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.
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.
People are concerned about the greater social problems that come with a gender-imbalanced society.
The reasons women choose to terminate pregnancies are not legally relevant or any of my business.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ah, I was only thinking of it in the general terms, abortion based on either sex.
Are there matriarchal societies where male fetuses are aborted in order to have more daughters born?
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:[ul]
[li]has a heartbeat and an independent circulatory system.[/li][li]has a nervous system that reacts to stimuli.[/li][li]has fully intact joints.[/li][li]has fingerprints of its own.[/li][li]moves on its own.[/li][li]looks human.[/li][/ul]
Where’s my religion in any of that?
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.
Again, this kind of thing doesn’t belong in GD.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Even if I accept the rest of what you are saying, the idea of the United States as a matriarchal society is ludicrous.
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.