If an American woman keeps aborting female babies to get a boy should that be OK legally?

[astro]

Per the impact of sex selection in India thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=569068) I ran across this article (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=98886)which implies that sex selective abortions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion) are happening in the US within certain ethnic cohorts.

It is a basic presumption and valued right among most American women that a woman has the more or less absolute right to determine if she wants to carry a baby to term or terminate it. Does using abortion for sex selection change this right?

[Der Trihs]

Does using abortion for sex selection change this right?No. It's stupid behavior but no rights are being violated.

[XT]

Does using abortion for sex selection change this right?

No, of course not. I'm puzzled why you would even ask this. :confused:

ETA:

If an American woman keeps aborting female babies to get a boy should that be OK legally?

Yes, of course it is ok legally. Currently you can abort a fetus for any reason or none at all. Having a reason doesn't change the legality.

-XT

[Bridget Burke]

Yes, it's legal.

I would have little respect for such a woman. And for her husband--because this sort of thing occurs in strongly patriarchal societies & he probably influenced her decision.

[John Mace]

It is a basic presumption and valued right among most American women that a woman has the more or less absolute right to determine if she wants to carry a baby to term or terminate it.
This is not correct. The states can limit elective abortion after viability.

But, as long as the woman is having an abortion prior to her state's cut-off, there is no legal issue. However, I suspect that quite a few abortion providers would have an ethical problem with using abortion as a sex selection method. There might even be some AMA guidelines concerning this issue.

[MsWhatsit]

I find it massively personally distasteful and offensive, but yes, it is and should be legal.

[Malacandra]

Yes, it's legal.

I would have little respect for such a woman. And for her husband--because this sort of thing occurs in strongly patriarchal societies & he probably influenced her decision.

Of course, with a tiny change in the hypothetical, we could make it so you couldn't immediately look around for a man to blame. :rolleyes:

[Bridget Burke]

Of course, with a tiny change in the hypothetical, we could make it so you couldn't immediately look around for a man to blame. :rolleyes:

Yes, I know. It's all Eve's fault....

[Chessic Sense]

Of course it shouldn't be legal. I can't believe it's even a question. It's disgusting behavior and an unnecessary murder.

Cue the baby killers telling me that I hate women in 3, 2, 1...

[MsWhatsit]

Of course it shouldn't be legal. I can't believe it's even a question. It's disgusting behavior and an unnecessary murder.


Are you opposed to abortion in general, or just this specific type of abortion? And if just this specific type of abortion, then why should it be illegal when other types are legal?

ETA: Nevermind, I should have read your post more closely. Your use of the term "baby killers" almost certainly puts you in the former camp. Disregard.

[Revtim]

I find some of these responses odd.

Seems to me that if you feel abortion in general is murder, so you are going to feel that this hypothetical is wrong, of course.

But if you don't think it's murder, and that an embryo/fetus isn't a person with the rights of a person, who cares what the circumstances are behind the abortion are?

I guess some people think of it as something like half a person?

[Marley23]

Cue the baby killers telling me that I hate women in 3, 2, 1...
This is poisoning the well. Please state your opinions without making slurs on people who don't agree with you. This also goes for people who object to the above statement.

[Bosstone]

Must it be an all or nothing?

I support abortion for necessity. When it comes to medical complications in either the mother or the fetus, or inability to support a child, the mother comes before the fetus every time. But aborting because you don't like the gender of the child or some other aesthetic or cosmetic reason is an unnecessary waste, and I wouldn't really have a problem with a line drawn in the legal sand there.

[Marley23]

But aborting because you don't like the gender of the child or some other aesthetic or cosmetic reason is an unnecessary waste, and I wouldn't really have a problem with a line drawn in the legal sand there.
I'm not sure what it's a waste of, but even ignoring that, you would have an awfully hard time enforcing this line in the sand. How would you prove that someone had an abortion for the wrong reason?

[Bryan Ekers]

I support the woman's right to choose regardless of how she makes her decision.

[WhyNot]

I think it's extremely unwise to practice gender selective abortions, for the same reasons India and China are facing - a dramatically skewed ratio of women to men, which, perhaps counter intuitively, depresses the rights of women even further. Not to mention, leaves a lot of horny young men with no prospects for wives, pushing them to seek less savory sexual and political outlets.

But I don't think it should be made illegal. I think, should it become a likely widespread problem in the US, we should consider incentives, like extra money for girls' education, or social pressure to stop it, but not the law.

I'm more concerned with the slippery slope of limiting access to abortions than I am with gender selective abortions in our culture. Furthermore, I don't believe that laws against gender selective abortions have worked well to repress the practice in other countries, so I don't see why we should adopt measures that don't work, anyway.

[Cliffy]

The question is inane. Abortion has been legal in this country for nearly 40 years, and in some places much longer. Women have had the opportunity to pursue recurring abortion for purposes of sex selection for decades. And yet, there's no evidence of which I'm aware that this happens in any serious number. So while there's an obvious answer to the question, even for those who disagree, it has no impact on policy -- the question assumes a condition which, plainly, does not obtain.

--Cliffy

[The Second Stone]

If an abortion is within the constitutional right of privacy, then the "reason" is something I never learn. It's none of my business.

[Bryan Ekers]

I have to admit, Chinese and Indian demographics will prove most interesting to watch from a safe distance over the coming decades.

[John Mace]

The question is inane. Abortion has been legal in this country for nearly 40 years, and in some places much longer. Women have had the opportunity to pursue recurring abortion for purposes of sex selection for decades. And yet, there's no evidence of which I'm aware that this happens in any serious number. So while there's an obvious answer to the question, even for those who disagree, it has no impact on policy -- the question assumes a condition which, plainly, does not obtain.

--Cliffy

Not really. The number of immigrants for China and India has been significant in the last 40 years, and that's just two countries I can think of off the top of my head where sons are valued over daughters. Forty years ago, immigration from China was nil.

[Bosstone]

I'm not sure what it's a waste of, but even ignoring that, you would have an awfully hard time enforcing this line in the sand. How would you prove that someone had an abortion for the wrong reason?You know, I don't really have a good answer for that. I thought I did, but I argued myself out of it before posting.

[even sven]

I think it should be legal, but there should be targeted public service campaigns and the like to discourage it. We should continue to strive for equality, and clearly killing girls before they are born is a step back from that.

But if you don't think it's murder, and that an embryo/fetus isn't a person with the rights of a person, who cares what the circumstances are behind the abortion are?

People are concerned about the greater social problems that come with a gender-imbalanced society.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The reasons women choose to terminate pregnancies are not legally relevant or any of my business.

[QuarkChild]

Not really. The number of immigrants for China and India has been significant in the last 40 years, and that's just two countries I can think of off the top of my head where sons are valued over daughters. Forty years ago, immigration from China was nil.
But this trend of sex-selective abortions in favor of male children due to the preferences of certain immigrants is probably compensated for (or even overcompensated for) by a preference for girl babies among non-immigrants here. I read an article recently--see the link below--that claimed that sex-selection procedures (not abortion, but the test-tube conception kind) tend to be used to produce female children by a ratio of 2-1.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/

[John Mace]

I think it should be legal, but there should be targeted public service campaigns and the like to discourage it. We should continue to strive for equality, and clearly killing girls before they are born is a step back from that.

I tend to agree with the public service campaign, if we can establish this is a significant problem in the US, but I'm struggling to see how that would actually work. And by "work" I mean implementing some actions, and whether or not those actions would be effective. The AMA should certainly set up guidelines for abortion providers to discourage the practice, but even then I see it as a sever uphill battle.

[Chessic Sense]

This is poisoning the well. Please state your opinions without making slurs on people who don't agree with you. This also goes for people who object to the above statement.

I'm not making slurs against people that disagree with me. "Baby killers" isn't a term I use for the pro-choice members among us. It's a term I use for those posters that like to say that all pro-life posters are women-hating, totalitarian bible-thumpers, etc.

Sometimes this board forgets that there are pro-lifers at all. They seem to be relegated to the Pit, and every time an abortion thread comes up and I post in it, it's waved off as if it were a fringe opinion. Someone inevitably goes "Well, we know you think it's wrong, but back to the adults talking..." so I feel it's my duty to remind everyone that yes, there are real people that have pro-life opinions, some of which are on this very board right now!:eek:

For those of you that don't automatically think I want to enslave woman and keep them barefoot/pregnant, then the baby killer comment doesn't apply. Carry on.

Are you opposed to abortion in general, or just this specific type of abortion? And if just this specific type of abortion, then why should it be illegal when other types are legal?

ETA: Nevermind, I should have read your post more closely. Your use of the term "baby killers" almost certainly puts you in the former camp. Disregard.

Depends on how you want to define "in general". If you mean "across the board", then no, I'm not. If you mean "mostly", then yes. This type should be illegal because it's morally reprehensible. Anyone that would kill their unborn child because it's the wrong gender has a broken moral compass and is not fit to walk around in society. Anyone that would kill their child because it's otherwise going to kill them, or would kill their child because that child isn't going to live anyway, they're perfectly fine morally and might actually be decent people.

That's why some types should be legal and others shouldn't be. I can elaborate on those other types, but that's beyond the scope of this thread, and it's been done.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You realize that your perception of a fetus as an "unborn child" is purely a religious belief, do you not? We do not codify religious beliefs into law.

[Revtim]

People are concerned about the greater social problems that come with a gender-imbalanced society.Ah, I was only thinking of it in the general terms, abortion based on either sex.

[villa]

Of course, with a tiny change in the hypothetical, we could make it so you couldn't immediately look around for a man to blame. :rolleyes:

Are there matriarchal societies where male fetuses are aborted in order to have more daughters born?

[Chessic Sense]

You realize that your perception of a fetus as an "unborn child" is purely a religious belief, do you not? We do not codify religious beliefs into law.

It's not purely religious, no matter how often your ilk say that. I'm an atheist anyway. It's biology. I'm on record for saying that the thing goes from "blob of cells" to "human" at 9-10 weeks. You want to stretch it to 12 weeks? Fine. It's splitting hairs to me. You want to stretch it to birth? You're insane.

By 10 weeks, a fetus:
has a heartbeat and an independent circulatory system.
has a nervous system that reacts to stimuli.
has fully intact joints.
has fingerprints of its own.
moves on its own.
looks human.


Where's my religion in any of that?

[Marley23]

I'm not making slurs against people that disagree with me. "Baby killers" isn't a term I use for the pro-choice members among us. It's a term I use for those posters that like to say that all pro-life posters are women-hating, totalitarian bible-thumpers, etc.
You didn't make that distinction in your post. And either way, that kind of comment about other posters isn't allowed in this forum, whether it's in reference to all people who disagree with you or a smaller group of posters who disagree with you more strongly. If another poster calls you (or any poster or group of posters) a woman-hating totalitarian bible-thumper, it's a personal insult and you should report the post. If they make a comment about people in general and you take exception to it, that's allowed here.

You want to stretch it to birth? You're insane.
Again, this kind of thing doesn't belong in GD.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

By 10 weeks, a fetus:
has a heartbeat and an independent circulatory system.
has a nervous system that reacts to stimuli.
has fully intact joints.
has fingerprints of its own.
moves on its own.
looks human.


Where's my religion in any of that?
A chicken has most of those characteristics. A monkey has all of them. These animals also have more sentience than that fetus, which is what really matters and which is the distinguising characteristic of personhood.

[Sampiro]

Can you tell the gender of the fetus in the first trimester (which is when more than 90% of abortions occur)? For me it would depend strictly upon how far along the fetus is- after viability no, until, yes. Of course in a country that doesn't try to hinder population growth and there are even quiver parents with 15+ children this is almost as hypothetical as should it be illegal to ride your ox cart down the street if you don't own a car.

[WhyNot]

Can you tell the gender of the fetus in the first trimester (which is when more than 90% of abortions occur)?

Short answer: you can, but it's not often done.

Longer answer:
Using ultrasound, which is the most common method, you can sometimes tell between 16 and 20 weeks, but there's a good deal of error that early. After 20 weeks, the accuracy goes up to 90%.

CVS (chorionic villi sampling) can tell with 99% accuracy (there's always the risk of intersexed fetuses) at any time, but it's most often done for other reasons than gender determination. Most CVS procedures are done at 10-13 weeks, and if you ask, they'll add on a DNA test for gender. CVS is the only one who's usual time frame would possibly let you know within the first trimester.

Likewise, amniocentesis can tell you, but it's not commonly done for gender detection. It's done for other things, usually between the 14th and 20th weeks.

CVS and amnio are not without risks, and not all or even most pregnant women in the US get them done at all.

[jsgoddess]

While I might roll my eyes at a person who would choose one sex over another (interestingly, most of the people I've known who were pregnant were hoping for a girl), I think that sort of shallowness--if I see it as a defect--is even better reason not to bring a child into this world who will be considered less than.

[Ludovic]

Are there matriarchal societies where male fetuses are aborted in order to have more daughters born?I wonder we aren't culturally close to that in America, since those seeking to adopt dispropotionately want girls.

What I mean by culturally close is not that it's an immediate possibility, but that only a couple minor hypothetical changes in our culture would make this an actuality. For instance, if we were a culture of a high amount of elective abortions, then I would think that we would probably abort a statistically significant more amount of boys than girls.

[MrDibble]

I support the woman's right to choose, for whatever fucked-up reason. But I'm not happy about it, because it's sexist, and also because abortions aren't zero-risk for the mother, so she's increasing her own risk unnecessarily, which is stupid. It'd be stupid for that reason if she was doing it to get a girl, too.

[Onomatopoeia]

If an American woman keeps aborting female babies to get a boy should that be OK legally?Yes, it should be okay, legally. However, she should probably be committed into permanent psychiatric care, complete with straight jacket and rubber room, because she'd obviously be somewhat less than sane. ...unless she's being forced into it, in which case the compelling agent(s) should be garroted.

[villa]

I wonder we aren't culturally close to that in America, since those seeking to adopt dispropotionately want girls.

What I mean by culturally close is not that it's an immediate possibility, but that only a couple minor hypothetical changes in our culture would make this an actuality. For instance, if we were a culture of a high amount of elective abortions, then I would think that we would probably abort a statistically significant more amount of boys than girls.

Even if I accept the rest of what you are saying, the idea of the United States as a matriarchal society is ludicrous.

[Revenant Threshold]

Depends on how you want to define "in general". If you mean "across the board", then no, I'm not. If you mean "mostly", then yes. This type should be illegal because it's morally reprehensible. Anyone that would kill their unborn child because it's the wrong gender has a broken moral compass and is not fit to walk around in society. Anyone that would kill their child because it's otherwise going to kill them, or would kill their child because that child isn't going to live anyway, they're perfectly fine morally and might actually be decent people. I forsee issues. If we base our judgements on when is and when isn't an abortion ok on moral concerns alone, then what happens if one of those morally reprehensible people gets into office? What if the majority of people don't agree with your view - yet are willing to take the idea of morality-based judgements to heart, and use them to enact changes you'd disagree with?

I mean, i'm against the idea, too. I don't think I would consider whoever's behind the multiple abortions to be a very nice person; at the very least, I don't believe that I would necessarily understand them. But i'm bi; there are people who would consider me morally reprehensible, just for that. So i'm somewhat leery of giving power to enact laws based solely on morality to governments, because they may well be full of people with very different views on morality to me.

[Thudlow Boink]

You realize that your perception of a fetus as an "unborn child" is purely a religious belief, do you not?How so?

[Damuri Ajashi]

Yes, it's legal.

I would have little respect for such a woman. And for her husband--because this sort of thing occurs in strongly patriarchal societies & he probably influenced her decision.

I agree that its legal (and ignorant) but its not the selfish husband that is pressuring her to have sons (or at least its not JUST the husband). I can see a lot of pressure from her parents, in-laws, and her desire to have sons to improve her status within her family.

The motive for the abortion makes the abortion more morally wrong than it would be without the sex selection motive but that doesn't make it illegal.

[Bryan Ekers]

Yes, it should be okay, legally. However, she should probably be committed into permanent psychiatric care, complete with straight jacket and rubber room, because she'd obviously be somewhat less than sane.

Using psychiatry to punish people? How very... Soviet of you.

[Thudlow Boink]

I don't know how you could make abortion for a specific reason, like sex selection, illegal. How would you enforce this?

(ETA: I guess Marley23 already made this point back in Post #14.)

[Ludovic]

Even if I accept the rest of what you are saying, the idea of the United States as a matriarchal society is ludicrous.I didn't mean to imply that we were matriarchal.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Must it be an all or nothing?

I support abortion for necessity. When it comes to medical complications in either the mother or the fetus, or inability to support a child, the mother comes before the fetus every time. But aborting because you don't like the gender of the child or some other aesthetic or cosmetic reason is an unnecessary waste, and I wouldn't really have a problem with a line drawn in the legal sand there.

I think a lot of people think its all or nothing. Almost everyone is at least a little bit uncomfortable with the notion of sex selective abortion and we all wish that the world was perfect enough that we would never have to choose whether or not to carry a child with genetic defects to term.

[villa]

I don't know how you could make abortion for a specific reason, like sex selection, illegal. How would you enforce this?

A first step, which doesn't require banning abortion, and which some hospitals in London are already doing, is to stop telling the sex of the child to the parents. I presume this policy is waived if there are valid medical reasons to want to know the sex.

[Bridget Burke]

But this trend of sex-selective abortions in favor of male children due to the preferences of certain immigrants is probably compensated for (or even overcompensated for) by a preference for girl babies among non-immigrants here. I read an article recently--see the link below--that claimed that sex-selection procedures (not abortion, but the test-tube conception kind) tend to be used to produce female children by a ratio of 2-1.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/

So, in the USA, the "extra" males should be able to find wives. Perhaps outside their own ethnic groups, which isn't really rare in America (or in any diverse society). If this distresses their parents, tough.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Not to mention, leaves a lot of horny young men with no prospects for wives, pushing them to seek less savory sexual and political outlets.

I believe that China is importing brides from places like Burma, Mongolia, and other less prosperous Asian nations (Japan and Korea did the same thing for a while (much less so recently as people stopped getting hung up on having children with penises.

[quote]But I don't think it should be made illegal. I think, should it become a likely widespread problem in the US, we should consider incentives, like extra money for girls' education, or social pressure to stop it, but not the law.

I think if we provided more support for young mothers we could prevent many of the abortions we have today. Just make the world a place where having a child doesn't derail your life and I bet fewer women have abortions generally. But thats not going to happen either.

[Sampiro]

How so?

I see it as more of a semantic than philosophical difference. Child is defined as

A human being, male or female, between birth and puberty

or some close variant thereof in the primary definition of most dictionaries, thus "unborn child" is an oxymoron. Also, "unborn child"- at least to me- implies that "if born, it would be a child", whereas even with the absolute best available care that's not true until the end of the second trimester at the very earliest (and even then it's far from certain).

[Bryan Ekers]

Heck, at this stage Japan needs all the babies it can get.

[jsgoddess]

A first step, which doesn't require banning abortion, and which some hospitals in London are already doing, is to stop telling the sex of the child to the parents. I presume this policy is waived if there are valid medical reasons to want to know the sex.

I don't support this. A child born to parents who don't want it is not something I'm in favor of at all.

[villa]

I don't support this. A child born to parents who don't want it is not something I'm in favor of at all.

I'm not a fan of it either. I was just commenting one doesn't need to sacrifice abortion rights in order to limit abortions to pick a sex.

[Guinastasia]

Of course it should. It's disgusting that someone should do so, but it's still legal. (By "disgusting", I mean it's insanely selfish and sexist -- and I'd feel the same way if said woman was aborting male fetuses. It reeks of the whole "designer baby" idea.)

[Bryan Ekers]

I'm not a fan of it either. I was just commenting one doesn't need to sacrifice abortion rights in order to limit abortions to pick a sex.

I thought a "right" by definition was something one could practice without having to explain why. I could paint a portrait to express the inner torment of my soul, or to sell it for money. Why would I have to explain to someone why I chose to exercise my right to freedom of expression and invite sneering from people who don't believe in souls or who speak disparagingly of profit motives?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

What's wrong with designer babies? Who's the victim?

[wwworldclique]

Abortions performed to "select gender" should be illegal. It smacks of eugenics.

[Guinastasia]

What's wrong with designer babies? Who's the victim?

There is no victim. But I find it a wee too close to eugenics. (I'm thinking of the whole "if you found out your child would be gay, would you abort/change it in the womb/etc" threads). It just makes me uneasy.


And, as I said, it's sexist.

[Chessic Sense]

I don't know how you could make abortion for a specific reason, like sex selection, illegal. How would you enforce this?

I didn't think that was part of the question.

What's wrong with designer babies? Who's the victim?

The rejects.

[Bryan Ekers]

What's wrong with designer babies? Who's the victim?

Ugly people who'd have to compete, I guess. Personally, I'm okay with trying seek genetic advantage for my child. It can't be worse than assuming they're special and magical and indiglo or whatever and spend their childhood lying to them about how good they are at everything in order to inflate their self-esteem. Fuck that shit - I'd prefer my kids use their genetic enhancements to super-soldier their way across the surface of the Earth and enslave the underclasses.

That would make me so proud.

[villa]

I thought a "right" by definition was something one could practice without having to explain why. I could paint a portrait to express the inner torment of my soul, or to sell it for money. Why would I have to explain to someone why I chose to exercise my right to freedom of expression and invite sneering from people who don't believe in souls or who speak disparagingly of profit motives?

I'm confused as to the connection between this and what I said...

[AClockworkMelon]

I don't think abortion is murder to begin with so I don't see a problem with aborting female fetuses as opposed to male fetuses. Would people have a problem if a couple chose to be inseminated with male-producing sperm over female-producing sperm because they wanted a boy? I don't think so. The problem here is that people are making the mental connection "killing girls so they can have boys" even when they otherwise agree that abortion isn't murder.
I think, should it become a likely widespread problem in the US, we should consider incentives, like extra money for girls' education, or social pressure to stop it, but not the law.I'm against this.

[Damuri Ajashi]

You realize that your perception of a fetus as an "unborn child" is purely a religious belief, do you not? We do not codify religious beliefs into law.

You realize that you are making sh1t up when you call the the perception of a fetus as an unborn child as purely a religious belief, do you not?

BTW, we codify all sorts of religious beliefs into law.

[Damuri Ajashi]

A chicken has most of those characteristics. A monkey has all of them. These animals also have more sentience than that fetus, which is what really matters and which is the distinguising characteristic of personhood.

These animals also have more sentience than a newborn baby, does that mean the baby is not a person?

[Bosstone]

BTW, we codify all sorts of religious beliefs into law.That doesn't make it right.

[Bryan Ekers]

I'm confused as to the connection between this and what I said...

Because I'm pointing out that requiring people to justify the exercise of their rights necessarily infringes on those rights. What if a woman figures it's nobody's business why she's seeking an abortion? Would you compel her to sign an affidavit promising that is not because of the gender of her fetus? What if you find out afterward that it was because of the fetus's gender? Jail her for perjury?

What are the consequences of the limitation you suggest imposing? Does it not risk other limitations to make sure rights are exercised for the "right" reasons?

[Damuri Ajashi]

Yes, it should be okay, legally. However, she should probably be committed into permanent psychiatric care, complete with straight jacket and rubber room, because she'd obviously be somewhat less than sane. ...unless she's being forced into it, in which case the compelling agent(s) should be garroted.

Insane? :dubious:

[villa]

Because I'm pointing out that requiring people to justify the exercise of their rights necessarily infringes on those rights. What if a woman figures it's nobody's business why she's seeking an abortion? Would you compel her to sign an affidavit promising that is not because of the gender of her fetus? What if you find out afterward that it was because of the fetus's gender? Jail her for perjury?

What are the consequences of the limitation you suggest imposing? Does it not risk other limitations to make sure rights are exercised for the "right" reasons?

Did you read what I wrote or just assume you knew what I was saying?

You actually quoted what I said... I'll bold the relevant portion...

I'm not a fan of it either. I was just commenting one doesn't need to sacrifice abortion rights in order to limit abortions to pick a sex.

I don't support it. And I don't know where you get the rest of your post in. Refusing to tell a couple the sex of their child is not the same thing as requiring an affadavit to have an abortion. Under such a scheme, which, let me say again in case you missed it again, I don't support, a person can still have an abortion for any reason. But the hospital chooses not to provide them with information as to the sex of the child. Woman comes in, wants an abortion, has an abortion, goes home. No affadavits, no perjury, no charges, outside your fertile imagination, that is.

So please take the indignant outrage and put it somewhere else.

[Damuri Ajashi]

That doesn't make it right.

Yeah but we still do it and saying that we don't would be inaccurate neh? Just like saying that being pro-life is the result of religious beliefs.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

These animals also have more sentience than a newborn baby, does that mean the baby is not a person?
It's not a question of degree, sentience is either there or it's not. For zygotes and embryos and 1st and 2nd trimester fetuses, it's not.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Yeah but we still do it and saying that we don't would be inaccurate neh? Just like saying that being pro-life is the result of religious beliefs.
No, that's definitely a religious belief. The belief that a clump of cells is imbued with a magical fairy spirit that makes it a real human being is pure moonshine. Pro-lifers calling clumps of tissue "babies' is like when PETA people say that animals are people that meat is murder. It's the exact same kind of delusion.

[Bryan Ekers]

Refusing to tell a couple the sex of their child is not the same thing as requiring an affadavit to have an abortion.

It's a third party deciding I (putting myself in the couple's shoes) can't be trusted with information because of what I might do with it. Presposterous.

Under such a scheme, which, let me say again in case you missed it again, I don't support, a person can still have an abortion for any reason.

A thinking person shouldn't support such a policy, but I guess the U.K. has a greater tolerance for nanny-state politics.

Anyway, there's no indignant outrage on my part, nor is it needed.

[foolsguinea]

Define "OK legally."

Should abortion for sex selection be prohibited as a matter of regulations on obstetricians? Should there be criminal penalties for a woman has one? who seeks one?

The law isn't there just to offer moral disapproval. There is no right without a remedy for the violation of that right.

[John Mace]

Disallowing parents to know the sex of the fetus can have only one purpose-- to prevent them from using that information to abort. I can't see that the state has an overriding interest to restrict that information from being available.

Besides, the ultrasound test is a simple procedure and can be a useful tool for other purposes. I don't see how the state can say you can peek at the heart, but not at the gonads. It's the woman's child, part of her body at that point, and the state shouldn't be telling her what she can't look at inside her own body.

[villa]

Anyway, there's no indignant outrage on my part, nor is it needed.

Bullshit. You said:

What are the consequences of the limitation you suggest imposing? Does it not risk other limitations to make sure rights are exercised for the "right" reasons?

Two problems here. I wasn't proposing anything and in fact I specifically said I opposed it; and what is happening in some London hospitals isn't a limitation on abortion.

So I would generally appreciate it if you didn't put words into my mouth to try to make your point, especially when I said the direct damn opposite to them.

[foolsguinea]

Must it be an all or nothing?

I support abortion for necessity. When it comes to medical complications in either the mother or the fetus, or inability to support a child, the mother comes before the fetus every time. But aborting because you don't like the gender of the child or some other aesthetic or cosmetic reason is an unnecessary waste, and I wouldn't really have a problem with a line drawn in the legal sand there.I sympathize with your position, but what is the legal remedy? It's well & good to play bishop & say, "This is bad, don't do it," but a law without teeth is a wish for a pony.

What are the teeth?

[Bryan Ekers]

Heck, if the state wants more female babies, offer tax incentives.

[John Mace]

No, that's definitely a religious belief. The belief that a clump of cells is imbued with a magical fairy spirit that makes it a real human being is pure moonshine. Pro-lifers calling clumps of tissue "babies' is like when PETA people say that animals are people that meat is murder. It's the exact same kind of delusion.

A blastocyst is a clump of cells. A 3 month old fetus is not. An 8 1/2 month old fetus is absolutely not. Science does not tell us when the change occurs.

I'm no fan of religion, but when science doesn't have the answer, we turn to philosophy, of which religion is one form.

[AClockworkMelon]

Dio, I'm so happy to be on your side for a change. I feel like it's been forever. :)

But yeah, +1 to everything you've said in the thread so far.

[villa]

Disallowing parents to know the sex of the fetus can have only one purpose-- to prevent them from using that information to abort. I can't see that the state has an overriding interest to restrict that information from being available.

Besides, the ultrasound test is a simple procedure and can be a useful tool for other purposes. I don't see how the state can say you can peek at the heart, but not at the gonads. It's the woman's child, part of her body at that point, and the state shouldn't be telling her what she can't look at inside her own body.

For the record, to the best of my knowledge it has nothing to do with the State (other than because the hospitals are NHS). This is a policy undertaken by certain hospitals in London of their own choice. There's no government mandate for it, and I think that answers most of your queries about it...

[foolsguinea]

Not really. The number of immigrants for China and India has been significant in the last 40 years, and that's just two countries I can think of off the top of my head where sons are valued over daughters. Forty years ago, immigration from China was nil.Significant to us? :dubious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_American_history#Third_wave_.281980s_to_today.29

1.17%? Good lord, I think the Jews outnumber them!

[foolsguinea]

I'm not making slurs against people that disagree with me.Oh?"Baby killers" isn't a term I use for the pro-choice members among us. It's a term I use for those posters that like to say that all pro-life posters are women-hating, totalitarian bible-thumpers, etc.
...
For those of you that don't automatically think I want to enslave woman and keep them barefoot/pregnant, then the baby killer comment doesn't apply. Carry on.So when you say, "baby killer," you mean, not someone who kills babies, not someone who kills foetuses, but someone who jeers at right-to-lifers. This is actually worse, & you are in fact making slurs against people that disagree with you.This type should be illegal because it's morally reprehensible. Anyone that would kill their unborn child because it's the wrong gender has a broken moral compass and is not fit to walk around in society.And what's your remedy for that? Should people who have an abortion for the wrong reasons be imprisoned?Anyone that would kill their child because it's otherwise going to kill them, or would kill their child because that child isn't going to live anyway, they're perfectly fine morally and might actually be decent people.

That's why some types should be legal and others shouldn't be. I can elaborate on those other types, but that's beyond the scope of this thread, and it's been done.This last bit, at least, is sensible. I can support this position, & that's why I support the present legal régime. After viability, there is a schedule of permissible reasons for abortion. Before viability, the law doesn't presume to know that the foetus has a future.

[Bryan Ekers]

Bullshit. You said...

I admit my error in attributing the idea to you. But there's no moral outrage in my questions, and I'd cheerfully direct them to anyone who does support a policy to withhold information in the belief that it doesn't impose on abortion rights.

Heck, I could imagine someone arguing that requiring a pregnant woman to perfectly recite from memory a scene from Shakespeare before she can get an abortion doesn't impose on abortion rights, because abortion itself remains legal and this is just a minor additional regulatory imposition and not an abrogation at all. Lest this seem too far-fetched, I'd point out that useless hoop-jumping policies already exist in some U.S. states.

Two problems here. I wasn't proposing anything and in fact I specifically said I opposed it; and what is happening in some London hospitals isn't a limitation on abortion.

Well, I'm afraid we'll have to disagree. I'm sure it's sold as something not intended to be a limitation, but that doesn't make it so. It still constitutes third-party interference in what really should be nobody's business, by withholding information for no good reason. I guess as long as it remains up the policies of individual hospitals and not mandated by law or National Health regulations, there isn't much one can do about it.

[Manda JO]

This is a subject I know quite a bit about, because my husband has an x-linked dominant genetic disorder: it's not fatal, but it is painful and degenerative, and any girls we have will have a 100% chance of getting it. We are about to pay roughly the price of a new car to use IVF/PGD to ensure that if I get pregnant, we will have a boy: after my eggs are fertilized, a lab will evaluate the chromosomes and discard the girls. There is a good chance I won't get pregnant at all, and when the money runs out we have decided to look into donor sperm before selective abortions or passing on this disease.

For ourselves, we've agreed that this isn't enough of a reason to abort a child I was actually carrying, but it is enough of a reason to discard the female "clumps of cells" that will be generated in the process. We have been very careful not to conceive, but if it happened and it were a girl, we'd deal with it from there. That's where we, personally, draw the line.

This is currently really too expensive to casual use, certainly not to any degree that would actually affect sex ratios in a community. Even so, the labs that do the PGD (where they analyze the chromosomes of the blastocysts) won't do sex selection for "family balancing" unless the family already has at least one child and now wants the opposite sex. My first reaction to this was to nod approvingly, but then I had second thoughts: I picked the doctor I am working with in part because he was the only one I talked to who didn't insist I prove I was married (I kept my maiden name). In that case, I was irritated that any doctor would presume to determine whether or not I should have a mother based on my lifestyle. This feels like kind of the same thing--telling people whether or not they have a good enough reason to prefer one gender over the other.

So I don't know. It's complicated, though I certainly wouldn't make such abortions illegal.

[Der Trihs]

What's wrong with designer babies? Who's the victim?Potentially the baby, depending on what it's designed for. To use extreme and not-yet-possible examples, what if someone wanted to produce compulsively submissive girls, or religious fanatics to order?

I'm no fan of religion, but when science doesn't have the answer, we turn to philosophy, of which religion is one form.Religion has no real answers to offer, and since when did "making stuff up" qualify as philosophy?

[marshmallow]

Investing in sons is a valuable strategy in both humans and mammals. It's self correcting if the pendulum swings too far in either direction. Daughters become more valuable as more and more males of decreasing value flood the market and vice verse. Now, it is true that excess testosterone can lead to more crime and general unpleasantness in your day to day life, but it could also lead to more innovation down the line. And besides, this is what wars are for anyway.

[Sampiro]

Abortions performed to "select gender" should be illegal. It smacks of eugenics.

No judgment, just an honest question: would you say the same thing if parents chose to abort a child who would be born with severe mental or physical problems that required constant care?

[Marley23]

While I'm also uncomfortable with the implications of this idea, an individual preference is not eugenics. Eugenics implies a societal program designed to eliminate undesirable traits or types of people. These kinds of things are about deeply ingrained sexism or poor families trying to avoid having to pay a dowry.

[John Mace]

This is a subject I know quite a bit about, because my husband has an x-linked dominant genetic disorder: it's not fatal, but it is painful and degenerative, and any girls we have will have a 100% chance of getting it. We are about to pay roughly the price of a new car to use IVF/PGD to ensure that if I get pregnant, we will have a boy: after my eggs are fertilized, a lab will evaluate the chromosomes and discard the girls. There is a good chance I won't get pregnant at all, and when the money runs out we have decided to look into donor sperm before selective abortions or passing on this disease.

For ourselves, we've agreed that this isn't enough of a reason to abort a child I was actually carrying, but it is enough of a reason to discard the female "clumps of cells" that will be generated in the process. We have been very careful not to conceive, but if it happened and it were a girl, we'd deal with it from there. That's where we, personally, draw the line.

This is currently really too expensive to casual use, certainly not to any degree that would actually affect sex ratios in a community. Even so, the labs that do the PGD (where they analyze the chromosomes of the blastocysts) won't do sex selection for "family balancing" unless the family already has at least one child and now wants the opposite sex. My first reaction to this was to nod approvingly, but then I had second thoughts: I picked the doctor I am working with in part because he was the only one I talked to who didn't insist I prove I was married (I kept my maiden name). In that case, I was irritated that any doctor would presume to determine whether or not I should have a mother based on my lifestyle. This feels like kind of the same thing--telling people whether or not they have a good enough reason to prefer one gender over the other.

So I don't know. It's complicated, though I certainly wouldn't make such abortions illegal.

But your case is clearly different than what the OP is asking about, where gender is selected for no other reason than gender itself. You're just using gender as a proxy for the specific gene or genes you are trying to avoid passing along since you know it's x-linked on the father's side.

[Manda JO]

But your case is clearly different than what the OP is asking about, where gender is selected for no other reason than gender itself. You're just using gender as a proxy for the specific gene or genes you are trying to avoid passing along since you know it's x-linked on the father's side.

Yes, but it opened the door to the discussion of using IVF/PGD to determine sex much, much earlier in the process and whether or not that is ethically different.

[Bosstone]

I sympathize with your position, but what is the legal remedy? It's well & good to play bishop & say, "This is bad, don't do it," but a law without teeth is a wish for a pony.

What are the teeth?Well, as I said to Marley:You know, I don't really have a good answer for that. I thought I did, but I argued myself out of it before posting.To expand on that a little, I had thought that regulating it would be similar to regulating, say, TANF or other financial assistance. You'd have to demonstrate that the abortion is necessary.

The problem with that is that such eligibility is necessary because the government is giving something out and has a right to set terms for it. No such thing is happening when it comes to an abortion unless we want to establish permits or some such crap, and I don't think it needs to go that far at all.

Besides, it's not the best precedent to draw on. Closer is the euthanization of animals. As far as I'm aware, it's legal to euthanize an animal for any reason so long as you can find a cooperative agent to aid you. It's possible to euthanize an animal because you didn't like that its all-black coat had a white spot behind the ear if you wish. Although it's legal, doing so is a huge social taboo which many people consider monstrous. If it's legal for animals, it should be legal for an undeveloped fetus, and just as socially disapproved of, if not more so.

[DigitalC]

The rejects.

They don't even exist.

[Guinastasia]

No, that's definitely a religious belief. The belief that a clump of cells is imbued with a magical fairy spirit that makes it a real human being is pure moonshine. Pro-lifers calling clumps of tissue "babies' is like when PETA people say that animals are people that meat is murder. It's the exact same kind of delusion.

So basically you're saying, you can't be against abortion unless you're religious? :dubious:

If you're going to start one of your tangents, please, start another thread. Please.

[foolsguinea]

It's not purely religious, no matter how often your ilk say that. I'm an atheist anyway. It's biology. I'm on record for saying that the thing goes from "blob of cells" to "human" at 9-10 weeks. You want to stretch it to 12 weeks? Fine. It's splitting hairs to me. You want to stretch it to birth? You're insane.How do you feel about present abortion law, which draws the line at viability?A chicken has most of those characteristics. A monkey has all of them. These animals also have more sentience than that fetus, which is what really matters and which is the distinguising characteristic of personhood.Unproven.Yes, it should be okay, legally. However, she should probably be committed into permanent psychiatric care, complete with straight jacket and rubber room, because she'd obviously be somewhat less than sane. ...unless she's being forced into it, in which case the compelling agent(s) should be garroted.Not permissible under present common law.Investing in sons is a valuable strategy in both humans and mammals. It's self correcting if the pendulum swings too far in either direction. Daughters become more valuable as more and more males of decreasing value flood the market and vice verse. Now, it is true that excess testosterone can lead to more crime and general unpleasantness in your day to day life, but it could also lead to more innovation down the line. And besides, this is what wars are for anyway.Is this meant satirically?... since when did "making stuff up" qualify as philosophy?Since always. I read philosophy one semester in college. That's all it was!

[Onomatopoeia]

Using psychiatry to punish people? How very... Soviet of you.Not punish, but to protect her from herself. i don't see how such a practice can be considered anything other than manically (if not maniacally) self destructive.

[Onomatopoeia]

Insane? :dubious:Well, yeah. If I go by the question in the OP: "If a woman keeps aborting female babies..." meaning, to my understanding, aborting over and over and over until, or worse, unless, a son is produced, I'm sorry, but I would consider that person not in command of her faculties and needs to be protected from herself. Believe me, I'm more pro choice than many people on this board, but someone engaging in such a practice has to be more than a little off, unless, as I said in my earlier post, she is being forced to do it, which I can actually envision easier than a woman deciding on such a destructive course of action on her own.

[Bryan Ekers]

Not punish, but to protect her from herself. i don't see how such a practice can be considered anything other than manically (if not maniacally) self destructive.

Yeah, that's pretty much what the Soviets said.

[Marley23]

If I go by the question in the OP: "If a woman keeps aborting female babies..." meaning, to my understanding, aborting over and over and over until, or worse, unless, a son is produced, I'm sorry, but I would consider that person not in command of her faculties and needs to be protected from herself.
Do you think she might try to abort herself?

[Sampiro]

Do you think she might try to abort herself?

My brain hurtsss...

[Onomatopoeia]

Yeah, that's pretty much what the Soviets said.Yeah, sounds bad, I know. But there it is. I never realized I have a line. I guess I have a line. :(

[Der Trihs]

Do you think she might try to abort herself?Well, if she gets hold of a time machine...

[even sven]

What's wrong with designer babies? Who's the victim?

The people who are not among the chosen.

Imagine for a moment your birth.

Picture the moment your parents first look at you. Their face falls. The doctors murmur some condolences and quickly pack up their gear. Your father looks angry, mumbles a few words at your mother, and storms out of the room. Your mother has heard that sometimes the problem can be taken care of after birth, but she feels a moment of sympathy for you. After all, aren't you the same? She can't bring herself to ask the doctor about her options.

Meanwhile, she hears some heated arguments in the hospital hallway between the in-laws. She hears your mother-in-law, your grandmother, ranting about the "worthless garbage that falls out of her cunt." Your mother thinks again about how she has ruined her family. You begin to cry in hunger. Your mother hesitates for a moment. How long would you cry? If she didn't offer you her breast, how long until there was silence? She fantasizes about how quickly this mistake could be over. How she could have another chance to do things right, start over. What would it take? Just a day or two. But she looks in your eyes and sees herself. With great sadness, she feeds you.

When you arrive home, the housekeeper has already carefully packed up the new baby linens and toys. There is hope those can be used another time. You are laid to bed on some old sheets. The birth announcements lay un-mailed on the table until one day someone discreetly throws them out. When the people at work ask your father about the birth, he responds with a brusque "It's healthy." Everyone knows what that means and gives him a nod of sympathy. Some tell him he'll have better luck in the future. A co-worker slips him the business card of an orphanage. Another tells a story of his daughter's sudden crib death. It seems to be instructive.

One outlier has something good to say. He says "Look at all that hair. She will marry well. Perhaps a businessman! Childhood is just a few years, it may be worth it in the end. One good marriage and you can retire in peace." In his head your father calculates how much he is going to spend on you in food and school fees. That marriage better come quickly. You are just a few days old and he's already tired thinking of how much money he is going to have to throw away just keeping you alive. He despairs that even your marriage will not make him break even. A saying he once heard floats into his head. Raising a daughter, it goes, is like watering your neighbor's garden. For a moment he curses his sentimental wife. She's not the one who is slaving away to support a bunch of worthless dependents.

Your mother has began to sleep in the living room. Your father comes home later every night. As soon as you are weaned they decide to take jobs in a factory several states over. You are sent to live with your uncle. By now you have learned to be quiet. You are thankful for the long hours you have at school. The books give you a sense of purpose. At night, you eat quickly, and try to ignore the small snide comments about how much you eat. When the family has gone to bed you wash the dishes and pull your blankets out so you can bed down on the couch.

You have grown to hate their fat little brat of a son. When he hits you in childish impudence, everyone laughs in delight. When he scribbles over your homework, they had him more paper, and praise him as a future artist.

When your parents visit twice a year. They seem happy.

But your father always take a moment to pull you aside and remind you how much that you are costing them. He points to his growing wrinkles, and says he is growing old and tired in his factory. He points out your mother's gray hairs. He says his body will give out soon. You will need to think about the future. They have given their whole life to you, paid your school fees in their sweat. All they want is a little peace in their later years. Surely you can work hard and stay focused. No going off with boys or wasting time. They promise they will find you a suitable match as soon as you are old enough. But you must be good. You must not disappoint them.

For countless people, this is their reality.

My students are very aware that their birth was a disappointment- even a disaster- for their families. Imagine knowing that the first thoughts your parents had about you were "how can we kill this child?" Imagine seeing shame on your mother's face as she walks you to kindergarten, how her face reddens with envy when she sees her childhood friends and their healthy boys. Picture your father's cold distance. When you visit your grandparents, there is no doting. Just some sharp reprimands to stay out of the way. When there are family pictures, you are tucked away on the sides. You learn to become withdrawn. You wish you could disappear.

One day, as I was discussing taking advantage of opportunity, I asked one of the my students "What is something you regret?" One student stood up and said "I regret being born a girl." I was stunned. Her classmates nodded in agreement.

The psychological damage alone, above and beyond the social damage, is too much.

[AClockworkMelon]

The people who are not among the chosen.

Imagine for a moment your birth.

Picture the moment your parents first look at you. Their face falls. The doctors murmur some condolences and quickly pack up their gear. Your father looks angry, mumbles a few words at your mother, and storms out of the room. Your mother has heard that sometimes the problem can be taken care of after birth, but she feels a moment of sympathy for you. After all, aren't you the same? She can't bring herself to ask the doctor about her options.

Meanwhile, she hears some heated arguments in the hospital hallway between the in-laws. She hears your mother-in-law, your grandmother, ranting about the "worthless garbage that falls out of her cunt." Your mother thinks again about how she has ruined her family. You begin to cry in hunger. Your mother hesitates for a moment. How long would you cry? If she didn't offer you her breast, how long until there was silence? She fantasizes about how quickly this mistake could be over. How she could have another chance to do things right, start over. What would it take? Just a day or two. But she looks in your eyes and sees herself. With great sadness, she feeds you.

When you arrive home, the housekeeper has already carefully packed up the new baby linens and toys. There is hope those can be used another time. You are laid to bed on some old sheets. The birth announcements lay un-mailed on the table until one day someone discreetly throws them out. When the people at work ask your father about the birth, he responds with a brusque "It's healthy." Everyone knows what that means and gives him a nod of sympathy. Some tell him he'll have better luck in the future. A co-worker slips him the business card of an orphanage. Another tells a story of his daughter's sudden crib death. It seems to be instructive.

One outlier has something good to say. He says "Look at all that hair. She will marry well. Perhaps a businessman! Childhood is just a few years, it may be worth it in the end. One good marriage and you can retire in peace." In his head your father calculates how much he is going to spend on you in food and school fees. That marriage better come quickly. You are just a few days old and he's already tired thinking of how much money he is going to have to throw away just keeping you alive. He despairs that even your marriage will not make him break even. A saying he once heard floats into his head. Raising a daughter, it goes, is like watering your neighbor's garden. For a moment he curses his sentimental wife. She's not the one who is slaving away to support a bunch of worthless dependents.

Your mother has began to sleep in the living room. Your father comes home later every night. As soon as you are weaned they decide to take jobs in a factory several states over. You are sent to live with your uncle. By now you have learned to be quiet. You are thankful for the long hours you have at school. The books give you a sense of purpose. At night, you eat quickly, and try to ignore the small snide comments about how much you eat. When the family has gone to bed you wash the dishes and pull your blankets out so you can bed down on the couch.

You have grown to hate their fat little brat of a son. When he hits you in childish impudence, everyone laughs in delight. When he scribbles over your homework, they had him more paper, and praise him as a future artist.

When your parents visit twice a year. They seem happy.

But your father always take a moment to pull you aside and remind you how much that you are costing them. He points to his growing wrinkles, and says he is growing old and tired in his factory. He points out your mother's gray hairs. He says his body will give out soon. You will need to think about the future. They have given their whole life to you, paid your school fees in their sweat. All they want is a little peace in their later years. Surely you can work hard and stay focused. No going off with boys or wasting time. They promise they will find you a suitable match as soon as you are old enough. But you must be good. You must not disappoint them.

For countless people, this is their reality.

My students are very aware that their birth was a disappointment- even a disaster- for their families. Imagine knowing that the first thoughts your parents had about you were "how can we kill this child?" Imagine seeing shame on your mother's face as she walks you to kindergarten, how her face reddens with envy when she sees her childhood friends and their healthy boys. Picture your father's cold distance. When you visit your grandparents, there is no doting. Just some sharp reprimands to stay out of the way. When there are family pictures, you are tucked away on the sides. You learn to become withdrawn. You wish you could disappear.

One day, as I was discussing taking advantage of opportunity, I asked one of the my students "What is something you regret?" One student stood up and said "I regret being born a girl." I was stunned. Her classmates nodded in agreement.

The psychological damage alone, above and beyond the social damage, is too much.Funnily enough, all this psychological damage could have been prevented had the child been aborted.

[even sven]

Of course, smart-ass. But unless you abort every girl, the surviving girls are going to have to take the fall out.

[jsgoddess]

Of course, smart-ass. But unless you abort every girl, the surviving girls are going to have to take the fall out.

And if you abort fewer, there are more surviving girls to take the fall out.

The problem isn't the abortion. The problem is that girls aren't valued. No amount of keeping people from abortion can make them cherish their daughters.

[kanicbird]

Per the impact of sex selection in India thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=569068)

It is a basic presumption and valued right among most American women that a woman has the more or less absolute right to determine if she wants to carry a baby to term or terminate it. Does using abortion for sex selection change this right?

IMHO, from a spiritual viewpoint abortion harms the woman ultimately far more then the baby. There is enough harm done by the process, no need to inflict more on her by the state. What is needed for her is love so she can heal, which will also reach the spiritually displaced child.

[even sven]

The problem isn't the abortion. The problem is that girls aren't valued. No amount of keeping people from abortion can make them cherish their daughters.

The number one influence on society is society. If our government hadn't decided to put an end to segregation, how much longer would it have gone on? A government that says it is peachy keen to systematically abort girls is contributing to the problem. Having friends, neighbors and family members that have aborted their girls contributes to the problem.

Once again, I don't agree with legal restrictions. I'm just arguing ex-selective abortions do cause measurable harm. Did you know China is the only country on the entire planet ever that has a higher female suicide rate than male? In the unlikely case that sex-selective abortions became a meaningful trend, I would agree with taking measures to make the practice less popular.

Sub-Saharan Africa is triumphing over female genital mutilation. Europe is triumphing over antisemitism. Asia can triumph over sex-selective abortion.

[jsgoddess]

The number one influence on society is society. If our government hadn't decided to put an end to segregation, how much longer would it have gone on?

While I get your point, the similarity to segregation is tenuous. If the fight against segregation tried to get people to have and love a mixed-race child, I think the analogy would be closer AND segregation (if it were so defined) would still be rampant.

We know that no FGM is better for the girls than FGM. But when you have living, breathing girls tell you they would have been better off dead, it's hard to argue that their lives are better than no life. And when you have a sky-high suicide rate, it's hard to argue that encouraging the birth of more girls is the solution.

I know you aren't being flippant, and neither am I.

[astro]

The number one influence on society is society. If our government hadn't decided to put an end to segregation, how much longer would it have gone on? A government that says it is peachy keen to systematically abort girls is contributing to the problem. Having friends, neighbors and family members that have aborted their girls contributes to the problem.

Once again, I don't agree with legal restrictions. I'm just arguing ex-selective abortions do cause measurable harm. Did you know China is the only country on the entire planet ever that has a higher female suicide rate than male? In the unlikely case that sex-selective abortions became a meaningful trend, I would agree with taking measures to make the practice less popular.

Sub-Saharan Africa is triumphing over female genital mutilation. Europe is triumphing over antisemitism. Asia can triumph over sex-selective abortion.

So assuming there is a growing supply and demand imbalance are girls/women becoming more valuable social commodities? It would seem to be logical that a shortage of anything is going to make it more valuable. Are women still disposable trash in China today?

[AClockworkMelon]

A government that says it is peachy keen to systematically abort girls is contributing to the problem.Except that that's not what the government would be saying. The government would be saying "women have the right to abort" with the reason being irrelevant to that right.

The problem isn't the abortion. The problem is that girls aren't valued. No amount of keeping people from abortion can make them cherish their daughters.Bingo.

[Damuri Ajashi]

The people who are not among the chosen.

Imagine for a moment your birth.

Picture the moment your parents first look at you. Their face falls. The doctors murmur some condolences and quickly pack up their gear. Your father looks angry, mumbles a few words at your mother, and storms out of the room. Your mother has heard that sometimes the problem can be taken care of after birth, but she feels a moment of sympathy for you. After all, aren't you the same? She can't bring herself to ask the doctor about her options.

Meanwhile, she hears some heated arguments in the hospital hallway between the in-laws. She hears your mother-in-law, your grandmother, ranting about the "worthless garbage that falls out of her cunt." Your mother thinks again about how she has ruined her family. You begin to cry in hunger. Your mother hesitates for a moment. How long would you cry? If she didn't offer you her breast, how long until there was silence? She fantasizes about how quickly this mistake could be over. How she could have another chance to do things right, start over. What would it take? Just a day or two. But she looks in your eyes and sees herself. With great sadness, she feeds you.

When you arrive home, the housekeeper has already carefully packed up the new baby linens and toys. There is hope those can be used another time. You are laid to bed on some old sheets. The birth announcements lay un-mailed on the table until one day someone discreetly throws them out. When the people at work ask your father about the birth, he responds with a brusque "It's healthy." Everyone knows what that means and gives him a nod of sympathy. Some tell him he'll have better luck in the future. A co-worker slips him the business card of an orphanage. Another tells a story of his daughter's sudden crib death. It seems to be instructive.

One outlier has something good to say. He says "Look at all that hair. She will marry well. Perhaps a businessman! Childhood is just a few years, it may be worth it in the end. One good marriage and you can retire in peace." In his head your father calculates how much he is going to spend on you in food and school fees. That marriage better come quickly. You are just a few days old and he's already tired thinking of how much money he is going to have to throw away just keeping you alive. He despairs that even your marriage will not make him break even. A saying he once heard floats into his head. Raising a daughter, it goes, is like watering your neighbor's garden. For a moment he curses his sentimental wife. She's not the one who is slaving away to support a bunch of worthless dependents.

Your mother has began to sleep in the living room. Your father comes home later every night. As soon as you are weaned they decide to take jobs in a factory several states over. You are sent to live with your uncle. By now you have learned to be quiet. You are thankful for the long hours you have at school. The books give you a sense of purpose. At night, you eat quickly, and try to ignore the small snide comments about how much you eat. When the family has gone to bed you wash the dishes and pull your blankets out so you can bed down on the couch.

You have grown to hate their fat little brat of a son. When he hits you in childish impudence, everyone laughs in delight. When he scribbles over your homework, they had him more paper, and praise him as a future artist.

When your parents visit twice a year. They seem happy.

But your father always take a moment to pull you aside and remind you how much that you are costing them. He points to his growing wrinkles, and says he is growing old and tired in his factory. He points out your mother's gray hairs. He says his body will give out soon. You will need to think about the future. They have given their whole life to you, paid your school fees in their sweat. All they want is a little peace in their later years. Surely you can work hard and stay focused. No going off with boys or wasting time. They promise they will find you a suitable match as soon as you are old enough. But you must be good. You must not disappoint them.

For countless people, this is their reality.

My students are very aware that their birth was a disappointment- even a disaster- for their families. Imagine knowing that the first thoughts your parents had about you were "how can we kill this child?" Imagine seeing shame on your mother's face as she walks you to kindergarten, how her face reddens with envy when she sees her childhood friends and their healthy boys. Picture your father's cold distance. When you visit your grandparents, there is no doting. Just some sharp reprimands to stay out of the way. When there are family pictures, you are tucked away on the sides. You learn to become withdrawn. You wish you could disappear.

One day, as I was discussing taking advantage of opportunity, I asked one of the my students "What is something you regret?" One student stood up and said "I regret being born a girl." I was stunned. Her classmates nodded in agreement.

The psychological damage alone, above and beyond the social damage, is too much.

What frikking country is this? Afghanistan? China? We are talking about America and American women here aren't we?

Attitudes towards women and daughters in Japan, Korea and Taiwan are changing and there is no reason to believe that this cange will not come even faster for a population with a shortage of women.

[even sven]

This is based on experiences with my students, who often describe their family experiences with me. You have no idea that stuff I hear- I've heard firsthand stories of "having an abortion" after the baby is born. The words "the doctor give baby something to make it not live" will forever haunt me. While this is not representative of all of China, it does represent something that absolutely does happen today. And right now it's not getting better. It's not some old custom practiced by rubes that is dying off. It's a modern problem caused by modern pressures that is getting worse, not better. This is something you find among educated urban middle-class families more often than on a farm.

It's tempting to think that progress inevitably goes forward, but nothing guarantees that. Progress requires vigilance, and people who are willing to fight for the right thing. The first step towards eliminating a problem is naming that problem and facing the reality of it.

While it is true that women are becoming "valued commodities," being a "valued commodity" does not always translate into an awesome life, as any pig sold to slaughter can tell you.

Hearing "what's the harm" pisses me off. This practice causes incalculable harm.

[NetTrekker]

Per the impact of sex selection in India thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=569068) I ran across this article (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=98886)which implies that sex selective abortions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion) are happening in the US within certain ethnic cohorts.

It is a basic presumption and valued right among most American women that a woman has the more or less absolute right to determine if she wants to carry a baby to term or terminate it. Does using abortion for sex selection change this right?

When should a person be protected under the law and why?

[wwworldclique]

No judgment, just an honest question: would you say the same thing if parents chose to abort a child who would be born with severe mental or physical problems that required constant care?

Of course I wouldn't.

Aborting a child that's going to have severe problems beyond the scope of the parents' ability to care for it is a decision I support, because it's really no different than the decision of a woman to not have a child because she feels that for whatever reason, she will not be able to emotionally or financially give it the quality of life that it needs. It's a humane decision.

BTW, I don't understand why you asked this question in response to my feeling about eugenics. There's a big difference between a eugenics-based philosophy that says that a possibly disabled child should be aborted because the human race needs to be "perfected" by discarding "undesirables", and a humane philosophy that says that a severely disabled child should be aborted because the parents are honest about their lack of emotional and financial preparedness to raise it.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Hearing "what's the harm" pisses me off. This practice causes incalculable harm.

Oh, OK I got you. I still think that things are likely to shift in China as they did anywhere else we saw economic development and women entering the workforce. I believe it is and always has been the case that women's rights have hinged on woman's economic independence. When both sons and daugheters have the econmic means to care for their parents, experience tells us that daughters are more likely to care for aging parents than sons (http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/6/612.abstract), and it looks like the dynamic is continuing in China as well(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2749496/).

As far as I can tell, we are about a generation away from realtive gender indifference along teh lines of what you see in korea (where some significant minority of women still feel a need to bear sons but its closer to 20% than 80%)

[Annie-Xmas]

I wonder if all those people voting "no" wold support a woman having and keeping 6 or 10 or 15 babies of the "wrong" sex in her continued efforts to get the "right" one. And supporting them on welfare.

Or giving them all up for adoption whle she keeps trying to get the "right" one..

[JThunder]

I see it as more of a semantic than philosophical difference. Child is defined as
A human being, male or female, between birth and puberty
Where did you pull that definition from? You never actually stated your source.

FTR, multiple sources cited by dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/child) state that the unborn is considered to be a child.

[Revenant Threshold]

Where did you pull that definition from? You never actually stated your source.

FTR, multiple sources cited by dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/child) state that the unborn is considered to be a child. That seems like something of a poor representation, though accurate in and of itself. Per dictionary.com, I make it 10 cites of a child clearly not including the unborn, 5 clearly including them, and 17 which are unclear or irrelevant to the point.

But of course, as to the overall point, certainly some consider the unborn to be children.

[Rumor_Watkins]

Did you know China is the only country on the entire planet ever that has a higher female suicide rate than male?

Please tell me you wept for the boys in every other country when you trotted out this factoid? Tell me you didn't just gloss over the fact that men kill themselves in higher numbers than women on your way to your point.


Europe is triumphing over antisemitism.

You have got to be fucking kidding me. You're lumping that in with established cultural practices?

[John Mace]

I wonder if all those people voting "no" wold support a woman having and keeping 6 or 10 or 15 babies of the "wrong" sex in her continued efforts to get the "right" one. And supporting them on welfare.

Or giving them all up for adoption whle she keeps trying to get the "right" one..

Why would you wonder that? If a person is pro-life, they generally feel about fetuses the same way you feel about babies. Would you support a woman killing her babies, after they were born, if they were the wrong sex?

Adoption is generally preferable to death, but YMMV. I'm not pro-life, but I can understand the thinking of those who are.

[even sven]

You have got to be fucking kidding me. You're lumping that in with established cultural practices?

Why wouldn't I? Antisemitism has been established in Europe for centuries. It's manifestations include hating Jews, consigning them to a lower place in society, and sometimes killing them.

Misogyny has been practiced in a number of societies for centuries. It's manifestations include hating women, consigning them to a lower place in society, and sometimes killing them.

Both are "established cultural practices." Both suck. Both need to be on their way out. I hope it is true that women in China gain a higher place in society as the economy develops- it seems to be going that way, and I do know plenty of people who value their daughters as much as their sons. But change does not plod on inexorably towards a better life. For example, "kitchen accident" bride burning in India is a modern problem that has developed since dowries began rising in the 1950s. Kabul in the 1970s was home to lots of university women walking around in their fashionable bell bottom jeans. Things can go backwards, too. We can't just sit back and let time take care of it all.

[Rumor_Watkins]

Antisemitism has been established in Europe for centuries.

cite?

It's manifestations include hating Jews, consigning them to a lower place in society, and sometimes killing them.

cite. cite.

cite that this happened any more frequently than than how your rank peon, serf, slave, foreigner, or otherwise non-gentry denizen of a given European polity was treated?



maybe if you put "America is triumphing over slavery" in your list of false equivalencies your bias and agenda may not have sparkled like a fourth of July firework?

[even sven]

Wait, what? I think maybe I don't understand what you are arguing about. What is my agenda here? Anti-Europe? Are you trying to argue that Europe (and for that case, America) doesn't have a history of Antisemitism? I don't get it. My only agenda is that I want girls to live lives of opportunity and respect.

Slavery is pretty done with, in that there are no pockets of slavery left. But we could say American is triumphing over racism and homophobia, among other things.

If I need a cite, here is the Wikipedia page on antisemitism. Seems pretty real to me. I'm not really sure if that is what you are disputing, but whatever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

[The Flying Dutchman]

A chicken has most of those characteristics. A monkey has all of them. These animals also have more sentience than that fetus, which is what really matters and which is the distinguising characteristic of personhood.

Well then, I can assume you are okay with infanticide. If not, please tell me why.

[suranyi]

Is this really an issue in the U.S.? We recently had a baby, and the earliest they could determine his sex was at around 20 weeks. There are very, very few abortions that late in this country.

[Rumor_Watkins]

Wait, what? I think maybe I don't understand what you are arguing about. What is my agenda here? Anti-Europe? Are you trying to argue that Europe (and for that case, America) doesn't have a history of Antisemitism? I don't get it. My only agenda is that I want girls to live lives of opportunity and respect.

Slavery is pretty done with, in that there are no pockets of slavery left. But we could say American is triumphing over racism and homophobia, among other things.

If I need a cite, here is the Wikipedia page on antisemitism. Seems pretty real to me. I'm not really sure if that is what you are disputing, but whatever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

My grudge is with you lumping in totally inapposite and incomparable practices and attempting to assign some equivalent moral blame and shame that the continents have to get over. You just should have said "humanity is triumphing over tribalism and nativism" - it would've had as much contributory weight to your point (namely, none)

Let's ignore the fact that female circumcision isn't even a pan-African practice. Do you really think that generalized anti-semitism in Europe's* past is of the quality that would support a comparison to female circumcision, systematic abortion of girls (using your characterization), or (now i'm adding it in for you) systematic, legalized segregation in this country's extremely recent past?

And do you think that Europe's history of antisemitism merits the gerund form of the verb, as if it's an ongoing, systematized practice today like... female circumcision or heavy cultural bias towards male kids?

I was just calling out an absolutely shit analogy. I suspect you did it as some form of white guilt, so that you didn't come across as being a cultural absolutist or something, harping on Blacks and Yellows without touching on Whites. But it was still a bad, bad analogy.


*to avoid Godwin's law.

[Cheshire Human]

You realize that your perception of a fetus as an "unborn child" is purely a religious belief, do you not? We do not codify religious beliefs into law.

False. The perception that a human fetus is an "unborn child" is mere scientific fact. It's not a puppy, a kitten, or an , therefore it's an "unborn human child". That the "unborn child" might have a "soul" is a religious belief, and therefore does not get codified into law. Whether or not the "unborn child" has some right to not be aborted at any given stage in it's development, that supercedes the mother's right to abort it, is a [I]political belief (which may or may not have been developed by reasoning from religious beliefs), and we most assuredly do codify political beliefs into law all the time. That's where law comes from.

I make no statement (and generally refuse to make one) on my political beliefs on the subject of abortion, but I can't let a logical error like that stand, without comment.

[even sven]

Okay, I guess. Those are the examples that came to my head when I thought of "bad stuff that is slowly getting better." And yeah, I would like to avoid looking like I'm just harshing on China.

[Bryan Ekers]

Heck, I'm an atheist who has no problem calling a fetus an unborn child if someone wants to insist. Nobody should expect that label to move me a millimeter from my pro-choice stance, though.

[Eliahna]

Is this really an issue in the U.S.? We recently had a baby, and the earliest they could determine his sex was at around 20 weeks. There are very, very few abortions that late in this country.

This has already been covered in this thread. Gender is detectable via ultrasound from about 16 weeks but there are other tests that can be given earlier that can determine gender, including amniocentesis.