# Why is abortion for sex-selection wrong?



## billc (Feb 23, 2012)

Here is an article on a abortion doctors in England agreeing to do abortions based on sex selection by the parents.  My question is, if you agree that the mother has an absolute right to abort/kill her baby, why is aborting/killing the baby because it is the wrong sex wrong?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...ing-illegal-abortions-no-questions-asked.html



> Doctors at British clinics have been secretly filmed agreeing to terminate foetuses purely because they are either male or female. Clinicians admitted they were prepared to falsify paperwork to arrange the abortions even though it is illegal to conduct such &#8220;sex-selection&#8221; procedures.
> 
> Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said: &#8220;I&#8217;m extremely concerned to hear about these allegations. Sex selection is illegal and is morally wrong. I&#8217;ve asked my officials to investigate this as a matter of urgency.&#8221;



I don't quite get what the problem is here.  If you agree that abortions of a perfectly healthy baby are not wrong and should be permitted, if that is what the mother wants, then why is it illegal to abort due to the wrong sex?


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 23, 2012)

billcihak said:


> My question is, if you agree that the mother has an absolute right to abort/kill her baby, why is aborting/killing the baby because it is the wrong sex wrong?



Your question does not follow from the premise.  I believe you have an absolute right to cheat on your wife or act like a ****, and you should never face governmental sanction for it (social sanction is another story).  That doesn't mean that I think cheating on your wife or acting like a **** are morally right.

You know this of course, this is just another way to paint your opponents in an unflattering light.


----------



## Steve (Feb 23, 2012)

Speaking only for myself, I think that abortion should be safe and legal for women in the first or second trimester.  I understand that there are many different definitions of when life begins, both legal and otherwise, but I consider life to begin around month 6, once the child is viable outside the womb.   Any abortions after this point are, for me, only justifiable where the mother's life is at genuine risk or the child's health is compromised to the point that he or she is not able to survive.  

So, questions like this are pretty easy to answer.  If the abortion is to occur in the first or second trimester, I think that it's up to the woman.  I don't personally agree, but I also don't think we're talking about a viable human life at that point, either.  The decision to abort a pregnancy due to the gender of the fetus is pretty crass and heartless.  

Also, just to note, this is the UK, and their laws are not our laws.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 23, 2012)

This is not an 'English' thing, not even a British thing. It's Asian. The clinics are private ones, not NHS and it's against the law to have an abortion based ont he sex of the child. Abortions are legal only for medical reasons. Among Asian families there is a great pressure on mothers to produce sons, it's common in India and other Asian countries to have abortions based on the gender. what the articles aren't saying probably due to PCness it that it's the Asian parents here going to clinics where Asian doctors are willing to do abortions based on gender.  I wouldn't want you to think that it's something that is encouraged or wanted here.It's not so easy to obtain an abortion here as perhaps articles would have you think. We also have a big problem here with Asian children being born handicapped due to the practice of cousins marrying each other right through generations so parents can marry cousisns, their children marry cousins etc etc.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 24, 2012)

http://www.economist.com/node/15636231

http://www.8asians.com/2011/12/07/89-of-indian-women-carrying-girls-opted-for-abortion/

In America http://afterabortion.org/2011/expert-says-sex-selection-abortions-happening-in-the-u-s-many-coerced/

This is disturbing reading.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1276902/Britains-hidden-gendercide-How-Britains-Asians-copying-Indian-cousins-aborting-girls.

_"It is difficult for those of white British origins, who come from a culture where the safe arrival of a healthy baby girl is a cause for celebration, to understand the deep-rooted commitment of British Indian families to what has become known as 'son preference'."
_


This is less about abortion than the worth of females.* Banned abortion or in places where it's not available baby girls are left to die or actually killed.

*Bili you are arguing about abortion rights or not in your case, you are obviously not understanding what the problem is in these cases. You want to tell us again how abortion is wrong but that's not actually the problem here, it's the destruction of females. Abortion in these cases only means the baby doesn't get born, if it does it will be destroyed anyway, thrown in a slops pail to drown, left in the cold, not fed, taken away and thrown on the rubbish, that's the fate of many babies, perhaps it's better if they are never born in the first place if that's the best that's in store for them. What we need to be doing is placing a value on girls lives, allowing these babies to be born and live proper lives.


----------



## granfire (Feb 24, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> http://www.economist.com/node/15636231
> 
> http://www.8asians.com/2011/12/07/89-of-indian-women-carrying-girls-opted-for-abortion/
> 
> ...



Or if they are born and raised, then only to be sold to brothels by their parents...


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 24, 2012)

granfire said:


> Or if they are born and raised, then only to be sold to brothels by their parents...




That too, or another form of sex slavery as a child bride to an old man.


 A glib 'condemnation' of abortion laws isn't going to cut it I'm afraid in this case. Oh it's England and aren't they awful...no we are bloody well not, we are trying to do something about the destruction of females, Bili what are you doing?
http://www.internationalwomensday.com/default.asp


----------



## granfire (Feb 24, 2012)

The problem is not solved by raising the finger.
it's a deep ingrained cultural problem that will need generations to fix.

(then again, the practice of eliminating female births are already producing a grossly misshapen population pyramid. Maybe with a severe lack of females their value rises in the future...)


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2012)

It's a legitimate question, and one I've raised before.  And I think it is disingenuous of supporters of a woman's right to choose to shy away from it or attempt to deflect the argument by attacking the person asking the question, or by (as seen in this thread) pointing out that there are worse things done to unwanted children.

Let's make it plain and clear, and no, I do NOT have an agenda here.

* It is currently legal in the USA and many countries for a woman to choose to have an abortion. *

There is no legal requirement for a justification to be given.  A woman who may abort legally may do so for any reason or none at all.

In any society in which there is preference for children of a specific sort, and the medical ability to provide some form of diagnostic evaluation of the fetus (or unborn child, take your pick, I'm not trying to play with buzzwords here), it is both entirely possible and reasonable to assume that abortion will sometimes be chosen based upon this knowledge.

For example, it is not unusual, even though not often talked about, for an abortion to occur if the fetus is known to have a serious disease, or mental retardation.  Some may choose to carry such a child to term and raise the child as best they can for as long as the child lives, but it is understood to represent a serious burden on the family and perhaps society as well.  Some feel it is entirely reasonable to not impose such a burden on a child, its parents, or society by aborting such a fetus.

We do have evidence of gender-based abortion preferences.  Sorry if it makes people angry to talk about it, but it appears to be happening, even if it does not happen often.  Granted that it would be morally 'bad' according to the moral compasses of many people, but such practice would be completely legal under the laws of every nation and state I am aware of, since the mother does not even have to state a reason for the termination of pregnancy.  In other words, no one can be prosecuted for a crime if they say _"I had an abortion because I wanted a boy and this fetus would have become a girl."_  Terrible, but completely legal.

Considering that science marches on, and we can make accurate medical predictions better and better each year, it is entirely possible that the time will come when science can predict things like the color eyes, skin, hair, and other physical traits a fetus will have.  Science fiction?  Please, we already can predict a number of different DNA-based predilections with a high degree of accuracy, and that would have  been science fiction just a few years ago.

So given that, it would seem that at some point in the near future, we will have the ability to tailor a child by rejecting unwanted traits, not unlike a gardener breeding flowers.  In the past, this was called eugenics.  You may have heard of it.

There is no reason to suppose that some (certainly not all, and probably not even a majority) of prospective parents will choose abortion for reasons such as predisposition to certain genetic traits, from lack of disease to height and athletic or mental ability.  To the extent that we CAN predict such things now, that sort of selection already takes place, so there is no argument that can be made that it won't take place in the future as well if abortion laws remain as they are.

And I am not suggesting that abortion laws be changed.  I am suggesting that this is an issue which has to be confronted and discussed.  It's legitimate, it's reasonable to have the discussion, and attacking the person bringing it up just makes you look bad.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 24, 2012)

billcihak said:


> ...
> 
> I don't quite get what the problem is here. If you agree that abortions of a perfectly healthy baby are not wrong and should be permitted, if that is what the mother wants, then why is it illegal to abort due to the wrong sex?



You haven't defined if you question this on legal or moral grounds. If the law allows it (which from other posts it seems it may not), then that is the simple answer. It is what the law says.

If you question it on moral grounds, then it depends on the morals of whoever is answering you. For myself, I cannot agree with abortion. That hasn't always been my stance. But as I have gotten older, and read the Bible more, I go with the Bible. It points out God knowing some people before they were formed in the womb. I take that to mean at conception, a baby is a person. 

And I know of nothing imperically or scientifically, that can show when a "baby" becomes a person. Steve has pointed out he believes a baby becomes a person at six months. As I said, I cannot show an imperical or scientific study to refute that, nor do I know of any to support that, or my belief either. It is something I accept on faith. If you follow another religious belief than I do, you may not agree. That is each person's decision to make based on their on moral beliefs.

But Bill Mattocks brings up a good non-religious concern that needs some consideration; eugenics. To me that carries some conotations I find frightening.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 24, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It's a legitimate question, and one I've raised before.



It is not a legitimate question the way it was framed, because it assumes a conclusion that does not follow from the premise.  There is nothing about being pro-choice that necessitates the belief that all or even some abortions must be moral.  No more than not wanting adultery made illegal means I must find it moral.

If anyone wants to talk about the moral basis of particular abortion choices go right ahead, but that wasn't what the OP stated.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 24, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> And I know of nothing imperically or scientifically, that can show when a "baby" becomes a person.



I know an enormous amount scientifically that can demonstrate that a recently conceived embryo does not and can not be a "person" by any commonly accepted definition of the term.  Would you actually be interested in hearing the evidence and changing your opinion accordingly, or would you continue to insist against the evidence for religious reasons that a just-fertilized egg counts as a "person"?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 24, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> Your question does not follow from the premise. I believe you have an absolute right to cheat on your wife or act like a ****, and you should never face governmental sanction for it (social sanction is another story). That doesn't mean that I think cheating on your wife or acting like a **** are morally right.
> 
> You know this of course, this is just another way to paint your opponents in an unflattering light.



Much like how I'll stand behind someone's rigth to speak, even if I think what they're saying is the most ignorant, hate-fueled, ideological (idealogical?) crap ever. Don't have to agree with something to believe in the right to it. 

As most everyone who's taken a sincere look at the abortion issue knows, the pro-choice crowd is pro-CHOICE, not pro-abortion.

Edit: I didn't realize the article in question was concerning abortions held outside the U.S.; hadn't looked at them before responding to EH's post.  My bad.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 24, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> I know an enormous amount scientifically that can demonstrate that a recently conceived embryo does not and can not be a "person" by any commonly accepted definition of the term. Would you actually be interested in hearing the evidence and changing your opinion accordingly, or would you continue to insist against the evidence for religious reasons that a just-fertilized egg counts as a "person"?



Hell, I'd like to look over it.  I'm pro-choice, but the question of when life begins still makes me hesitate a bit.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 24, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It's a legitimate question, and one I've raised before. And I think it is disingenuous of supporters of a woman's right to choose to shy away from it or attempt to deflect the argument by attacking the person asking the question, or by (as seen in this thread) pointing out that there are worse things done to unwanted children.
> 
> ...
> 
> And I am not suggesting that abortion laws be changed. I am suggesting that this is an issue which has to be confronted and discussed. It's legitimate, it's reasonable to have the discussion, and attacking the person bringing it up just makes you look bad.



The answer, quite simply, is that there is a distinction between whether each of us finds somethign to be morally acceptable and whether we think one has a right to make the decision.  Whether I agree with preference-based abortions or not, I still believe in the right to choose.  But when people have the right to do something, it's an unfortunate reality that some will choose to exercise that right for very wrong reasons.  You just have to accept that it'll happen.

Speaking for myself, I think that the decision to abort, regardless of the personhood of the unborn, remains a serious decision, and I find it kinda reprehensible that someone would make such a decision based on personal preference.  On the other hand, I was born with a genetic defect, and to be honest, I wouldn't have blamed my parents one bit if, knowing that their unborn was going to have this syndrome, they'd have opted to abort.  The latter reason for aborting, in my eyes, is one that gives respect to the gravity of the choice to prevent a life from forming; the former seems shallow and thoughtless.  

My 2 cents, anyway.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2012)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> The answer, quite simply, is that there is a distinction between whether each of us finds somethign to be morally acceptable and whether we think one has a right to make the decision.  Whether I agree with preference-based abortions or not, I still believe in the right to choose.  But when people have the right to do something, it's an unfortunate reality that some will choose to exercise that right for very wrong reasons.  You just have to accept that it'll happen.
> 
> Speaking for myself, I think that the decision to abort, regardless of the personhood of the unborn, remains a serious decision, and I find it kinda reprehensible that someone would make such a decision based on personal preference.  On the other hand, I was born with a genetic defect, and to be honest, I wouldn't have blamed my parents one bit if, knowing that their unborn was going to have this syndrome, they'd have opted to abort.  The latter reason for aborting, in my eyes, is one that gives respect to the gravity of the choice to prevent a life from forming; the former seems shallow and thoughtless.
> 
> My 2 cents, anyway.



I think that's a reasonable response.  However, it does mean that if and when Eugenics (under whatever new and improved name) rears its ugly head again, it will proceed without legal sanction; just people tsk,tsking at it.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 24, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> I know an enormous amount scientifically that can demonstrate that a recently conceived embryo does not and can not be a "person" by any commonly accepted definition of the term. Would you actually be interested in hearing the evidence and changing your opinion accordingly, or would you continue to insist against the evidence for religious reasons that a just-fertilized egg counts as a "person"?



I am always interested in learning, so yes.  But I still might not agree.  One thing that might be a problem would be the "commonly accepted definition of the term" person.  I hope some evidence you might suggest I look at can address that as well?  Thanks for being willing to share what you have.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 24, 2012)

When I got back from Japan, in 1980, I went back to college at SUNY@ Stonybrook, on Long Island. I rented a little cabin in Rocky Point from a professor. He and his wife had a little boy, and she'd had amniocentesis and aborted three male pregnancies. Sex can usually be determined around the 20th week-though I don't know how true that was 33 years ago-so she had to be at least at the very end of the first trimester or into the beginning of the second before aborting pregnancies that did not have the desired outcome, a girl. I know all this because they were a little nuts, and she told me-they thought they were being very smart and hip, engaging in a little bit of designer family planning. 

As I said, this was all 33 years ago, in the United States. It happened then, it's probably happened since then. It doesn't really matter to me-I'm never going to have an abortion.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2012)

elder999 said:


> When I got back from Japan, in 1980, I went back to college at SUNY@ Stonybrook, on Long Island. I rented a little cabin in Rocky Point from a professor. He and his wife had a little boy, and she'd had amniocentesis and aborted three male pregnancies. Sex can usually be determined around the 20th week-though I don't know how true that was 33 years ago-so she had to be at least at the very end of the first trimester or into the beginning of the second before aborting pregnancies that did not have the desired outcome, a girl. I know all this because they were a little nuts, and she told me-they thought they were being very smart and hip, engaging in a little bit of designer family planning.
> 
> As I said, this was all 33 years ago, in the United States. It happened then, it's probably happened since then. It doesn't really matter to me-I'm never going to have an abortion.



As comedian Denis Leary once quipped, _"Like our kid?  He matches our couch."_


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 24, 2012)

So no one wants to address the issue of female children being killed either before birth or after? Does no one, apart from Granfire, see the problem here or as anything other than a chance to have a rant about your view on abortion? Does no one here worry about girls being killed just because they are girls...?
Bill M, I wasn't attacking the OP I was pointing out why he had it wrong and if you think I was pointing out that worst things happen you don't understand what i was saying, the reason these people are having babies aborted is because they are female, no other reason and it's the wrong reason, it's a horrendous reason. The issue is not actually abortion it's the attitude and cultural pressures that make this happen, change those and make girls 'valuble' and the aborting of female foetuses will stop. 

I'm done with thread, it makes me feel sick.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 24, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> So no one wants to address the issue of female children being killed either before birth or after? Does no one, apart from Granfire, see the problem here or as  anything other than a chance to have a rant about your view on abortion? Does no one here worry about girls being killed just because they are girls...?
> 
> I'm done with thread, it makes me feel sick.


Did anyone, in anyway suggest that that was OK?
Or are you bitching just to grandstand?


----------



## Big Don (Feb 24, 2012)

[h=2]From Dictionary.com:
a·bor·tion
[/h]&#8194; &#8194;[uh-bawr-shuhn]  Show IPA 

noun 1. Also called voluntary abortion.  the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. 

2. any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months. 

3. Also called spontaneous abortion.  miscarriage ( def. 1 ) 

[h=2]preg·nant
[/h][SUP]1 [/SUP]&#8194; &#8194;[preg-nuhnt]  Show IPA 
adjective 1. having a child or other offspring developing in the body; with child or young, as a woman or female mammal.

I find it interesting that the dictionary defines an abortion as ending a pregnancy, and a pregnancy is, of course a prerequisite for child birth, but, somehow, in the political realm a woman can be pregnant with something other than a human child.

 


[URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pregnant"]
[/URL]


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 24, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Did anyone, in anyway suggest that that was OK?
> Or are you bitching just to grandstand?



You are being crass and distasteful, it's quite clear that people are set into their usual positions on abortion as is the OP and missing the point...which is the reason for these abortions and the fact it's illegal in the UK.

And as for calling me a b****? 0/10 in the insult scale.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> So no one wants to address the issue of female children being killed either before birth or after? Does no one, apart from Granfire, see the problem here or as  anything other than a chance to have a rant about your view on abortion? Does no one here worry about girls being killed just because they are girls...?
> 
> I'm done with thread, it makes me feel sick.



It's a tough subject to talk about because it is deeply emotional for many.

It shows a basic dichotomy in some forms of belief.  For example, the basic belief in the rights of women, versus the basic belief in leaving other cultures which practice the subjugation of women, alone.  I'm not picking on the Left here, but this is low-hanging fruit.  I'm sure the Right has theirs as well.  The Left tends to think we should stay out of the Middle East; but many cultures in the Middle East do unpleasant things to women, rape is an accepted practice, some practice female genital mutilation (it's a culture thing, not an Islamic thing, for my hair-trigger GOP friends), and so on.  It often leaves people in a very uncomfortable position where they have to support one belief and pretend the other doesn't exist.

In the case of abortion, those who support a woman's right to choose regardless of reason or circumstances must also accept that this may mean some choose not to give birth to (less-valued depending on culture) females.  It's hard to support the right to choose AND be against intentional selection against females.

Every choice has consequences.  Some of them are less than desirable for all concerned.  Leave the Middle East to their own devices?  Sure.  And accept that the rape of girls and women is acceptable there.  Support on-demand free abortions?  Sure, and accept that some families will choose to abort a fetus that does not meet their desired criteria, such as being healthy, or male, or smart, or athletic, or etc, etc.

Every rose has it's thorns, to quote (yuck) Axl Rose.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 24, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> You are being crass and distasteful, it's quite clear that people are set into their usual positions on abortion as is the OP and missing the point...which is the reason for these abortions and the fact it's illegal in the UK.
> 
> And as for calling me a b****? 0/10 in the insult scale.



I did not call you anything, Bitching, is a term used when adults throw tantrums like two year olds.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 24, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It's a tough subject to talk about because it is deeply emotional for many.
> 
> It shows a basic dichotomy in some forms of belief. For example, the basic belief in the rights of women, versus the basic belief in leaving other cultures which practice the subjugation of women, alone. I'm not picking on the Left here, but this is low-hanging fruit. I'm sure the Right has theirs as well. The Left tends to think we should stay out of the Middle East; but many cultures in the Middle East do unpleasant things to women, rape is an accepted practice, some practice female genital mutilation (it's a culture thing, not an Islamic thing, for my hair-trigger GOP friends), and so on. It often leaves people in a very uncomfortable position where they have to support one belief and pretend the other doesn't exist.
> 
> ...




However the OP is about the UK, it's abortion laws, it's culture and mores. Abortion has been legal here since 1967, it's not a political issue and doesn't come up as an election issue. People have their personal views on the subject of course but on the whole it's something that stays private whichever way you think. This issue that the OP has brought up is a cultural one that is alien to our way of life,  our cultrue and what we believe, it has been brought in by cultures quite alien to ours in many ways. I wasn't pointing out that worst things happen, I was pointing out that these female babies will be killed one way or another, either before birth or after. 
abortion here is from medical reason not convenience, now I do realise that some will lie to the medics for a convenient abortion, however the law is that two doctors have to sign to agree, and it should be for medical reason, http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Abortion/Pages/Introduction.aspx

These clinics ( not 'abortion' clinics as such but private hospitals) that are allegedly performing what are illegal abortions here are the ones that will often perform genital mutilitions, virginity tests and if 'necessary' will 'mend' the hymen. 

The issue the OP has brought up as an abortion issue isn't so much about abortion but the underlying problems that we are having with other cultures living in our country. You could call it an immigration problem, if they assimililated and took on British values would they stop killing girls? It goes hand in hand with 'honour' killings, families intermarrying and forced marriages.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 24, 2012)

Big Don said:


> I did not call you anything, Bitching, is a term used when adults throw tantrums like two year olds.



So a woman has strong feeling about girls being killed and it's a tantrum...nice.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> You could call it an immigration problem, if they assimililated and took on British values would they stop killing girls?



No, I call it an 'abortion' problem.  If abortion is legal and not an issue, then they are not killing girls, they are exercising their rights to abort a fetus.  If one accepts they are killing girls by aborting female fetuses, then one must _a priori_ accept that abortion *means* killing people.  You simply cannot have it both ways.  If one takes the position that abortion is not murder (and I'm not arguing that abortion is murder, FYI), then the gender of the aborted fetus can hardly be called 'killing girls'.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 24, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It's hard to support the right to choose AND be against intentional selection against females.



WHY!?!?  I've made, what, 3 posts in this thread disputing this point again and again which no one has bothered to even address while still claiming the same thing?  It isn't hard at all to harmonize the two views, which should be abundantly clear from the examples I chose - nearly everyone supports some right without believing that all expressions of that right are correct or moral.  This is really simple stuff.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 24, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, I call it an 'abortion' problem. If abortion is legal and not an issue, then they are not killing girls, they are exercising their rights to abort a fetus. If one accepts they are killing girls by aborting female fetuses, then one must _a priori_ accept that abortion *means* killing people. You simply cannot have it both ways. If one takes the position that abortion is not murder (and I'm not arguing that abortion is murder, FYI), then the gender of the aborted fetus can hardly be called 'killing girls'.




No one doesn't have to accept that at all. The reasons for abortion are clear in this country and abortion because you don't like the sex of the foetus is not a reason to have a legal abortion therefore the abortions are illegal.  I am explaining why these abortions are occuring and why it's a problem, the law is blind, it says you cannot have a legal abortion on the basis you don't like the foetuses gender.


The Op was attempting to make it sound as if it's legal to have an abortion because of gender and that it's acceptable, I am attempting in vain it seems to explain a big social problem, in our country, I am trying to show people the hows, the whys and the wherefores, to give you a look at what life is like so that you can understand, perhaps but probably not where things fit in our society. I'm doing this because the OP has got the wrong end of the stick and is making things out to be soemthing they aren't hence my long winded posts, I want people to understand the whole not make snap judgements. I've tried before but the whole doesn't get seen just the little bits that people want to jump on and be sarky about.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 24, 2012)

Tez3 said:
			
		

> No one doesn't have to accept that at all. The reasons for abortion are clear in this country and abortion because you don't like the sex of the foetus is not a reason to have a legal abortion therefore the abortions are illegal.  I am explaining why these abortions are occuring and why it's a problem, the law is blind, it says you cannot have a legal abortion on the basis you don't like the foetuses gender.
> 
> 
> The Op was attempting to make it sound as if it's legal to have an abortion because of gender and that it's acceptable, I am attempting in vain it seems to explain a big social problem, in our country, I am trying to show people the hows, the whys and the wherefores, to give you a look at what life is like so that you can understand, perhaps but probably not where things fit in our society. I'm doing this because the OP has got the wrong end of the stick and is making things out to be soemthing they aren't hence my long winded posts, I want people to understand the whole not make snap judgements. I've tried before but the whole doesn't get seen just the little bits that people want to jump on and be sarky about.



In our country, it's legal to abort a fetus because of gender-in fact, in most jurisdictions where abortions are readily available, no reason need be given at all. I don't know what reason has to be given in Great Britain (England?) to obtain an abortion, other than not wanting to have a baby. If a patient determines the gender, and then obtains an abortion, how can the two be correlated to determine that it was an "illegal" abortion?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> WHY!?!?  I've made, what, 3 posts in this thread disputing this point again and again which no one has bothered to even address while still claiming the same thing?  It isn't hard at all to harmonize the two views, which should be abundantly clear from the examples I chose - nearly everyone supports some right without believing that all expressions of that right are correct or moral.  This is really simple stuff.



It is really simple stuff *for you*.  I place that in the same category as my own contradictory beliefs in a Creator and in evolution.  I can reconcile them; many cannot, and insist that I cannot either.  I accept that you can harmonize two conflicting viewpoints.  Many cannot, and I point out several examples where the contradictions require either inner reconciliation or willful ignorance.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 24, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Here is an article on a abortion doctors in England agreeing to do abortions based on sex selection by the parents. My question is, if you agree that the mother has an absolute right to abort/kill her baby, why is aborting/killing the baby because it is the wrong sex wrong?
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...ing-illegal-abortions-no-questions-asked.html
> 
> ...








Empty Hands said:


> Your question does not follow from the premise. I believe you have an absolute right to cheat on your wife or act like a ****, and you should never face governmental sanction for it (social sanction is another story). That doesn't mean that I think cheating on your wife or acting like a **** are morally right.
> 
> You know this of course, this is just another way to paint your opponents in an unflattering light.



*I don't think I can agree. He presents the information as he understands it, even though apparently wrong, or out of context, based on UK law (as explained by Tez3), which is not USA law. But he seems to be asking that if the law and many people agree that a woman can abort a fetus for whatever reason she chooses, why is one reason selected out for censure. That seems a reasonable question to me.

EDIT:  I think I wasn't clear that I understand Tez3 to be saying abortions in the UK aren't made on simple choice of the mother, but on medical reasons.  That isn't true in the USA, where a woman has the right just decide she doesn't want to be pregnant, walk into a place which provides abortions, pay and get one.  I think most of us are posting stating our own moral beliefs or understanding of USA law.  Did I get the part about UK law right Tez3?  I am guessing that you feel strongly about female fetuses being aborted, but aren't so concerned about abortion for other non-medical reasons?  Again, if I am wrong, please correct me quickly.
*


Empty Hands said:


> It is not a legitimate question the way it was framed, because it assumes a conclusion that does not follow from the premise. There is nothing about being pro-choice that necessitates the belief that all or even some abortions must be moral. No more than not wanting adultery made illegal means I must find it moral.
> 
> 
> If anyone wants to talk about the moral basis of particular abortion choices go right ahead, but that wasn't what the OP stated.



*Again, this is not a lesson in logic, but as I said above, I don't see the disconnect. A fact is given (a woman can abort for whatever reason she chooses), but if you don't agree with the reason, it becomes invalid only on your preference, and how is that valid.*



Empty Hands said:


> I know an enormous amount scientifically that can demonstrate that a recently conceived embryo does not and can not be a "person" by any commonly accepted definition of the term. Would you actually be interested in hearing the evidence and changing your opinion accordingly, or would you continue to insist against the evidence for religious reasons that a just-fertilized egg counts as a "person"?



I expect you are busy, but I am still looking forward to your reply on the third post.

BTW, In you last post, you say you have explained it all. I don't understand that you have. I'm probably just dense. Could you summarize it so I can understand better please sir? Thanks.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 24, 2012)

I know it's against the rules but this is to 'anonymous'...get a cup of man up and sign your name.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 24, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It is really simple stuff *for you*.  I place that in the same category as my own contradictory beliefs in a Creator and in evolution.  I can reconcile them; many cannot, and insist that I cannot either.  I accept that you can harmonize two conflicting viewpoints.  Many cannot, and I point out several examples where the contradictions require either inner reconciliation or willful ignorance.



I don't even see that the positions are contradictory in any real sense.  Believing that someone should have the choice to do something makes *no *moral conclusions about those choices.  As I said, nearly everyone does this on some issue or another - very few people want to criminalize adultery or lying or being a poor sport, but most people think those things are wrong.  How is it any different here?  I really don't understand the contradiction.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 24, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> I expect you are busy, but I am still looking forward to your reply on the third post.



Yeah, that one's going to take a bit, I only have several minute long chunks between tasks to surf.

I really don't understand what you were getting at with your earlier points and questions in this post.  Could you rephrase or re-summarize?  Sorry.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 24, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> Yeah, that one's going to take a bit, I only have several minute long chunks between tasks to surf.
> 
> I really don't understand what you were getting at with your earlier points and questions in this post.  Could you rephrase or re-summarize?  Sorry.



???  I thought that was what I was asking for from you.

I'll just wait for you scientific studies/proofs, thank you.


----------



## billc (Feb 24, 2012)

I agree with you Tez, I don't really care if people rep me or not, just leave who you are.  I am not going to come after you, I could care less.  It is just real weak to rep. someone and not leave your name.  Cowardly, and silly.


----------



## billc (Feb 25, 2012)

Another article on this subject...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...e.-And-its-happening-in-this-country-too.html



> Indeed, in todays paper, Vincent Argent, the former medical director of BPAS, the countrys largest abortion provider, tells a chilling tale that appears to confirm this. He said: Ive had a consultant colleague in the north of England who expressed a view  that consultant was from an ethnic minority  he didnt think [gender selection] was ethically wrong because he thought that the cultural reason why some communities may prefer to have four male babies is as good a reason as the, if you like, Anglo-Saxon cultural view of: 'Well Im pregnant, I just dont want it anyway.
> Mr Argent also said that he had no doubt that women were terminating pregnancies because of the sex of the baby and he believed the practice was fairly widespread.
> I remember, more than a decade ago, doing a report on a hospital in Londons East End, and being told by a doctor that she now refused to disclose a babys sex when mothers arrived for their 20-week scan because there was such strong evidence that Asian couples were going away and aborting the girls. Undoubtedly, women in many communities are under monstrous pressure to produce sons. An Egyptian woman to whom I taught English had three heavenly small daughters; she wept when she told me that her husband would divorce her and take a new wife if she let him down again by producing another girl.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Another article on this subject...
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...e.-And-its-happening-in-this-country-too.html




However there are assumptions being made in that article. Firstly is that abortions are only done by 'Anglo-Saxons' (though that in itself leaves out all the othr ethnic groups we have here) for convenience not necessity. I won't deny some will be done for 'convenience', there will always be those who decide that an abortion is the way for them to solve an annoyance BUT the vast majority of abortions are done for serious, agonised over and well thought out reasons. 

I can't speak for what the situation is in America but here it may be harder to get an abortion than many think. Abortion has been legal here for 45 years, the thinking behind legalising it and making them available on the NHS was that many women were dying from or being irreparably damaged by the back street abortionists. Contraception wasn't as widely available as it is now, not even condoms. The sixties in the UK were still a time of poverty, it took a long time for the effects of the war to be finally shaken off, ( I'm not sure if non Europeans can appreciate the devastating effect the war had on the UK and Europe) families simply couldn't afford extra mouths to feed  so were resorting to the illegal abortionists (anyone seen the film Vera Drake?). Anyway, the upshot was that abortions would be made legal, they would be for medical reasons only and as I said two doctors are needed to agree. The medical reasons can vary from woman to woman but again I'll say that the majority of women seek abortions because it is a last resort not because it's inconvenient to be pregant. Medical reasons don't include not likeing the sex of the baby. Medical staff can excuse themselves from dealing with abortions but must in doctors cases pass the patient to another doctor. Counselling is advised in all womens cases. Of course if you have money you can go through the motions with a private hospital but that has always been the way even when abortions were illegal.


No one thinks abortion is ideal, no one wants abortions but the sad fact is that they are necessary in many cases, you can argue they aren't, we've been all through those arguments but the truth is that if safe abortions weren't available desparate women and girls would resort to illegal abortions or worse, do it themselves or even commit suicide. It would be immoral to make a woman carry on a pregnancy because of your views. The British law acknowledges this, that the government, the religious leaders and any old Tom, Dick or Harry has NO right to tell a woman what she can do with her body, it also however makes safeguards in that there needs to be medical reasons, although they are wide ranging, and that doctors have to sign off on it. If you like it's a British compromise. Here as well a foetus isn't considered alive until born and detached from the umbilical cord.

We also have ad campaigns about using contraception aimed at hopefully having people using it rather than needing abortions though of course in the cases of rape, severe medical problems that doesn't apply.
http://www.tellyads.com/show_movie.php?filename=TA10021


----------

