Sweden rules 'gender-based' abortion legal

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: The Local

Swedish health authorities have ruled that gender-based abortion is not illegal according to current law and can not therefore be stopped, according to a report by Sveriges Television.

The Local reported in February that a woman from Eskilstuna in southern Sweden had twice had abortions after finding out the gender of the child.

The woman, who already had two daughters, requested an amniocentesis in order to allay concerns about possible chromosome abnormalities. At the same time, she also asked to know the foetus's gender.

Doctors at Mälaren Hospital expressed concern and asked Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) to draw up guidelines on how to handle requests in the future in which they "feel pressured to examine the foetus’s gender" without having a medically compelling reason to do so.

Read more: http://www.thelocal.se/19392.html

[Xithras]

1. Choice is choice.

Even if you don't like it. You can't force a woman to carry a child she doesn't want.

[SteppingRazor]

3. Exactly. n/t

[Warpy]

10. Very true

and another daughter born to this woman would likely have a tough time growing up, wondering what was so horribly wrong with her that Mom really didn't care all that much.

Still, a second trimester abortion due only to the sex of the fetus is a little disturbing.

I don't get to make the rules for this woman, but I don't have to like it, either.

[Demeter]

63. Not So Sure the First Two Daughters Are Having A Good Life, Either

[Milspec]

95. True

But it still ugly

[Deja Q]

124. Fair enough. Then I hope people stop being concerned over sexism in general.

[SteppingRazor]

2. Eh. I have to admit to a certain queasiness about this, but she's clearly within her rights...

and by rights, I'm only talking medical ethics here, not Swedish law, as I know absolutely zero about Swedish law.

[Zynx]

4. I have to confess that while I support a woman's right to choose, my personal feelings

have always been that I find abortion to be abhorrent. This sort of thing makes me more than a little uneasy because I can see how this can be extended into a lot of other areas. I am always concerned about anything that moves us toward eugenics.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

45. Agreed

I pointed out the "negative eugenics" aspect of this in another thread. The social implications of this ruling could be disasterous if this were the norm and not isolated cases.

[nyy1998]

64. I couldn't agree more

I'm proudly pro-choice, but this makes me feel a bit queasy.

[proteus_lives]

5. If it's the law, it's the law but.....

Sweden should look at India and China for the effects of aborting based on gender. Doesn't lead to anything good.

(I'm pro-choice but this sounds fucking scary.)

[Dogtown]

8. proteus,

Those are very patriarchal societies. Sweden won't have problems of that nature, I don't think.

I call it a moral issue; hence, nomb.


Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[proteus_lives]

17. That's a good point.

About the patriarchal societies. I guess I've read too much Sci-Fi to think that something like this ever ends positively.

Thanks for the welcome!

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. Should abortion laws be based on womens' rights, or what is perceived to be the public good?

:shrug:

[proteus_lives]

50. That is a very good question.

I support a woman's right to choose. Even in this case where I find the reasoning and logic to be repellent. Could there be a situation where I did not support the right to choose? Is there a situation where the right to choose is not the right choice?

Something to think about.

[MellowDem]

65. Yes

When the choice is based on discrimination.

[Justitia]

55. Who has supreme control of her body - the woman herself or the public? -eom

[MellowDem]

60. Both

Women depend on "the public" and without "the public" they would not be able to survive. Much like a fetus depends on the woman.

[Justitia]

62. Uh no - the public does NOT have supreme control over MY body.

I control my body, no one else.

[MellowDem]

66. You're right, they don't have supreme control...

but all of us are controlled by society to some extent. Just like a woman doesn't have supreme control over a fetus. She has some control, but not supreme control. After all, after a certain amount of time, the fetus can no longer be aborted legally. So women do not have supreme control over their own bodies, or they could kill the baby as it was coming out legally.

[paulsby]

122. but your control is limited

try to sell sex for money, or buy illegal drugs to put in your body and see what happens.

[No Elephants]

58. How about removing a man's testicles? Personal choice or a perception of the public good?

[MellowDem]

61. Only the female testicles

and the gay ones, and disabled, and just not "normal", or the brown eyed testicles.

[Zhade]

85. Uh, women's rights. PERIOD.

NT!

[JerseygirlCT]

108. Agreed nt

[Warpy]

6. Waiting until after an amnio is just too late

and by the time the results are back, the pregnancy is well into the second trimester and terminating it is much more traumatic.

Sex could have been determined earlier through ultrasound as early as 10 weeks.

I understand why the physicians are unnerved about this. Abortion simply because of the sex of the fetus is disturbing to me, too.

[RaRa]

119. not a standard ultrasound

14 to 15 weeks is pushing it i.e. being able to tell.

[Terran]

7. It may be legal

but it's clearly not ethical. The law rarely addresses ethics and the lack thereof.

[T Wolf]

9. Those who disagree with this, yet still say they support a woman's right to choose, are liars.

A right, with restrictions, is not a right.

Freedom cannot be conditional.

[Romulox]

25. Obvious nonsense: "A right, with restrictions, is not a right."

There is no such thing as an absolute "right"--everything in the human milieu is finite.

Free speech, abortion, the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. etc. ad nauseum: all come with restrictions.

[cali]

28. one can disagree with the decision a woman makes

to abort because of gender and still support her right to make that decision. oh, and lots of rights have restrictions- the first amendment, for instance, and abortion, not just in this country but in most countries where it's legal.

[No Elephants]

59. I support choice. That said, all rights have restrictions. Try exercising your right of

free speech in the wrong time, place or manner, like blaring a loudspeaker at 2 a.m. and see what happens. Or try exercising your right to free speech by revealing classified info when you're not Cheney and see what happens.

[twitomy]

82. Agreed

If abortion within the legal timeframe is to remain a right, the reason for the abortion is IRRELEVANT.

[T Wolf]

90. Thank you. At least one person gets it. nt

[Dark]

115. "A right, with restrictions, is not a right." Why don't you go yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater?

I am pro-choice. I have no problem with a woman saying she, for whatever reason, doesn't want a child.

But it crosses the line to say "I don't want THAT child." That is fucking disgusting, and should not be protected.

[Deja Q]

125. Oh, I think freedom can have certain conditions. I prefer a fair market to a free market any day.

[theoldman]

11. The Chinese should have outlawed gender abortions.

Millions of Chinese men will not be able to marry because there are not enough women. This problem is greatest in the countryside(farm areas).

[LibertyLover]

22. While I'm not sure about China

I believe that in India, by law, health care providers are not supposed to tell a woman the sex of the fetus she is carrying. However, most manage to get around that with coded language and behavior. And in Indian cities and towns there are many little offices with ultrasound machines that provide the means for many Indian women to find out what sex they are pregnant with. IIRC 60 Minutes did a segment on this a few years back and there was a shot of a street in a moderately sized Indian town - clearly visible were 5 or 6 signs advertising ultrasound providers. one of the proprietors was interviewed and he stated that it was of course illegal to tell the woman the sex of her child but that for even a moderately skilled tech it was very easy to convey that information. When asked what women did with the knowledge, he shrugged and replied that many abort the female fetuses.

[IDFbunny]

69. Not able to marry? So what.

China would rather have an excess of laborers and soldiers. A smaller female population will insure that the population bomb won't rebound right away.

If I were a prospective Chinese parent I would favor girl. Economic law sez she will be more valuable as she is rare. A rich family would have to pay me a big dowry to let her go.

[JerseygirlCT]

109. Or they should have stopped banning second children altogether.

And I'm not feeling too sorry, in the larger sense, for the society that has so valued men, and now finds itself with a glut. A bit of market capitalism at work? Supply and demand... maybe now people will want the female children they conceive.

[WriteDown]

12. Ah, the beginning....

Wait until this starts happening because a child will be obese, red-headed, or gay. Gattaca, here we come.

[Metta]

13. Oh, the humanity! (mock anguish)

:hi:

[sandnsea]

14. How about aborting because its gay? Or biracial?

Nope, this is wrong, way wrong. This is just a step away from China and the targeting of a gender, or race or other category, for elimination.

[Terran]

56. Uncomfortable question

I notice no one here who defends this has answered you.

[Tansy_Gold]

75. Your logic is wrong, sandnsea.

This is the individual woman's choice, not a government-sponsored program to eliminate "undesirables." There's a huge difference therefore. If the government were demanding that every woman get an ultrasound and every fifth or seventh female fetus be aborted, that would be wrong. Even China and India don't go that far. What they do have is social pressure for the preferred gender, not legal quotas.

If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant as a result of the attack but the baby is perfectly healthy, should she be required to carry it to term just because there's no "medical" reason not to? What about babies conceived of incestuous relationships? Incest doesn't mean the fetus WILL be defective in any way; it might, yes, but there's no quarantee either way.

An individual woman's right to choose should be sacrosanct. Doesn't want another girl? Okay fine. Doesn't want another boy? Okay fine. Doesn't want one that has extra fingers and toes? Fine.

What the woman chooses to do of her own free will -- within "free will" always bound by the limitations of culture -- should never be questioned.

What the government forces the woman to do -- whether it is to abort or to continue the pregnancy -- should always be questioned.


Tansy Gold

[Dark]

112. Sorry, but I have to disagree. Normally, I'm pro-choice. But allowing abortions for

women simply because they want a girl, not a boy, or a gay kid, not a straight one, is a VERY dark path to go down.

There are lines that should not be crossed.

[Scout]

114. such bullshit

dead is dead. the fetus doesn't know or care. it's no one's business but the woman's.

[Dark]

117. Normally, I'd agree. If a woman doesn't want to have a child, it's her choice.

But aborting simply because the fetus doesn't carry a trait you desire is fucking sick. It's basically eugenics.

It's one thing to say that "I don't want to have a child because I can't handle a child right now."

It's quite another to say that "I don't want to have THIS child because it has a penis, not a vagina. I'll try again."

This is a very bad path to travel down.

[Zhade]

86. Uh, no. It's reaffirming that women control their own bodies, period.

The end.

[JonQ]

87. Where do you draw the line?

How can you write a law that outlaws "wrong" abortions but protects acceptable ones? And what's to stop the people from claiming that they were going to abort anyway, regardless of gender, they just happened to wait until after the test out of curiosity?

[twitomy]

89. You cant "draw the line"...

The SC ruled that up to a certain point, a fetus is NOT a human being any more than my long fingernail is one and it is within the womans perogative to do with it as she pleases.

That means if she want to abort becasue the fetus will turn out to be

Gay (Of course this per-determination is not technically possible YET)
Male
Female
Black
Redhead

Or whatever is irrelevant, it is not a life and so it is no loss to society.

I have to admit I would find the reaction of the Gay community, which is by and large pro-choice, interesting if sexual orientation could be determined in the womb.

[Mz Pip]

15. This bothers me

I guess part of it is because I am a female and so many of these gender based abortions are used to abort females. There is a cultural bias towards male children in so many societies that woman feel a female child isn't good enough.

I know I would want to know the gender of my child ahead of time but for the purpose of eliminating it if it turned out to be the 'wrong' gender.

Choice is choice but I find this disturbing never the less.

[Alcibiades]

16. Boo!

One of the things about abortion is the stories we tell about it. According to the right wing, most abortions are simply matters of convenience. The most fundamental reason why I'm pro-choice is because my mother (who later became a feminist) had to have an illegal abortion before I was born because of rape. And incest. I've known several pro-choice women who have had pregnancies that one might consider inconvenient and have had the kid anyway.

If gender selection becomes the dominant trope in the dialogue over abortion, we lose. On balance, though, abortion for gender selection it should probably be the way it is today: legal, but not socially acceptable.

That being said, as a man, it's none of my business.

[MellowDem]

20. Don't sell yourself short...

"That being said, as a man, it's none of my business."

Sure it is. You are a human aren't you? Babies are the result of both men and women. You can have an opinion on these things, in fact, you SHOULD have an opinion on these things. It shows you're human and that you care.

[T Wolf]

40. Nope. My business ends at your (her) body. Even if I was the sperm donor, it (the fetus) is not

mine - it is hers.

Either the "right to choose" exists or it does not. Restricting it for whatever reason totally negates its existence.

[MellowDem]

53. So, you are pro-choice no matter what...

you don't think abortion has gray areas? I definitely think abortion should be restricted for different reasons, you don't? You can be pro choice and realize this is a complicated, not black and white, issue.

If you are not allowed to choose to discriminate based on gender in society, even if it is your business, why should you be able to choose to discriminate for abortion? And how is this specific case so different from eugenics? Should people be able to choose eugenics as well? These questions are things to ponder, and considering abortion effects all of society, I would hope that all of society is thinking about it and voices their opinion on it.

[Alcibiades]

83. Abortions are already conducted for "eugenic" reasons

when the fetus has a high probability of having birth defects, for example.

This isn't a case of discrimination in society--it's in somebody's womb. Completely different. I once knew a woman, good Catholic girl, who didn't practice birth control because she saw herself as a good Catholic girl. She had three abortions before she was 30. Strange? Hypocritical? Maybe. But if the price not having girls have to have a amateur abortions like my mother did in 1962 is that some women will make choices I don't like, then I'm OK with that.

[MellowDem]

92. I'm just saying

it doesn't have to be all one way or all the other. While it is true that the fetus is in the mother's womb, it can in fact have impacts on society. Just look at China where in some towns it is hard to find girls anymore. When we stamp an OK to practice our cultural or prejudiced thoughts and beliefs into abortion, it doesn't always have positive effects.

And the whole point of legalizing abortion is the positive effect it can have on society when amateur girls or raped girls are left with no other choice but an unhappy and unproductive future that negatively impacts society. If abortion begins being used in a way that negatively impacts society, I think it's worth discussing. We already limit abortions to a certain time frame, so I don't think this is too far afield of where we already are.

The question is what is good for society, not for the individual, and that's a progressive thought, even when it comes to abortion.

[T Wolf]

91. Pro-choice no matter what. Absolutely. Once a baby is born, things change. But until that moment,

the decision should totally and solely belong to the woman.

No qualifications. No limitations.

[MellowDem]

93. What if it has a negative impact on society at large?

There still should be no qualifications, no limitations? The individual comes first? Sounds libertarian to me, seriously.

And actually, things change while the baby is in womb. Remember, you can only legally abort within a certain time frame. So, considering we already restrict abortion, this isn't anything new.

[T Wolf]

94. I wonder how the actions of an individual woman, doing something to HER OWN BODY, can have

any impact (negative or otherwise) on society at large.

If that be a libertarian view, so be it.

Similarly, I believe that suicide should not be illegal. Neither should drug use. Nor consensual sexual activity. Nor any number of other personal, individual activities.

When there is an (actual) impact on others, then the social contract comes into play. E.g., I should not be allowed to kill myself by driving my car into a crowd or another vehicle. But if I want to drive "off a cliff" ...

And the point that "we already restrict abortion" is a false one. Just because the law currently says one thing does not make it correct. Hell - everything discussed on this site deals with changing current laws to something else.

[MellowDem]

98. Well that is the question...

Part of the question is one of a right to privacy over one's own body, but the part that confuses the issue is that many consider a fetus to have rights as well. So then there is another side of the question about ethics.

The fact is, the debate involves both ideas, the right to privacy and rights for the fetus, and those obviously conflict with each other at some point. Hence the fact that it is legal to abort, but only under certain conditions.

But there are ways that what an individual does to their own body impacts society at large. I can list off a couple right now:

- Smoking
- Eating
- Drinking
- Drugs

All of these things that individuals do only to themselves can effect society at large in many ways as we have seen. Preferences for abortion, over time, definitely can have an effect on society as well, just go to certain towns in China.

And when I say "we already restrict abortion" I'm not positing an opinion, I'm just stating what is fact right now in this country.

I actually agree with you generally. For example, I think certain drugs should be legalized and regulated, prostitution legalized and regulated, etc. etc. But I guess where we disagree is over the regulation, which, after all, is supposed to prevent those individual activities from hurting society at large.

[Scout]

99. "many consider a fetus to have rights as well"

too fucking bad for them, because a fetus has no rights. so no conflict.

[MellowDem]

100. Perhaps I have the terminology wrong...

when the fetus becomes viable, it is then a baby I guess? So the baby now has rights, even though it is in the womb of the mother. If the mother had complete control, she would be able to abort the baby because it was inside of her body. So at that point, as deemed by society, the rights of the baby surmount those of the right to privacy by the mother.

[Scout]

107. a fetus is a fetus ... it does not have rights in any trimester

the restrictions on second and third trimester (which are bullshit anyway) are NOT there because a fetus "has rights."

see this excellent thread posted by iverglas
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=217&topic_id=5241#5247

[MellowDem]

110. They are there because of ethics basically...

and the idea that the fetus is then alive. I'm not stating an opinion, just how it presently is in society. If you think that you should be able to abort the fetus all the way through the third trimester then you are probably in the minority even on here though.

Regardless, if you don't think the state has an interest in babies (and hence population), you'd be quite mistaken. Every nation on Earth has quite a fervent interest in that for many different reasons and will try to control it to some extent or another.

Iverglas is stating an opinion, as are you. It's all about ethics and morality. There are no "facts" on which to prove your side right, just your own values and morals.

[Scout]

113. i bet you didn't even read that thread...

haha haaahaaaaa! i'm stating an opinion, iverglas is stating an opinion, but you're just telling it like it is, uh huh right.

yes, i believe women should be able to get an abortion right up until they deliver ... because i trust that women don't get abortions "just because they feel like it" or couldn't get a facial that day. i trust women, i don't trust the government or anyone who is not the pregnant woman herself.

just like the fat threads, the choice threads are great at pointing out who are the ignorant :eyes:

[MellowDem]

121. Oh I did

and it was opinion on what they think the law should be.

The US currently has restrictions on abortion, so yes, I'm telling it like it is and you are for some reason having a tantrum about it. The discussion wasn't about the legality of abortion in general, but I think that flew over your head a long time ago. Talk about ignorant AND nasty.

[paulsby]

123. what is this canard that women have control over their own bodies?

or men, for that matter.

selling sexual acts for money? illegal

ingesting (or injecting, etc.) certain drugs into your body? illegal

selling your organs ? illegal.

etc.

i am pro-choice. i am not pro-choice because "a woman has complete control over her body" because that has never been recognized law in this (or any) country.

[Ignis]

106. When men develop a womb, it will be our business.

Until then, our part of the transaction is complete upon withdrawal. :)

[Justitia]

31. Yup, there is ONE woman who did this, now it's a runaway epidemic.

Kinda like how RWers talk about women getting abortions on a whim during their lunch hour, then going shopping.

It's a convenient bludgeon to beat women's sovereignty over their own bodies into the ground.

[MellowDem]

18. This is pretty scary...

Treating fetuses like this is dehumanizing to me, as if they are some sort of product that must meet the wishes of the mother. I understand that abortion will happen regardless of whether we outlaw it, and that is why I'm generally pro-choice, but I'm all for doing anything and everything we can to lessen the number of abortions. At least Sweden has great social safety nets and sex education that help women not have to ever make such a horrible choice, but to present the choice as a superficial preference is pretty damn disgusting to me. Reminds me too much of eugenics and it comes across as the height of a consumer society that is all about itself and could give a shit about nature.

I would rather my fate of being born be random and not be so interconnected to the superficial whimsies of another human.

Next: Aborting the disabled or disfigured?

[AngryAmish]

48. Actually, technically it is eugenics

Selective breeeding of humans is the textbook definition of eugenics. It is not government enforcing these thing (although that has been tried in many countries, including the US).

[FedUpWithIt All]

88. "Next: Aborting the disabled or disfigured?" This has been going on for some time.

Many do feel that abortion is black and white. I have heard some suggest that abortion should be allowed until the moment of delivery.

The majority, it seems, do see the abortion issue as a "greater good" or "least harm" issue with a wide swath of gray area.

I am fairly shocked to see some here mention their discomfort with the case in the OP considering some of the same people have little or no issue suggesting that later term abortion (after the age of viability) of a disabled fetus is nothing more than a black and white "woman's rights issue". It would seem that gender specified (predominantly female) abortion leaves many, especially those who identify, cold. I wonder if it would be the same if they strongly identified with the disabled or disfigured.
:(

Interesting.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

19. It doesn't matter what I'd do in her situation

because it's not my business. It's not my body.

I strongly feel it's unethical to pass judgement on her choice.

[MellowDem]

23. I pass judgements on people's choices all the time...

does that make me unethical? And whether you want to or not, you have an opinion on this and have passed "judgement". It's not a bad thing, it's quite natural actually.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

42. The natural thing is to judge her choice based on what your choice would be

...given the limited information presented in a news article.

Making a judgement in this fashion does not take into consideration what that woman's situation is, what her feelings are, or what the circumstances surrounding her decision may be.

It's not unlike reading an article about a crime and determining that the prime suspect is guilty before a trial has taken place, except that abortion is legal, and should not be subject to the same public scrutiny as a crime.

[MellowDem]

54. Well, it is true that

we are going off of imperfect information, but that's pretty much the case on every single thread that is posted on here. And this was about the legalization of something that wasn't necessarily legal before, the case itself is just the example, but really, it's the idea that we are discussing.

[AngryAmish]

21. Selective abortion goes on in our country all the time and it is not controversial

90% or so of Down Syndrome fetuses are aborted. This is not controversial. The vast majority of Downs people have some birth defects (soft palate trouble and others I can't remember) but the average life expectancy is around 50 years old.

However many people feel having a child with Down is very difficult for the parents. So we allow abortions to prevent the trouble.

[MellowDem]

24. Except

that choosing over gender and choosing over downs syndrome are very different things. One has a very practical reason, the other purely superficial.

[AngryAmish]

27. How so?

In both cases the parents are maximizing their happiness. Most of the time the gender aborted is female. The parents are maximizing their happiness by having a boy. In many cultures a boy is more highly sought after than a girl (and in many cultures there is economic cumpulsions to only have a boy - see China).

The parents are also maximizing their happiness is aborting a Down fetus. They do not want to be going to endless doctor's appointments, physical therapy, surgeries to fix problems, special schools, etc. It is a drag and one will not have grandchildren that are considered "normal" (if at all, I do not know if Down folks are sterile or fertile). There is the heartbreak of having a child was is not "normal".

Just people maximizing their happiness in using their choice to abort or not.

[MellowDem]

29. I see your point...

except your subsituted "culture" for "superficial". Sure in some cultures it's better to have boys, but in Sweden? It just sounds like she didn't want another girl. Either way, lots of people do things to increase their happiness that are not ethical, even cultural things.

In fact, you could argue that everything we do is to maximize our happiness, but those things can be broken down further into what specific things they are fulfilling. Your line of thinking is too broad to be practical or applicable to the real world.

As for the Down fetus, it's just funny that people find the solution is to abort a fetus because it won't be considered normal, instead of questioning the society that makes those rules that lead to the unhappiness in the first place.

[AngryAmish]

37. Do you consider aborting a Down fetus unethical?

If so, why?

[MellowDem]

57. Personally, yes...

It's more understandable from a practical standpoint than for gender though. Practically, I understand the extra cost and extra time that parents would have to sacrifice that they don't want to give up, not to mention the extra stress and burden. But I think that points to the problem that we, as a society, don't value our disabled. If having a Down's fetus automatically leads one to think abortion, it's a reflection on the values and priorities of the society they live in. It is only a burden and huge cost to parents because we as a society let it be. And abortion allows us as a society to not have to change this fact. Why worry when you can abort?

Not to mention, the message is pretty clear if you're disabled: your life isn't worth as much as others. And they're right, society views them as more disposable.

So you can do this with gender now too, and the message is loud and clear in China: women aren't worth as much as men. I'm pretty sure Sweden doesn't think that, but that's what they're promoting by allowing discriminatory abortion.

[XemaSab]

102. To put it on the table: there are three reasons for abortion

1. The health and welfare of the mother
2. The convenience of the mother
3. The health, welfare, and happiness of the child

Babies with Down's syndrome and horrible deformities are aborted for all of these reasons. Last of which being the happiness of the child. Yes, people with Down's tend to be good-natured, but nobody wants to be institutionalized, and that's where most of these folks end up.

[wuushew]

35. People also superficially procreate as well

Often child number three is another flip of the coin to create at least of offspring of each gender. Except now you have created exponentially positive population growth and its corresponding ecological footprint.

If Henry VIII would have had better medical technology his wives could have been spared much unpleasantness.

[Mariana]

77. That's true. My parents did exactly that.

My grandmother told me once, after a few drinks, "If (my younger sister) had been a boy, there'd be no (my brother).

[ConcernedCanuk]

30. Is there any other species that kills their offspring BEFORE birth?

.
.
.

Or is that just part of us being "human"?

[Justitia]

34. Most species are known to pretty regularly EAT their offspring. Didn't you ever have a pet?

What a dumbass question.

[ConcernedCanuk]

36. "dumbass question" - well, you didn't answer my question, but I will answer yours.

.
.
.

Yes I have had pets

turtles, fish, cats, dogs, rabbits, hamsters, and probably some I forgot.

Although you did not phrase it as a question, I will respond to your statement about species eating their offspring.

I am aware that some species eat and kill their offspring.

Read my question again.

Or don't.

[Justitia]

38. It's called the "bruce effect" in biology, and it really does not relate to this Swedish woman.

But, you probably don't REALLY care about evolutionary biology or the common occurrence of infanticide, you were just looking for a way to deride choice, weren't you?

[LeftyMom]

44. Many species spontaneously abort under stress or when survival is at risk.

:shrug:

[NYMountaineer]

32. Ehhhh...makes me uneasy.

Not that I'm for laws placed over the uterus, but from an ethical standpoint, I don't like the idea of abortion because you want this sex or that sex, etc. Too close to what's going on in China.

[Renew Deal]

33. That's f***ed up.

I understand why it's not illegal, but the woman that did this is evil.

[MountainLaurel]

47. Is the inverse also evil?

If a couple continues to have children "trying for a boy," is that just as bad?

[Renew Deal]

49. No

Not as long as they love and care for the child.

[YOY]

39. Welp...her body after all.

Can't say I'd do the same if I were a woman and in her shoes...but I'm neither.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

41. I support abortion--what's sad is the global devaluation of the Female

I don't see this as a commentary on abortion, but it's a BIG commentary on the world's estimation of the worth of women.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

43. Here is where I split with most liberals

and I am sure most of DU. I dont agree with abortion in this case. Is getting a bit too close to "negative eugenics" for my taste.

[skooooo]

52. abhorent.....imo. nt

[Vidar]

96. I agree to a large extent.

[brendan120678]

101. I'm pretty sure you'll find...

a good number of people here who agree with you.

[LeftyMom]

46. I support freedom of choice, even when I think the reasoning is abhorrent.

Considering the shocking number of people I know who kept having babies they ignored in order to get the "wanted" one (who usually winds up ignored too once the novelty wears off) I think I'd rather see people abort babies they don't want then birth and neglect them.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

68. Excellent point...The law never questions a woman's reason for having a child

Why should it question her reasons for terminating a pregnancy?

[newinnm]

70. In my unqualified view

Until the fetus is outside of the woman, breathing on its on there should be zero restrictions on a womans choice.


nnnm

[GoddessOfGuinness]

72. Welcome to DU!

And thank you for your support of women's right to choose! :applause:

[Scout]

73. how many families do you know that have 4, 5, 6 girls....

then finally the desired boy ... then poor mom puts her foot down and says NO MORE!

[GoddessOfGuinness]

76. Boys are the rule in this family...

and many a poor woman has had several, hoping for a girl, finally putting her foot down and saying "No more!" :rofl:

[mainegreen]

51. While the right to access must be protected, it's seriously f'ed up to abort based on gender alone.

In fact, I'd say it's god damned creepy.

[newinnm]

74. I dont think its any more creepy

than choosing to terminate a pregnancy because for any other reason. You either believe in abortion rights or you dont. Its really that simple.

nnnm

[mainegreen]

78. What does believing someone has the right to do something have to do with creepyness?

Nothing, that's what.

People have the rights to jam cucumbers up their nostrils if they want to. They have the right play videogames all day, every day. They have the right to drink themselves to death. They have the right to never imbibe caffeine. I *completely* support peoples freedoms. That does not mean I have to approve of them or their choices if they choose to exercise them.

So say otherwise is in essence to be against freedom of belief.

I say terminating a pregnancy based on gender alone is creepy, and frankly I would actively choose to avoid people who have made that choice. I don't like it, and think that it's wrong. People have the right to do that, and I support their right to choice. Doesn't mean I have to approve of their choice or think that their choice is right.

[Crowman1979]

103. So abortion based on pressure or coercion from the family or a culture for a male heir is a ok?

You call yourself a feminist, yet you include gender-choice abortion with those who actually need one (rape victims, incest victims or when a woman's life is at risk).

[newinnm]

105. I believe if the woman chooses to abort the fetus

for whatever reason or what ever time in her pregnancy then she should be allowed to make that decision. Period! You said"those who actually need one (rape victims, incest victims or when a woman's life is at risk). " What if she just wants one. Would you deny her that?


-nnnm

[dipsydoodle]

67. That's why in the UK,

in areas with densely poplulated Asian communities the hospitals won't divugle the sex of an unborn child.

BTW - in the UK the term Asian means Indian subcontinent.

[Scout]

71. as long as it is otherwise legal

i don't think it is ANYONE's business why a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy.

the fetus doesn't know, and can't possibly know, so it doesn't care.

[WriteDown]

80. Eh, same as a 1 month old...

No cognitive ability.

[jody]

79. Has Obama taken a position on gender-based abortion under a universal health care program? n/t

[Manifestor_of_Light]

81. This bothers me a lot.

They did mention gender-based genetic abnormalities.

There are some very serious genetic abnormalities that are sex-linked or sex-influenced.

Hemophilia, for example. The X chromosome in the male is not shielded from expression by another X so the male expresses hemophilia. The female passes it to her sons.

I could see abortion for sex selection in case of sex-linked abnormalities.

Otherwise, not just to select for a healthy child of the desired gender.

I'm pro choice and I do NOT agree that sex selection merely for gender is right.

[twitomy]

97. But Why?

It is NOT a human life....The way I see it, if it bothers anyone then it only means deep down you have a belief that it is a human life. And in that case it opens up a pandora's box as to
which life is worth saving and which life is worth discarding...And before you know it one sounds like a anti-choicer...

[Thickasabrick]

84. It's her right and I agree with that but it just feels so wrong n/t

[sofa king]

104. Up to a certain point, isn't it really just the same as selective conception?

Prince Charles reputedly ran his sperm through a centrifuge to increase the chances that his firstborn would be male.

Excluding the "miracle" of the complex chemical reaction which follows, what's the difference?

[Dark]

111. Okay, it's one thing to have a choice. If you're not ready, or don't want a kid, fine.

But aborting a child just because it doesn't have the right gender? That's fucked up, and not acceptable.

That is going too far, and goes beyond the idea of 'choice'.

This should be illegal.

[Scout]

116. why? dead is dead, the fetus doesn't know or care.

it's no one else's business.

how would you make it illegal? how would you know why it was aborted? what would the punishment be for aborting a fetus of the "wrong" gender? who would be punished--the woman or the doctor?

do you bother to think about any of this stuff before spewing?

[Dark]

118. Uh, I do think. I think that if you say "It's okay to abort a fetus cause it doesn't have

a penis, or blond hair, or whatever," what's next?

I support a woman's right to choose. But that choice should be based on whether they want to have a child, not whether they want a boy, or a straight kid, or a brown-eyed child.

You're essentially defending eugenics.

I don't know exactly the best way to enforce it. Maybe make it so the parents can't get an abortion after they ask about genetic details of the child. I don't know. But simply allowing this, and allowing it to be legal, is absolutely wrong. I'm as liberal as they come, but even I recoil at this.

[twitomy]

120. Its not a human life yet so eugenics doesnt apply.

And how do you propose you get to the womans "TRUE" reason for wanting the abortion? Waterboarding? All she has to say is she doesnt want to have the baby; end of discussion.