Sex Selective Abortions - What's the scoop?

So my old nemesis, Obama=Hitler Guy is back. This time it’s about Sex Selective Abortion.

Clearly, I was off doing something else when this issue cropped up. Did I miss something and girls are being aborted at a higher rate? Because we only have girls and I apparently didn’t get a notice or something. Wouldn’t have aborted them in the first place but I assume if there’s some conspiracy thing going on I would have been notified somehow.

So what’s the scoop? Are there numbers out there that back this up or what?

I remember an episode of ER that dealt with this. Are you speaking of this bill?

I suppose it happens. In China, it’s technically not allowed but let’s get real here. In the U.S., it doesn’t seem to be a problem.

I didn’t realize it was any kind of problem in the States. I know in India it’s at least perceived to be a problem because it’s against the law for doctors to tell mothers what gender the baby is. What you get is what you get!

It’s a backdoor attempt to restrict abortion rights/access. Also, racism.

Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it? He’s arguing that they’re happening and I haven’t found any data that they are. Is there any?

The closest I could come to finding out how much of a problem this is (and I only spent a few minutes on google) was this:


No. While there have been some slight changes in birth ratios in the last 60 years among white women (but not other women), it’s nothing that can’t be explained and predicted by advanced parental age and other non-abortion related factors like birth order and the greater viability of female micropreemies. We’re still well within the range of “normal” birth ratios for countries which are not known to practice gender selective abortion.

CDC report.

…And, for the side note that might turn this into a real GD…As a staunchly pro-choice person, I admit the topic of gender selective abortions does give me pause. I do firmly believe a woman should be allowed to abort any time before viability, for any reason, but I do see that an imbalanced gender ratio could seriously screw up society. I guess if I was Queen of the World, I’d leave abortion out of it, and simply make it illegal to reveal the gender of a fetus absent compelling *medical *need (like two carriers for hemophilia who make a fetus). But even that I’m loath to support without a need for it, which we don’t have yet…but we do have a growing immigrant community who may change that.

Canadian Medical Association study thinks so.

Obviously not enough of a pause, or the dissonance might have knocked you out of your mental orthodoxy.

Find out your unborn child’s sex? You’re a criminal. Kill your unborn child? A-OK in WhyNot’s book.

While sex-selection may indeed be happening in Canada, there is no law against it, as John Mace’s admittedly brief cite clams. ABC reporter John Parkinson fucked up by describing Canada so.

I bet his google search was REALLY brief… like not even putting on pants brief.

She did not say people who found out the sex of their child would be criminals. That’s nevermind the “killing your unborn child” stuff.

@OP: You must have missed Ground Zero on this particular round of bullshit.
It’s a video by some O’Keefe wannabe retard in California which, amidst heavily editted “hidden camera” Planned Parenthood footage, warned that a little over half the abortions in California were female.
Yeah, no shit, Sherlock.

Oh, and that Planned Parenthood would perform legal abortions on demand regardless of the stated reason the woman would volunteer for it.
Again: yeah, no shit, Sherlock.

What it did not do, however, was give any indication whatsoever that this sort of thing happened anywhere outside the mind of pro-life dramaturges.

I guess it’s a matter of language with important consequences.

Canada does not have a law prohibiting the obtaining or procuring of an abortion for the purpose of sex selection.

On the other hand, Canada does prohibit sex selection in reproductive technology, subject to an exception relating to disorders and disease.

What is concerning is this quote from the article I cited earlier:

I’m sure it happens in a lot more places than Surrey, BC.

And I’m kind of curious how the prohibition is phrased and implemented, but in any event Parkinson made a mistake.

Probably, but I don’t personally feel a need to bring back abortion laws to combat it.

Speaking as someone who has done the whole IVF-sex selection thing, in order to avoid a genetic disorder, I have to say that I don’t see it becoming popular unless and until the technology becomes radically cheaper and easier. The whole thing cost us about $12K out of pocket, and that’s with insurance picking up several thousand. It was also extraordinarily invasive: probably a dozen trans-vaginal ultrasounds, nightly shots for weeks (and horrible intermuscular shots for a couple months if it works), abdominal discomfort, minor surgery under anesthesia, and then the intense emotional roller coaster of waiting to see if it will work.

I just don’t see this method ever being so popular it has a demographic impact. The only reason to make it illegal would be the ick factor–the idea that somehow, people ought not be allowed to do that. But really, if someone feels that strongly about having a boy or a girl, isn’t it better that they get what they want?

The IVF thing is interesting, but this is about making sex selective abortions illegal. In other words, getting pregnant all willy-nilly, checking the sex via ultrasound, and aborting if it’s “wrong”.

I don’t know of anyone who would support such a practice, but the question is whether or not this is actually widespread in America (no) and whether the proposed legislation would effectively combat it (also no). It’s also good to ask if this would cause women who aren’t having sex selective abortions to have obstacles placed in front of them that would make it harder to get an abortion. The answer there is, yes.

So, again, this is just a backdoor attempt to restrict abortion rights/access. Also, racism.

Okay, I’ll bite.


I certainly don’t support such a practice personally, but it seems to me that once you start restricting abortion rights based on the reason for the procedure, you’ve really given up the idea that abortion rights exist at all.

I mean, I think abortion is wrong, in the same way I think it’s wrong to walk by a drowning man and not try to save him. But I also think the government doesn’t have the right to compel me to carry a baby, in the same way it can’t compel me to jump in the water to save someone. Saying “You have the right to an abortion unless it’s for sex selection” sounds to me like “You don’t have to jump in to save a drowning man, unless you are only letting him drown because he’s black. If that’s the issue, you have to jump in”.

I mean, if it’s ok to abort a baby because you’re just starting law school, or because you think it will ruin your figure, or because you’re mad at your boyfriend why is it somehow especially terrible to abort a baby because you hated your mom and don’t think you could handle a daughter? I’m not saying it’s right, but I don’t see it as so much worse than any number of other reasons that we wouldn’t dream of outlawing.

I can’t imagine how such a law could be enforced without pretty intrusive acts by the government, like outlawing sex screening before the 3rd trimester.

Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with sex selection abortion. My position is that as long as abortion is legal for an “x” term fetus, the woman should be able to get an abortion for any reason at all or no reason at all. It’s 100% her decision.