| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
25 Mar 2005 05:34:10 AM |
| Object: |
Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
This lunacy is brought about by the policies of the LLL (Looney Liberal
Left ); it's arrival on America's shores should be close at hand. The
slaughter of innocents has been relegated to a matter of style . If
women think that this is an extention of their rights, think again. Who
do you think parents will choose? It's the baby girls who will be
dying. What about when they discover a gay gene? That's going to spell
the end of homos. Liberals should re-evaluate their position on this
matter.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-03/25/content_2741045.htm
Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK
BEIJING, Mar. 25 (Xinhuanet) -- The British parents will may have
rights to choose the sex of their unborn baby, the UK's Commons Science
and Technology Committee reported on Thursday.
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
25 Mar 2005 05:40:37 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111728850.289144.267610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This lunacy is brought about by the policies of the LLL (Looney Liberal
Left ); it's arrival on America's shores should be close at hand. The
slaughter of innocents has been relegated to a matter of style . If
women think that this is an extention of their rights, think again. Who
do you think parents will choose? It's the baby girls who will be
dying. What about when they discover a gay gene? That's going to spell
the end of homos. Liberals should re-evaluate their position on this
matter.
Please explain why chance is superior to choice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Who Cares!" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
25 Mar 2005 04:41:12 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:QYWdnfj9bevKOd7fRVn-gA@io.com...
|
| "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
| news:1111728850.289144.267610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > This lunacy is brought about by the policies of the LLL (Looney
Liberal
| > Left ); it's arrival on America's shores should be close at hand.
The
| > slaughter of innocents has been relegated to a matter of style .
If
| > women think that this is an extention of their rights, think
again. Who
| > do you think parents will choose? It's the baby girls who will be
| > dying. What about when they discover a gay gene? That's going to
spell
| > the end of homos. Liberals should re-evaluate their position on
this
| > matter.
|
| Please explain why chance is superior to choice.
Because China would be 90% male if it was choice?
But then again,
Who Cares!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde That he not busy being" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
25 Mar 2005 06:23:20 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111728850.289144.267610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This lunacy is brought about by the policies of the LLL (Looney Liberal
Left ); it's arrival on America's shores should be close at hand. The
slaughter of innocents has been relegated to a matter of style . If
women think that this is an extention of their rights, think again. Who
do you think parents will choose? It's the baby girls who will be
dying. What about when they discover a gay gene? That's going to spell
the end of homos. Liberals should re-evaluate their position on this
matter.
Please explain why chance is superior to choice.
While people have been choosing the sex of their children for thousands
of years, clearly chance creates a situation of approximate equality in
the number of male and female babies. That has certain obvious
advantages.
--
Personal accounts are good because they lessen the liability against
future taxes of the retiree while sequestering the funds he's been
paying in so they cannot be used to mask current general fund deficits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
25 Mar 2005 07:42:37 AM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born')"
<stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
wrote in message
news:4243AE58.E71F7930@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111728850.289144.267610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This lunacy is brought about by the policies of the LLL (Looney Liberal
Left ); it's arrival on America's shores should be close at hand. The
slaughter of innocents has been relegated to a matter of style . If
women think that this is an extention of their rights, think again. Who
do you think parents will choose? It's the baby girls who will be
dying. What about when they discover a gay gene? That's going to spell
the end of homos. Liberals should re-evaluate their position on this
matter.
Please explain why chance is superior to choice.
While people have been choosing the sex of their children for thousands
of years, clearly chance creates a situation of approximate equality in
the number of male and female babies. That has certain obvious
advantages.
What are these advantages?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde That he not busy being" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
25 Mar 2005 08:11:24 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born')"
<stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
wrote in message
news:4243AE58.E71F7930@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111728850.289144.267610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This lunacy is brought about by the policies of the LLL (Looney Liberal
Left ); it's arrival on America's shores should be close at hand. The
slaughter of innocents has been relegated to a matter of style . If
women think that this is an extention of their rights, think again. Who
do you think parents will choose? It's the baby girls who will be
dying. What about when they discover a gay gene? That's going to spell
the end of homos. Liberals should re-evaluate their position on this
matter.
Please explain why chance is superior to choice.
While people have been choosing the sex of their children for thousands
of years, clearly chance creates a situation of approximate equality in
the number of male and female babies. That has certain obvious
advantages.
What are these advantages?
You can't see some advantage in having the number of man and the number
of woman seeking husbands and wives a similar number? The Muslim
countries, especially the Arab ones, artificially decrease the number of
available females by allowing polygamy, up to four wives. This imbalance
can be corrected by sending the males out to make war. Is that a good
thing?
--
Personal accounts are good because they lessen the liability against
future taxes of the retiree while sequestering the funds he's been
paying in so they cannot be used to mask current general fund deficits.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Mormon" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
25 Mar 2005 06:11:40 PM |
|
|
Natural selection (chance) allows for a healthier species; you know -
evolution, adaptation, etc. If humans begin custom-ordering children
and traits without fully considering and understanding all the
potential ramifications - the results could be devastating. Best
Wishes ~Jack
"When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the
rest of the world". John Muir
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
26 Mar 2005 07:44:33 AM |
|
|
"Jack Mormon" <JackMormon13@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111774300.366172.224430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Natural selection (chance) allows for a healthier species; you know -
evolution, adaptation, etc.
Don't forget extinction.
Evolution is not our friend, it is a mindless process that does not care
about us.
If humans begin custom-ordering children
and traits without fully considering and understanding all the
potential ramifications - the results could be devastating.
Or wonderful. We'll never know if we don't try.
Besides, if "we" don't do it, "they" will.
"When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the
rest of the world". John Muir
That's both a warning and an opportunity.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde That he not busy being" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
25 Mar 2005 08:12:56 PM |
|
|
Jack Mormon wrote:
Natural selection (chance) allows for a healthier species; you know -
evolution, adaptation, etc. If humans begin custom-ordering children
and traits without fully considering and understanding all the
potential ramifications - the results could be devastating.
Humans have long operated outside of direct evolutionary pressures.
Given our efforts to allow people who are infertile by natural efforts
to still reproduce, we could create problems without even sex selecting
our way to trouble.
--
Personal accounts are good because they lessen the liability against
future taxes of the retiree while sequestering the funds he's been
paying in so they cannot be used to mask current general fund deficits.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
25 Mar 2005 07:26:01 AM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born')"
<stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
wrote in message
news:4243AE58.E71F7930@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
<...>
Please explain why chance is superior to choice.
While people have been choosing the sex of their children for thousands
of years...
By doing what?
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde That he not busy being" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
25 Mar 2005 08:22:41 PM |
|
|
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born')"
<stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
wrote in message
news:4243AE58.E71F7930@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
<...>
Please explain why chance is superior to choice.
While people have been choosing the sex of their children for thousands
of years...
By doing what?
The obvious though unpleasant to think about is infanticide. There were
other unpleasant methods, consider King Henry VIII.
King County Library system has an interesting lecture series on CD by
Alexander McCall Smith, the guy who writes "The Number 1 Lady's
Detective" series, discussing a lot of the issues society is going to
have to grapple with in the coming years:
http://catalog.kcls.org/search/aMcCall+Smith%2C+Alexander%2C+1948-/amccall+smith+alexander+1948/-2%2C-1%2C0%2CB/frameset&FF=amccall+smith+alexander+1948&5%2C%2C49
#begin quote
7 sound discs : digital ; 4 3/4 in. + 1 course guide (96 p. : col. ill.
; 22 cm.)
Series The modern scholar
Modern scholar.
Note "14 lectures" -- Container.
At head of container title: Recorded Books presents.
Compact discs.
Performer Lectures delivered by Professor Alexander McCall Smith, The
University of Edinburgh.
Contents Lecture 1. An overview of the techniques for creating humans
-- Lecture 2. When does life begin? The human embryo -- Lecture 3. What
sort of children shall we have? The science of reproduction -- Lecture
4. Cloning: I want them to take after me -- Lecture 5. A boy please: sex
selection -- Lecture 6. Abortion? -- Lecture 7. Who's my mother? Who's
my father: Surrogacy -- Lecture 8. A sorting vat for babies: screening
for abnormalities -- Lecture 9. Superboy and Wondergirl: genetic
enhancement -- Lecture 10. Spare-part children -- Lecture 11. The right
to reproduce -- Lecture 12. Life-boat ethics: population control --
Lecture 13. Hard choices: ethics in intensive care -- Lecture 14:
Science as a father.
Bibliography Course guide includes bibliographic references.
Summary Discusses various moral aspects of human reproduction, from
methods of conception to methods of ending a pregnancy. Explores the
moral, cultural, legal and political influences on reproduction, and
discusses the scientific advances in reproductive technology.
#end quote
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sergeant America" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
25 Mar 2005 08:07:07 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111728850.289144.267610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This lunacy is brought about by the policies of the LLL (Looney Liberal
Left ); it's arrival on America's shores should be close at hand. The
slaughter of innocents has been relegated to a matter of style . If
women think that this is an extention of their rights, think again. Who
do you think parents will choose? It's the baby girls who will be
dying. What about when they discover a gay gene? That's going to spell
the end of homos. Liberals should re-evaluate their position on this
matter.
Please explain why chance is superior to choice.
The people who love their children unconditionally do better. Attach all
sorts of conditions to your children and you're undermining the whole
point of the exercise: it's not for *you*; it's for the children.
(Didn't Hitlery Clinton say that? Maybe that'll work with you.)
Look how much more Third World women care for their kids than Western
feminists who abandon them to daycare from dawn till dusk. What liberals
call progress is anything but. The more liberal, the more feminist, the
more screwed up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
25 Mar 2005 10:00:46 AM |
|
|
Sergeant America wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111728850.289144.267610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This lunacy is brought about by the policies of the LLL (Looney Liberal
Left ); it's arrival on America's shores should be close at hand. The
slaughter of innocents has been relegated to a matter of style . If
women think that this is an extention of their rights, think again. Who
do you think parents will choose? It's the baby girls who will be
dying. What about when they discover a gay gene? That's going to spell
the end of homos. Liberals should re-evaluate their position on this
matter.
Please explain why chance is superior to choice.
The people who love their children unconditionally do better. Attach all
sorts of conditions to your children and you're undermining the whole
point of the exercise: it's not for *you*; it's for the children.
(Didn't Hitlery Clinton say that? Maybe that'll work with you.)
There are alray plenty of people with 2 or 3 children of one sex who
have another because they hope for one of the other sex. They seem to
manage when it ends up the same as the first 3
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
25 Mar 2005 10:37:19 AM |
|
|
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d20ngc$fi1$3@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Sergeant America wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111728850.289144.267610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This lunacy is brought about by the policies of the LLL (Looney Liberal
Left ); it's arrival on America's shores should be close at hand. The
slaughter of innocents has been relegated to a matter of style . If
women think that this is an extention of their rights, think again. Who
do you think parents will choose? It's the baby girls who will be
dying. What about when they discover a gay gene? That's going to spell
the end of homos. Liberals should re-evaluate their position on this
matter.
Please explain why chance is superior to choice.
The people who love their children unconditionally do better. Attach all
sorts of conditions to your children and you're undermining the whole
point of the exercise: it's not for *you*; it's for the children.
(Didn't Hitlery Clinton say that? Maybe that'll work with you.)
There are alray plenty of people with 2 or 3 children of one sex who have
another because they hope for one of the other sex. They seem to manage
when it ends up the same as the first 3
It's all the mans fault you know
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
28 Mar 2005 04:02:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:37:19 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn"
<bob@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote:
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d20ngc$fi1$3@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Sergeant America wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111728850.289144.267610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This lunacy is brought about by the policies of the LLL (Looney Liberal
Left ); it's arrival on America's shores should be close at hand. The
slaughter of innocents has been relegated to a matter of style . If
women think that this is an extention of their rights, think again. Who
do you think parents will choose? It's the baby girls who will be
dying. What about when they discover a gay gene? That's going to spell
the end of homos. Liberals should re-evaluate their position on this
matter.
Please explain why chance is superior to choice.
The people who love their children unconditionally do better. Attach all
sorts of conditions to your children and you're undermining the whole
point of the exercise: it's not for *you*; it's for the children.
(Didn't Hitlery Clinton say that? Maybe that'll work with you.)
There are alray plenty of people with 2 or 3 children of one sex who have
another because they hope for one of the other sex. They seem to manage
when it ends up the same as the first 3
It's all the mans fault you know
Touche`! :)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde That he not busy being" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
25 Mar 2005 08:16:30 PM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d20ngc$fi1$3@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Sergeant America wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111728850.289144.267610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This lunacy is brought about by the policies of the LLL (Looney Liberal
Left ); it's arrival on America's shores should be close at hand. The
slaughter of innocents has been relegated to a matter of style . If
women think that this is an extention of their rights, think again. Who
do you think parents will choose? It's the baby girls who will be
dying. What about when they discover a gay gene? That's going to spell
the end of homos. Liberals should re-evaluate their position on this
matter.
Please explain why chance is superior to choice.
The people who love their children unconditionally do better. Attach all
sorts of conditions to your children and you're undermining the whole
point of the exercise: it's not for *you*; it's for the children.
(Didn't Hitlery Clinton say that? Maybe that'll work with you.)
There are alray plenty of people with 2 or 3 children of one sex who have
another because they hope for one of the other sex. They seem to manage
when it ends up the same as the first 3
It's all the mans fault you know
Isn't everything?
--
Personal accounts are good because they lessen the liability against
future taxes of the retiree while sequestering the funds he's been
paying in so they cannot be used to mask current general fund deficits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
26 Mar 2005 11:58:50 AM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born')"
<stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
wrote in message
news:4244719E.BC891EC3@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com...
kathryn wrote:
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d20ngc$fi1$3@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Sergeant America wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111728850.289144.267610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This lunacy is brought about by the policies of the LLL (Looney
Liberal
Left ); it's arrival on America's shores should be close at hand. The
slaughter of innocents has been relegated to a matter of style . If
women think that this is an extention of their rights, think again.
Who
do you think parents will choose? It's the baby girls who will be
dying. What about when they discover a gay gene? That's going to
spell
the end of homos. Liberals should re-evaluate their position on this
matter.
Please explain why chance is superior to choice.
The people who love their children unconditionally do better. Attach
all
sorts of conditions to your children and you're undermining the whole
point of the exercise: it's not for *you*; it's for the children.
(Didn't Hitlery Clinton say that? Maybe that'll work with you.)
There are alray plenty of people with 2 or 3 children of one sex who
have
another because they hope for one of the other sex. They seem to
manage
when it ends up the same as the first 3
It's all the mans fault you know
Isn't everything?
Well I wouldnt go that far, I'd have to do some research.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde That he not busy being" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
26 Mar 2005 06:18:32 PM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born')"
<stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>
wrote in message
news:4244719E.BC891EC3@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com...
kathryn wrote:
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d20ngc$fi1$3@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Sergeant America wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111728850.289144.267610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This lunacy is brought about by the policies of the LLL (Looney
Liberal
Left ); it's arrival on America's shores should be close at hand. The
slaughter of innocents has been relegated to a matter of style . If
women think that this is an extention of their rights, think again.
Who
do you think parents will choose? It's the baby girls who will be
dying. What about when they discover a gay gene? That's going to
spell
the end of homos. Liberals should re-evaluate their position on this
matter.
Please explain why chance is superior to choice.
The people who love their children unconditionally do better. Attach
all
sorts of conditions to your children and you're undermining the whole
point of the exercise: it's not for *you*; it's for the children.
(Didn't Hitlery Clinton say that? Maybe that'll work with you.)
There are alray plenty of people with 2 or 3 children of one sex who
have
another because they hope for one of the other sex. They seem to
manage
when it ends up the same as the first 3
It's all the mans fault you know
Isn't everything?
Well I wouldnt go that far, I'd have to do some research.
They keep going back and forth, on the sex of the baby thing, as to
whether it is the man's or woman's "fault".
--
Personal accounts are good because they lessen the liability against
future taxes of the retiree while sequestering the funds he's been
paying in so they cannot be used to mask current general fund deficits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
26 Mar 2005 09:52:41 PM |
|
|
In article <4245A778.51B00375
@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>,
stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.c
om says...
Well I wouldnt go that far, I'd have to do some research.
They keep going back and forth, on the sex of the baby thing, as to
whether it is the man's or woman's "fault".
It's not the 'fault' of anyone. It's just the way genetics and
inheritance of genes are.
A male human has an X chromosme and a Y chromosome. A female has two X
chromosomes. In both cases the person received one of those from their
father and the other from their mother.
Since the mother only had X chromosomes the child must have inherited an
X chromosome from her. The child's other chromosome can be either an X
or a Y and must have come from the father.
So it is the chromosome from the father than determines the sex of the
child. If he supplies a Y the result will be a male. If he supplies an X
the result will be female. The mother is only supplying an X which she
passes on to both sons and daughters.
In that sense the sex of the offspring depends entirely on which of the
two chromosomes the father supplies - the woman supplies the same one
every time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde That he not busy being" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
25 Mar 2005 08:17:01 PM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d20ngc$fi1$3@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Sergeant America wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111728850.289144.267610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This lunacy is brought about by the policies of the LLL (Looney Liberal
Left ); it's arrival on America's shores should be close at hand. The
slaughter of innocents has been relegated to a matter of style . If
women think that this is an extention of their rights, think again. Who
do you think parents will choose? It's the baby girls who will be
dying. What about when they discover a gay gene? That's going to spell
the end of homos. Liberals should re-evaluate their position on this
matter.
Please explain why chance is superior to choice.
The people who love their children unconditionally do better. Attach all
sorts of conditions to your children and you're undermining the whole
point of the exercise: it's not for *you*; it's for the children.
(Didn't Hitlery Clinton say that? Maybe that'll work with you.)
There are alray plenty of people with 2 or 3 children of one sex who have
another because they hope for one of the other sex. They seem to manage
when it ends up the same as the first 3
It's all the mans fault you know
Isn't everything? Whose fault this one actually is seems to be going
back and forth.
--
Personal accounts are good because they lessen the liability against
future taxes of the retiree while sequestering the funds he's been
paying in so they cannot be used to mask current general fund deficits.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
25 Mar 2005 05:52:15 AM |
|
|
It is not fashion or whim. That is why.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
25 Mar 2005 05:12:29 PM |
|
|
<cramerj58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111729935.792108.200220@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
It is not fashion or whim. That is why.
and what if the parent is a carrier of a disease passed only on to one
particular sex?
What if they already have several of one sex of child and feel they would
like to have a child of the opposite sex to balance their family out - it
isn't much of a "chance" if you've already got 5 boys and would like a girl.
Because "chances" are leaving it to "chance" will produce another boy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
25 Mar 2005 07:40:26 AM |
|
|
<cramerj58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111729935.792108.200220@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
It is not fashion or whim. That is why.
You have not explained why fashion and whim are inferior to chance.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven L." |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
25 Mar 2005 05:28:34 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
<cramerj58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111729935.792108.200220@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
It is not fashion or whim. That is why.
You have not explained why fashion and whim are inferior to chance.
Because I'll bet that any survey of parents would reveal that most want
more boys than girls.
Most dads want a son rather than a daughter.
The result is that over time, if that choice becomes standard practice,
we'll end up with a population in which the males significantly
outnumber the females.
Whereas left up to chance, the babies born are roughly 50% male, 50% female.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
26 Mar 2005 12:04:51 PM |
|
|
"Steven L." <> wrote in message
news:6TX0e.3705$gI5.2101@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Denis Loubet wrote:
<cramerj58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111729935.792108.200220@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
It is not fashion or whim. That is why.
You have not explained why fashion and whim are inferior to chance.
Because I'll bet that any survey of parents would reveal that most want
more boys than girls.
Most dads want a son rather than a daughter.
The result is that over time, if that choice becomes standard practice,
we'll end up with a population in which the males significantly outnumber
the females.
Whereas left up to chance, the babies born are roughly 50% male, 50%
female.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
I think what you mean to say is that
YOU want a son rather than a daughter.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
26 Mar 2005 07:36:57 AM |
|
|
"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:6TX0e.3705$gI5.2101@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Denis Loubet wrote:
<cramerj58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111729935.792108.200220@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
It is not fashion or whim. That is why.
You have not explained why fashion and whim are inferior to chance.
Because I'll bet that any survey of parents would reveal that most want
more boys than girls.
Fine, then a survey saying exactly that should be easy to find.
Most dads want a son rather than a daughter.
Because they're the only individual involved in the decision?
The result is that over time, if that choice becomes standard practice,
we'll end up with a population in which the males significantly outnumber
the females.
This might be the case if people would completely ignore such a trend.
Whereas left up to chance, the babies born are roughly 50% male, 50%
female.
So you are saying that random chance is better than choice.
Is there any other situation where such an attitude is appropriate? What
other important decisions are best met with a roll of the dice?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
26 Mar 2005 12:18:53 AM |
|
|
In article <6TX0e.3705$gI5.2101@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net says...
Most dads want a son rather than a daughter.
The result is that over time, if that choice becomes standard practice,
we'll end up with a population in which the males significantly
outnumber the females.
Or... that the balance will remain but the firstborn might be a son
rather than a daughter.
Don't forget that both men and women want daughters too!
There is another point though... if it comes about that there reallly is
a drastic imbalance with significantly (like 10% or more) males than
females reaching marriageable age, the relative value of women will
increase... so parents then may choose female babies for the 'premium'
they could provide... and so the balance could start to swing the other
way... and then some years later back again... and again... and again...
In any case, there really isn't all that much of a problem with there
being an imbalance, since many people now choose not to have kids
anyway.
And anyway, what is the problem for the human race generally if there
happens to be a balance of say 60:40 of one sex to the other (either way
round)? We reproduce enough anyway to keep the human race going pretty
much indefinitely!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
28 Mar 2005 03:58:00 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:28:34 GMT, "Steven L."
<sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
<cramerj58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111729935.792108.200220@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
It is not fashion or whim. That is why.
You have not explained why fashion and whim are inferior to chance.
Because I'll bet that any survey of parents would reveal that most want
more boys than girls.
Most dads want a son rather than a daughter.
The result is that over time, if that choice becomes standard practice,
we'll end up with a population in which the males significantly
outnumber the females.
So? Then the ladies get a stable of males and maybe the ladies in
Talibama will get their orgasm the state denied them.
Whereas left up to chance, the babies born are roughly 50% male, 50% female.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
26 Mar 2005 03:22:39 AM |
|
|
Steven L. <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
You have not explained why fashion and whim are inferior to chance.
Because I'll bet that any survey of parents would reveal that most want
more boys than girls.
You'd lose that bet.
Most dads want a son rather than a daughter.
You're projecting your own wishes.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
25 Mar 2005 04:41:01 PM |
|
|
If it was up to * J Young * it would be bi-sexual on the "gay" side, so
he could play with his little ding-a-ling.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Choosing baby's sex to be available in UK |
25 Mar 2005 02:30:55 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111728850.289144.267610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This lunacy is brought about by the policies of the LLL (Looney Liberal
Left ); it's arrival on America's shores should be close at hand. The
slaughter of innocents has been relegated to a matter of style . If
women think that this is an extention of their rights, think again. Who
do you think parents will choose? It's the baby girls who will be
dying. What about when they discover a gay gene? That's going to spell
the end of homos. Liberals should re-evaluate their position on this
matter.
You'll post just about anything for attention, won't you?
LC~ Poor 'lil schitzo "J/IBen" must not be getting any.
"Only a fool tests the depth of the water with
both feet."~African Proverb
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
