Bigot? Racist? Something Else?

How could I? You haven't described what moral outrage looks like to you. That's what I asked you. But you don't have to explain yourself if you don't wish to. I'll understand.

You aren't making logical sense Glennn. An infant girl or boy is quite dependent on their parents, and she will be for at least a few years after birth. You have are making the distinction that mothers can end the life of a child that is in her body... I don't understand why that make distinction is reasonable. If a mother could have her daughter circumcised just before birth... would that be moral?

Of course, a mother could avoid this whole issue by doing a sex selection abortion. This is the easiest way to ensure you get a boy (by aborting any female fetus long before birth).

Is this moral? Your moral judgments are far more arbitrary than you are willing to admit.

Sure...

You're missing the point completely. A fetus is part of the female's body. It cannot survive outside the female's body because it is part of her body. An infant boy or girl can exist outside of the mother's body because it is no longer part of her body.

I made it clear that cutting the clitoris off a girl is pointless and harmful. Why would this be any different?

And what does that have to do with a woman choosing not to be a mother? You are equating a woman who wants to abort a fetus because of a personal choice concerning her life with that of a woman who gets an abortion in places like India where females are pressured into having the procedure due to cultural, financial, and social influences having to do with gender inequality. That is a poor comparison.

But since you are a defender of the rights of different cultures to have different values than us, I can't imagine you being opposed to such a cultural value.

People here have explained that they know some others differ. Glitterbag explained some of the native beliefs. You, you skip along., not just once but twice or forty times., virtually always irate. Zippidy do dah.
There is a culture for those beliefs. We, so far at a2k, don't agree with them, including me.

Not acknowledging, blocking their views, is silly or worse. I was interested to read what they think. I disagree, but I understand them better.

You seem to be ignorant (and by that I mean you are ignoring) the fact that I have a dance partner here who is zippidy do dahing right along with me, not missing a step. Which one of us do you really have a problem with, and why?

Oh I'm acknowledging their views alright. And I'm sure not blocking them; in fact I'm answering them. To miss that is kind of silly.

I am asking that if a woman, of her own choice, chooses to abort any female fetuses so she can have a boy (the opposite is also possible). Is this a moral choice for this woman to make?

You have a black and white view of morality where you think you (yourself) can make judgments about what is true in a universal sense. I am choosing these examples to show you that the world isn't black and white.

You are putting yourself in the position of dictating what women can and can't do; you say they can abort their child, but they can't circumcise her. The rationalizations you are making for this contradiction don't make logical sense.

It is her body; that hasn't changed. She has a right to do what she will concerning her own body. You are wanting to know what I think of a woman who, for reasons of coercion or reasons of personal choice, aborts her fetus based on gender. To abort a fetus based on a preference for a particular gender reflects an ingrained discrimination toward one or the other. That is either immoral or indicative of a personal deficiency instilled by culture. Which do think it is. Perhaps this will help you to understand:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/women-pregnant-girls-pressured-abortions-india/story?id=15103950


You must have missed my response to this. I made it clear that cutting the clitoris off a girl is pointless and harmful. Why would this be any different in the case that you are proposing? A woman's body is hers. She is in charge of its processes. If she terminates her pregnancy, the fetus does not become an independent person. Nothing comes after. If the mother decides to cut the clitoris off her child just before birth, the independent person suffers the consequences of that act for the rest of their life. That is the difference.

Now tell me, is the use of a spermicide or morning-after-pill murder?

Not that I have seen.

I don't see that you acknowledge the information that glitterbag provided, the explanation of the people that are for FGM. In case you don't get it, we generally listen to another side. Far as I know, we are not, so far, interested, though maybe, for possibly understanding, acquiring the knowledge.

I, on the other hand, cannot believe that you could miss that. I gave her post a thumbs up. Apparently, anything less that a "Way to go, Glitterbag!" will not satisfy you. So sorry.

I didn't follow up, what ever amount of days. In any case, I don't think you mentioned it.

And on the other side...

Everyone who is in favor of abortion has already been born.

that us not re FGM.

The implied meaning there is that aborted fetuses are not in favor of abortion. However, there is no way to test that proposition to determine whether or not it is false. Therefore, there are no grounds whatsoever for assuming the proposition to be true. This is what you get when you elect Ronald Reagan to do your thinking for you.

According to your reasoning, it's okay to kill babies because there's no way to determine what they think about it.

But this is not a scientific question. It's a moral question. It doesn't get decided in a lab, based on evidence. It can only be resolved based on principles and a comparison of the pros and cons.

It stands to reason that a foetus that's viable, that could be born today and live, can be considered a human being. So very late abortion are akin to murder.

It also stands to reason that an embryo, which has no organ yet but is just a mass of cells, is not a human being. It should be treated as an extension of the mother's body because it totally depends on her.

In between these two clear-cut stages, the legislator must choose a cut-off point, a certain duration of pregnancy before which a woman can abort because her rights trump those of her embryo, and after which she can't, because the right of the foetus to life trumps her right to not procreate.

I'm morally confortable with this approach. The only question is about what the cut-off point should be, and the French law has it at 3 months after conception, which seems fair to me. It gives enough time to the mother to make a thoughtful decision, while staying far away from the moment a foetus would become potentially viable.

But that's just me. Ancient Romans would think nothing of throwing away unwanted babies on the trash pile, considering that a baby is not yet a human being.

I was showing the ridiculousness of the point that everyone who is in favor of abortion has already been born, since you cannot question fetuses that never developed into viable entities.

Good. We agree. And to that point I would add that in 2005 the Journal of the American Medical Association published available evidence from experts from the University of California, San Francisco, and elsewhere. They concluded that: “Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.”

The third trimester begins at 27 to 28 weeks from conception, and approximately 99% of abortions are performed before 21 weeks.

Pain is not the problem. The problem is killing what some people consider a human being. So the question is: from what time should the little bugger be seen as a human being? Some would say "from birth", others: "from conception"; French law places the cut-off point at one-third of pregnancy, somewhat conservatively (to err on the side of caution).

By the way, Simone Veil, the mother of French abortion laws, passed away last week.

Une très grande dame, Simone... :'''/

France paid homage to Holocaust survivor and humanist icon Simone Veil Wednesday in a somber, nationally televised ceremony at Les Invalides, Paris' 17th century military monument.

Dignitaries from across France and Europe stood as Veil's flag-draped casket was carried across the cobblestones and a military band played Chopin's funeral march.

She will be laid to rest in the Panthéon alongside the country’s most revered figures, President Emmanuel Macron said on Wednesday.

Veil, who fought for the rights of women and defended the weak and vulnerable, is considered a moral force of the 20th century.

Simone Jacob was born on July 13, 1927, into a secular Jewish family in Nice. In 1944, she was deported to Auschwitz, along with her parents, a sister and a brother. Her parents and brother would never return. Her sister and Simone survived.

Back to France, Veil went on to become a major force in her country's political life. Because of her firsthand experience with the horrors of war, Veil became an ardent supporter of a unified Europe. Those who knew her say she never spoke badly of the Germans.

In her 2007 memoir, Une Vie ("A Life"), Veil says she realized that good and bad dwell in each of us and either can be evoked, depending on the circumstances. Veil said her mother's dying words stayed with her: "Never wish bad for others, we know too well what that means."

As minister of health in 1974, Veil steered a contentious bill through the National Assembly to legalize abortion, bearing the brunt of a visceral battle over abortion in a majority-Catholic country. Today, the "Veil Law," and the right to obtain an abortion, are considered a fundamental underpinning of women's rights in France.

In a famous speech in November 1974 before a National Assembly composed almost entirely of men, Veil said France could no longer close its eyes "to the 300,000 abortions that each year mutilate the women of this country, trample on its laws and humiliate or traumatise those who undergo them."

She said no woman seeks an abortion with a light heart. "It's always traumatic," said Veil. She said abortion must be the last resort and remain an exception, but it must be legal.

During the 25-hour debate that followed her speech, Veil was subjected to insults. But she was able to convince a majority of lawmakers that it was necessary.

Veil was later elected to the European Parliament and served as its president for three years — the first woman in that position.

So she filled her life with studies and a career, marriage and three sons. Antoine Veil, her husband of 67 years, was a politician and businessman who died in 2013.

Adapted from:
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/07/05/535624405/france-honors-the-memory-of-simone-veil-a-light-that-no-one-could-extinguish

I've heard of her but didn't know the details in your post. Thanks for posting it.
Very strong.

Pain is not a problem when you're not the one experiencing it.

The operative part of that sentence is "what some people consider." Fortunately, we don't have to allow some people to speak for the rest of us.
That is conservative based on what science says.