ChatterBank8 mins ago
Sex Selective Abortion
50 Answers
http://
Terrible Crime? or acceptable social engineering?
Terrible Crime? or acceptable social engineering?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
it is according to this illegal,
http://
http://
Fertility specialists have the ability to create and identify embryos of either sex. However, it is illegal to choose your baby's gender in the UK, unless there's a medical reason for it.
You can only legally choose your baby's gender in the UK if you have a serious genetic condition that you risk passing on to your children. Only pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has been approved as a technique which does this. So you can't medically intervene with conception just to balance your family, or for social or cultural reasons.
You can only legally choose your baby's gender in the UK if you have a serious genetic condition that you risk passing on to your children. Only pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has been approved as a technique which does this. So you can't medically intervene with conception just to balance your family, or for social or cultural reasons.
I don't think it clearly illegal.
The Abortion Act 1967 covers the UK mainland (England, Scotland and Wales) but not Northern Ireland. The law states that:
- abortions must be carried out in a hospital or a specialist licensed clinic
- two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy
If the women involved said that the sex of the baby was vitally important and that she would be distraught, rejected, mentally damaged if the child was the 'wrong' sex then wouldn't this fit the legal requirements?
The gut reaction to this is that it seems wrong but seeking to control it sounds difficult as it could easily result in unwanted / unloved children, children being disposed of, back street terminations... A very sad state of affairs indeed all round.
The Abortion Act 1967 covers the UK mainland (England, Scotland and Wales) but not Northern Ireland. The law states that:
- abortions must be carried out in a hospital or a specialist licensed clinic
- two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy
If the women involved said that the sex of the baby was vitally important and that she would be distraught, rejected, mentally damaged if the child was the 'wrong' sex then wouldn't this fit the legal requirements?
The gut reaction to this is that it seems wrong but seeking to control it sounds difficult as it could easily result in unwanted / unloved children, children being disposed of, back street terminations... A very sad state of affairs indeed all round.
Is it not the same as this http://
@emmie,
I fully take the point you made about the desire of families to secure their estate but, to the best of my recollection, the historical family I detailed were all Ag-labs
:o)
In terms of the science, sex-linked diseases commonly affect the males because the Y chromosome lacks the pieces to compensate for a problem in certain parts of the equivalent X chromosome. Girls get a 'backup copy' and the odds of having the same problem gene in both copies are -very- low.
In other words, the odds of disease being the actual reason for aborting a female foetus are -very- low.
Genetic testing would make a true incidence totally proveable. Likewise, no possibility of cheating the system, provided they went to those lengths every time someone tried it on.
I fully take the point you made about the desire of families to secure their estate but, to the best of my recollection, the historical family I detailed were all Ag-labs
:o)
In terms of the science, sex-linked diseases commonly affect the males because the Y chromosome lacks the pieces to compensate for a problem in certain parts of the equivalent X chromosome. Girls get a 'backup copy' and the odds of having the same problem gene in both copies are -very- low.
In other words, the odds of disease being the actual reason for aborting a female foetus are -very- low.
Genetic testing would make a true incidence totally proveable. Likewise, no possibility of cheating the system, provided they went to those lengths every time someone tried it on.
Yes, O_G, it is the same.
The law is effectively an ass now. Up to 24 weeks an abortion can be had for pretty much any reason at all, with the effective cover of "damage to the mental health of the mother-to-be". It's about time we all stopped pussyfooting around and realised this, and that gender selection is a consequence, as is abortion of foetuses with mild disabilities such as a cleft palate, and all sorts of scenarios that many towards the "pro-choice" end of the debate might find a bit distasteful.
There is no right answer. A baby born to unloving or unwanting parents is off to bad start in life, as is a baby born to cruel or psychopathic parents. An aborted foetus does not even get the chance of that start, but who's to say it's the worst possible outcome for that foetus? There are difficult questions all around.
I'm closer to the "pro-life" end of the spectrum and I would always look to discourage abortion. But I recognise that people have different opinions and outlooks and if a woman really wants/needs an abortion up to 24 weeks (I'd prefer 20 weeks) then she should have one.
The law is effectively an ass now. Up to 24 weeks an abortion can be had for pretty much any reason at all, with the effective cover of "damage to the mental health of the mother-to-be". It's about time we all stopped pussyfooting around and realised this, and that gender selection is a consequence, as is abortion of foetuses with mild disabilities such as a cleft palate, and all sorts of scenarios that many towards the "pro-choice" end of the debate might find a bit distasteful.
There is no right answer. A baby born to unloving or unwanting parents is off to bad start in life, as is a baby born to cruel or psychopathic parents. An aborted foetus does not even get the chance of that start, but who's to say it's the worst possible outcome for that foetus? There are difficult questions all around.
I'm closer to the "pro-life" end of the spectrum and I would always look to discourage abortion. But I recognise that people have different opinions and outlooks and if a woman really wants/needs an abortion up to 24 weeks (I'd prefer 20 weeks) then she should have one.
One of the interesting aspects of this question is the challenges it raises to accepted thinking.
For example, I find the position of some AB members being pro-choice on libertarian grounds but anti-circumcision on religious grounds to be quite perplexing. Fair enough, be anti-both or pro-both, but I can't see how you can reasonably be pro ending the life of a foetus, and anti giving birth to that foetus and bringing it up in a loving, caring environment which includes circumcision as part of its culture.
And that kind of issue is thrown under a strong light by this question, because here the pro-choice and religious freedom issues have been combined into one - being pro or anti the choice of parents to influence the outcomes in their children's lives.
For example, I find the position of some AB members being pro-choice on libertarian grounds but anti-circumcision on religious grounds to be quite perplexing. Fair enough, be anti-both or pro-both, but I can't see how you can reasonably be pro ending the life of a foetus, and anti giving birth to that foetus and bringing it up in a loving, caring environment which includes circumcision as part of its culture.
And that kind of issue is thrown under a strong light by this question, because here the pro-choice and religious freedom issues have been combined into one - being pro or anti the choice of parents to influence the outcomes in their children's lives.
> Circumcising a child for no medical reason is clearly abusive.
If it was "clearly abusive" then surely it would be illegal?
The truth is that it's only "clearly abusive" - i.e. 100% unequivocally abusive - to those who are intolerant of religious and cultural freedoms. My view is that all parents, anywhere in the world in any religion or culture, always affect - either physically or mentally - outcomes in the lives of their children. We have to be very careful when telling other parents - in our own cultures and other cultures, in other faiths or none - how to go about bringing up their children.
I find the idea of circumcision on religious grounds quite unfortunate for the boy. But that's just my subjective point of view. If he grows up into that faith, he's probably quite happy with the circumcision. If he leaves the faith then he may be unhappy. But, either way, at least he's alive.
Now take the case of the female foetus aborted on religious grounds for being the wrong sex. Is that "clearly abusive"? Is it more wrong or less wrong for a female foetus to be aborted than a male child to be circumcised?
If it was "clearly abusive" then surely it would be illegal?
The truth is that it's only "clearly abusive" - i.e. 100% unequivocally abusive - to those who are intolerant of religious and cultural freedoms. My view is that all parents, anywhere in the world in any religion or culture, always affect - either physically or mentally - outcomes in the lives of their children. We have to be very careful when telling other parents - in our own cultures and other cultures, in other faiths or none - how to go about bringing up their children.
I find the idea of circumcision on religious grounds quite unfortunate for the boy. But that's just my subjective point of view. If he grows up into that faith, he's probably quite happy with the circumcision. If he leaves the faith then he may be unhappy. But, either way, at least he's alive.
Now take the case of the female foetus aborted on religious grounds for being the wrong sex. Is that "clearly abusive"? Is it more wrong or less wrong for a female foetus to be aborted than a male child to be circumcised?
But pixie, this morning you said "I agree entirely. A healthy baby is a healthy baby and it's shameful people think this way."
Now you say "A foetus (or embryo, here) doesn't have a right to life".
So if it doesn't have a right to life, surely there's no real problem in terminating it on any grounds its parents see fit? And that's the de facto state we now find ourselves in, where "damage to the mental health of the mother-to-be" can be used to justify any abortion under 24 weeks - even those on religious grounds.
Now you say "A foetus (or embryo, here) doesn't have a right to life".
So if it doesn't have a right to life, surely there's no real problem in terminating it on any grounds its parents see fit? And that's the de facto state we now find ourselves in, where "damage to the mental health of the mother-to-be" can be used to justify any abortion under 24 weeks - even those on religious grounds.
Yes, that does sound confusing- sorry.
what i meant was that it's legal to terminate if the mother says she'll be distressed by it. That could be from the pregnancy, baby, wrong sex, etc. She doesn't even need to state the reason. So that's how I'm interpreting the law.
On a personal level, i disagree with aborting a baby because it's the wrong sex. I also know someone who terminated a pregnancy (no, not me) because she wasn't sure who the father was. I don't think that's a great reason either. So, who decides which are "good" reasons? At present, it is the mother, which i think is right- although i don't personally agree with her in this case.
what i meant was that it's legal to terminate if the mother says she'll be distressed by it. That could be from the pregnancy, baby, wrong sex, etc. She doesn't even need to state the reason. So that's how I'm interpreting the law.
On a personal level, i disagree with aborting a baby because it's the wrong sex. I also know someone who terminated a pregnancy (no, not me) because she wasn't sure who the father was. I don't think that's a great reason either. So, who decides which are "good" reasons? At present, it is the mother, which i think is right- although i don't personally agree with her in this case.
OK then we see things very similarly when it comes to abortion ... it's unfortunate but if a woman feels it is necessary, for WHATEVER reason, then it's OK up to a certain limit. As Ann Furedi puts it in the OP link: ‘We either support women’s capacity to decide, or we don’t ... You can’t be pro-choice except when you don’t like the choice, because that’s not pro-choice at all.’
To take things a little further, if we're sufficiently liberal that we allow mothers-to-be to be pro-choice about the life of their unborn child, based on for example (again from the OP link) "‘her family will disown her and she’ll lose her home, her husband whom she loves, and her existing children", then surely the exact same thinking can apply to other choices made about the health and wellbeing of a child that is allowed to be born and raised in a warm and loving, albeit religious, environment - choices about whether or not to circumcise, for example.
To me, denying the right to life is worse than denying the right to a foreskin, but I accept that both take place in the world we're living in and other religions, cultures or worldviews are quite comfortable with it. As long as their choices don't affect my choices then I can live with that.
To take things a little further, if we're sufficiently liberal that we allow mothers-to-be to be pro-choice about the life of their unborn child, based on for example (again from the OP link) "‘her family will disown her and she’ll lose her home, her husband whom she loves, and her existing children", then surely the exact same thinking can apply to other choices made about the health and wellbeing of a child that is allowed to be born and raised in a warm and loving, albeit religious, environment - choices about whether or not to circumcise, for example.
To me, denying the right to life is worse than denying the right to a foreskin, but I accept that both take place in the world we're living in and other religions, cultures or worldviews are quite comfortable with it. As long as their choices don't affect my choices then I can live with that.
I've been doing some googling, and while there is some uncertainty and debate, it appears that the central nervous system links to the brain at around 30 weeks. It doesn't necessarily mean the foetus can feel or think (according to the experts). If it has to be done, I'd say the earlier the better and waiting to discover what sex it is can't be good for anyone.
Circumcision affects only the child, so it's not really for someone else to decide. Why not wait until he's 18 and let him choose?
Circumcision affects only the child, so it's not really for someone else to decide. Why not wait until he's 18 and let him choose?
Ellipsis, the reference to circumcision earlier in this thread related to female circumcision, aka female genital mutilation. it is illegal, but yet you seem to take the view that such a procedure should be left to the will of the religiously inclined parent, and the law should keep its nose out. which raises the issue of one law for some, and a different law for others - or do you believe that to be an acceptable price to pay in the preservation of religious freedom of expression?
Latest Posts
Vitamins For Macular Degeneration
Body & Soul37 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles52 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles59 mins ago
ChatterBank99 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.