal within the next 20 years, we can focus on families only having a child per coupl in an effort to save the planet from carbon build-up. :roll:
Click to expand...

We don't need to worry about it. If we count immigration, the US is at replacement.
 
friday said:
So just to be clear, if a gay gene is discovered and a religious group begins preaching about getting your unborn baby tested and how late you can have an abortion, you'd be just fine with that?
Click to expand...

I think there's a difference between me thinking someone has stupid ideas, and making those idea's illegal. Those nutcases can have their own bigoted things to preach about. I don't like the idea of it, but I don't want to make it illegal. Same thing with gender selection. I think it's a stupid idea, but I'm not for making it illegal.

It's the same view I have of talk radio. It's mostly trash that only redneck retards that drag their knuckles on the ground when they walk listen to, but I don't want to outlaw it.

That's the difference between sane people and the uber-religious. The sane people don't think that laws should be made so that everyone has to behave in the way that they think is correct.
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
I think sex selective abortions are only really a problem if they become widespread. The individual desire of a couple to decide what shape they want their family to be is certainly something that ought to be protected. So long as there is not a one-sided epidemic of this that produces a massive imbalance between genders, in either direction, the aggregate effect isn't harmful. I think it's a shallow reason to abort a pregnancy, but I also think it's not any of our business why a person seeks an abortion.
Click to expand...

For me, the numbers don't matter; it's the notion itself rather than its possible "aggregate effects."
 
friday said:
So just to be clear, if a gay gene is discovered and a religious group begins preaching about getting your unborn baby tested and how late you can have an abortion, you'd be just fine with that?
Click to expand...

If there was a test that could detect latent homosexuality in the womb, I would encourage people to take advantage of it.

Ikari said:
We don't need to worry about it. If we count immigration, the US is at replacement.
Click to expand...

I don't count immigration, and nobody else should, either. The thing about immigrants is, they're not fully Americans-- and the more immigrants there are at one time, the less American those immigrants have to be and the less American they become when they settle here.

Using immigration to shore up deficiencies in your birth rate is demographic suicide.
 
I have 6 children with my wife....I was at her side for every single birth...I had only one preference . I want a healthy baby. We had 5 girls and 1 boy.
 
lpast said:
I have 6 children with my wife....I was at her side for every single birth...I had only one preference . I want a healthy baby. We had 5 girls and 1 boy.
Click to expand...

And that's probably the same feeling that 99% of the country has.

I just don't get why I should be upset because some conservative went into a planned parenthood and lied saying that they would abort if it was a girl. It wasn't planned parenthood's idea and they did nothing wrong in my eyes.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
I don't count immigration, and nobody else should, either. The thing about immigrants is, they're not fully Americans-- and the more immigrants there are at one time, the less American those immigrants have to be and the less American they become when they settle here.

Using immigration to shore up deficiencies in your birth rate is demographic suicide.
Click to expand...

That really depends on your immersion rate. If you can quickly bring people into the culture, it's fine. Now there are limits, even with sufficient assimilation rates you can have too many immigrants to fully integrate into society; so there is need to control influx. But in general immigration is good for a country and helps spur innovation. You need some level of immigration.
 
roughdraft274 said:
And that's probably the same feeling that 99% of the country has.

I just don't get why I should be upset because some conservative went into a planned parenthood and lied saying that they would abort if it was a girl. It wasn't planned parenthood's idea and they did nothing wrong in my eyes.
Click to expand...

I think aborting a baby just because its a girl is wrong. I consider my self prochoice but if you are going to have kids what's wrong with a girl.
 
99percenter said:
I think aborting a baby just because its a girl is wrong. I consider my self prochoice but if you are going to have kids what's wrong with a girl.
Click to expand...

I think it's wrong too. I just don't think you should be able to outlaw it.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I think it's wrong too. I just don't think you should be able to outlaw it.
Click to expand...

A lot of pro choice countries have done this. Don't know but maybe im biased about this since i've been to india and have seen some of the malnourished girls there. Female infanticide and gender-selective abortion is a huge problem there. The indian govornment has banned amniocentesis but you can easily pay a doctor to break the law.
 
Last edited:
99percenter said:
A lot of pro choice countries have done this. Don't know but maybe im biased about this since i've been to india and have seen some of the malnourished girls there. Female infanticide and gender-selective abortion is a huge problem there. The indian govornment has banned amniocentesis but you can easily pay a doctor to break the law.
Click to expand...

Honestly it's just of no concern to me. I don't think there are any people in this country getting abortions til they have boys. There might be a handful of cases where this has happenned, but that's not enough to get me to worry about it.
 
Should mothers be allowed to abort because of gender, race, or sexual preference?
Click to expand...

no.
there are enough stupid reasons people use to justify abortion,
without blaming the fetus for not meeting their expectations before its even born.
 
I don't believe a fetus is conscious to care one way or the other. If they're born, and they're unwanted, that becomes a problem for all involved, regardless of why they're unwanted. Like I want bigots to have kids anyway. The concern is if it became so commonplace that no one even thought twice about it, leading to a boring world where everyone's the same. So long as abortion is legal or at all feasible, it's going to be done though. They don't have to give a reason and could just lie anyway. A religious group pushing heavily for abortion for any reason would be so hilarious I almost wish they'd hurry up and find a way to detect sexuality in fetuses.
 
One look at China should make it clear that gender-bias abortions have severe negative consequences on society.

Of all the reasons to abort this has to be one of the worst.
 
It isn't a real issue. There is no way to know what reason somebody had an abortion. They don't have to give the doctor a reason or something. It's just empty Republican posturing.
 
teamosil said:
It isn't a real issue. There is no way to know what reason somebody had an abortion. They don't have to give the doctor a reason or something. It's just empty Republican posturing.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a real issue. It's eugenics, a slippery slope.
 
nota bene said:
Yes, it is a real issue. It's eugenics, a slippery slope.
Click to expand...

Again, there is no way to know what reason somebody had an abortion. They don't have to give the doctor a reason or something. It's just empty Republican posturing. So it doesn't matter whether you're for or against abortion for gender selection (most everybody is against it), the law is still just an empty gesture.
 
teamosil said:
It isn't a real issue. There is no way to know what reason somebody had an abortion. They don't have to give the doctor a reason or something. It's just empty Republican posturing.
Click to expand...

So do you suppose China's problem of having far too many men over women is imaginery, due to their selective-abortion method?
 
teamosil said:
Again, there is no way to know what reason somebody had an abortion. They don't have to give the doctor a reason or something. It's just empty Republican posturing. So it doesn't matter whether you're for or against abortion for gender selection (most everybody is against it), the law is still just an empty gesture.
Click to expand...


Disagree. It might be somewhat difficult to enforce, but then so are a lot of laws... we need to be aware that gender-bias abortions tend to have severe social consequences and take such steps as we reasonably can to suppress the practice. It is a terrible reason to abort, arguably even worse than "I forgot to take my pill".
 
Wake said:
So do you suppose China's problem of having far too many men over women is imaginery, due to their selective-abortion method?
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem like you're following what I'm saying. I am NOT saying that gender selection abortion isn't an issue. Sure it is. Really it is a problem in third world countries, not first world countries, but it is a problem.

What is not an issue is this bill. We have no way to know why people decide to carry one pregnancy to term and not another. So it would have no actual effect on anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom