Gender Selection Abortions

"In the end, if abortions are legal, then the reason a woman wants one is, quite clearly, irrelevant…and impossible to determine anyway…"

"I want an abortion" should suffice.

Nice to hear from you, Mike. Hope you are doing well.

Bert,
In many cultures male children are seen as more desirable than female children, in China (especially during the one child era) it was common place to abort female fetuses in the hopes of a male child later, it is the same in India and I imagine many more countries.
Despite the West's declaration of "a woman's body a woman's choice", these decisions are not being made by 'women' they are mostly being made by the husband and his desire to have man children.

Dan...I am in complete agreement with you that such coercion is wrong.
My point is...it's the woman's choice.

Bert,
In your post you seem to be criticizing the laws, the laws restricting gender specific abortion are there to protect these women from coercion.

In the article I read a woman who was interviewed admitted that the reason she was seeking an abortion was that she wanted a boy. But the law is silly even if it is intended to protect her because if she is being coerced, she is not going to admit it to authorities...and face retriution from the coercer (her partner, family or whomever).
Like trying to prohibit gay sex in the bedroom, such laws are unenforcable and ineffective. People lose respect for government when it makes stupid laws. This is an example.
There is lots of information on this. I just Googled it.

illegal coercion is ....illegal.

the act of abortion is irrelevant.

When the sex ratio numbers get out of balance enough - then change will happen to give the females enough status that this will become a moot point.

I cannot see why one sex would be better than another but I do understand the need to set family size.

I can understand in some cultures why male children are preferable...in China, for example, where family size is limited by law. A male child can inherit the property...a female leaves to join her husband's family. Also, males are usually stronger physically, so they can do more work on a farm, for example.
But in the US...and most of the "developed world," I can see no reason for preference either.

I agree with you about the US, Bert. The law exists in the UK because there's a large number of immigrants from countries where "gender selection" is quite common. Modern medicine has simply moved it from the life-threatening neglect or intentional killing of newborn girls to the prenatal stage.

Yes, that's right, Aniko. Do you think the law is:
1. Justified, because of the immigrant population?
2. Effective and enforceable?

My former husband was from Iran. We had two daughters. Both he and his family were thrilled. Why? Because few girls are in the family. actually, his family just liked children and male and female was not an issue ....

This "war against women and children " (and the increase in child abuse) by the Republicans has part of its "cultural roots" in our dysfunctional society in the CIA's funding the "feminist movement" . Gloria Steinem said the CIA funded her MS. magazine. Rockefeller et al. wanted to get women into the workplace : they wanted more taxpayers. Now, women college graduates outnumber the men about two to one in America. (In Iran, women graduates outnumber the men, too)

I think that depending on the extent of the problem, a law that would exclude gender identification from the results of early prenatal testing (except when sex-linked genetic diseases are involved) is reasonable. The information could be "legal" after 24 weeks (the cut-off for "on demand" abortion in the UK). Of course, as Ishbel says below, some women would travel back to their home countries to do it, but the number of sex-selective abortions would be reduced. No legislation is perfect, but I believe the state does have a legitimate interest in this case (all the "selection" is going one way, leading to an imbalance).

I agree that specifically banning sex-selective abortion is a waste of time, since no one will claim sex selection as their reason. (Technically speaking, it's already banned, since it would be hard to argue that having a child of one gender rather than the other constitutes "a risk...of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family", which is the "on demand" language in the UK law.)

(Or "countries of origin"--not sure what the correct term is for UK-born children of immigrants.)

I've never been sure either, Aniko!
I put 'home country' - but of couse it's NOT their home country - and may not even have been their parents' home country. BUT, there is proof that some women of Indian ethnicity are leaving the UK to have late abortions if the child they are carrying is female.

aniko...I am uneasy with the notion of prohibiting a woman from finding out any information about her body or its contents. You make an exception in the case of the CVS test (genetic abnormalities) but there are a ton of other prenatal tests, as I just discovered here. (I'm pretty ignorant about this stuff, I admit.)

I find the notion of making women "wait a few more months to find out" something that they have a right to know abhorrent...even in a society where "sex-selective abortions are already a problem."
It is a contrived campaign to enforce the ignorance of women, and I simply cannot condone that.
Teaching them that gender-selective abortions is wrong...fine.
But something in my gut tells me that what you advocate is wrong.

Amniocentesis is a prenatal test involving an analysis of the mother’s amniotic fluid. It is a very effective baby gender predictor with over 99% level of accuracy. Amniotic fluid is the liquid surrounding your baby and both protects and nourishes your baby during its growth. However, note that the test is normally taken in order to determine whether or not a baby has any chromosome abnormalities or other genetic defects.

When is an amniocentesis done?
An amniocentesis test is normally conducted at around 15 to 22 weeks into a pregnancy when there is a need or desire to check for chromosome abnormalities that indicate a condition such as Down syndrome, Edward syndrome or Turner syndrome. The test can also identify the presence of neural tube defects or other health problems depending on the parents’ genetic history.

Anita...I would be interested in your opinion: If a woman finds out, as a reault of amniocentesis, that her fetus has any of the conditions you list, should she be allowed to abort?

Had my daughter had any of those symptoms I would have aborted her.

I have a sister who is both developmentally disabled and schzophrenic - she has needed care her entire life. I would not place that same burden on anyone else --- meaning notr the child to be or my other daughter.

My sister has been more work for my brother and me then raising our own families. She is aware that she cannot do many things. Now she is in a nursing home with alzaheimers .... sad.

I read several books during my first pregnancy, and a few more during my second. During the second, I was also a member of a number of pregnancy- and first-year-related online communities. I was curious about the gender of my baby, but I didn't feel ignorant before I was told at around 20 weeks. With the second one, what they said was actually incorrect. I still don't think ignorant describes my state at the time, or the state of the vast majority of women who have ever been pregnant on the surface of the earth, who of course didn't find out the gender of their babies until they gave birth to them.

Sorry about the sarcasm, but you used several highly loaded words, and I think at least one of them needs to be deconstructed. Ask yourself if a woman is ignorant if she doesn't know whether her child will have blue eyes or brown, or will be good at baseball or tall enough to play basketball or have the perfect measurements of a Barbie doll. Ask yourself what the value of the information is, and then we can perhaps figure out whether lacking it would constitute ignorance.

I would not presume to tell any woman that she could not have any information about her body that medical science could provide.

Aniko -

I knew my children would have dark eyes and hair.

I knew the second one would be a girl. It was os much easier planning for her. I was also glad to know that many genetic worries were not going to be a problem.

Most young families know the sex of the child ahead of time. Take a look in the baby department. Very hard to find gender nuetral clothes. It makes nursery colors and clothing better reflect the gender.

Also - back in 1987 the ultra sounds were still quite grainy ... however the one for the amnio testing was much clearer so they do shis-ka-bob the embryo.

I do not like to tell other people what to do - but I recommend getting as many pre-natal tests as possible and not just think of the repurcussion to you as a parent ... but how these diease play out for the one who has the condition and later for who will have to take care of them when the parents die.

Because a disabled child is a lot lot loy of extra work and needs enourmous patientce of core family members .... Learning to sit up, eat food,talk all require the help of specialists, parents and siblings - the whole focus of the family goes to the speial needs child as often that is only way for the 'broken' child to be taught basic skills or how to use special devices or shoes. The other children often feelunwanted or show an unwillingness to forego their own childhoood to care for the weaker sister

Oops, sorry, I deleted my comment between Bert's 2:43 and 10:12 comments by mistake (I confused it with a duplicate.) I'll try to recreate it below:

---

I didn't specify any test, Bert. The earliest test that can give us genetic information about the fetus is chorionic villus sampling (CVS), but amniocentesis (starting at 15 weeks) is in the picture here, and even though it gives no genetic information, and is not exactly certain (as many of us will testify), regular ultrasound can be used to determine gender "in time" for the UK cut-off point of 24 weeks. So yeah, there are a bunch of tests, and there could be more in the future. (Possibly soon.)

What I did specify was the information that would not be disclosed from the results of any test: the gender of the baby. And what I did make exception for was the situation in which there was concern about a sex-linked genetic disorder, making the information medically significant. In every other case, asking women to wait a few months to find out the gender of their baby seems to do little harm (and again, I'm talking about a society where sex-selective abortions are already a problem, which the US is not).

Anita, I'm talking about gender, not genetic disorders. I agree with prenatal testing for genetic conditions. (I thought I had made that pretty clear.)

Obviously, the color of hair or eyes would not be a question for some (though many of us had been surprised in that regard, too), and that is not the point. The point is whether knowing such things about your baby would constitute valuable information that is in any way comparable to information on genetic disorders. The question is, as other commenters have raised, what would happen if parents could "design" whatever they want about their babies.

(Off topic, but when I said "the vast majority of women who have ever been pregnant on the surface of the earth", I didn't mean "women with resources living in first-world countries like the United States in the past few decades".

The plague of highly gender-specific clothing and toys for young children is a very American phenomenon. It is unfortunately spreading with globalization, but childhood in Europe is still a lot less "color-coded".)

Bert, the information is about the fetus, not about the woman's body. The woman's body is affected in many ways by the pregnancy, but I don't believe the genes the fetus carries for eye color become "information about the woman's body" at any point.

A great point: gender information that has nothing to do with any health issue is not even information about the "woman's body." In a culture of abuse providing "red or blue" data at the point the fetus is viable is certainly the highest and best ethical standard I can imagine. To underline this: rights are not absolute. More often than not, the promulgation of rights is a balancing act. Both society's interests and the woman's (namely in avoiding coercion to abort, as someone else mentioned) are at stake.

It is a bit ironic.

How so, william?

Bert, I think I should pass on answering your question. I have a few liberal friends I have made on Gather in the past year. My purpose in frequenting Gather is writing poetry and meeting a few writers...sort of a respite from the culture war I have been heavily involved in since 1976. I may have lost them anyway, since I have not kept my mouth shut on other political issues. Abortion is THE issue that separates folks the most severely.

I suspect that you find it ironic that a liberal would defend what appears to be a discriminatory practice. In fact, I don't defend it. I am just pointing out that there is no practical way of determining an individual's private reasons for making any decision. Passing a law that prohibits a person from taking an otherwise legal action because of what they are thinking is absurd.
I thought I made that point in the article, but if you find irony in my position, apparently I did not.

You did make the point about the absurdity in the article, Bert. What is missing from it is any sense of what you think about the practice of aborting female fetuses so one could try to conceive a better, male one. I know you well enough to guess you don't think that's right, but you certainly did not say anything to denounce this horribly dehumanizing and discriminatory practice.

Personally, I find it abhorrent, aniko. But it reminds me of the old saying, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it."
That could be paraphrased to "I disagree with what you do..."
I also find it abhorrent that people smoke, but I don't think they should be prohibited from smoking where it doesn't endanger people around them.

The same could be said for the use of alcohol and other drugs, by the way.
Except that I love wine...:>)

It just so happens that the one aborted fetus I happened to see was a little girl about five months. She was the most lovely little girl. Every feature was dainty from her eye lids to her marvelous ears to her pouty little mouth. Because she had not the baby fat yet (necessary to survive outside the womb), her body was more graceful...and her skin was clearer (translucent), you could see the absolutely amazing network of veins. Besides being the most lovely human being I had ever seen...she changed the issue of Abortion (for my heart & mind) forever.

The test is indeed in the effect on "the people around them"--how great is it? That is where I see the state having a legitimate interest in this case.

(Also, if smoking, alcoholism, and other addictions are disorders, then prohibition will have a very different (and largely negative) effect than in the case of telling doctors that they should not say blue or pink until after week 24.)

There is a threat to the population at large from a significant gender imbalance. Large groups of young males with no chance of finding a woman are a serious destabilizing factor. (See countries/groups that practice polygyny.)

I had to look up that word, aniko. Thanks for forcing me to enlarge my vocabulary!
Polygyny is a general term for multiple marriage...either polygamy or polyandry.
In a society with a shortage of women, polyandry would be the likely outcome, I suppose.

". . . polyandry would be the likely outcome, I suppose. "

Polygamy produces a lot of jealousy, but that is women jealous of each other. Can you imagine the violence that polyandry would precipitate? Men jealous of each other and competing for the amorous attention of the same woman has already caused way too many feuds (The Trojan War for instance)

If you believe the Mormons, wives had a "sisterhood" relationship in polygamous marriages...not overtly competitive. But you are no doubt right about competition in a polyandrous marriage.

No, polygamy is the general term, and polygyny (gyne "woman") is the one that means having multiple wives. I could have said polygamy, since most "actually existing" polygamy is polygyny, but I wanted to be specific.

The rare cases of polyandry that have existed at the societal level have (to my knowledge) all involved situations in which men are away for part of the year, or had to do with preserving nobility titles. On the other hand, there are countless natural experiments for "shortage of women" --the early stage of any colony comes to mind. The result has never been polyandry (again, as far as I'm aware), but increased aggression, both among males competing for women and directed at the women who are present in the picture. Safety and thus freedom has been in short supply for women in such places. (I brought up polygynous societies exactly because they model the destabilizing effects of "shortage of women" situation.)

Sorry...you're right...I must have read that when my brain wasn't working.

The 'selection on sex' scandal is widespread in India and China. Both countries are storing time-bombs for their future when all those male children become adults and there are too few women to have a long-term relationship with due to these selective abortions.

It has been reported in various studies that many UK born Asian women fly home for selective abortions - indeed I remember seeing SPAM on Gather from someone advertising just such a service in India, along with IVF services, too.

Both India and China are overpopulated. One unintended consequence of this practice could be a reduction in birth rate. In fact, it is the government edict that limits family size to one child in parts of China that has caused the gender discrimination there. In India, I guess it's just a cultural thing. India's birthrate is still very high, though.
I'm not condoning the practice, Ishbel. Just noting its possible consequences.

While the one-child rule certainly didn't help in China, female infanticide goes back a long way there, just like in India. (Gender discrimination itself is virtually universal, I'm afraid.)

Yes, the example of India disposes of the idea that sex selective abortions will reduce the birth rate.

Yes, at least in the short term. But as Ishbel says, in the long term, it could have an effect.

Oh, you mean when there aren't enough women to have babies. That would have some effects, yeah, but they'd be pretty bad effects for the most part. There's something to say for a stable society. And, just technically speaking, one woman could have 12-13 babies--replacing herself six times. This doesn't look like a good strategy for population reduction.

In the meantime, much of Europe is way below replacement. Perhaps that model of education, poverty reduction, career opportunities, and protection from discrimination (as well as, of course, the wide availability of contraception) would be a better way to go in India, too.

Yeah, the effects of a shortage of females would be bad...for men, especially. :>)

It would be bad for women, too. Men seeing women as a resource to to fight for, acquire, and protect from other men is the ultimate cause of the oppression of women that runs through human history.

I agree, aniko. The whole abortion issue now is dominated by white men trying to tell women how to live their lives. I don't know that this issue will have any effect on that. It is part of the male psyche to dominate and control women.

Abortion is a tragedy in every case, without exception. The nature of the tragedy differs from one case to the next. Gender selection via abortion (or infanticide or neglect) is unconscionable and should be denounced in the strongest possible terms. This is different from saying that a government minder should be assigned to each uterus in the country.

If we include in our values the right to privacy and the freedom of choice, then we had best think about where in our culture we will find the voice of conscience to speak out against this madness.

I agree that such practice should be denounced, Dave. But, as I said above, I think passing nonsensical laws is silly.

'Nonsensical' in your view, Bert - not in everyone's - and certainly not in the eyes of the members of parliament who framed our Abortion Act(s).

We will have to agree to disagree on that, Ishbel.

Dave,

"Gender selection via abortion (or infanticide or neglect) is unconscionable and should be denounced in the strongest possible terms . . . we had best think about where in our culture we will find the voice of conscience to speak out against this madness."

Have you seen this by any chance?

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.abstract

Journal of Medical Ethics

  Law, ethics and medicine

  Paper

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?


Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
 

Something to speak out against, to be sure. They speak of newborns as "potential persons," a standard that is outlandishly below that of US law. Viability of a fetus is a standard too rigorous for many; how about some vague concept of the emergence of the child as a moral being? Persons have rights in the US, and they don't depend on the person to speak out in their own defense. Yeah, madness is a good word for this.

Well, the we have rights in this country part is disputable, to say the least ; ) but what certainly caught my eyes, was the defense by the Journal. The Journal of Medical Ethics, feels that "What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited."

Houston, we have a problem.

Gender selection is not too far from selection by eye or hair color. It doesn't make me happy.

One thing that did occur to me is that in many cultures where male children are preferred dowries are customary and marriage is more about property than it is in Europe and the US.

Yes, the dowry issue hasn't been mentioned yet. Having girls equals bankruptcy in the countries in question.

Sorry to join so late.

I can find no fault in your logic Bert. If the law allows abortion on demand, then they cannot in fairness legislate against aborting because of the gender of the child. All the popular reasons for granting abortions on demand apply in gender biased abortions.

Right, Dennis. That does NOT mean that you or I approve of such decisions.
It means that if abortions are legal, there is no logical rationale for trying to prohibit them because of an individual's private reasons.

While I agree that specifically banning such abortions is pointless, Bert's argument as stated there is invalid . The fault is in his premises: the UK law does not say you can have an abortion for any reason. I have referred to the language elsewhere on this thread. The reasons include a risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the mother and her existing children, and disorders in the fetus. So you'd either have to say that having a girl threatens your mental health or that being female is a genetic disorder.

"UK law does not say you can have an abortion for any reason"?

Didn't know that. Thanks. I checked. You seem to be correct.

I agree about what the law says. I don't agree with the law, though.
Why?
Well, it's so vague. What the Hell does "mental health" mean? Does that mean that she has to have psychological tests to determine if she has, or could have paranoia, schizophrenia or whatever if she has an unwanted baby? What if she would just be stressed if she had a baby? What if she would be stressed if she had a girl baby? Isn't that sufficient threat to her mental health whether you and I think it's nonsense or not?
Please understand, I am NOT condoning this. I just think it is (and this is funny coming from me) government meddling in the lives of people. I think the role reversal between me and conservatives on this is amusing...and maybe as william said above...even ironic.

The laws are quite specific about what criteria a doctor (in fact, usually 2 independant doctors) uses to make a decision based on a pregnant woman's mental health.


I have relatives who are in the medical profession here. Some of them have been absolutely badgered to reveal the sex of the baby, knowing full well that the information will then cause a healthy, viable fetus to be aborted, simply on the grounds of sex - not genetic, inherited illnesses or conditions, just sex. And it's never males who are aborted in these types of cases.
I think many American laws are 'funny'. Doesn't mean it's my place to ridicule them or take issue with them.

The law has to be "fuzzy" when it comes to the issue of abortion. As I have commented several times, the law actually has to contradict itself to allow abortions on demand. It must be "fuzzy" to allow abortions on medical grounds because there has to be a subjective assessment, a judgement call, in such cases. That must be the reason that the U.K. insists that two doctors must concur before it is allowed.

I don't recall your earlier comments on the law "contradicting itself," Dennis.
Could you give it to us again, please?

Oh, you weren't involved in those debates? The first time I said that was in a comment 3 years age. I them made a post, Abortion - Legal Contradiction?

Since then, I have made similar comments on other posts.

One I cannot find now was about the Lacey Petersen case where murder charges were pressed because the fetus that Lacey carried was killed. If that unborn baby had no legal rights how could it be murdered?

Another concerned The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. That act recognizes the unborn "whilst being carried in the womb" as human regardless of the stage of development. They had to add an addendum granting immunity to the mother against charges of murder under that law.

Yes, it all comes down to when the fetus is considered an individual with human rights. That, of course, is a matter of opinion, and it goes all the way from conception to birth. Nobody is "right" on this, but everybody has an opinion. It is at the heart of the whole abortion issue, of course, and some of the comments in this thread claim that the fetus is not part of the woman's body, and therefore a woman has no right to find out its gender.
I have not reponded to those claims because I fear they will distract from the issue I was raising in the article about the absurdity of a law that presumes to determine a person's private thinking in making a decision.
I feel the two issues are unrelated, but other commenters have conflated them. I think this discussion has reached a point where it should die a natural death, actually. It is no longer constructive.
I don't mean my discussion with you...I mean the thread in general.

One view is: It all comes down to; when is the fetus a person?

A fertilized egg or even a blastocyst is not a person because two or more persons may develop from it, or two or more may fuse and only one person will develop.

The other is: Is it wrong to kill a human, or must that human be a person for it to be considered wrong?

In either case, what is a person?

I agree, the discussion has started to go off the original intent and this is not where I wish to discuss that either.

Ishbel...regarding your claim that British laws are "quite clear" on abortion, I found the following provision for legal abortion:
"Risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman"
I read the following comment here:
In R v British Broadcasting Corporation, ex parte ProLife Alliance, Lord Justice Laws said:
"There is some evidence that many doctors maintain that the continuance of a pregnancy is always more dangerous to the physical welfare of a woman than having an abortion, a state of affairs which is said to allow a situation of de facto abortion on demand to prevail."

Now this is just a comment by a lawyer. Do you agree or disagree with it?

Finally, it seems the problem lies in the fact that men want to be as free as possible to achieve his own experiences, while, the same men are afraid of female competition: Mary should remain "virgin" - a "stamp" of purity provioded by the priests - but men should enjoy experience.

The problem is an old problem connected with prostitution and connected to the Antique Greece as, at that time, women were compelled to spen 3 days a year in a temple with the obligation to satisfy any men.

Pretty girls were able to leave the temple within the 3 days while the others and older were compelled to look for drunk sailors before before making the offering to Aphrodite ...

Since then, a woman accepting any one (but the criticists) are considered as prostitutes for not being virgin ... before and after.

The pill is much les painful than abortion. No one likes abortioin and it's always a real and psychological pain. Women hate the solution but often, in our economic world don't figure any other solution to remain alive and able to make their own future.

Our world is still driven by male lawmakers and male managers who take their own liberty in qualifying the girls they cannot ... "have".

And this goes upto the point that they could judge about a President having sex with some girl and keep forgetting about themselves javing sex with someone out of marriage.

This is called the "Law of double standard".

When I think of designer babies I first think Klone baby. The tinkering should produce, healthier, brighter..........skillls seem inherient,,,, but truly depend on coaCHING AND TEACHING TO PERSIEVED SPECIAL CAPABILITIES.

While Aniko and others have mentioned the importance of avoiding sex selection to society, I dont think anyone has sufficiently pointed out the truly terrible consequences of sex selection. What makes it even worse, is the technical possibility of genetic manipulation to choose, sex, eye color, height and other phenotypes at the time of conception. So far, this kind of genetic design is illegal, but there is considerable pressure in India to allow that to go forward, mostly as a means of eliminating sex based abortions.

Any such selection, literally puts the future of the human race in severe jeopardy. Human beings are already among the least genetically diverse organisms on Earth. Any artificial selection for taller of "smarter" or any particular trait will be devastating for the genetic health of the species.

The solution is to educate cultures that believe that some traits, (especially gender) are superior to others. This attitude is at least as bad as racism or homophobia, and the consequences can be enormous if it is allowed to continue. I understand your moral stance Bert, but in this case it is simply and totally outweighed by the horrible immoratlity of a deadly and terrible practise, that must not be tolerated. For the sake of all of our descendents.

I do not disagree that it is deplorable, Sy. That was not the point I was trying to make at all. But the discussion has gotten sidetracked.
Let me give you a little thought experiment. Let's say in a few years it becomes possible to perform tests on a fetus to determine if it is likely to be homosexual. Should abortion be allowed for that?
How about predisposition to alcoholism?
Or...here's the ultimate! Suppose a gene is identified that predicts a tendency to become a liberal/progressive or even a Democrat!
I BET you that a lot of Right Wingers, when asked if this would justify abortion would answer "HELL YES!!!!)

I dont think so Bert. In fact your examples are good analogies to the current issue regarding gender, and designer babies. The reality is that access to information is not limitless. I know that everyone thinks everyone should know everything about everything. I dont. I think privacy is still important. I am not a fan of Wikileaks for example. Some information, like the sex of a fetus can be easily kept unknown until the abortion possibility is over.

There are many examples of our technology, our ability to know, outpacing our moral and/or logical sensibilities. For example, we can now measure chemicals at the nanomolar range. And so, all of a sudden there are headlines and TV shows about chemicals in the blood of journalists. I have news for you, when we can detect chemicals at the femtomolar level, every human on earth will be found to be contaminated with every chemical in existence. Is that meaningful?

For many people, its great that we can now tell whether their infant is a boy or a girl. It helps them decide what color to paint the nursery (a joke). But for others it is not helpful, and it only leads to horrible practises. We are far from learning when our technology is harmful, and should not be used. ITs time we started thinking about this.

Otherwise, we might find an entire generation of very tall, straight, blue eyed, brilliant, male, non alcoholic Republicans. Heaven forbid.

I think your reference to privacy is misplaced, Sy. We are not talking about personal information being shared with others. We are talking about access to personal information about oneself. That's quite a different matter.
Yes, a race of Aryan Republicans would not be to my liking...even though I fit the mold...well not as tall and straight as I used to be, maybe not as brilliant or non-alcoholic, but definitely blue-eyed. :>)

You're right Bert, privacy was the wrong word. But I do think there should also be a limit to how much people know about themselves (and just to reiterate Aniko's point, in this case it is not about themselves, but about their children). As an example. we are able to predict whether people are likely to fall victim to certain diseases. In many cases this is valuable information. But I once heard a medical ethicist say that in some cases, where there is nothing the person can do about it, it doesnt make sense to even find this information out, since telling the patient does them no good. This is a complex issue, without a simple solution.

I didn't respond to aniko's point that you cite because I felt it would drag the discussion off into the swamp of "personhood" debate. Some state legislatures are trying to pass "personhood" laws that define a fertilized egg as a person, and as a result, removing it would become murder. This would, in effect, prohibit abortion at even the earliest stages of the fetus.
Dennis, earlier in this thread gives a good argument why such a position is nonsensical, but the question of when a fetus becomes a "person" is debatable. There is no "right" answer...only opinion. Even the medical community is undecided.
You say, "...it is not about themselves, but about their children."
No, it's about a fetus...which I woudl argue is still part of a woman's body.
Your mileage may differ...

As to the medical ethics question, I find it a bit pretentious of anyone to decide what another person should or should not know about their own body. If I contracted a terminal disease, I would surely want to know about it. I would want to decide how I would spend the limited time remaining...and to prepare my personal affairs for my survivors and heirs.
The notion that "I know what's best for you..." permeates moral, ethical and religious thought. In most cases, I don't think anybody else knows what is best for me. Only I do.

The question of legal personhood is a different matter from which biological entity ("body") the information is about. We already have gender information about the "mother's body" (apparently female?). The information in question is not about the mother but about the fetus.

Sy has eloquently stated what I (and some others) have only been beating around: the enormous and almost guaranteed negative consequences to our species if people start to "design" their babies. That is not off-topic here, Bert, and you haven't responded to it.

AMEN, Aniko and SimonP!
(and, as an agnostic, I use that word loosely!)

But as I said, the fetus is still PART of the woman's body until...when?
As for the "negative consequences" of designer babies, you haven't proved that. There is a lot more to say about this. I am thinking about a follow-up article that attempts to address the issue of legal constraints of personal behavior that do not affect others.
There is no question that individual actions that can harm other PEOPLE must be constrained. Or even actions that are cruel, for instance, to animals.
The questions about personal actions related to reproduction enter a gray area where the rights of the individual carrying a potential human being can be in conflict with the rights of that potential individual.
I think there are legitimate issues here which you are ignoring, aniko.

If you look at the statistics for abortion rates in UK vs. the US, they are similar...around 20/1000...with England slightly lower. I can find no evidence that girls are aborted at a higher rate in the UK than they are in the US. If you can show this, please do so.
But if, as you say, more girls were aborted than boys, then would it not affect the birthrate of the ethnic/religious/cultural group that practiced it?
In the end, like the Shakers, they will drive themselves to extinction through their own efforts to skew the process of natural selection.
I know of no studies or evidence that suggests that this practice, deplorable as it is, will lead to a dysfunctional society.
I hate it! But I also hate Santorum's preaching about how contraception is "not OK." Not everything you or I hate should be prohibited.
That does not say we should condone these things. Santorum has a perfect right to criticize contraception...and we have a perfect right to blast him for his sanctimonious preachings. Likewise, we have a perfect fight to criticize any woman who admits that she aborted a fetus only because of its gender (male or female).

HAHA...should be "perfect right" in the last sentence...Freudian slip...

The fetus is not a part of the mother's body in the same sense as her liver is -"part" means a number of things in the latter case that it doesn't in the former. That is why the statement "the gender/eye color of the fetus is information about the mother's body" is absurd. The mother has her own gender and eye color.

The catastrophic reduction in our genetic diversity that designer babies would mean is self-evident. Think about the reduction in the diversity of flora and fauna that our agriculture has always brought into any area. Or think about baby-naming and parenting fads: go to a playground and watch half a dozen Bellas and Jakes run around dressed in almost identical clothing, all tagging along the must-have cool toy of the year. We're horrible at this stuff, Bert. I hate clichés like "nature's wisdom", but it seems to be apt here.

I am certainly not ignoring the conflict between the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus. That conflict is inherent in the biological reality of pregnancy, and is present throughout its course. In a previous discussion with Dennis, when he said the same thing about the "law contradict[ing] itself", I argued that all positions on the matter are similarly self-contradictory due to that conflict. But that isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about whether it's reasonable to withhold medically irrelevant information about the fetus to prevent "designer" abortions.

You might well be right that the phenomenon is not statistically demonstrable in the general population in the UK. It is in India and China. (You have to look at the sex ratio at birth--the sex of aborted fetuses is not recorded.) And it is demonstrable in the UK in the ethnic groups involved. (Here's an article that refers to a UK study--while saying, I'm afraid, that the practice is becoming common in the US as well.)

We've discussed the effect on population size already... No, aborting female fetuses will not significantly affect the birthrate, because the idea is to replace them with male ones. There is certainly no sign of the practice reducing the number of births in India.

There's been quite a bit written about China, where the effects are starting to manifest themselves. (Random article.)

I didn't say everything we hate should be prohibited, and I don't see Santorum's free speech as a relevant analogy.

I only used Santorum's comments to illustrate that even though people say and do stupid things, it doesn't mean we should pass laws to prevent them. Social pressure is the correct response IMO.
But...after thinking about it some more, you have convinced me that some kind of "social engineering" is justified in this case.
Certainly, the healthcare system should not pay for the test...except in those rare cases where family medical history indicates a gender-specific genetic abnormality.
But I am still uncomfortable with the idea of enacting a law that prohibits a woman from having the test if she is willing to pay for it. And, of course, after she has the test, if she decides to seek an abortion, NOBODY KNOWS what her reason(s) are...which was the whole point I was trying to make with this article.

Maybe one less "reason" for a tragic abortion is a worthwhile thing, which is the point others have made.

The best way to avoid abortions, Dave, is widespread availability of free contraceptives.

Sidestepping. But to your point, they already are widely available.

Is that true in the UK? I don't know.

According to Patient.co.uk, 75% of UK women of childbearing age use some form of contraception, but your comment, as I said, is a sidestep and a diversion. We're talking here about women who are trying to conceive.

As I said above, a right to something like information is not absolute or inherent. Society has a say, and you're just one guy, Bert. Your proposed absolute right to information, for which your arguments are not especially compelling, fails to take into account important values that others have identified.

That is your opinion, Dave, and I have mine.
I respect yours.

I appreciate that, Bert, and I'm not about to tell you what to believe. You said, "But I am still uncomfortable with the idea of enacting a law that prohibits a woman from having the test if she is willing to pay for it." I question whether there is some value beyond your personal comfort level that would support a mandated release of information that has no practical purpose other than the gratuitous abortion of an otherwise healthy fetus.

I will let you speculate on my motives, Dave. If I haven't convinced you by now of my concerns, there is nothing further that I can say.
And I ask you to respect my opinion, as I respect yours.

I don't see any intelligible concern expressed--that's why I'm asking for something. What's the source of your expressed discomfort about temporarily holding on the information? How does that stack up against the harm to society of these unnecessary abortions?

I have said repeatedly that I deplore gender selective abortions. I have also said...if you have read my responses to aniko...that I agree that some "social engineering" is justified, but that the right of a woman to know what is going on in her body is also important. I could respond to you that I do not see any intelligible concern on YOUR part about that. Apparently you do not care that she would be prohibited from knowledge about her body that medical science is capable of providing.
I think there is a legitimate argument on both sides of this, and frankly I resent your implication that I don't show what you consider to be a proper level of concern.
As I said above, I ask you to respect my opinion, as I respect yours.

Not a level of concern; just undefined. No need to rehash the previous discussion having to do with health of mother or baby, or information related distinctly to the woman. Just gender information about the fetus. Frankly, I hadn't considered the solution until it was brought up in your thread. I appreciate your putting up the post and hosting the discussion.

Okay. Sorry I got a little huffy there. This issue...a woman's right to know isn't the main point I was trying to make with this post. It was brought up as a side issue by aniko, and since then, the thread has gone off on this tangent. I admit that, as a pro-choice advocate, I tend to jump to the defense of the woman in these discussions, just as anti-abortion people tend to jump to the defense of the fetus. I really did not want this to become another of THOSE discussions...but whenever abortion is the subject, it always seems to end up like this.
But I will make this final point: If gender knowledge is denied to the woman, what other potential "defects" in the fetus might anti-abortionists decide should also be denied because they might tempt a woman to abort if she knew about them? It could be a slippery slope.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, and I hope to hear from you again.

I will make this final point, because the only support I see in all of your comments is a dubious slippery slope argument. We should allow rocket launchers to be sold at Wal-Mart because the next thing you know, they'll take away my deer rifle. We should send 57,000 Americans and a million Vietnamese to their deaths because next thing you know, another Commie domino will fall. It is the interposition of policy that can't stand on its own legs based on consequences that can't be proved.

HAHA. Good bye, Dave.

What about "hate crimes"? In name, they presuppose a motive. But in reality, I suppose it is a little more complicated. The act of the crime expresses hate, I reckon. But even that seems a little silly to me. Either the act is legal or illegal.

On the other hand, knowledge and education are nice paths to avoid such situations. But one has to walk a fine line not to offend traditional, conservative, family values.

The parallel with hate crimes...especially "hate speech" has occurred to me too, esteban. There was an excellent editorial in the LA Times a couple days ago on that. It warned against encroachment of the Constitutional right to free speech as the definition of what constitutes hate speech expands. Coincidentally, as I was lying in bed awaiting sleep last night, it occurred to me that I needed to write a follow-up article to this one that discussed the larger problem of the curtailment of individual liberties in the interests of what I will call "social harmony."
When does the need for social harmony outweigh individual freedoms?
It's a tricky question, I think...and a narrow line that a democratic society must try to tread.

Hate speech is legal; therefore, by definition, not a hate crime. A hate crime is a criminal act (typically, a violent assault) on someone because of their gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.

I think I have proposed an answer to your question: when the threat to a decent, human, livable society is significantly greater than the impingement on individual freedom. I find the latter negligible in the case we're discussing.

As this web site shows, some kinds of hate speech are not protected by the First Amendment...particularly speech that advocates the commission of a hate crime.
And, in principle, I agreed with you. The only question I had was how the threat should be countered. There are many ways to do that, including, in this case, education and public pressure.

Who turned "hate" into an adjective anyway? Is there any crime that is not hateful in some way? If you kill someone because they are homeless or because they are with excessive home, are both of those acts hateful?

I think "decent, human, livable" is too subjective to be useful. Admirable though.

I reckon most of these issues need not concern the courts.

aniko...you have really "provoked" me into some serious thinking, for a change! I was awake for hours in bed last night thinking about this.
I need to work on a thoughtful response to your well-reasoned (as always) arguments. But not here. I need to write a follow-up article. It will take awhile, and I hope you will come and comment.

esteban...except for Mike, in the very first post in this thread, you are the only commenter with whom I agree completely.

I think that you and Farmer Slim try to speak from as few premises as possible.

It is very difficult to discern premises in this sort of communication medium.

No, not really, esteban. Most of the people who are outraged by this post...the idea of gender-selective abortions...are outraged by the idea of abortion in general. So this is just an opportunity to attack abortion in a context that might gain support from the general populace who, in general, support the notion of a woman's right to choose.
Their agenda is clear, although they will not admit it.

(Bert exhibits his utter lack of logical reasoning in that last comment, as far as I'm concerned. Egocentrically dismissing everyone who does not agree with him, on the grounds that everyone who does not agree with him is stupidly or disingenuously trying to influence public opinion. (This guy wouldn't recognize sound logic if it bit him in the butt, I don't think . . he's strictly a fantasy based reasoner ; )

On the other hand some folks show up for argument and abuse.

Bert, you said that gender-selection abortions are "abhorrent" and "deplorable" and should be denounced. You yourself, Bert, have taken "an opportunity to attack abortion in a context that might gain support from the general populace." Why now complain about others who have done precisely what you have done in this same thread?

Bad taste should not be illegal. But it should be deplored.

As I said above, unpopular (but not illegal) actions can be opposed with public outcry. That is quite different from passing laws prohibiting them or restricting access to information that might lead to them, as you and others have advocated, Dave.
You questioned my lack of "concern" because I disagree with your draconian agenda. But now you are on the other side, conflating my position with yours. You are confusing me, Dave.
I thought you left your "last word" awhile ago (smile).

esteban, Bert is criticizing the "attacks" that are being made by commenters (in deploring these abortions), but unfortunately for his argument here, he's inadvertently included himself in the group. I'm sure that he'd love to be extracted, but any such attempt only emphasizes the straw man argument that he's attempting. He's fallaciously disparaging any voice of conscience that speaks to the tragedy of gender-selection abortions by attempting to attach them to policies that they may or may not advocate--i.e., he's constructing straw men.

And esteban, gender-selection abortions are a completely indefensible, preventable, incredibly negligent tragedy in every case. This is a bit more serious than coffee breath.

How do you feel about it, esteban? Are you "outraged by the idea of abortion in general?" See it as unfortunate in at least some cases? I have yet to talk to any woman in real life with a personal experience with an abortion who sees it as less than tragic, whatever the circumstances. Each case is unique, but none of them stylish or cheery. "Outrage" is a term that Bert is using to paint as extremist or crazed all who are troubled by the prevalence of medically-unnecessary abortions. It's a slippery slope for Bert to fall into seeing all who have questions as members of one group, even if he embarrassingly discovers that he's included himself in the "group" that he's disparaging.

Cross post with Bert.

Your last comment is a straw man argument, Bert. You don't know what so-called "draconian" measures I advocate. I expressed support for the concept that there being no absolute right to information, that information on gender could be released at a time appropriate to averting a practice that you and I both find deplorable. I haven't commented on policies that are not related to this one issue.

Ha ha, as are you, I'm BA-AAACK!

And I didn't question your lack of concern, as I explained before. You haven't explained what your concern is, other than your "comfort level" with dissemination of information on demand. Your comfort is important to me, Bert, but I don't think it's dispositive.

Your wording was ambiguous...you expressed my lack of "definition" of my concern. There was no lack of definition. I repeatedly stated my position exactly, as I just did yet again above.
But this discussion is accomplishing nothing, and I am working on a follow-up article that I believe will clarify my position and expose the agenda of anti-abortionists who are trying to use this issue to further their agenda to make all abortion illegal.
As for the strawman, Dave, as I have said repeatedly, restricting a woman's access to information about her body is a violation of her rights. I find such an idea draconian. Obviously you do not.

And as others said before I did, there is no restriction of information about "the woman's body" here--she is female. What this accomplished is to dismiss your attempt at a hackneyed characterization of people involved in public discourse on the issue. I commend you for publicly declaring that gender selection abortion is abhorrent and for advancing discussion of the topic.

In researching this topic, I stumbled on a web site...actually several of them...that are involved in fetal gender selection, not through abortion, but by extracting the eggs, fertilizing them with the father's sperm and then testing the embryo for gender before implanting it.
I just wondered how you feel about this.

I'm fine with those methods, although they still run into problems with arguments such as those that Sy and Anikó advanced earlier. The impetus for gender selection represents a difficulty in either the couple or society that promotes a perceived gender advantage. Addressing that as a problem in the society is where the rubber hits the road. Expressing those concerns, as I said above, is not the same as advocating the assignment of a government minder to every uterus in the country.

And as I said before, your argument that a woman is not entitled to medical information (including gender) about the fetus is based on the ancient question of when the fetus becomes an individual with its own rights. Until that point, I maintain that the fetus is as much a part of a woman's body as a tumor...and certainly she has a right to know everything about that.
There are widely varying opinions on the question of fetal "personhood," and your whole argument rests on that point.

No, it has nothing to do with fetal personhood, or very little that I can think of. Information that bears on the health of mother or baby certainly needs to be provided in the context of mother's medical care. This really has nothing to do with those considerations, however. It wasn't my idea, of course, but it appears to have been thought through pretty well. In this case, I think there is a good argument for balancing the interests of society and the mother, with no health or other practical consequences for mother.

"...with no health or other practical consequences for mother."

That is incredibly presumptuous...to assert that YOU know everything about the physical and mental health of the mother, and can dictate her actions.
What "interests of society" do you think should override the rights of the woman to determine if she wants to carry the fetus that is in her body to term?
Do you think that when an egg is fertilized, it becomes the property of the government? That the woman whose body contains that egg summarily loses all rights to determine its fate?

Coincidentally, I just got an Email from the ACLU.

Dear R.,
Oppose the "let doctors lie" anti-abortion law. Write Governor Sam Brownback right now.
I thought I had seen it all. After years of working on reproductive rights, I thought I was beyond being shocked. Then I heard about a provision in a sweeping new Kansas anti-abortion bill, that is almost too stunning to believe.
The "let doctors lie" provision of this law would give legal protection to a doctor who discovers that a baby will be born with a devastating condition and deliberately withholds that information from his patient.

When I suggested earlier to you, Dave that withholding information from the woman was a "slippery slope," you disparaged my concerns.
After reading this, would you change your opinion?

This was specifically and repeatedly addressed in my comments, Bert, when I drew a distinction between medically relevant information (which is what the Kansas bill would withhold), and medically irrelevant information like the baby's gender (eye color, etc).

(Did you really just hear about this bill?)

I suppose we all have fears. Some folks seem to have a need to produce babies regardless of any other concern.

Regarding earlier comments (sorry), I appreciate your words that I provoked you to think about the matter, Bert.

I completely disagree that "Most of the people who are outraged by this post...the idea of gender-selective abortions...are outraged by the idea of abortion in general", though I understood the whole time that you were thinking in terms of the wider attempts to restrict abortion and that was what limited your willingness to look at the specifics of this issue. No, I'd wager that if gender-selection abortions were presented in a different context, with a write-up about the blatant patriarchal misogynistic cultural values that they represent, and at a time when legal abortion is not under attack, the vast majority of very pro-choice liberals would be outraged by the practice. That is what another commenter meant by "irony", as I think you understood at the time.

The gender of a baby is medically relevant. All a matter of degree, but every variable is potentially important for both the child and mother's health. Where do you draw the line?

I understant YOUR position, aniko. But my point is that attempts to limit access to information about gender are a small step beyond what they are proposing in Kansas. As I said earlier...a slippery slope...which is itself ironic, since the Religious Right is always carping about the slippery slope to moral relativism.

I am not against abortion. I am against allowing the sex of a pregnancy to be known in ORDER TO ABORT a healthy, but FEMALE fetus.

I knew about the bill and I obviously disagree with it. The bill's sponsors frame it differently, as a protection for doctors against lawsuits from parents whose baby didn't turn out the way they wanted it to, with provisions to allow for malpractice suits, but it still looks like a bad bill. I'm sorry you're having a hard time coping with your own feelings about gender selection babies, Bert. The practice is abhorrent, and, as you agreed, should be denounced. Don't let moral relativism or an anxious need to place things into nice, tidy categories blur your moral vision.

If you've read my comments over the years, you know I'm not on the RR.

Thank you, Ishbel, for underlining your "nuanced" opinion. Makes perfect sense to me.

I didn't like to be told that anyone expressing a view here against abortions on the ground of sex is part of a wider group who is anti-abortion.

Agreed. Very well put, Ishbel.

Ishbel,
I have posted on this topic myself and had a similar response, the accusation was that I am anti abortion and anti contraception despite my having anticipated such irrational attacks from certain quarters and clearly stated that I am not.

The failure of people supporting the main post to see the gulf between a woman's right not to take her pregnancy to full term and the use of abortion to select the gender of a child speaks volumes of their moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

The question is should it be legal. Morality is another problem.

Esteban, here's what I said above in this thread: "What I did specify was the information that would not be disclosed from the results of any test: the gender of the baby. And what I did make exception for was the situation in which there was concern about a sex-linked genetic disorder, making the information medically significant. In every other case, asking women to wait a few months to find out the gender of their baby seems to do little harm..."

That's what is on the table in terms of the solution I offered, and what needs to be responded to.

I disagree that what I'm offering goes "beyond" the Kansas bill, Bert. It does require rather than excuse the non-disclosal of information, but the kind of information is not comparable. Again, I have clearly and repeated said that information about genetic diseases of the fetus must be disclosed and I obviously disagree with that bill.

Who is to decide medical significance?

I get the feeling that aniko is really concerned about female fetuses. I concur with that feeling. I don't think it is a legal problem.

So a person wants the freedom to make a medical decision but only with the permission of a governmental medical board.

There you go...a question for our times.

How about medical doctors? Get me one here that says that in the absence of a genetic disorder the gender of the fetus is medically significant information for the mother.

Would a doctor consider it medically significant if the woman would be greatly stressed by having a female baby because of spousal or other family or social pressures? Maybe even beaten or killed?
I DO find such coercion abhorrent, aniko, but the doctor might be putting the woman at risk by withholding gender information.
I'm not sure what a doctor should do in such a situation.
What do you think?

The risk of coercion is an argument for a policy of withholding gender information, Bert. I mentioned this in my Mar 8, 2012, 8:52am EST comment.

I think that's about the best we can say, Dave. That situation requires social intervention. Sending the woman back into an environment in which she might be killed? Surely we should do better than that.

India has a law prohibiting gender testing. People find a way around it.
The culture has to change, and that will take time. But there are signs it is happening, even in India. Read my follow-up article.

http://pregnancy.about.com/od/boyorgirl/p/girlorboy.htm

The IVF method described in my post above guarantees the gender while these methods increase the probability. Either one could preclude the need for an abortion.
It will be interesting to see if the opponents of gender selection abortion oppose any attempts to select gender, or only those that involve abortion.

Well, how about you, Bert? You said you found gender-selection abortions abhorrent.

I have been thinking about this a lot, aniko, and my opinion is changing.
I no longer view them as "abhorrent." "Unfortunate" might be a better choice of adjective. A woman should have control of the process that goes on in her own body. If she wants a child of a particular gender, nobody should be able to prohibit her from making that happen, whether by abortion or by IVF...although the latter is clearly preferable.
I have a lot more to say about this...I have been researching the effects of gender selection abortion in China and India. Contrary to your view, the resultant imbalance in sexes does not seem to be causing violent confrontation between competing males. The main effect is that women are seeking mates with higher education...and better economic prospects, so the less educated men are starting to import brides from other countries like Vietnam.
I will have a lot more to say about this in the article I am working on.

That sounds interesting.

Concur that abhorrent is probably the wrong word.

A shame.

Right, esteban. I disapprove. As I disapprove of smoking.

another aspect....

just why is abortion perceived as OK (at least by some) in cases of forcible impregnation and not in cases of voluntary impregnation? It is a moment.

i think we are going to enter into a new era of eugenics in the next few generations.

Good question, esteban! I wrote an article about this a couple years ago.
I think you would find it interesting.
Opposed To Abortion? Think About This.

esteban, it is a tragedy in all cases--legal, illegal, whatever the circumstances. As a vivid example, although not a tight parallel, have you ever read one of those stories where due to a mixup in the OR, a person scheduled to have a limb amputated has the wrong one taken off? The planned amputation represented a tragedy in the person's life. Taking off the "good" limb? A tragedy as well, but this time unequivocally not ok.

you mean abortion is a tragedy? or impregnation is a tragedy?

life is that way. sometimes the best decision is still painful. doesn't make that decision incorrect.

I think one point of Bert's stimulus above is as follows.

(a) Assume abortion is legal and accepted in most cases.
(b) Does it make sense to try to figure out if a person wants an abortion based on the sex of the potential child?

As a practical matter, it is a whole lot less fuss, money, heartache to not worry about motives.

There are lots of reasons folks might have for wanting either sex child or no child at all. Should this choice be legal after impregnation? Do you put all parties involved in prison for abortion or attempted abortion?

Some may say that a family's mental health is damaged by abortion. That may be true. I don't feel threatened by it though.

I'm glad methamphetamine is restricted. Abortion is on the other end of the spectrum.

Straw man argument, esteban. No one here is saying that it "makes sense to try to figure out if a person wants an abortion based on the sex of the potential child."

In addition, no one here has argued for placing new limits on currently legal abortions, although quite obviously many in the country have done so.

There is a political uproar in England at the moment over women seeking abortion on the basis of the gender of the fetus. This is apparently against the law in England. It is also illegal in Australia, but Canada has no prohibition against it. As far as I can determine, it is not illegal in the US, but abortion statistics show no gender preference in this country.


Quoting Bert.

You've silenced your moral sense that spoke to you loud and clear in order to accommodate your absolutist position, Bert.

I didn't say we were at the point where there were violent confrontations in India and China. I said the effects are beginning to be felt.

Esteban, no one here is saying that. My first comment, for example, was to agree with Bert that that does not make sense. We've been talking for quite a while--how about reading the comment thread so you'd know who said what?

Too many pronouns.

The gender imbalance in some regions in India is quite large, Aniko. ..8/10.
One would think that such a dramatic shortage of women would cause all kinds of problems if you are right about this. So far I haven't found any. As I said, men in the lower economic classes are the ones most affected, and they are beginning to import brides...even Buddhist women from Vietnam and Muslims from somewhere else that wasn't specified in the report I read. I am spending a lot of time researching this right now. If I can find any evidence of social instability, I promise you I will include it in Part 2 of this article.

aniko...By "absolutist position," you mean that I am pro-choice, right?
Since you all are claiming that your opposition to this has nothing to do with opposition to abortion, then you should be just as outraged by IVF and other methods of controlling the gender of the fetus.
Are you?

I must add...to aniko...I am dismayed that you would disparage my "moral sense." I have thought long and hard about this. I understand the conflicting views. I do not question your "moral sense" in advocating the withholding of information from a woman with a fetus in her belly. She is the one who is affected by laws that restrict her options...not your or I.
I respect your views, and I am sorry you do not respect mine.

1. No, I do not mean being pro-choice by "absolutist position". (How the hell could I mean that if I am pro-choice, and I'm obviously criticizing the position I have described as such?)

I mean your position that the woman's right to information about her fetus--even information that is medically irrelevant both for her and the fetus, and is being withheld only for a short while--is absolute, and absolutely NOTHING, no matter what the situation, can override it. That, by definition, is an absolutist position.

2. I didn't disparage your moral sense. I praised your intuitive moral sense that identified the abortion of female fetuses in order to make room for superior male fetuses as "abhorrent" (I wouldn't actually use that word--I'm more into phrases like "highly problematic"), and I expressed dismay that fears of a slippery slope and an invasion of anti-choice fifth columnists made you silence that voice.

You do not respect my views any more than I respect yours. The language in the very comment above makes that clear, but the rest of the thread is full of your claims that anyone who opposes gender-selection abortions simply has an anti-choice agenda. Passive aggression does not become you, Bert.

(As for your research, how about googling "gender imbalance" and "violence"? Or maybe "human trafficking"?

Again, a random result.)

Okay, I guess we both are getting a little too huffy here. I really DO respect your views, aniko. And I am really conflicted on this issue. Apparently you did not see my my retraction of the word "abhorrent."
I usually write pretty quickly, but I am having a lot of trouble organizing the material I have assembled into a coherent piece. Maybe because my thinking is not very coherent at the moment. :>)
And thank you for the advice. I have collected quite a bit of interesting stuff already.

(It's a subordinating conjunction followed by a demonstrative pronoun, esteban, but I don't believe you really had difficulty with it, so I'll take that as a "whatever--I can't bother to read what people are saying before responding to them.) :)

Your retraction of the word "abhorrent" was what I was commenting on, Bert. :) I do appreciate the toning down of the language, and I note that you're conflicted. I'm not, to tell you the truth--it does seem to me that the line between medically important test results and "designer" information can be drawn fairly clearly.

That's not my problem, aniko.
But I would rather not continue the discussion here.
I need to think about it some more, and researching and writing the continuation of this article is helping me to do that.
It may be awhile. It's going slowly, and I keep finding new stuff.
I will say this: I think it is a much more complex and less clear-cut issue than you do.

Interesting--I suppose that depends on where you're looking. I think "it's more complex and less clear-cut" every time I see you declare the woman's right to information absolute and overriding any other concern that might arise. :)

To find out the sex of your baby to kill it is wrong! (Actually to kill a perfectly healthy baby and possibly one with problems is also wrong. I never considered abortion an option for my daughter, even if I had found out she had some type of abnormality.) Some countries are now having a problem of an imbalance of sexes and there are no women for the men to marry because of sex selection abortions. Whether you prefer one sex or another you still must accept what you are given.

Thanks, Amanda for making my point that anti-abortionists oppose abortion for medical reasons as much as they do for gender selection. I appreciate your honesty.

Whether you prefer one sex or another you still must accept what you are given.

Why? Humans fiddle with stuff.