Sex-selective Abortion

Scroll to see replies

Unless there is a disease associated with it, then no! Although I totally support aborting children based on financial and medical issues and if the mother is not ready yet to have a child.

that is so relativistic it's unreal...what if she's "not ready yet" to have a certain gendered child? and how do you ensure that she's actually having the abortion for the right reasons? what if she says she's not ready base on other considerations but really it's based on gender?

Reply 21

Simes

Original post by roroyourboat

Either you believe in a woman's right to choose or you don't.

You ignored what I wrote.

Personally, I believe it is a woman's right to choose under certain circumstances in accordance with generally accepted social values in this country.

Personally, I feel abortion should not be permitted to be a trivial lifestyle choice or done for designer babies but should continue to be a challenged, difficult decision, that, when approved, is done as humanely as possible for all parties concerned.

Abortion was brought in because it is better done in a controlled fashion than the alternative 'back street abortions' which were killing and maiming women. It was not meant to be done for trivial or cultural preference reasons and personally I do not think it should be.

Reply 22

username1599987

Original post by zippity.doodah

You're right, after I thought about it, there isn't a certain way to prevent women from doing that (aborting based on sex); but still that doesn't mean it's right.

Reply 23

zippity.doodah

Original post by Simes

You ignored what I wrote.

Personally, I believe it is a woman's right to choose under certain circumstances in accordance with generally accepted social values in this country.

so you're not pro-choice then, basically, with a heavy emphasis against the concept of choice

Reply 24

Simes

Original post by zippity.doodah

so you're not pro-choice then, basically, with a heavy emphasis against the concept of choice

Yes, I suppose you could see it that way, yes. As a bloke, who can't get pregnant, and will never be in that position, I, possibly hypocritically, possibly patronisingly, believe abortion should be available but not as cosmetic family surgery.

So, no, I'm not pro-choice, if pro-choice means you can get rid of it for being potentially too short or wrong colour eyes or because you won't earn a dowry from it or because you can't farm it for organs another child needs.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 25

zippity.doodah

Original post by Simes

you seem to be very concerned about a non-living entity such as a foetus...

Reply 26

OGGUS

Nah, that's a bit to much to be doing

Reply 27

Thaladan

Original post by zippity.doodah

you seem to be very concerned about a non-living entity such as a foetus...

You're saying that he's excessively concerned about a foetus because he doesn't want features such as height, eye-colour, and sex to be used as reasons for abortion?

Does that mean that a pregnant woman who uses features such as the height, eye-colour, or sex of the foetus as a reason for an abortion is excessively concerned about a non-living entity as well?

Reply 28

zippity.doodah

Original post by Thaladan

the fact that she's willing to abort it would clearly suggest that she *doesn't* care about that foetus

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 29

tazarooni89

Original post by Simes

Personally, I feel abortion should not be permitted to be a trivial lifestyle choice or done for designer babies but should continue to be a challenged, difficult decision, that, when approved, is done as humanely as possible for all parties concerned.

Why? If a foetus isn't really a human, if it's just a clump of cells with no right to life of its own, if it's part of the mother's body and she has the right to choose what to do with it, then what does it matter whether the abortion is done for trivial reasons or whether it's a challenged and difficult decision?

On the other hand, if the foetus is a human in its own right, and has the right to life, then surely killing it should be prohibited pretty much whatever the reason may be (unless e.g. it poses a threat to the mother's life).

Abortion was brought in because it is better done in a controlled fashion than the alternative 'back street abortions' which were killing and maiming women. It was not meant to be done for trivial or cultural preference reasons and personally I do not think it should be.

What if women who wanted sex-selective abortions, but were legally prohibited from doing so, all just started going and having back street abortions instead? Then would you support making it legal, so that it is done in a controlled fashion?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 30

SaucissonSecCy

Can't believe 1/3 say yes. The case has to be you can't legitimately look after it or love it. If the only reason that makes you want to abort is sex and you'd have it otherwise, no civilized society would advocate that.

Reply 31

skunkboy

Kill the fetus? Fetus is a human life form,isn't it? That's definitely a murder!
Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 32

TorpidPhil

If one doesn't give a foetus any living status - which I don't in accordance with the British laws about not aborted the baby after so many weeks... Then the only difference between the motive for a particular abortion would make in the morality of the action is based on the outcome of the abortion itself. Abortions aren't solely bad because of people valuing the "life" of foetuses, they also cost money, if there is no severe detrimental effect on a person's life from having a baby then they should be made to pay for the abortion themselves. Also, there are medical risks and concerns but by taking such risks the person is already paying for such.

So I think yes. Let them, because I don't value a foetus' life anyway.