# If an American woman keeps aborting female babies to get a boy should that be OK legally? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 30, 2010, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066 "2010-06-30T15:01:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066/61 "2010-06-30T20:40:18Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > 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… ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066/62 "2010-06-30T20:48:35Z")
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. > [@WhyNot](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066/63 "2010-06-30T20:51:14Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066/64 "2010-06-30T20:55:53Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066/65 "2010-06-30T20:55:57Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > BTW, we codify all sorts of religious beliefs into law. That doesn’t make it right. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066/66 "2010-06-30T20:56:15Z")
> [@villa](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066/67 "2010-06-30T21:00:49Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > 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: ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066/68 "2010-06-30T21:03:01Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > 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… [QUOTE=villa] _ **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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066/69 "2010-06-30T21:10:20Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066/70 "2010-06-30T21:15:04Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066/71 "2010-06-30T21:17:59Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066/72 "2010-06-30T21:24:28Z")
> [@villa](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066/73 "2010-06-30T21:29:38Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066/74 "2010-06-30T21:29:39Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066/75 "2010-06-30T21:31:37Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066/76 "2010-06-30T21:32:52Z")
> [@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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066/77 "2010-06-30T21:34:12Z")
Heck, if the state wants more female babies, offer tax incentives. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066/78 "2010-06-30T21:34:40Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066/79 "2010-06-30T21:34:45Z")
**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. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066/80 "2010-06-30T21:36:59Z")
> [@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. 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… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-an-american-woman-keeps-aborting-female-babies-to-get-a-boy-should-that-be-ok-legally/545066.md?page=5)