I’m confused as to the connection between this and what I said…
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’m against this.
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.
These animals also have more sentience than a newborn baby, does that mean the baby is not a person?
That doesn’t make it right.
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?
Insane? :dubious:
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bullshit. You said:
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.
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?
Heck, if the state wants more female babies, offer tax incentives.
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.
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.
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…