Abortion

Sex-Selective Abortion Legislation With a Twist in San Francisco

|

David Chiu/Twitter

In the past few years, eight states have enacted bans on "sex-selective abortion," i.e., choosing to terminate a pregnancy because the fetus isn't the parents' desired sex. Now San Francisco is addressing the practice, but from a radically different perspective. If Board of Supervisors President David Chiu gets his way, the city will become the first in America to officially oppose bans on sex-selective abortion

Chiu's resolution, announced yesterday, notes "lawmakers across the country have successfully advocated for sex-selective abortion bans by perpetuating false and harmful racial stereotypes that such laws are necessary to stop an influx of Asian immigrants from spreading this practice, and that Asian American communities do not value the lives of women." 

Such stereotypes have been the rallying cry of state lawmakers pushing sex-selective abortion bans, despite a) precisely no evidence that the practice is actually prevalent in Asian-American communities, and b) absolutely no way to enforce the bans, considering that women here aren't required to state a reason for seeking to terminate a pregnancy. In the face of this utter lack of (non-political) purpose, sex-selective abortion bans have still managed to pass in Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma. 

San Francisco's proposed action against these bans may seem similarly pointless—if the city doesn't want such a ban, it could simply not impose one. But Chiu's resolution is aimed at sending a message to the state legislature, where a ban on sex-selective abortion was introduced in May. The resolution states that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors "urges the California State Legislature to reject any future attempts to pass a state sex-selective abortion ban" and "calls upon other cities, states and the federal government to likewise reject these discriminatory measures." 

According to the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, sex-selective abortion bans have been introduced in 21 states and were the second-most proposed abortion restriction in the country last year. "This is to educate the public and states around the country about how pernicious this policy would be," Chiu said. "And how this policy could lead to the denial of health care services to women and really stigmatize immigrant women in particular."

Advertisement

NEXT: John Stossel on Not Taking the Terrorists' Bait

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Cosmos must be shitting themselves in orgasmic ecstasy over this pointless grandstanding.

  2. Well of course David Chiu is for sex selective abortions. He’s from the country that popularized them in the first place.

    #endtherepublicanwaronwomenbymurderingfemalebabies

  3. Abortion clusterfuck in 3 … 2 … 1 …

    1. ABORTIALYPSE!!!!!

      1. Not until we poll Millenials about this!

  4. What’s all this talk about “male” and “female”? It’s just a mass of rights-less tissue until it’s slathered with the magic Personhood Sauce as it glides down the birth canal.

    1. Can we ban using “magic Personhood Sauce” and “birth canal” in the same sentence?

      1. ENB,

        A fetus is nothing but a lump of cells with no legal rights whatsoever until it goes down the birth canal to be through transubstantiation turned into a full on human being. We all know that. Only tea bagging racist heretics like me wonder who this is possible.

        1. John, this is a misnomer, it doesn’t actually happen until the umbilical is severed. Feel free to kill the parasite until that moment.

        2. We all used to be crackers? (I still am)

      2. Where else does the personhood sauce come from besides the birth canal. I mean, for 9 whole months until the parasite gets there, it isn’t a person with rights after all.

      3. Can we ban using “magic Personhood Sauce” and “birth canal” in the same sentence?

        STOP OPPRESSING MY CULTURE, YOU ETHNOCENTRIC WENCH!!!!

    2. That’s why I think it’s goofy that expecting parents (read parasite host and parasite donor) request the sex of the “child” in utero. Sex is something that can only be attributed to a living creature, not a fucking parasite with the potential of humanity!

      1. Oohh, that’s good.

      2. WRONG!

        Sex is something you decide as you go along through life. Stop microagressing the transgendered cisnorm.

        1. You’re thinking of gender…and I stay microagressing.

          1. Well don’t I have egg on my face.

        2. Gender is something your born with, you can get all the cosmetic surgery you want your still going to be the same gender you started out as.

  5. If it is not an issue and no one is doing it and the ban is unenforceable anyway, why worry about trying to overturn the bans?

    1. I think Chiu’s position is that it could “lead to the denial of services” to Asian and immigrant women, because doctors found liable face jail time

      1. How so? All the women have to say is “I don’t know what sex the baby is”. The reason why the ban is unenforcable is because the women can easily lie about their reasoning for having the abortion. Given that, there is no danger of any Asian woman being denied services. And good luck to any abortion provider who flatly refuses to admit Asians in the resulting lawsuit.

        The reality is that this guy wants women to be able to have sex selective abortions and just won’t be honest about it.

        1. Honestly, I don’t give a fuck. Not my conscience to absolve, not my problem. If that’s his opinion as well, he’s just a pussy for not stating it.

        2. I’m not saying I agree with him that it will lead to denial of service. I also definitely don’t agree with you that this a nefarious pro-sex-selective abortion plot

          1. don’t agree with you that this a nefarious pro-sex-selective abortion plot

            Why would it matter if it was? If a fetus is not a person and abortion is not murder then wtf difference does it make why someone elects to have one?

        3. Basically, I think GOP pols are introducing these bans to 1) score public opinion points, 2) take public opinion points away from anyone who votes against them, and Dems don’t want to have to be put in the position to vote against them. Chiu, from what I’ve read, seems like he’s just trying to appease the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum in SF

          1. Or maybe Republicans are being pragmatic because they see any kind of abortion as murder. If they can’t get a full on ban, they will go for something lighter until they can prove their case (if ever).

          2. Such high aspirations Chiu must have!

          3. A political party is making cheap political points? Say it ain’t so!

          4. “Dems don’t want to have to be put in the position to vote against them”

            But they *don’t have to* vote against them. They can de-politicize these sex-selection bans by *voting for them!* Then the Republicans, beaten at their own game, wouldn’t be able to exploit this issue for nefarious political purposes.

            You know, during Reconstruction there were a lot of Northern politicians who supported rights for the former slaves, not out of an inherent love of liberty, but as a way to stick it to their defeated Confederate foes and get Republican votes from grateful ex-slaves. But be their motives what they may, they did the right thing.

            1. Interesting analogy, slaves and the unborn, we said blacks could be seen as property because they were sub-human and thus did not have any rights, now we say the unborn are sub-human and thus do not have any rights.

          5. Nobody who argues for limits on abortions argues in good faith based on principles. They’re all socons who want to make it illegal for you to have fun with your weewee.

      2. That’s a slippery slope for a lefty if I ever saw one. How do you reach progtopia without the threat of violence guiding people towards the choices that they are supposed to make?

    2. Because their feelings were hurt, and that’s more important.

    3. DO SOMETHING!!!!!

  6. My personhood sauce comes from closing your eyes and opening your mouth…

  7. She was a girl from Birmingham
    She just had an abortion

    She was case of insanity
    Her name was Pauline, she lived in a tree

    She was a no one who killed her baby
    She sent her letters from the country
    She was an animal
    She was a bloody disgrace

    Body! I’m not an animal
    Body! I’m not an animal

    Dragged on a table in factory
    Illegitimate place to be
    In a packet in a lavatory
    Die little baby screaming
    Body screaming fucking bloody mess
    Not an animal
    It’s an abortion

    Body! I’m not animal
    Mummy! I’m not an abortion

    [Spoken]
    Throbbing squirm,
    gurgling bloody mess
    I’m not a discharge
    I’m not a loss in protein
    I’m not a throbbing squirm

    Fuck this and fuck that
    Fuck it all and fuck a fucking brat
    She don’t wanna baby that looks like that
    I don’t wanna baby that looks like that
    Body, I’m not an animal
    Body, an abortion

    Body! I’m not an animal
    Body! I’m not an animal
    An animal
    I’m not an animal…..
    I’m not an abortion…..

    Mummy! UGH!

  8. Personhood Sauce? Oh man, the butthurt that you abortion obsessives blast out every fucking time is absolutely amazing. Why the FUCK are you so goddamned obsessed with it? Don’t you have anything better to do than be eternally butthurt and whiny that you can’t tell a woman what she can do with her body as much as you would like to? Let it go. Go get a drink. Do something useful.

    1. Like try to prevent the murder of innocents? Isn’t that a key position of a libertarian? No death penalty, no unnecessary wars, no police brutality, no killing defenseless babies, etc.

      1. It’s not a baby, it’s just a lump of cells that, granted, will be a person at some point in the future but isn’t until government says so. Why is this so hard to understand?

        1. There’s just something I’m missing with the libertarian stance:

          Don’t kill innocent civilians, check I’m on board

          Don’t kill convicted felons, I’m behind that too

          Don’t kill people who are surrendering, okay…

          Kill babies if they’re inconvenient…Wait, what just happened?

          1. As near as I can tell, two generations of women have grown up thinking they can fuck whenever they want without suffering the consequences of their actions because men can and that’s not fair and women should be the same as men. Even though they obviously aren’t. That’s fine by me but admit it.

            1. Men can fuck whenever they want without suffering the consequences of their actions? You mean consequences like child support whether they choose to agree to fatherhood or not?

              1. Don’t forget about dickrot!

              2. Not completely but much more so than women can, yes.

        2. Because the government dose not get to decide when someone is human, this is an inalienable right and should be kept out of the hands of the government. Of how libertarians can talk about personal freedom and yet think that denying someone there basic right to life is somewhat of a contradiction.

        3. Think about that, and then when your done think about it again

    2. Your mom likes my personhood sauce.

      1. When it slides down her birth canal?

    3. I’ll try to tamp down my revulsion against murdering babies, then.

      1. An embryo isn’t a baby.

        1. Please explain when it becomes one.

          1. You first.

            1. At conception. That’s when, biologically, human life begins. Voluntarily ending it is murder. I have no problem defining the beginning of human life and rights. It’s only abortofascists that have that problem.

              1. The easy thing to do is just proclaim outright than a lump of cells that will be a human being does not have any rights until (insert arbitrary point here). Nine months is the typical pregnancy, right? So make it nine months from conception. Anything before that and it’s not a human and doesn’t have rights.

                1. Ok…but what about premature babies? They are less than 9 months.

                  1. Nope. Not human, no rights. We must pick an arbitrary point in time – no exceptions.

        2. An embryo isn’t a baby.

          A child is not an adult. Both are life stages of homo sapiens, just like baby and embryo.

          We understand the scientific mechanism where cells produced by individuals can merge to form new individuals. This is called fertilization. I would dearly love for someone to explain to me the scientific mechanism that occurs when “personhood” is created from a non-person.

          Personhood is the modern equivalent of the “soul”. A metaphysical event which can not be explained scientifically. Some unknown and unexplained supernatural force enters the previously soulless or non-person body.

          1. Weren’t you paying attention? The clump of cells gets slathered in rich creamy personhood sauce in the birth canal and voila, human rights.

            1. I wonder, can birth canal Personhood Sauce be bottled?

              1. If we lathered up everyone who crossed the border with Personhood Sauce, would they become full citizens?

                1. Only if the sauce was made in murika.

                  1. Do NOT accidentally use Sriracha Sauce!

        3. And yet we were all embryos at some point, if are mothers had decided to abort any one of us wouldn’t something unique have been lost?

    4. Some people want to abuse you, some people just want to be abused, man.

      It’s a lot easier to be the victim than to accept responsibility for your actions.

    5. A drink of personhood sauce, perhaps?

      1. THAT’S GROSS ELIZABETH

      2. It’s great to know that libertarians are all for personal freedoms until it comes to inconvenient, defenseless babies. Way to take a bold stance.

        1. Until it can sustain its own life, is it part of the woman’s body?

          Do you have the right to tell a person what they can do with eir body?

          The only conclusion I can draw is that you either don’t think women are people or that people don’t have a right to their own bodies. Is there a third option that I’m unaware of?

          1. Once it COULD sustain its own life, but isn’t does that change anything?

            1. That phrasing makes no sense.

              1. A 23 week old fetus can live outside the womb with current medical technology — we keep them alive about 85% of the time. Does that make the fetus a person when we have to do these emergency deliveries? What about the minute before?

                1. Sorry, a fetus at 23 weeks gestation, in case that is unclear.

                2. You didn’t read about the magic personhood sauce in the birth canal. Read above posts.

                3. with current medical technology

                  At the expense of whom?

                  I’m comfortable saying that the child just starts ~100k in debt to whatever hospital elected to keep it alive.

                  1. Why don’t we ask the kid what it would prefer. Oh wait, we can’t…

                    1. The fetus doesn’t have the right to decide what the mother does with her body. All I’m saying is separate the two and let them figure it out individually.

                    2. That would be like withholding care from someone you put in the position that is keeping them from sustaining life. If I put someone in a coma, I am responsible for their life support because its my fault they are in the coma.

                    3. The fetus doesn’t have the right to decide what the mother does with her body

                      Let’s say through negligence you cause someone bodily harm that leaves them unable to work. Are you going to tell me that you aren’t liable for those damages- to recompense that person for the situation you put them in- because it’s your body and you get to decide how the money it earns is spent?

                      The fact is that in the majority of cases, that mother willingly participated in an act that put that baby there dependent on her. The time to exercise rights over her body was at the time of intercourse, not after the likely predictable outcome put a living human being dependent on her.

                    4. No no no, Overt. That isn’t fair because men can fuck whenever they want and not have to worry about getting preggers and women should be the same as men even though they aren’t so it’s a lump of cells that might become human at (insert arbitrarily chosen time here) but until then it’s a part of her body she can discard at anytime (or not) just like toe nail clippings.

                4. A 23 week old fetus can live outside the womb with current medical technology

                  It can live without the assistance of other, mature human beings? Dang I’ve been doing it all wrong.

                  1. A 2 year old can’t do that.

            2. Wait, so being able to sustain itself determines personhood? So unmature humans aren’t people either – can we abort them too? How about all those old people that can’t sustain themselves – can they be aborted too?

              1. So unmature humans aren’t people either – can we abort them too? How about all those old people that can’t sustain themselves – can they be aborted too?

                I am under no obligation to sustain anyone’s life but my own.

                1. You are if you create the plight that keeps it from being able to sustain its life. It’s called restitution. Unless you are an anarchist. Then this debate is pointless.

                2. So, if you left your kid in a car on a hot day to get a mani-pedi and the kid died you aren’t responsible?

                3. I am under no obligation to sustain anyone’s life but my own.

                  Have a child that you let die of exposure. See how well that defense works for you.

          2. Of course. You have no right to do something to someone else’s (read an innocent child’s) body. So no matter where that body is (by the way, your fault it’s there in the first place lady) it has individual rights. I can’t pull the plug on grandpa just because he depends on me because he is a human with rights. Why shouldn’t the same be true for a baby with its entire life in front of it?

            1. Of course. You have no right to do something to someone else’s (read an innocent child’s) body

              Right; then the reverse must also be true. The woman has a right to not have something done to it (by a fetus). Abortion is simply the result of separating the aggressor (fetus) from the victim.

              1. I hope you’re kidding. Please explain how a fetus is attempting to kill the mother.

                1. Perhaps you should read up on how becoming pregnant affects a woman’s body.

                  1. 1. Baby did not make that decision.

                    2. Most pregnancies don’t end in death.

                    3. The vast majority of abortions do end in death.

                    somehow it doesn’t seem like the fetus is the aggressor here…

                    1. Really? Cause from my POV, the fetus is performing an all-out assault on the woman’s body.

                    2. What do you think the purpose of a womb is?

                    3. What do you think the purpose of a womb is?

                      Not my body; I don’t get to choose what the owner of that property does with it.

              2. The fetus is not an aggressor; he’s not a parasite or trespasser. He is exactly where he is supposed to be.

                1. The fetus is not an aggressor; he’s not a parasite or trespasser. He is exactly where he is supposed to be.

                  If s/he’s on property that the owner does not want it, it is in fact a trespasser.

                  1. The owner forced the baby there in the first place. Ask that kid what it wants. I bet most of them would say the chance to live.

                    1. The owner forced the baby there in the first place.

                      Really? All pregnant women jammed sperm through egg walls to make babies?

                      Call me skeptical. Your argument is weak. You believe that people don’t have the right to their bodies.

                    2. What are you talking about. statistically 100% of abortions are of babies that would not be there if the woman had not voluntarily engaged in the only act that can create it. She forced it to be there.

                    3. She forced it to be there.

                      Ok, then she can make up for it by giving it back its freedom.

                    4. When does it get rights?

                    5. The rights to another beings life? Never.

                    6. To another being’s life? It doesn’t threaten the life. Most pregnancies end in an additional life. All abortions end in a death.

                    7. By occupying the space, you’re saying the fetus has a right to be in a physical place that it does not own.

                      Does my neighbor have the right to my living room so long as he’s hungry?

                      I see no difference.

                    8. If you invite him in and offer him food he does. That’s what a mother does. And you could not kick him out naked and expose him to elements that will automatically ensure his death. unless you’re an anarchist. Then it doesn’t matter.

                    9. Most pregnancies end in an additional life. All abortions end in a death.

                      God damn you’re fucking dense. I don’t give a flying fuck what most pregnancies result in; the fact is that if the fetus is an individual, it has no right to occupy the mother’s womb; it’s only there with her permission. She may revoke that permission AT ANY TIME.

                    10. I’m not dense. I just understand that murder is wrong in every case. The only case in which libertarians advocate for it is when they are inconvenienced.

                    11. She may revoke that permission AT ANY TIME.

                      This also, by the way, is a very inaccurate way of describing abortion.

                      If you invite a person into your house, you may have the right to “Revoke” that permission. But you do not have the right to spike him in the head and vacuum out his brains. Your rights to your own property do not give you the right to kill someone- especially if they are there by your own action.

                    12. anon|9.10.14 @ 12:53PM|#
                      The rights to another beings life? Never.

                      Just out of curiosity, when would an unperson become a person and have rights in our future libertopia?

                    13. Conception. It’s a biologically sound argument and it has a definite cutoff. I like the libertarian principle that it is better to see 10 guilty men go free than to see one innocent men get imprisoned. I’d rather see 10 clumps of cells with no rights be go free than one baby with rights be killed.

                    14. Imma say, sometime in the 2nd trimester, so abortion after the 1st trimester is immoral and should be illegal.

                      3rd trimester abortions are homicide.

                      I HAVE SPOKEN, THIS THREAD IS COMPLETE!

                    15. When they’re covered in Personhood Sauce. Duh!

          3. Well, technically, unless she was raped she had the control of and responsibility for her body to engage in an activity that may result in lumps of cells that might be people when the government says so, why should the potential person suffer from her buyers remorse?

            1. Why doesn’t she get to choose which cells her body has and which ones it doesn’t have?

              1. Take a look at the genetic make up of those cells. They aren’t hers…

                1. Then remove them and let them solve the situation as individuals.

                  1. You have to sustain life that you imperil. If you punch me, you owe restitution, if you cripple me, you have to try to make me whole, if you fuck around and get pregnant, you have a different responsibility now to cells that are objectively not yours.

                    1. You have to sustain life that you imperil.

                      So a baby is morally obligated to sustain its mother’s life?
                      The Government is obligated to sustain mine?

                      Incoherent argument. Try again.

              2. I dunno know – maybe she should have elected to not accept another persons cells into her in the first place? Or if she did in a way that wouldn’t result in pregnancy? I mean, she chose to have sex, which shockingly results in more people, so why should the lump of cells suffer?

                I suppose a person could elect to remove a group of cells from there body voluntarily, like an arm, but this would raise a lot of eyebrows…

                1. Arm cells are her cells. embryo or fetus cells are not.

                  1. Arm cells are her cells. embryo or fetus cells are not.

                    Then to whom do they belong? If they are another person, then that person is trespassing, and if they aren’t, then they’re hers.

                    1. It’s not trespassing when you invite them in.

                2. I suppose a person could elect to remove a group of cells from there body voluntarily, like an arm, but this would raise a lot of eyebrows…

                  The point is I have no right to say what cells a person can or must keep. If I do not have that right, then Government sure as fuck doesn’t.

                  1. This is anarchy. You can kill anything that is inconvenient. There is not a state in the country in which you can kill a trespasser just for trespassing.

                    1. This is anarchy. You can kill anything that is inconvenient.

                      At no point did I advocate killing it. I just want the mother to have the right to kick it out.

                    2. Which results in death 100% of the time. Not even a gunshot wound to the head does that. If you have a method of causing death that is more effective than a gunshot wound to the head, I’d saying you’re killing…

                    3. The result of the mother revoking residence permissions is irrelevant.

                    4. But once the kid leaves voluntarily (at birth) she must care for it. Or do you think that is an aggressive act by the baby as well? Forcing her to ensure it does not die.

                    5. Forcing her to ensure it does not die.

                      Honestly, I haven’t thought this part through, and I always bounce back and forth on it. The current compromise is that it’s her property to utilize until it can and desires to utilize its own capacity for reasoning.

                    6. For reasoning meaning logical thought? I feel like everything is visceral up until about 2. Or are you a Peter Singer type? Not a criticism, just wondering.

                    7. For reasoning meaning logical thought?

                      Ok, 1: have to get back to work. 2: I mean until that child can and wants to support itself, it’s basically an indentured servant.

                    8. The current compromise is that it’s her property to utilize

                      So you are saying the baby is property and she has the same rights over it she would have for any property? I guess that includes destroying or disposing of the property?

                      Wow anon, at least you are consistent. In your worlds the terrible twos would be a pretty bad time for toddlers.

                3. Yeah but if I walk into my doctors office and asked him to cut off my arm because I didn’t want it anymore, I doubt he’d oblige me and might have me committed to a psychiatric hospital since it makes no sense whatsoever and would in fact be detrimental to my existence.

                  1. You actually do not have ownership of your own body parts. The Supreme Court decided that in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.

                    1. You actually do not have ownership of your own body parts. The Supreme Court decided that in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.

                      No court can supplant natural rights. Which means that I don’t give a fuck what the supreme court said. It’s my arm. If I don’t want it anymore, nobody can tell me I have to have it.

                    2. I wasn’t agreeing with the decision, just pointing out that the doctor couldn’t do it legally anyway.

                    3. You could cut your own arm off, but that would be dangerous. And painful. And still get you put in a psych ward.

                    4. By the way, wrong cite on the case. It’s a different board of regents case. I should have read… XP

                  2. I doubt he’d oblige me and might have me committed to a psychiatric hospital since it makes no sense whatsoever and would in fact be detrimental to my existence.

                    But what if you could replace that arm with a better arm? Then wouldn’t he be harming you by not obliging your request?

                    Before you disregard this notion, advanced cybernetic implants are not very far into the future.

                    1. Well if I were in a horrific test flight accident that left my legs and an arm mangled then sure, but otherwise no thanks.

                    2. Well if I were in a horrific test flight accident that left my legs and an arm mangled then sure, but otherwise no thanks.

                      I’d trade my entire body for machinery given the opportunity.

                    3. Fine by me just make sure it’s all EMP proof.

                    4. Don’t forget the eye…

                      And probably a new penis, after the first time you go to play with yourself with the new arm.

          4. Until it can sustain its own life, is it part of the woman’s body?

            My son is 3 months old. He can not sustain his own life, he can’t feed himself, move away from danger, or provide any essentials of life for himself. Can I bash his head in the next time he won’t stop crying at 2AM?

            1. Can I bash his head in the next time he won’t stop crying at 2AM?

              See, I’m ok with this as long as the alternative isn’t me paying for your child’s school, healthcare, etc.

              1. So you are an anarchist. Now it makes sense. no point trying to convince an anarchist that anything is unethical.

              2. That’s a false choice if I ever saw one.

                1. Because it was a joke. More seriously though, I don’t give a shit what you do with your kid, because it’ll never be my kid, and I don’t have to deal with the moral consequences of your actions.

                  1. Right. You’re a hedonist. Your personal convenience and comfort is more important than other people’s individual rights.

                    1. Your personal convenience and comfort is more important than other people’s individual rights.

                      Quite the opposite: I support individual rights so much that I would be willing to die for your right to do stupid shit.

                    2. Like bash a 2 year old’s head in?

                    3. Quite honestly, I’d prefer dying to living in a world where it’s the norm to bash 2yo heads.

                      Their skulls make great christmas tree ornaments, it’s a travesty to ruin them.

          5. With that line of reasoning a mother should be able to terminate her children at any age as long as there dependent on her. Are how about a housewife who’s dependent on her husband for financial stability? is she less human as well?

    6. Don’t you have anything better to do than be eternally butthurt and whiny that you can’t tell a woman what she can do with her body as much as you would like to?

      So there is some magical personhood thing that occurs when the placenta disconnects!

    7. I thought it was pretty funny.

    8. WAR ON WOMEN BY NOT LETTING THEM MURDER OTHER WOMEN

    9. Nothing like vehemence and vituperation to prove your point.

    10. Someone needs some personhood sauce.

  9. Here’s there thing, no women, no war on women. Touche David Chiu, Touche!

  10. So, shorter version: Sex-selective abortions are okay as long as the fetus has a y chromosome?

  11. You sure are good at trolling the socons, ENB.

    1. We can’t all write about ISIS today…

      1. Isn’t ISIS just engaging in selective postnatal abortions? HMMMM

        1. Yes they haphazardly called them be-headings, and they were men. I think it’s clear we should draft legislation to ban sex selective postnatal abortions. For the children of course.

      2. Maybe you could do ISIL, the school to prison pipeline, Dip-N-Dots “future ice cream or just freezedried packing fiber?”, or whether or not is is appropriate to use the term person-hood sauce ever.

  12. Well, this is… good? I guess? Yay freedom to kill your child because it’s the wrong sex!

  13. How is a sex-selective abortion ban supposed to work, anyway? As long as no one says, “I have enough daughters, kill this one,” no one’s going to know.

    1. The emancipation proclamation had absolutely no effect and was unenforceable. Sometimes laws or proclamations are created to take a stance rather than to have a real effect. It’s called “doing the right thing.”

      1. Let me flip the question: Why should femicide be legal?

        If the answer is “because it’s hard to enforce,” then the same could be said about honor killings, in countries where such practices are shielded by the community.

        For that matter, the laws against lynching weren’t exactly widely enforced in the Jim Crow era. Should those laws have been repealed?

    2. You’re not thinking stupidly enough, Warty. Go slam your head in a car door a few dozen times and then think about it again, and you’ll get it.

    3. I just want more time to decide whether I can abort it or not. I want to take it home for 18 years and then say “Man, I fucked that one up… Let’s start over.”

      1. a 75th trimester abortion? Why not?

  14. Back in the 1970s our office feminist kept saying, “If men could have babies, abortion would be a sacrament.”

    Well, they can’t, but it is.

      1. BECAUSE EVERYONE LOVES LITTLE BABIES ICE CREAM.

  15. Ah, ENB, confess that you secretly look forward to my responses to your articles!

    I’m afraid we’ve gone through the looking glass. A law against discrimination is discriminatory! Orwell would be like, “they said *that*? Wow, that’s implausible!”

    On the one hand, we’re told that immigrant women don’t have sex-selective abortions. On the other hand, we’re told that these bans could stigmatize the women who totally aren’t having sex-selective abortions.

    I would hope, first and foremost, that this law could save at least a few unborn females from sex-motivated mur – I mean termination. And this would be regardless of whether the perpetrator is Asian or not.

    And second, it’s wonderful to watch the choicers go into purple-faced rage, trying to justify legalized femicide, because with all due respect, that’s what they advocate.

    1. There are cultures where boys are more highly valued than girls. While I don’t want to single out any group – because I believe it happens in many groups – one country in which the phenomenon was studied is India – as reported in the Population and Development Review* (Volume 28, Issue 4, pages 759?785, December 2002):

      “Provisional estimates from the 2001 census of India, which showed unusually high sex ratios for young children, have sparked renewed concern about the growing use of sex-selective abortions to satisfy parental preferences for sons. According to the 1998?99 National Family Health Survey (NFHS-2), in recent years the sex ratio at birth in India has been abnormally high (107?121 males per 100 females) in 16 of India’s 26 states. Data from NFHS-2 on abortions, sex ratios at birth, son preference, and the use of ultrasound and amniocentesis during pregnancy present compelling evidence of the extensive use of sex-selective abortions, particularly in Gujarat, Haryana, and Punjab. The authors estimate that in the late 1990s more than 100,000 sex-selective abortions of female fetuses were being performed annually in India. Recent efforts to expand and enforce government regulations against this practice may have some effect, but they are not likely to be completely successful without changes in the societal conditions that foster son preference.”

      Keywords: “compelling evidence,” “more than 100,000 sex-selective abortions”

      1. Ironically, I value the lives of Asian women much more than the men.

          1. Spent time in Sri Lanka and India – the young women are incredible.

        1. Asian women are one of the continent’s best exports, we can’t allow the West to have an Asian woman gap!

          1. *narrows eyes* ‘Asian woman gap’, huh? Don’t think we don’t see what you’re doing.

      2. There are cultures where boys are more highly valued than girls.

        Libertarians?

        TIWTANLW

  16. OT: I love when the mask not just slips but gets ripped off so quickly that it takes some skin with it:

    According to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, the FCC doesn’t need to ban access fees to prevent this from happening. Instead, the chairman proposes regulating the quality of Internet service to make sure that the slow lane is not too slow. If the slow lane is good enough, he argues, those who can’t pay can still get to their users and have a chance to compete.

    But it’s not the quality of the slow lane that is the problem; it’s that there IS a faster lane that provides a better experience. According to research, increasing load times by as little as 100 milliseconds reduces the amount of time people spend on a site, how much they buy, and whether they come back.

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/…..?hpt=hp_t3

    1. I honestly can’t believe after reading up on net neutrality how many people could support such a blatant power grab of private capital. I really blame the term itself, they convince sheep to go along with their graft because “neutrality” is a fair word, how could anyone be against fairness?

      1. I think if net neutrality passes the companies that own the servers on which the internet exists should just Snake Plisken in all.

      2. Reddit has gone absolutely Grade A retarded with it.

        1. Every hip tech site has fallen for it – and I guarantee you 99% of the flock have NO CLUE about the details.

  17. I’m philosophically opposed to abortions as birth control but support medically necessary abortions. That is why a ban is pointless. Any woman can find a doctor to say it is medically necessary and because the relationship between a patient and their doctor is and should be confidential there is no way to know.

    1. I’m in the same boat. I think it is moral a tragedy but it will occur and be abused even if we had restrictions that said it needed to be medically necessary.

    2. My wife cheated on me, so my doctor wrote me a prescription for a medically necessary murder.

      1. No. But your wife could go to a doctor, say she is having abdominal pain and running a fever and get diagnosed with a septic pregnancy and get a “life” saving abortion. You might never know the truth.

        1. Oh, she was in the room too. HIPPA prevents him, or anyone, from knowing what happened in that room.

    3. ^THIS^ (Florida Man)

  18. “sex-selective abortion bans have been introduced in 21 states and were the second-most proposed abortion restriction in the country last year.”

    Call me cynical, but this smells like the work of feminist cougars.

  19. I America, the statistics show that gender-selection is heavily weighted towards more GIRLS. There is a huge market for fertility procedures that allow parents to select the gender of their next child, and the main customers are women who want girls.

    So, whatever small percentage of the population might be selecting for males, is vastly outweighed by the number of women who want daughters.

    I’m not even sure if any racial disparity will hold up. An Asian-American woman might want girls too. I havn’t seen any evidence that non-whites in America are more likely to prefer boys.

    1. My guess is single mothers by choice are the ones driving the girl preference.

  20. I prefer the 9-month waiting period to an outright ban.

  21. For all those who say preservable life is at conception had better be prepared to charge ALL miscarriages and heavy periods as murder. Poor health choices by the woman that terminates the pregnancy can only be categorized as murder. Ignorance of ones state is no excuse. In effect, once a woman is pregnant, her every last behavior is now in control of the State lest the innocent child come to harm. Also, starting a life from a position of very poor health that either naturally aborts or brings a damaged child into the world is a crime as well. in effect, the only clear way to make all this procreation stuff safe and sound for the innocent children is to completely license the whole process.

    If not, why not.

    1. Straw man argument. The scenario you describe was not the case even before Roe.

    2. Good thing the abortion debate doesn’t make people put for the stupidest bit of bullshit as an “argument”

    3. “All miscarriages and heavy periods as murder”? . Yeah, that isn’t the stupidest fucking thing I have ever read on this site. Oh, wait, yeah it is. My bad.

      You put the absurd in reductio ad absurdum

  22. The irony is that the surviving non-aborted Chinese women have much greater bargaining power in the dating market, due to their scarcity.

  23. If you oppose bans on sex-selective abortions, it’s time to look in the mirror and examine yourself, because you are morally bankrupt.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.