Why is everyone embracing this blatant gender discrimination?
I checked the information on their website. I's choke full with 60% of girls this, 20% of girls that, no mention of boys. Discrimination never brought anything good.

Live Action public relations:
"AUSTIN, May 29 -- Today, Live Action released a new undercover video showing a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Austin, TX encouraging a woman to obtain a late-term abortion because she was purportedly carrying a girl and wanted to have a boy. The video is first in a new series titled "Gendercide: Sex-Selection in America," exposing the practice of sex-selective abortion in the United States and how Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry facilitate the selective elimination of baby girls in the womb.

"I see that you're saying that you want to terminate if it's a girl, so are you just wanting to continue the pregnancy in the meantime?" a counselor named "Rebecca" offers the woman, who is purportedly still in her first trimester and cannot be certain about the gender. "The abortion covers you up until 23 weeks," explains Rebecca, "and usually at 5 months is usually (sic) when they detect, you know, whether or not it's a boy or a girl." Doctors agree that the later in term a doctor performs an abortion, the greater the risk of complications.

The Planned Parenthood staffer suggests that the woman get on Medicaid in order to pay for an ultrasound to determine the gender of her baby, even though she plans to use the knowledge for an elective abortion. She also tells the woman to "just continue and try again" for the desired gender after aborting a girl, and adds, "Good luck, and I hope that you do get your boy."

"The search-and-destroy targeting of baby girls through prenatal testing and abortion is a pandemic that is spreading across the globe," notes Lila Rose, founder and president of Live Action. "Research proves that sex-selective abortion has now come to America. The abortion industry, led by Planned Parenthood, is a willing participant."

Six studies in the past four years indicate that there are thousands of "missing girls" in the U.S., many from sex-selective abortion. The U.K., India, Australia, and other countries ban sex-selective abortion, but the U.S., save for three states, does not. On Wednesday, Congress will debate the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act (PRENDA), which would ban sex-selective abortions nationally.

"Planned Parenthood and their ruthless abortion-first mentality is the real 'war on women'," says Rose. "Sex-selective abortion is gender discrimination with lethal consequences for little girls."

The complete, unedited video and transcript can be viewed at www.ProtectOurGirls.com, a hub of research and information on sex-selective abortions.

Live Action is a youth led movement dedicated to building a culture of life and ending the human rights abuse of abortion. They use new media to educate the public about the humanity of the unborn and investigative journalism to expose threats against the vulnerable and defenseless.

For further information, please contact Dan Wilson or Jameson Cunningham with Shirley & Banister Public Affairs at (703) 739-5920 or (800) 536-5920 and email at media@liveaction.org"

>> ^berticus:

yet more data and lo and behold even more data.
i'm .. a little amazed that you even posted this, actually. i mean, i guess i'm just left wondering why people don't see that their anecdotal stories are outliers? i see this happen all the time. "well the data don't fit with MY experience!" -- yes, congratulations, welcome to what is probably the tail end of a normal distribution.
actually, everyone should see those data.


OKAY, now I am starting to get annoyed... I was nice to @Stormsinger when she confused my post with using anecdotal evidence. I NEVER USED MY PERSONAL SITUATION TO PROVE OR DISPROVE ANYTHING. THAT WOULD BE anecdotal AND I DON'T RELY ON THAT. WELCOME TO MISREADING AN ARGUMENT BERTI.

I capitalize and bolden ^^ that section not because I am mad, but so you won't A-You won't misunderstand my argument, b-take it out of context, or C-focus on the other shiny useless shit in my post.

I agreed that gender discrimination happens and happens quite often. Yet nobody gives a shit about that. It seems people bring up these red herrings just to piss off the other side to make them quit making observations. Funny part is--I am on the side that wage-discrimination happens!

"I just used my wife and I as an example of how skewered statistics could be. I know there is real wage discrimination (I.E., that the statistics are in fact making a TRUE point,) and this post in no way disputes or marginalizes it; however, it does make me wonder how inaccurate studies (I.E., any study, and every study,) can be. I know women are kept down in jobs so they cannot rise." Yes, it makes me wonder. That's my point. Wage discrimination happens! But I wonder how much more and more importantly than even statistics--WHY!

How skewered statistics can be...my main point. Anyways, I wanted the data @NetRunner provided--which excluded part-time bullshit from the statistics. Thanks Berti, for providing the same cookie-cutter information everyone could find on the internet. The bullshit that doesn't matter because it's so broad. @NetRunner's information was more focused and therefore more useful than all of everyone's other links combined (Although I did appreciate that information nevertheless.)

The information may not answer "Why" per se, but it does limit the skewered excuses of the other side of the argument. And, and Berti, part of "why" is already answered--some women are discriminated against.

Sorry if this seems like an attack on you--it's not. What it is? My annoyance that people use this same argument over and over--even when it doesn't apply. You just focused on the wrong sections of my post--that's all. It just annoys me...that and dropping my ice-cream Snickers cake...

@grinter

In order to prove gender discrimination, you need to control for occupational choice, hours worked, maternity leave, and differences in assertiveness, negotiation skills and perceived pay entitlement, etc.

Most people don't control for such issues on this topic, so take such discussions with a grain of salt.

I'm upvoting because I agree with the title, not because the video is good.

If feminism is the shorthand name for the movement to empower women to achieve any role in society they choose, to liberate them from gender-based social expectations, and eliminate gender discrimination I'm for it.

If feminism is about hating men for being evil, I'm not for it.

This guy seems to be making a very libertarian critique of feminism. It's not that we pay women less because they're women, it's because women as a gender-class have been judged less capable by the free market, and therefore don't deserve anything other than what they've already got.

He should just take the next logical step and get all the way there -- clearly anti-discrimination laws are immoral, because people should be free to pay whoever they want whatever they want, as long as it's "voluntary". If the reasons are flawed, surely the free market will figure that out.

*terrible

Tags for this video have been changed from 'zombocalypse, zombies, psa, wagglemax, gender discrimination' to 'zombocalypse, zombies, psa, wagglemax, gender discrimination, left 4 dead' - edited by dystopianfuturetoday

>> ^Pprt:
Here's her quote:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”—Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001


Taken out of context, no surprise, coming from you.

Here's a little better snapshot of her sentiments:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

New York Times