People abort because the child has the “wrong” medical condition or because the child was conceived at the “wrong” time, why would aborting over the “wrong” gender be a big deal?
It’s not, but it IS something that needs to be monitored. If for some bizarre reason people go completely bonkers and all of a sudden one year we get an 80/20 split in favor of some gender we should probably look into regulation. Until then, though there’s really no reason to ban it.
Well, maybe offer extra tax breaks for people who have daughters.
Forget if it’s a common problem. Would anyone pro-choice consider a mother aborting because of gender moral?
I don’t consider an abortion to be a moral issue any more than I consider getting your appendix removed to be a moral decision.
I certainly can understand that it must be a very emotional issue for many women, but that doesn’t make it a moral issue.
Sex-selective abortions is an issue in all countries that have received immigrants from nations where this is an issue. Sex-selective abortions is already illegal in a number of European countries. The European Council is working on a pan-European ban. I believe the action taken mainly concerns making knowledge of the gender unavailable until after the abortion cut-off date has been passed. In Denmark it has not been much of a problem until recently since the abortion limit is 12 weeks. But a new method allows the detection of the sex at already the ninth week. This method is being made illegal.
Still don’t understand the equivalence. Your appendix has no potential to become a person. That issue is what makes it a moral issue.
And, no, I’m not pro-life, really. I’m against abortion without cause, but I also respect a woman’s right to control her body.
If sex-selective abortions are made illegal, what’s to keep pregnant women from giving acceptable reasons? It’s not like they’re going to take a lie detector test or in any other way be required to prove the validity or veracity of their reason.
Making sex detection unavailable until after the legal abortion period.
This, to me, reveals a certain bigotry. As I said above, we totally defend the rights of women to have abortions for really bad reasons, but this one bad reason–that happens to be more popular among non-western cultures–somehow needs to be prohibited.
Even if I didn’t believe this was an intentional way of undermining abortion rights, I still wouldn’t be in favor such legislation. Skews in gender ratios are bad for society, but humans are going to be screening their fetuses more and more as the technology improves and becomes cheaper. Why should I get put in the slammer for aborting a fetus of the wrong gender, but get a pass for aborting a fetus for having a gene linked to dark skin color or hair texture? I don’t dig slippery slope arguments, but I can’t see how the contradictions will be explained away.
It’s just another way to chip chip chip away at reproductive freedom. There is also a not so subtle bigotry involved- “We can’t allow our white Christian society to adopt the practices of the great unwashed yellow heathens”.
The theory is that when you end up with too many of one gender, you’re more likely to end up with more wars and gender inequality and disempowerment - politically, culturally, familially - of the detested gender. When women (or men, hypothetically) become scarce, they begin to be treated more and more like a commodity and less like people. When there aren’t enough women to “go around” as mates and dates, either prostitution and rape becomes more common, or parents and priests begin to control their daughters’ sex lives with an iron fist or both. When young men gather in groups without enough young women to keep them busy, they may turn to violence and destructive acts instead. When there aren’t enough women to bear enough children to replace the old people dying, you have problems with elder care and productivity from your workforce. When there aren’t enough women making it to middle age and beyond, you have fewer family caretakers of children and the elderly, fewer wives nagging their husbands to get medical care, and the health of the nation suffers.
Now…all that’s the theory. I have absolutely no idea if any of it is true. It “feels” like it could be, but it could all be fearmongering hatred of yellow people, sure. I’d like to see some more research done on the issue before any laws addressing the issue, either straight on or obliquely, are passed.
Again with the cognitive dissonance. When someone says they’re opposed to killing a fetus just because it’s a girl, how can you decide they’re the bigot? What about the misogynistic piece of shit who would abort their child just for being a girl?
It isn’t a child, it’s a fetus. If you believe it’s a human being with a right to live, then you’re against elective abortion. If you don’t believe it’s yet a human being, then your reasons for aborting it are immaterial. Why is a gender-based decision worse than one rooted in economics?
I agree that they are a misogynistic piece of shit. But are they worse than the vain bitch who’d kill a fetus because it would ruin her figure, or the lying gold-digging cunt who’d kill a fetus so that her sugar-daddy doesn’t discover she’s banging the pool boy, or any other horrible reason? What makes this one in particular one that needs to be stopped?
Wouldn’t gender imbalance tend to reduce population growth by the immigrant groups, leaving your countries more racially pure?
Those sharing your beliefs ought to encourage those people to abort as many fetuses as they wish. But perhaps all your countrymen don’t agree with you…
Outlawing gender specific abortion has two unique problems:
How are you going to enforce it? Will you ask mrs Chinese immigrant who already has four daughters if she wants an abortion because the ultrasound says she will have another daughter? Then of course she will deny that is the reason.
Should we assume that such immigrants need protection from family and cultural pressure by outlawing it? “We know you don’t want to abort, so you can tell your family that you want to be an obedient wife, but that your doctor won’t break the law here”.
It reminds me a bit about the debate about female circumcision in the Netherlands a decade ago. Everyone agreed taht is was a very bad thing that immigrant Ethiopians in Holland would want a clitorectomy for their baby daughters. Everyone wanted to protect the female babies. But how? half of the Dutch thought you should outlaw it, period. And hope that would be enough. The other half thought that for immigrants, it should be allowed for Dutch doctors to perform an absolutely minimal version of the surgery, in the hopes that would satisfy the parents and their culture.
Planned Parenthood just issued a statement that while it opposes the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, it also opposes sex-selective abortion. The statement does not say how that opposition is manifested, i.e., whether PP counsels women against it, but it does seem to say that PP has guidelines, policies, and procedures on the issue.
But a fetus at that stage isn’t a person. That’s what makes it not a moral issue.
Is it a moral issue not to implant fertilized eggs in a petri dish left over from IVF treatments? Is it OK to flip a coin as to which eggs you implant, but not to select the ones you want for characteristics having nothing to with the health of the “potential person”?