Sex Selective Abortion Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT | |
It makes me think of the awful, awful webcomic June Over Moon, where the pregnant main character basically said she'd give her baby up for adoption if it was a boy, so I'm against it. Now, on a moral level...I don't know.
The only reason I am even pro abortion is to spite the Right Wingers in Virginia. As this does not relate to that, it's a big, fat, "eh". If you say "It's her right, her body", then you can't say the woman CAN'T get an abortion for whatever reason she wants. | |
You either believe in choice or not. If you believe its a woman's right to choose then you don't get to tell them that their reasons aren't good enough. | |
Obviously it's totally stupid to do such a thing. Then again, even if someone wanted to, banning it is probably impossible seeing as you can't check people's motivations and determine allowed or not on that basis. | |
All I can say to this is Meh, it's her choice, her body. | |
Pretty much what these guys said. A woman gets to choose, that's how it works. I've heard of worse reasons for an abortion, and I still consider it a choice worth fighting for. | |
Being pro-choice, I would have to argue for this to be made legal. Personally, I would be againt it, but unless it's my child I have no right to tell someone what to do about it. | |
Well, being against abortion - for non-medical related reasons - myself, I think it's adding an additional layer of stupidity. Once we've finished modelling the human genome, should we use abortion to weed out undesirable characteristics legally, because the law fails to identify concepted life as "life"? Where do you re-draw the line? Once you shift the line from "No" to "Yes", it's difficult to move it back to "No, because...". If abortion is "Ok" because it's a "choice", than any reason - any - is as valid as any other. | |
I personally find it disgusting. But I can't really argue the legality of it, since "I don't agree with it" isn't very solid grounding. | |
I fail to see the problem with these. It's still just a clump of cells. They're not a doctor or a piano player, they may be potentially a doctor or piano player, or they may be something else entirely.
Yup. I might not always approve of the rationale for an abortion, but I do approve of women having autonomy over their bodies. And the latter outweighs the former. | |
Pretty much this. I might find it slightly silly, but it's still valid. I really consider all this pickiness for male offspring retarded, but that's something that needs to change in certain societies that still put too much importance of on having ensured male offspring. | |
except in the long run in can result in male to female ratios like that of China | |
I think it's fucking retarded, but I'm still generally in favor of a woman's right to choose abortion provided the fetus isn't yet viable. | |
It would be a bad thing in the long run if people did this(looking at you China). So I'm against abortion for that reason. | |
Well, I'm of the opinion that abortion should only performed with good reason, but am fairly lax about what I consider to be good reasons in such cases. However, if the only reason you can come up with is the child not being the sex you desire? Sorry, life doesn't work like a Babies'R'Us store. The possibility of such trends harming demographics in the long run just adds to my objection. | |
Although I might be inclined to agree with the clump of cells part in the early stages of gestation, what about late term abortions? Canada for example allows abortions up until the child "draws its first breath outside the womb" according to the criminal code. Surely you do not think a child that is nine months developed is still just a clump of cells? Heck I think that if the child can survive outside the womb abortion should not be an option, rather extraction and attachment to life support. | |
Generally, I fall in the pro-choice camp, but this is certainly a tough, unpalatable one. The world's two most populous countries both practice sex-selective abortion (or worse, selective post-natal neglect) which leave their populations dangerously skewed. On the other hand, if it's banned, the more abhorrent neglect or infanticide of children of the unwanted gender is likely. Sometimes, the lesser of two evils is the best decision, whilst you try to cure the underlying roots which cause the problem. | |
It's the same sort of thing as aborting babies with genetic defects, I guess. I mean, it's pathetic and lazy on the part of the parents, but it's still just a clump of non-sentient nerves | |
I basically agree with this. Once it's definitely capable of surviving outside the womb (week 30something isn't it?) It's not abortion anymore. I'm perfectly fine with early term abortions for basically any reason, and perhaps late term abortions in extreme, very rare, circumstances. | |
I don't understand why females are being selected against, biologically speaking. A male can fertilize many more eggs in 9 months than a woman can carry. You'd think they'd want to keep the female population noticeably higher. | |
Of course it's wrong.
In the US? Absolutely not. In other countries? That's up to them. The reason I say it's wrong when I don't say abortion in general is wrong is because sex-selective abortions, if practiced commonly enough, can begin to affect population demographics and that leads to big problems later on down the line. Furthermore, if women have a disadvantageous position in society, permitting abortion on the basis of sex avoids dealing with that disadvantage. So I heard that in parts of India determining the gender of your baby by ultrasound is illegal. But until I see evidence that the practice is leading towards gender imbalance in my country, I don't think my country needs to prevent it. | |
My opinion on abortion has been for many years (about as long as I've really thought about the issue) that I believe the right to an abortion ceases once a foetus/baby can survive outside of the womb. That's generally around Week 24. Over 90% of abortions take place before Week 12. We're basically in agreement. As technology advances, that 'survival' week may reduce, and my 'cut off' point will similarly reduce with it. My hope is that one day children won't need to be carried at all inside women, and can instead become true test-tube babies, going from clump of cells to baby without every touching a womb. | |
Not really, it's a shitty thing to do regardless of your stance on abortion. Should it be restricted? Certainly not in the west, where there's no evidence to suggest this happens with any significant frequency. But in a demographic disaster area like China where this is already an issue and there are already restrictions on childbirth, then yeah, this is probably a good idea. | |
Good post. Unfortunately, this is inevitable. This will become normal practice in the future. Why? Because you can't say abortion is acceptable in every case except this or that. If it's okay to abort because you're not ready, why wouldn't it be okay to abort because DNA says the child will have red hair? In both cases the child is unwanted. Abortion is already discriminative in nature (See: 'My Needs Are More Important Than Your Life, So You're Getting Aborted.') I don't see how it would be wrong to eliminate people with unwanted traits, when eliminating unwanted people in general is perfectly acceptable. Hopefully one day we all look and act exactly the same. It's what Hitler wanted afterall... | |
If a woman chooses to have an abortion (or not), that is her decision and hers alone. But note the wording there. "Couples are having abortions". That is, it's not merely the women in question making that decision. This is very different. | |
Aborting babies based on their sex is stupid, wrong, and should absolutely be allowed. Yeah, it can lead to problem in the long run due to gender imbalance, but the right way to deal with this is to work towards gender equality in society so people don't want to do it instead of start taking away peoples rights (and i do think access to abortion should be a right). | |
I think it's disgusting and should be banned. Plain and simple. | |
That's a very good way of summing it all up. | |
Allow it. But it's utterly disgusting and people who do it should be told so. The obvious sexist attitude there shouldn't be given a free pass socially, even if it's their right to do it. | |
How can you claim abortion is right but sex selection is wrong? Regardless of the reason given, the results are exactly the same - a dead baby. Why does it matter if more girls are aborted than boys? It's women who are given the choice to do it, so women are to be blamed for any imbalances. The whole idea of this seems to me to be feminism destroying feminism from the inside out. Women killing baby girls for the sake of feminism. To bad, I say. If someone wants to agree with abortion they should acknowledge this isn't the least bit immoral. You can't say "women have rights, no matter what, except for this little factor that I happen to disagree with." | |
Exactly...assuming that it is the women's choice and she's not being forced into it, say. But assuming that it is her choice...people's rights don't magically disappear just because they use them in a way you don't like. Either they have a right to do a thing, or they don't. | |
I think sex selective abortion should be allowed - for your second or third child. | |
Quite easily. If you choose for abortion because of the gender of your baby you are discriminating, and that shouldn't be allowed. We can't allow people to use their rights to commit crimes. | |
Abortion itself is discrimination. You're choosing to abort an unwanted baby vs not aborting a wanted baby. Unwanted babies are a group of people in the same way blacks or Christians are a group of people. That's why it's comparable to genocide. | |
Discriminating against who, though? Given that the mother can choose to abort the pregnancy for any number of other reasons, and that was a right earnt at no small cost, restricting it like that seems dangerous, and pointless in regards to its stated aim. How can you prove it's discrimination if you're allowed to do it for any number of other reasons? | |
| Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT | |
"Sex-based abortion divides pro-choicers on rights"
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/20/sex-based-abortion-divides-pro-choicers-on-rights/
In general, since the escapist political forums are generally left leaning, I thought I would pose an interesting question for self identified pro choice individuals
What do you think of sex selective abortions? Is it wrong that couples, especially from immigrant families are having sex selective abortions to ensure male offspring? Do you think anything should be done about it?
I am curious because one of the many feminist clubs at my school are making an issue out of this, labelling it as "femicide", but just last semester they had a big rally against any kind of restrictions on abortions. Do you see this as an inconsistency?