• Abortions of female foetuses to have males instead is being practised in ethnic communities in Brita
    118 replies, posted
[QUOTE=bravehat;43545698]They're aborting kids literally 100% based entirely on their junk and that is 100% percent indefensible.[/QUOTE] Abortions are completely fine if they're not living beings, that's the same if I aborted a tumor from my arm aborting fully developed fetuses is wrong tho. Pretty sure the gender can be known at like 2 months, at 2 months I'm pretty sure they fetus can't comprehend it's own existence.
[QUOTE=Shreddinger;43545722]Abortions are completely fine if they're not living beings, that's the same if I aborted a tumor from my arm aborting fully developed fetuses is wrong tho.[/QUOTE] Way to go off on a tangent and avoid the issue, regardless of whether or not you consider them alive or dead or in a state of limbo they're still being aborted on the grounds of them not having a cock. That's fucked up.
[QUOTE=Shreddinger;43545688]Well now that I think about it you're right, we should keep the sex to nature to decide. but we should still remove cancer etc.[/QUOTE] If I corrected one person's outlook on selective sex abortions, I consider my day as being fulfilling. I'd say to you to go your way and sin no more, but all I hope is that people understand that stuff happens in nature for it's own reason in the grand scheme of things.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;43545746]If I corrected one person's outlook on selective sex abortions, I consider my day as being fulfilling. I'd say to you to go your way and sin no more, but all I hope is that people understand that stuff happens in nature for it's own reason in the grand scheme of things.[/QUOTE] You can't possibly mean that everything is optimized and balanced, because it's clearly not the case. Also I'm always high when I browse the forums so if it sounds like I'm talking about complete nonsense It's probably because of that. I don't see any harm in that still because this is just a forum and nothing will change as a result of this discussion. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("posting under the influence" - MaxOfS2D))[/highlight] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("ban reset for evading" - Orkel))[/highlight]
This is pretty terrible, the whole "abort girls, sire boys" thing. However when designer babies become a big thing (and they likely will), I think I know how to sort out the problem of too many boys, even if it may come across as "misogynistic" in concept. When selecting the various traits and aspects of your custom child, depending on the current gender ratio in your area, have discounts depending on the favoured gender, like if there's a shortage of girls make it so that you don't pay as much for the child if you make it female, or if there are fewer boys put a discount on the Y chromosome. Some might say it'd "demean and cheapen" the fairer sex, but it'd be more like incentive to follow the trend of what the world currently needs, since if the world needs more girls, then putting a discount on growing little girls would probably increase the chance of people deciding "I'll grow a girl" over "I'll grow a boy", even if it results in "perceived cheapness" of the fairer sex, which would only be the case for those genetic inferiors who perceive monetary value as the prime objective value of everything in life, which is a pretty stupid viewpoint to hold. And when the tech comes around to remove those preconceptions, we could offer it as free healthcare.
[QUOTE=ironman17;43545774]This is pretty terrible, the whole "abort girls, sire boys" thing. However when designer babies become a big thing (and they likely will), I think I know how to sort out the problem of too many boys, even if it may come across as "misogynistic" in concept. When selecting the various traits and aspects of your custom child, depending on the current gender ratio in your area, have discounts depending on the favoured gender, like if there's a shortage of girls make it so that you don't pay as much for the child if you make it female, or if there are fewer boys put a discount on the Y chromosome. Some might say it'd "demean and cheapen" the fairer sex, but it'd be more like incentive to follow the trend of what the world currently needs, since if the world needs more girls, then putting a discount on growing little girls would probably increase the chance of people deciding "I'll grow a girl" over "I'll grow a boy", even if it results in "perceived cheapness" of the fairer sex, which would only be the case for those genetic inferiors who perceive monetary value as the prime objective value, which is a pretty stupid viewpoint to hold.[/QUOTE] Better way to do it might be tax breaks if you do that and decide to go for a girl when the ratios are getting a bit skewed, that way it's less in your face "LOL GIRLS/BOYS ARE CHEAPER GET YOUR GIRLS/BOYS NOW!"
[QUOTE=Shreddinger;43545722]Abortions are completely fine if they're not living beings, that's the same if I aborted a tumor from my arm aborting fully developed fetuses is wrong tho. Pretty sure the gender can be known at like 2 months, at 2 months I'm pretty sure they fetus can't comprehend it's own existence.[/QUOTE] But at what point is it a "living being", [I]that[/I] is the primary focus of the Abortion debate. At what point is it murder? At what point does a cluster of cells with a vague human-like shape become "human"? [I]most[/I] religious institutions argue that the body is a vessel for the soul, and the soul inhabits the body from the point of conception. Because of that singular belief, most religious institutions treat abortion as murder and are therefore opposed.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;43545811]But at what point is it a "living being", [I]that[/I] is the primary focus of the Abortion debate. At what point is it murder? At what point does a cluster of cells with a vague human-like shape become "human"? [I]most[/I] religious institutions argue that the body is a vessel for the soul, and the soul inhabits the body from the point of conception. Because of that singular belief, most religious institutions treat abortion as murder and are therefore opposed.[/QUOTE] Well there's no evidence for a soul and I don't see how religion even has any kind of say in this.
[QUOTE=bravehat;43545797]Better way to do it might be tax breaks if you do that and decide to go for a girl when the ratios are getting a bit skewed, that way it's less in your face "LOL GIRLS/BOYS ARE CHEAPER GET YOUR GIRLS/BOYS NOW!"[/QUOTE] That actually does sound like a better idea; make it more subtle and harder for little shits to mock you because you didn't cost as much to design. Still there's gonna be the stigmas of "tank-bred" or "tinker-freak", but hopefully by that point full-scale gene-therapy will probably be able to work on people of all ages so they can "get on my level, nature-bake". [QUOTE=S31-Syntax;43545811]But at what point is it a "living being", [I]that[/I] is the primary focus of the Abortion debate. At what point is it murder? At what point does a cluster of cells with a vague human-like shape become "human"? [I]most[/I] religious institutions argue that the body is a vessel for the soul, and the soul inhabits the body from the point of conception. Because of that singular belief, most religious institutions treat abortion as murder and are therefore opposed.[/QUOTE] The way I see it, the "soul" starts to exist once the embryo has at least two brain cells that are firing; at which point abortion would consign a "soul" to oblivion. But if it's done before the brain has a chance to start existing, like using the pill (morning after or regular contraceptive), then it's just soulless meat since there's nothing to constitute a brain. Also, being that religious institutions perceive the body as the soul's vessel, how many of them acknowledge the brain as the origin of the soul?
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;43545811]But at what point is it a "living being", [I]that[/I] is the primary focus of the Abortion debate. At what point is it murder? At what point does a cluster of cells with a vague human-like shape become "human"? [I]most[/I] religious institutions argue that the body is a vessel for the soul, and the soul inhabits the body from the point of conception. Because of that singular belief, most religious institutions treat abortion as murder and are therefore opposed.[/QUOTE] The debate on it's ethics will likely go on unless we find a way to measure the metaphysical aspects of existence in their own way. People only believe what they can see, feel, measure, and place in the context of the world around us. Thus, most who only pay lip service to religion/don't believe in the concept of religion or an afterlife always ask 'What's a soul and did you manage to isolate it in a test tube?'
Obviously this isn't usually an arguable point with those that don't believe in such things as Souls and/or higher beings, but that just changes the terminology. Some push for the first detectable heartbeat, others push for the first perception of thought, some (like my mother) push for the point at which it is capable of being born and living separated from the mother. Its such a shitty discussion because there is no consensus on what is "human life"
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;43545840]The debate on it's ethics will likely go on unless we find a way to measure the metaphysical aspects of existence in their own way. People only believe what they can see, feel, measure, and place in the context of the world around us. Thus, most who only pay lip service to religion/don't believe in the concept of religion or an afterlife always ask 'What's a soul and did you manage to isolate it in a test tube?'[/QUOTE] Religion doesn't explain how the world works, Religion is just a tool that people use to comfort themselves with things that science didn't find the answers to, or as a alternative explanation to something science has explained but they dislike what they see etc. Religion shouldn't have any kind of say when it comes to anything, if anything it should always stay as a personal matter with no power whatsoever.
I'd want an abortion if I found out I was having a boy.
[QUOTE=ironman17;43545838]That actually does sound like a better idea; make it more subtle and harder for little shits to mock you because you didn't cost as much to design. Still there's gonna be the stigmas of "tank-bred" or "tinker-freak", but hopefully by that point full-scale gene-therapy will probably be able to work on people of all ages so they can "get on my level, nature-bake".[/QUOTE] The stigmas will die down when well engineered and educated kids start curb stomping non engineered folk in terms of job effectiveness, happiness and all that shit. Which is really the biggest issue here, it needs to be cheap and effective and not prohibitively expensive otherwise you'll just end up with folk who makes millions a year designing their kids to make even more and just end up with two separate distinct classes with little mixing and at worst two separate species.
[QUOTE=Shreddinger;43545830]Well there's no evidence for a soul and I don't see how religion even has any kind of say in this.[/QUOTE] Doesn't stop them from trying their hardest, no matter how counter productive it really is.
the problem here is that in 20-30 years if these trends continue this will exaserbate the property status of women in many places because they will be becoming more and more valuable and no legal protection will help reverse that. additionally it will pose problems for future generations because there will be very few women to grow up with and it will exaserbate the gender inequality and finally they will entually outstrip their female population and be forced to go bring women into their super unequal culture and western women won't go for becoming breeding stock
[QUOTE=Sableye;43545882]the problem here is that in 20-30 years if these trends continue this will exaserbate the property status of women in many places because they will be becoming more and more valuable and no legal protection will help reverse that. additionally it will pose problems for future generations because there will be very few women to grow up with and it will exaserbate the gender inequality and finally they will entually outstrip their female population and be forced to go bring women into their super unequal culture and western women won't go for becoming breeding stock[/QUOTE] Give it a couple of centuries and it'll be a problem in the Western world, take of the "End Is Nigh" sandwich board and settle down, we're not about to selectively breed ourselves to death.
[QUOTE=Shreddinger;43545863]Religion doesn't explain how the world works, Religion is just a tool that people use to comfort themselves with things that science didn't find the answers to, or as a alternative explanation to something science has explained but they dislike what they see etc. Religion shouldn't have any kind of say when it comes to anything, if anything it should always stay as a personal matter with no power whatsoever.[/QUOTE] As I said, taking religion out of the question only changes the terminology, the argument is still very very real. [I]At what point is a fetus "human life"?[/I] When is it considered "Sentient" or "alive"?
[QUOTE=bravehat;43545869]The stigmas will die down when well engineered and educated kids start curb stomping non engineered folk in terms of job effectiveness, happiness and all that shit. Which is really the biggest issue here, it needs to be cheap and effective and not prohibitively expensive otherwise you'll just end up with folk who makes millions a year designing their kids to make even more and just end up with two separate distinct classes with little mixing and at worst two separate species.[/QUOTE] True; we don't want to split into Eloi and Morlocks. If anything, mankind'll split into unaugmented humans (ethnic groups that refused to evolve), genetically-augmented humans, and cybernetically-augmented humans. The gene-ies would probably say "Tarnish not the flesh with machinery; tinker only with the code of life...", whilst cyborgs would probably say "The flesh is weak! Put your faith in circuit and steel!" Maybe, like I mentioned many moons ago, have some sort of international organisation that regulates human augmentation and has augmentees pay with labour rather than money, so that anyone, whether prince or pauper, can walk the path of human evolution, and pay their dues to the human race rather than throw down money that they were probably born into. Nothing's worse than a man who hasn't done an honest day's work in his life, yet has the money to put himself above everyone else. Money shouldn't be a factor in human evolution, or any facet of human life for that matter. Still, the real question is who will rule the solar system; the genetics or the cyborgs? And will the two paths one day converge to make a brand new form of life?
[QUOTE=ironman17;43545956]True; we don't want to split into Eloi and Morlocks. If anything, mankind'll split into unaugmented humans (possibly a rarity), genetically-augmented humans, and cybernetically-augmented humans. The gene-ies would probably say "Tarnish not the flesh with machinery; tinker only with the code of life...", whilst cyborgs would probably say "The flesh is weak! Put your faith in circuit and steel!" Maybe, like I mentioned many moons ago, have some sort of international organisation that regulates human augmentation and has augmentees pay with labour rather than money, so that anyone, whether prince or pauper, can walk the path of human evolution, and pay their dues to the human race rather than throw down money that they were probably born into. Nothing's worse than a man who hasn't done an honest day's work in his life, yet has the money to put himself above everyone else. Money shouldn't be a factor in human evolution, or any facet of human life for that matter. Still, the real question is who will rule the solar system; the genetics or the cyborgs? And will the two paths one day converge to make a brand new form of life?[/QUOTE] I'm getting some Supreme Commander vibes from this. [editline]15th January 2014[/editline] Fucking chipheads.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;43545919]As I said, taking religion out of the question only changes the terminology, the argument is still very very real. [I]At what point is a fetus "human life"?[/I] When is it considered "Sentient" or "alive"?[/QUOTE] Though it's a hard argument to deal with, the fact remains that we have no real answers for such a thing - it's nearly impossible to get vaunted experts to share the same frame of opinion for a question this complex. In an objective sense, I believe life starts when the fetus has two brain cells to rub together which commence firing, neither more nor less. This is purely my personal opinion here.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;43545969]I'm getting some Supreme Commander vibes from this. [editline]15th January 2014[/editline] Fucking chipheads.[/QUOTE] I dunno why but I was thinking more along the lines of the Arm and the Core, although that's more about mind uploading.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;43545978]Though it's a hard argument to deal with, the fact remains that we have no real answers for such a thing - it's nearly impossible to get vaunted experts to share the same frame of opinion for a question this complex. In an objective sense, I believe life starts when the fetus has two brain cells to rub together which commence firing, neither more nor less. This is purely my personal opinion here.[/QUOTE] I'm kinda torn myself. On one hand, the firing of brain cells implies "thinking" and thought and other stuff brains do. On the other hand though, until it can function physically separated from Mom, its functionally a parasite. That may be my mother talking though. In short, [I]i don't fucking know,[/I] so I'd like the legal right to choose when the time comes. Of course my wife at that point in time will also have an opinion on the matter, and it [I]is[/I] ultimately her body, but its also [I]my[/I] child as well, so [I]my[/I] opinion on the matter had damn well better be taken into consideration.
Personally, I feel an abortion is sound up until the moment a baby has a solid, somewhat coherent brain wave pattern, something that suggests there's something running in it's head, even if it's just background shit really.
Even so, it might be the path we eventually take, unless one of the two gets so advanced that the other is irrelevant, in which case it'd either be a cyberpunk future or a biopunk future. At the moment we've seen biomechanical augmentation have the upper hand for the longest time, and even with test-tube babies and Dolly the Sheep we've still yet to see hide nor hair of the first GM human; we have the technology to swap out gene sequences (for MANY years now), like insulin-producing bacteria and glow-in-the-dark mice and GM crops, but no-one's come forward with the first person grown from an altered human genome. Might crop up eventually, but at the moment cyborgs hold the lead on the human front.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;43545387]They came here, they should live by our rules.[/QUOTE] completely disregarding the argument at hand, I'm reading this comment and having a hard time hearing anything other than some asshole american being angry about others' religious practices or bitching about the number of spanish speakers in the area back on the argument, given the abortions are illegally performed, yeah there's shit to be had about doing it and they need to follow laws and for their own sakes avoid harming themselves. Depending on how much of a bias there is, you can kind of sympathize if certain groups of people have a genetic tendency to birth far more of one gender than another and want to equalize it a bit, though the moral implications are hefty
[QUOTE=ironman17;43546080]Even so, it might be the path we eventually take, unless one of the two gets so advanced that the other is irrelevant, in which case it'd either be a cyberpunk future or a biopunk future. At the moment we've seen biomechanical augmentation have the upper hand for the longest time, and even with test-tube babies and Dolly the Sheep we've still yet to see hide nor hair of the first GM human; we have the technology to swap out gene sequences (for MANY years now), like insulin-producing bacteria and glow-in-the-dark mice and GM crops, but no-one's come forward with the first person grown from an altered human genome. Might crop up eventually, but at the moment cyborgs hold the lead on the human front.[/QUOTE] Actually genetic treatments are starting to get through the EU and just starting to get put into play for particular diseases and shit. [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/singularity/2012/07/24/europe-takes-the-lead-toward-approval-of-first-gene-therapy-drug/[/url] Old story but I'm pretty sure near the end of last year something was allowed through, regardless genetic treatment and nano technology has the chance to treat just about anything.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;43545387]They came here, they should live by our rules.[/QUOTE] My parents migrated to Sweden during the late 80s when my sister was born. Right from the start my parents started to adapt. Swedish people tell us that we have more decorations at our house than they do around the holidays. :v: Then again we aren't religious, so I guess that is why my parents had no problem with adopting Swedish traditions. (We only celebrate the Farsi new years which is nothing religious and just celebrates the new year) So yes, if you migrate to a new country with a different culture,, you are the one who should adapt, not the other way around. It's weird seeing angry middle-easterners complain about western culture when they move to Europe.
[QUOTE=bravehat;43546120]Actually genetic treatments are starting to get through the EU and just starting to get put into play for particular diseases and shit. [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/singularity/2012/07/24/europe-takes-the-lead-toward-approval-of-first-gene-therapy-drug/[/url] Old story but I'm pretty sure near the end of last year something was allowed through, regardless genetic treatment and nano technology has the chance to treat just about anything.[/QUOTE] That may be so, but still we haven't seen the first person born from genetically-engineered cells.
I find the idea fucking reprehensible but its none of my business what these women decide to do with their own bodies.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.