[Rascacielos]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
I agree with you OP. Why should we allow a women to abort based on financial difficulty and not allow a women to abort based on sex? The fetus could even be more developed in the case of the women with financial difficulties. We either give fetuses legal consideration or we don't. It's like allowing you to murder someone because you have a desire to murder and not allowing you to murder someone because you hate them.

I personally think abortion limit should be reduced greatly and the only exception be in the case of self-defense i.e. your health is at danger when pregnant. But, if we're going to be pro-choice we have to follow through.

The two are entirely different. A woman in severe financial difficulty would have a serious affect on the child. Aborting a child based on sex is a matter of preference, which in my view is unjustified, not a matter of necessity or near-necessity.

If we allow this we're essentially going to start seeing abortions because of some unimportant characteristic of the child, e.g. hair colour.

I agree with others on this thread who have said that a woman who is willing to abort a child because it's not the right sex is not worthy of having a child at all (although the argument about sterilisation of such people is a bit extreme!).

[Chloe xxx]

(Original post by Hellinger)
So, in the circumstances highlighted, the mother is justified in aborting the foetus when she could, in theory, carry to term and adopt it? Why does the intent of the mother have anything to do with the fact that a potential human is being aborted?

I didnt say I agree with it, I dont. Its a more viable reason to me than waiting to see your baby in a scan MOVING and then deciding to abort it because of what sex it is. That is inhumane, cruel and horrific from a parental perspective (and im not a parent).

[Hellinger]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
oh... so are you going to admit you want either ALL ABORTIONS ALLOWED for whatever reason, or ALL ABORTIONS NOT ALLOWED no exceptions?

no middle way.... just either of the two opposite extremes?

What I want, and what should be, are two very different concepts. I would prefer it if no unwanted child was ever conceived, but the world doesn't work that way, and the rights of the the women who have to bear the brunt of our biological reproduction need to be protected. It's no good telling a woman, "Oh, sorry, you only have rights in some cases: I have to agree with them," because then it's not about the 'precious life' of the foetus, as so many claim, but punishing women for daring to have sex or some other stupid crap.

Bodily autonomy, baby.

[The Socktor]

(Original post by The Phelps)
WOW! I never knew that although I can see why we would stop it. It would just mean a rise in expensive and unnecessary abortions (In terms of causing damage to the mother.).

It would cost a lot more for the state to support the yet-to-be born child for about 16 years. If it is aborted then it doesn't have to do all that.

(Original post by The Phelps)
We may also end up with a situation like China where one gender is preferred and as such we end up with a population of 90% girls because every aborted their boys at great financial and social cost to the UK

Totally.

[Hellinger]

(Original post by Chloe xxx)
I didnt say I agree with it, I dont. Its a more viable reason to me than waiting to see your baby in a scan MOVING and then deciding to abort it because of what sex it is. That is inhumane, cruel and horrific from a parental perspective (and im not a parent).

Why is it inhumane? Why is it cruel? Why is it horrific?

A foetus is not a human child. It is a potential, developing human being. Some parents do not consider the developing foetus as their offspring until a certain stage, or until it is born. The way a parent treats their child once it is born determines what sort of parent they are; not the way they treat their unborn foetus who cannot (arguably) think. It has no memories. It is not a person as we know it. Whether it is moving is irrelevant.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by Hellinger)
What I want, and what should be, are two very different concepts. I would prefer it if no unwanted child was ever conceived, but the world doesn't work that way, and the rights of the the women who have to bear the brunt of our biological reproduction need to be protected. It's no good telling a woman, "Oh, sorry, you only have rights in some cases: I have to agree with them," because then it's not about the 'precious life' of the foetus, as so many claim, but punishing women for daring to have sex or some other stupid crap.

Bodily autonomy, baby.

youre talking about in an ideal world.... think everyone wants that lol

theres nothing wrong with having rights in only certain cases.... its stops dopes going overboard...

how does having not being able to abort for superficial reasons going to stop this protection?

e.g. fighting someone.... its legal to defend yourself and fight.... this is also in a certain case (being that theyre attacking you).... if you went for the extreme end and had no limits then based on this example that would mean its legal to start fights... you wouldnt be arrested for assault...

to let all abortions happen is insane... again, choosing sex is superficial compared to choosing to abort because you know you cant provide a good life.... if more people abort for stupid reasons, then this deminishes the impact of abortions.... they are serious situations! you must think hard before deciding, whats the point of vainly choosing based on some retarded characteristic?

youre giving too much power to people, in the future this may lead to abusing abortions...sex rates go up, no need for protection, younger people may start to have sex.... if you allow abortions for stupid reasons like sex, then the same could occur to what i just said....it could open the floodgates to more problems

punishing women for having sex??? that is completely NOT what this is about... women can have sex as much as they want.... even if i am for abortion, its a serious thing, not like going to get a hair cut like ive repeatedly been saying.... you cant just choose to have an abortion all willy nilly .... dont make the procedure into some kind of trivial act.... the reason is trivial, not the procedure... the procedure is serious...

AGAIN... there is nothing wrong with having limits.... it is NOT hypocritical... it is NOT contradicting...

[Some random guy]

(Original post by Chloe xxx)
I didnt say I agree with it, I dont. Its a more viable reason to me than waiting to see your baby in a scan MOVING and then deciding to abort it because of what sex it is. That is inhumane, cruel and horrific from a parental perspective (and im not a parent).

It's more horrific to kill animals for meat, fur, what have you than to kill a bunch of cells with as much sentience as carrots. Your personal emotions carry no weight in this debate. You only feel horrified because it resembles a human being in shape. Are you horrified if someone rips a doll or eats a ginger bread man?

[The Socktor]

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
Have you not thought there's a reason why Andrew Lansley is Health Secretary and you are a confused student at a **** university with far too much time on his hands and little prospect of making a difference to the world? Go do something useful with your time instead of posting disgusting threads about killing babies, "justifying" pedofilia, incest, necrophilia and the like. Seriously man, have you got some disorder? You are not particularly intellectually gifted, your views are dispicable,

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
and yet you persistently post garbage on this site like you know the answers to life, the universe and everything.

We all already do...

[medic_armadillo7]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
I thought it was all about freedom of choice, but now doctors are getting struck off because they've allowed mothers and parents to make that choice.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said sex selection was "illegal and morally wrong".
How exactly is it "morally wrong"??

Why force mothers to have babies they don't want?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17136213

Opinions?

It's wrong, because you end up creating a place like China, where the population is becoming skewed with 6-7 males born for every 5 girls born. Also, it's illegal according to the Human Abortion Act 1967 and the amended Human Embryology and Fertilisation Act 2008.

Some say, it's morally wrong, because you are forfeiting life on a selfish decision not admissible according to the Human Abortion Act 1967 and some cite the sanctity of life. Even when women request an abortion, in this present day, there are only 5 conditions which they can be carried out

a) if the mother life is in danger as a direct result of her pregnancy
b) to avoid permanent physical injury or mental health problems to the mother
c) to avoid transient physical injury or mental health problems to the mother (if its carried out under 28 weeks)
d) to avoid transient physical injury or mental health problems to her existing children (if its carried out under 28 weeks)
e) if the child is physically or severely handicapped or expected not to live long after birth (as in hours to days)

The problem nowadays is that women believe it is their "moral right" to have an abortion should they want it, only to discover at the abortion clinic that there are conditions to having an abortion, and then cite clause b) or c) as the reason for terminating their pregnancy. Which begs the question: What makes it "morally right" to insist on an abortion for a reason that lies outside these set of clauses (or could be considered on compassionate grounds as is sometimes done)?

I can understand that women have valid reasons for wanting an abortion, but having met many women in this position, I've noticed that you have some women, who feel torn apart by the situation they find themselves in and have a level of guilt or doubt at their choice but obviously feel that having an abortion is the right thing to do and you have several others who have 2 or more abortions and see abortion as an alternative means of contraception. Whether or not, you are pro-abortion or pro-life, it is undeniable that even if a foetus doesn't constitute as "life", it certainly potentiates it, and I don't think that can ever be forfeited, purely due to recklessness, where for me it gets hazy, is if due care was taken, but it was never the intention for the woman to get pregnant

Nonetheless, I feel outraged that they filmed that doctor and cited that "she would perform an abortion because the woman wanted a girl or boy", when actually the probable reality is that if she said she couldn't do it, the patient would kick up a fuss until it was deemed that "her mental health" was affected and then an abortion would be carried out anyway under clause b) or c) of the Human Abortion Act 1967. NOTE: she didn't say "I will carry out this abortion, because you want a boy or girl", she said, "Ok, I'm not going to ask any questions and I'll just get on with it." They put her in a very awkward situation, which probably is form of coercion and then they filmed her.

Either way, she would have ended up with a law-suit against her!

[themedicalgeek]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
You obviously too little about biology to be talking about this subject. Just because a foetus can be identified as male or female doesn't mean there's a living sentient being in there...

Killing a foetus is no different from killing a vegetable. Now stop throwing around the word 'sick' like you are the Daily Mail. It's a thought terminating cliche.

Can you define the limits which a foetus is a "vegetable"? Im pretty sure that anything with a heartbeat is far from a vegetable. Your logic seems to suggest that if the being cant talk back then it is no longer living.

Your responses continually veer to the question "should abortion be allowed at all?" rather than " should abortion due to gender be allowed?" I never knew that having a child that is a boy causes a significant dent in a families finance compared to a girl or that a family will unavailable to raise a girl. What I am getting at is that choosing sex of your baby is completely and down right selfish. You are imposing your own silly demands onto a biological process. We are logical beings but a if a policy like that was allowed would really makes people question that.

I am not getting into the morality of abortion itself but if parents were freely allowed to choose the sex of their baby it could have implications over time such as disrupting the male:female ratio of the population which needs to stay constant to maintain a healthy birth/death rate and also selecting children like that could also cause an increase in sex-linked diseases because you are messing with processes which are intended to be random.

In conclusion. I can find absolutely no reason why a person would wish to terminate a foetus due to its sex other than selfish reasons. If you want a child, you will be happy with what you give birth to.

[Alexandra's Box]

I cannot believe that you are actually serious...

[The Socktor]

(Original post by medic_armadillo7)
It's wrong, because you end up creating a place like China,

Um... no. In China, the government enforces the gender policy. As far as I'm aware, all the OP is suggesting is that women should have a choice in whether or not they want to abort the foetus for this reason. If you're going to make a slippery slope argument, you've got to explain how X will lead to Y.

[medic_armadillo7]

(Original post by The Socktor)
Um... no. In China, the government enforces the gender policy. As far as I'm aware, all the OP is suggesting is that women should have a choice in whether or not they want to abort the foetus for this reason. If you're going to make a slippery slope argument, you've got to explain how X will lead to Y.

Cheers for the enlightenment, but no...

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Gende...omen-7324.html

Plus, I've had enough public health and epidemiology rammed down my throat for the last 6 years, to know I'm not making this up.

I'll find you a public health study, if you like ;-P

[Xotol]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
You obviously too little about biology to be talking about this subject. Just because a foetus can be identified as male or female doesn't mean there's a living sentient being in there...

Killing a foetus is no different from killing a vegetable. Now stop throwing around the word 'sick' like you are the Daily Mail. It's a thought terminating cliche.

If sentience is an argument for abortion, why do we respect the rights of comatose patients? Why not just pull the plug on those patients if we can kill fetuses because of sentience. In fact, comatose patients are financially draining.

Sentience is a ridiculous argument when people who are already born sometimes exert no response to their external environment and rely on machines to stay alive.

(Original post by Hellinger)
A foetus is not a human child.

A fetus has nothing genetically separating it from any other human being - it contains its own unique DNA and is already developing on the human timeline.

A fetus is a human. Awareness, intelligence etc is not a prerequisite to being a human, otherwise we would class many people who lack these certain common 'human' traits as inhuman. Our genetic information is what ultimately defines us as human at the most basic level.

It is a potential, developing human being.

We are always developing. Cells continually replicate and divide throughout our lives. It just so happens that at the fetus stage, we are somewhat less developed. That doesn't make us any less human.

It has no memories.

Memories are irrelevant, unless you want to class those that do not retain memories as inhuman too?

[Pindar]

(Original post by Chloe xxx)
Because most normal women who are half capable of being a loving parent would adore their child anyway once its born no matter what sex it is.

Now you are dictating what is "normal", and now claiming "normal"= "good". So tedious.

(Original post by Chloe xxx)
It wouldnt kill anyone for them to stop telling parents what sex their child is until they are past the stage they can abort it. Maybe save a few innocent babies lives...

What's the point in "saving innocent babies [foetuses] lives"? You're not "saving lives", you talk as if foetuses can actually be sentient

A foetus does not know whether it has lived or died, it's only alive as far as bacteria or mould is. Might as well go around saving the "lives" of vegetables.

(Original post by Chloe xxx)
Disregarding that, I have no respect for anyone who does this, they are disgusting and an insult to the many people out there who struggle to have any child. Absoloutely vile.

You're disgusting, for demanding that people give birth to children they don't want. To you, the choice of a person doesn't matter, and they must be forced. It's completely fascist and abhorrent.

[Pindar]

(Original post by HollyB_C)
Because it is not a life-threatening condition that would see you have to change your life to look after the child! Nothing changes!

You think NOT having a life threatening condition is a good reason for forcing people to have children they don't want? How does that even make sense...

[Pindar]

(Original post by redferry)
I don't think this is an ethical issue. Gender bias can become a serious issue in society, we don't want to end up like China.

We live in a society where we aim to treat genders equally, both can work and provide for families. Why would we ever develop a gender bias? It would just be down to personal preference.

[redferry]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
We live in a society where we aim to treat genders equally, both can work and provide for families. Why would we ever develop a gender bias? It would just be down to personal preference.

We'd still end up with a bias towards boys. And it would mean cultures that value boys, who also traditionally have more children, would have more boys...

[Pindar]

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
1) I wasn't saying that authority = necessarily correct. But let's face it, the guy is almost certainly a lot smarter than you ever will be.

That I highly doubt.

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
2) Do you not understand that with your philosophy, no one has any right to decide what is moral? Indeed, whatever is considered "moral" is whatever those in power happen to agree on. Andrew Lansley is in a position of power; you at your rubbish uni are not and probably never will be.

You can argue what is moral through being rational, causing harm is arguably the only thing which is immoral. Aborting a foetus does not cause anyone any harm, and is therefore not immoral.

Just because someone has a fancy title does not make them the infallible arbiters of what's moral, without providing ANY argument to back it up.

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
"no logical argument for his position" - do you not understand that with your view there cannot be any logical argument for any position? If so then it's pretty harsh to demand one.

There is not a good enough argument to why it should be illegal. Show me where I said "there cannot be a logical argument for any position"? If not, stop putting words in people's mouths to attempt to succeed in a complete fail of an argument.

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
3) Read point 5.

Just did, thanks for wasting my time.

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
4) Funny you describe my views as "inaccurate and flawed" and the head of Philosophy at my rather prestigous university writes down what I say during discussions and approves of my arguments.

That is SUCH A GOOD ARGUMENT! Boasting about how your teacher likes you, how you apparently go to a good uni (I doubt) and how he likes your arguments so much is pretty irrelevant to the discussion.

You can't prove it, he is probably a **** humouring you and WHERE IS YOUR ARGUMENT if you're so good at it.

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
5) I most certainly have thought through in massive detail what I believe and why I believe it. I'm not sure that you have/have done the same thoroughly enough.

Go on then.... don't embarrass yourself too much though

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
Also, it's kind of funny that you make this point at me just after writing "My views are only what academics, scientists and philosophers have known for years. Nothing new." It should be blatantly obvious that 1) your views are certainly not the same as ALL academics, scientists and philosophers and 2) interesting use of the word "know".

Academics, scientists and philosophers whose opinions are worth knowing will tell you the same.

(Original post by destroyerofsouls)
I seriously hope you will one day look back at your posts on here and think "what a ****ing teenage douchebag I was", and cringe. Your views are flawed, I have tried on several occasions to explain why (albeit by the medium of these forums), and I feel it is a stubborness to change your mind combined with a false security in your intellectual capabilities that prevents you from understanding why I and many other people think your views are repulsive and if anything, worrying.

If they're so "flawed" why don't you explain why instead of keeping it to yourself? Because otherwise you are increasingly coming off like a blathering idiot.

Just because scientific ideas and philosophies are repulsive to some doesn't make them any less valid... it's simply the way the world is. It's because some people are strangely repulsed by the truth that they remain ignorant.

[Pindar]

(Original post by Marvel_Mo)
Your argument that it's the mother's choice is totally invalid. If the mother can not even stand their child's gender how will they be capable of being able to handle any little problem the child has, a few examples like; if the child is not attractive, if the mother wanted a sporty child but the child has problems preventing the child from being sporty or if the child is extremely clumsy and stupid.

The mother simply wants a different sex, doesn't mean they are not going to love or care after the child because it isn't sporty. One thing they have a choice over, the other thing they don't. It doesn't mean they're shallow.

How does wanting to choose the sex of the child = mother who won't love or care after their children? That's a bit of a stretch to say the least.

(Original post by Marvel_Mo)
Basically what I'm trying to say is that if the mother is that shallow over the gender of their child then the mother will probably not be able to give the child the love and care it needs.

Again, why is it shallow? They might not mind a child of either sex but simply prefer to have a boy or a girl. Why shouldn't they be allowed the option is the question?