Sex Selective Abortions - What's the scoop?

If you are implying that I believe in a racially pure country then you are a fucking idiot.

As I wrote, the legislation appears mainly to try to avoid sex-selective abortions by keeping the sex of the baby hidden until after the date at which abortion is no longer allowed. In Europe this goes from 12-24 weeks. Female circumcision is also illegal in most, if not all, European countries. France was the first to make it illegal after a girl was killed. In Denmark it is quite exceptionally also illegal to have the operation done in a third country where it may be legal. Several cases have been carried through to a sentence.

Even phrased conditionally, this doesn’t belong in Great Debates.

Still, wouldn’t forcing the misogynist piece of shit to bear a girl just punish the kid in the end?

I think it is a moral issue.

If I had a friend or relative or neighbour who did this - I’d break that relationship. To me it is unacceptable behaviour and I’ll make sure it is known. Just like racism. A behaviour that is not sanctioned by law is sanctioned by morality standards of the community.

Everyone has a moral standard and it’s just a matter of degrees as many complex emotions are to a certain extent socially constructed.

OK. To the extent that morality is relative, that’s your choice. However, you need to examine the logical consistency of your moral stance. If you had a neighbor undergoing IVF, and she selected the girl embryo over the boy embryo because she wanted a girl, would you break the relationship?

Because if one is having an abortion because one doesn’t want a baby, or a pregnancy, then there’s no gender imbalance created. You may abort what turns out to be a girl, and I may abort what turns out to be a boy, but it all comes out in the wash. Since we’re not worried about negative population growth for the purposes of this discussion, there’s absolutely no reason to prevent roughly “normal” numbers of both boy and girl pregnancies to be terminated at random; it won’t skew the gender balance of our society.

If the misogynist piece of shit is that concerned with getting the gender she prefers, then perhaps pregnancy isn’t the best way to create her family.

My ex and I did “try” for a girl, and got one, using the Shettles method. But we did so knowing that, at best, we were merely nudging our chances in our preferred direction, and if we ended up with a boy, he’d have been loved and welcomed regardless. If a boy had been out of the question for us, we would have looked into adoption instead of pregnancy.

Have a good friend who tried, with the appropriate cooperation, to have a boy five times, and missed each one. Oldest is seventeen, and they are delightful children, but he only has the one bathroom, and claims not to know what it looks like, inside.

I’d characterize such behaviour as extremely selfish and superficial. The whole idea strikes me as unnatural in a sense that I’d wonder what are preconceived ideas and meaning people like this assign to the family and children. What’s next? I’d like a baby girl with blue eyes, blonde hair and piano virtuoso and she must not gain weight by definition – how much?

Why? They have to pick one. What if they have 3 boys already?

IVF, itself. doesn’t strike you as “unnatural”? Fact is, technology allows us choices we never had before. There is no reason to lock ourselves into a state where we can only make the choices we had before the technology was available. I mean, if you get right down to it, aborting a fetus because you don’t want to have a baby is “unnatural”.

Still, you didn’t answer my question. Would you end the relationship with someone if they chose the sex of an IVF embryo?

In which case wouldn’t you be all for an abortion for her?

I’d be more in favor of *contraception *for her.

But yes, I do see your point. This is why I’m glad I’m not actually Queen of the World, and I don’t have to make these decisions for us all. :wink:

I don’t really believe that the fear of gender imbalance is really what’s driving this: those cultures that have a strong preference for boys are miniscule in the US and among other groups I don’t think there is any evidence that gender preferences would be unbalanced among other populations: it seems to me that in general people with gender preferences swing both ways.

And simply restricting knowledge about the sex of the fetus doesn’t make this harmless: it’s still a restriction on abortion rights. If it’s ok to withhold information from a patient to keep them from making a choice, it’s restricting choice. It’s no different than withholding information about a baby’s down syndrome.

You’ve spoken quite eloquently in the past about how you feel patients should have maximum information and maximum autonomy. Willfully withholding information–and information–seems at odds with that, absent strong evidence of impending social disaster.

Oh, this asshole is quite clear that he’s using this as a wedge against abortion rights. I get that. I just think it’s boring to discuss, so I’m trying to take a position which can take some actual debate without putting me to sleep.

You’re absolutely right. Which is why both times I’ve mentioned the theories about the social disasters that could befall us if we end up with a wildly gender imbalanced society, I’ve also said that more research needs to be done before any form of trying to stop the “problem” is put into law. Much, much more research, if that wasn’t clear from my previous posts. That doesn’t mean I necessarily want to wait until it’s an obvious problem here before we address it, but luckily we’ve got other countries a couple of decades ahead of us down that path that we can learn from.

But you’re absolutely right that I’m a huge believer in patient information/education/autonomy. However, it’s not entirely unlimited - while I’m not *happy *with mandatory vaccination, I do believe that children, absent a medical contraindication, should be vaccinated whether they or their parents want to or not. I believe that because the need of the public to not be exposed to vaccine preventable illness trumps patient autonomy.

IF the fears about gender imbalance are borne out by research and future events, I’d put restricting prenatal gender identification (note: NOT banning gender selective abortion; perhaps that’s picking nits, but it’s an important nit to me) in the same category as mandatory vaccination - something I’d hatehatehate on philosophical/political grounds, but support on public health/Greater Good grounds. IF, I repeat, research shows the theoretical risks to be real.

See also: mandatory reporting of certain infectious illnesses, involuntary commitment for violent mental health patients and forced quarantine of noncompliant active TB patients. The well-being of the public must be weighed against the autonomy of the patient.

I’ve read several articles about the “missing” girls in India. It seems that there’s quite a few more boys born than girls, and the reason for this is a combination of sex selective abortions and female infanticide/neglect of female infants. This has gone on for some time now, long enough that it’s hard for Indian men to find mates. Sons bring in money, while daughters will go to someone else’s family. Combined with the (outlawed, but still common) tradition of demanding a dowry from a bride’s family, and it makes economic sense to kill off female fetuses or infants. Men are desperate for brides, and resort to human trafficking to get them. One would think that the dowry tradition in this country would die out. Apparently one would be wrong.

This seems like a non issue.

It’s unenforceable and intrusive.

Someone who would abort based on gender is probably better off not being responsible for the care of a child of that gender.

If it really becomes a problem anywhere, it’s a surface symptom of a much deeper problem, and all efforts should be focused on the root issue and not on putting on band aids and putting out little fires.

Do you have a cite for that comment about sex selection in reproductive technology? (Not trying to be snarky; it’s just that it’s the first I’ve heard of it.)

I don’t have exact bill/law cite but this recent (Apr/2012) CTV article about US clinic offering sex selection option within the reproductive services states:

Hope that is sufficient.

Talk about "target ads’ - it is interesting that the ad is very specific to a certain immigrant community.

How do you enforce that law?

It seems to me that some of the left’s squeemishness over gender based abortion is an acknowledgement that the fetus is soemthing more thana collection of cells that happen to have human DNA. An admission that they also place some significance on the potentiality.

I for one fully support all abortion, gender based or otherwise during the first trimester.

Possibly for some leftists, but I personally find the practice a bit skeevy not because of any particular regard for the fetus, but because it represents a symptom of a creepy misogynistic culture.