Why is abortion by gender the exception?

BrendaN_f

In the UK at the moment there is a bit of talk about introducing a law which would outlaw abortions performed based on the gender of the baby.

Now while I agree that is obviously wrong, I'm finding it difficult to understand why getting an abortion because you don't want a girl/boy is any worse than getting an abortion because you simply don't want a child?

Cookie_Monster

Who would be stupid enough to give that as the reason anyway?

CJ Haughey

We wont solve the problem tonight anyway Brendan, have a drop of cherry and get some sleep.

Alexis Sanchez

It's not a moral thing or anything like that, their government is worried about a population imbalance.

kneemos

Alexis Sanchez wrote: »

It's not a moral thing or anything like that, their government is worried about a population imbalance.

AHA

DING DING.

We have a winner.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

How long before this thread completely misses the poitn and turns into an straight-on abortion debate?

kowloon

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

How long before this thread completely misses the poitn and turns into an straight-on abortion debate?

I don't know, but I expected it by post #3.

MarkAnthony

No one is purely pro-choice or pro-life with the exception of the nutter fringes. It's impossible to get that across to many in either camp.

BlaasForRafa

BrendaN_f wrote: »

In the UK at the moment there is a bit of talk about introducing a law which would outlaw abortions performed based on the gender of the baby.

Now while I agree that is obviously wrong, I'm finding it difficult to understand why getting an abortion because you don't want a girl/boy is any worse than getting an abortion because you simply don't want a child?

Given the fact that in cases where sex-selective abortion occurs it's usually female children that get aborted, it's misogynistic.

It isn't a huge problem in the developed world but in places like south asia the gender balance has gone seriously out of kilter in some places. From the pieces on the UK news yesterday it seems like this could be an issue in some immigrant communities and that's what the measure is aimed at.

Just a little Samba

As BlaasForRafa said above, this is probably targeted at the South Asian (That's the Indian Sub-Continent in old money) community in Britain where there is a bit of a tendency for families to not value female children and so abortions of female children are strangely regular.
It's ridiculously common in South Asian countries, it's a massive topic in India right now, especially coming up to international women's day on March 8th.

spurious

The ironic thing is that when females are in short supply, they can have their pick of the males, thus in a way making them more 'valuable'. Serious problem socially in China where they have ended up with large numbers of unwillingly single men.

Just a little Samba

spurious wrote: »

The ironic thing is that when females are in short supply, they can have their pick of the males, thus in a way making them more 'valuable'. Serious problem socially in China where they have ended up with large numbers of unwillingly single men.

In south asian culture the woman's family have to pay a dowry to the family man who marries her.
The more successful the male, the bigger the dowry, so if you want your daughter to marry a wealthy man you pay a high price for it so for some families rather than worry about being able to afford a "good" husband for their daughter or have to deal with the "shame" of her marrying someone who isn't a doctor or a dentist or an engineer, they just decide they will only have boys and then the "problem" is solved.

whatdoicare

spurious wrote: »

The ironic thing is that when females are in short supply, they can have their pick of the males, thus in a way making them more 'valuable'. Serious problem socially in China where they have ended up with large numbers of unwillingly single men.

What's really happening though is poorer areas are selling their daughters to the highest bidder. Human trafficking has become a huge problem. Then the poorer areas are left with a huge population of ageing single men and hardly no women. The ageing population is also becoming a huge problem.

volchitsa

spurious wrote: »

The ironic thing is that when females are in short supply, they can have their pick of the males, thus in a way making them more 'valuable'. Serious problem socially in China where they have ended up with large numbers of unwillingly single men.

You'd think, but apparently that isn't what's happening, instead those places where they've created a large imbalance are finding (surprise surprise) misogynistic solutions, such as richer or higher caste families "buying in" (or just taking) lower caste or outsider women who are despised by their family in law and are tolerated only as breeders, and even then, often barely that.

Obviously that then leaves the lower status families with no chance of finding wives for their young men, leading to an increase in rapes and various forms of social violence (not just against women).

It's a significant phenomenon in several northern Indian states where traditional female infanticide has been replaced by large scale female abortion and some parts of China too, iirc.

volchitsa

whatdoicare wrote: »

What's really happening though is poorer areas are selling their daughters to the highest bidder. Human trafficking has become a huge problem. Then the poorer areas are left with a huge population of ageing single men and hardly no women. The ageing population is also becoming a huge problem.

Sorry I hadn't seen your post when I replied. Yes that's exactly it. And the "marriages", in cultures where marriage is still about families more than about individuals, are often barely considered valid by the man's family - a case of needs must. A woman who wouldn't have been let in the door a few years ago is a daughter in law, ie skivvy. You can imagine the relationships within the family.

nokia69

Alexis Sanchez wrote: »

It's not a moral thing or anything like that, their government is worried about a population imbalance.

I think its feminists who are against gender selection

unless its the male fetus getting aborted

its not really logical IMO, you can't claim be free choice and then start coming up with restrictions

suicide_circus

nokia69 wrote: »

its not really logical IMO, you can't claim be free choice and then start coming up with restrictions

Restrictions based on gestation period are in place in most jurisdictions so the free choice thing is a bit of a myth too....if you start pulling at threads, the whole concept starts to unravel a bit.

Teyla Emmagan

Remember seeing a news article about rural Pakistan (I think). Anyway, whole villages full of single men in their fifties and down. By that stage they hadn't made enough money to buy a wife, and they wouldn't, so they were doomed to be single forever. The ones who did managed to get a wife didn't treat her like a precious commodity though, more like they resented her more because she'd cost them so much. These young girls married off to much older men consigned to a life of childbirth and drudgery. No increase at all in the standard of living for the woman, no increase in her value, or chance that she might now be educated due to her rarity. Instead her family sold her off at 14 for an absolute fortune and washed their hands of her. And she becomes a sex and domestic slave.

Awful situation and really made me angry. They just don't seem to be capable of valuing women in some of these societies.

Just a little Samba

Dowry works the other way around.

The brides family pays the husbands family.
People don't "buy wives", and men don't marry down as marrying someone from a lower caste means both you and your children are regarded as being form the lower caste and not the one you are born into the second you marry down (works both ways).

nokia69

Rummycollie wrote: »

If they are expensive to buy then by definition they are valued.

not really

not valued as people, valued the same way someone might value an expensive car

desertcircus

nokia69 wrote: »

I think its feminists who are against gender selection

unless its the male fetus getting aborted

its not really logical IMO, you can't claim be free choice and then start coming up with restrictions

Rabble rabble feminists rabble rabble I'm the arbiter of logic rabble rabble didn't read the thread.

The Corinthian

Rummycollie wrote: »

That's fantastic but why is gender the exception.

Because it's sold as a women's rights issue (you'll always hear it brought up in that context) and feminist / women's rights lobby groups are amongst the best organized and funded in the West.

Just a little Samba wrote: »

The brides family pays the husbands family.

Depends on the culture/country. Thailand, for example, it's the other way around.

Just a little Samba

The Corinthian wrote: »

Depends on the culture/country. Thailand, for example, it's the other way around.

The post I replied to mentioned Pakistan, which although an Islamic state still has a culture which still has a caste system because of it's historical and cultural ties to the rest of the Indian Sub-continent (South Asia in new money).
I was responding to a that post directly, hence mentioning the caste system in my reply.
Context is king and all that.

The Corinthian

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Context is king and all that.

Apparently so's bias.

Just a little Samba

The Corinthian wrote: »

Apparently so's bias.

Which bias would that be?
The living in South Asia for a good chunk of every year and experiencing South Asian culture directly bias?

It's not a bad bias to have when speaking about South Asia in fairness.

The Corinthian

Just a little Samba wrote: »

It's not a bad bias to have when speaking about South Asia in fairness.

Then specify that you're only discussing South Asia when discussing the subject. Otherwise the implication becomes that you're discussing dowries in general.

Just a little Samba

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then specify that you're only discussing South Asia when discussing the subject. Otherwise the implication becomes that you're discussing dowries in general.

The conversation I was involved in was in regards to Pakistan. Pakistan is in South Asia. It was mentioned in the conversation.

Maybe you should read whole conversations before jumping in with both feet?

FactCheck

As it happens, feminist opinion is far from uniform on the issue. Well, they are uniform in believing it to be a bad thing but divided as to whether or not it should be illegal.

In the UK, many feminists are opposed to outlawing it. Here here here and here are some articles outlining why.

Here is a specific explanation of why yesterday's attempt to outlaw it was opposed by feminists.

Two salient points: it is legal to abort for this reason in the UK, if the sex is discovered early enough. Women are entitled to an abortion if continuing the pregnancy would negatively impact their mental health - and for some people, the shame, stigma, and abuse they would receive for giving birth to a girl would do so.

The second point is that, while there is some very limited evidence this practice may be happening in the UK, there is even more to say that it isn't, and it is absolutely not widespread or common in any UK community. If it happens, it happens very rarely.

The Corinthian

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Maybe you should read whole conversations before jumping in with both feet?

Maybe you should take the effort to put what you claim in the correct context rather than generalize falsely?

Just a little Samba

The Corinthian wrote: »

Maybe you should take the effort to put what you claim in the correct context rather than generalize falsely?

I didn't generalise. I replied to a specific post which mentioned pakistan which made a claim that men "buy women" in pakistan and than marrying down was common. Both are incorrect.
If anything, Women buy hisbands in Pakistan as 95% of marriages in Pakistan involve the transfer of money from the brides family to the grooms family, which is a pretty similar rate to the rest of South Asia.
In a previous post I specifically said "in South Asian culture the woman's family pay the males family".
So maybe you need to stop paying so much time to your daytime TV and more to the context of the conversations you are so desperately trying to find fault with (or morning tv as the case would be, what's on Jeremy kyle today?).


I'm actually going to point out your major fault which completely negates your whole attempt to correct me.

You've managed to confuse Dowry with "Bride Price" or Dower. They are the contrast of each other.

Dowry specifically refers the transfer of wealth from the brides family to the grooms family upon marriage. It's what the wife is expected to "bring" with her when she joins her husbands family.

A Bride price or Dower is the reverse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_price#Thailand

The Corinthian

Just a little Samba wrote: »

I didn't generalise.

Your post neglected to put your claim in context, thus it generalized.

So maybe you need to stop paying so much time to your daytime TV and more to the context of the conversations you are so desperately trying to find fault with (or morning tv as the case would be, what's on Jeremy kyle today?).

No daytime TV - I don't share your lifestyle, I'm afraid.

As for finding fault in your posts, there's no shortage. Would you like me to point out another example of how you try to mislead people?

Just a little Samba

The Corinthian wrote: »

No daytime TV - I don't share your lifestyle, I'm afraid.

The lifestyle where I live and work in South Asia and it's now 16.13 and I've been working since 08.00?

You didn't think that one through, did you?.

Just a little Samba

The Corinthian wrote: »

Your post neglected to put your claim in context, thus it generalized.

No daytime TV - I don't share your lifestyle, I'm afraid.

As for finding fault in your posts, there's no shortage. Would you like me to point out another example of how you try to mislead people?

Would you like to concede that your understanding of the term Dowry was incorrect and that even without putting my post in the context of South Asia, it is still correct because the word Dowry refers to the transfer of money from the bridal family to the grooms family and what you referred to is in fact a different but similar practice which even has a different name.

The Corinthian

Just a little Samba wrote: »

The lifestyle where I live and work in South Asia and it's now 16.13 and I've been working since 08.00?

You didn't think that one through, did you?.

Non sequitur.

Just a little Samba

The Corinthian wrote: »

Non sequitur.

Not really, be a bit hard to watch daytime tv when it's the early evening, I've been in an office without a TV since 8, don't speak the local lingo and have been, up until about an hour ago rather busy.
Just waiting on an email from an Irish colleague before I can clock off. Then maybe I'll watch some local TV for sh*ts and giggles and report back to you on my findings.

The Corinthian

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Not really, be a bit hard to watch daytime tv when it's the early evening, I've been in an office without a TV since 8, don't speak the local lingo and have been, up until about an hour ago rather busy.

Did I tell you to go watch daytime TV now? Nope, I just told you I don't share your lifestyle, which was all your idiotic comment on the subject deserved in response. So, frankly a non sequitur.

Just a little Samba

The Corinthian wrote: »

Did I tell you to go watch daytime TV now? Nope, I just told you I don't share your lifestyle, which was all your idiotic comment on the subject deserved in response. So, frankly a non sequitur.

You don't like when you're wrong, do you? Always so quick to drag it down petty mud slinging, call peoples posts "idiotic", try to claim they need to "go back to watching daytime tv" or some other nonsense as if they aren't worthy of questioning the all knowing whoever you are, rather than just say "hey, maybe I was wrong".

It's ok to be wrong, the world won't end if you decide to accept a correction on the internet, nobody here gives a toss, you don't have to get all angry and defensive.

Say it with me now.

"It's ok to be wrong, nobody gives a toss, it's just a message board".

You'll feel better, I promise.

RIchieNouveau

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Would you like to concede that your understanding of the term Dowry was incorrect and that even without putting my post in the context of South Asia, it is still correct because the word Dowry refers to the transfer of money from the bridal family to the grooms family and what you referred to is in fact a different but similar practice which even has a different name.

Corinthian, I think you missed this post. Everything you've said in reply to Samba has been based on this misunderstanding of the word and the fact that you didn't see that Samba's post was in response to a statement on Pakistan. It's dead horse flogging at this stage.

Although to be fair Samba you lost me with your last post because it was you who brought up daytime TV and not Corinthian.

Yours Faithfully,

Impartial Observer

The Corinthian

Just a little Samba wrote: »

You don't like when you're wrong, do you?

Really, so what was the relevance of telling me what your timezone was if I didn't actually tell you to go watch daytime TV now?

Always so quick to drag it down petty mud slinging, call peoples posts "idiotic", try to claim they need to "go back to watching daytime tv" or some other nonsense as if they aren't worthy of questioning the all knowing whoever you are, rather than just say "hey, maybe I was wrong".

This from the person who started slinging mud here.

It's ok to be wrong, the world won't end if you decide to accept a correction on the internet, nobody here gives a toss, you don't have to get all angry and defensive.

You might follow your own advice.

Tonyandthewhale

Corinthian and just a little Samba shouldn't be allowed comment on each other's posts. This is the aboriginal thread all over again.

Just a little Samba

RIchieNouveau wrote: »

Although to be fair Samba you lost me with your last post because it was you who brought up daytime TV and not Corinthian.

T'was me being silly and dragging up something he said yesterday.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Really, so what was the relevance of telling me what your timezone was if I didn't actually tell you to go watch daytime TV now?

Did you not yesterday claim I was "an illiterate who would be better off logging off and going back to watching daytime TV."

Because I could swear I read that somewhere. But I could be wrong, like most people I've been wrong before. Most people mind you. You're never wrong are you Cori?

AndonHandon

Get a room Corinthian and Little Samba!

Just a little Samba

AndonHandon wrote: »

Get a room Corinthian and Little Samba!

If you'll pay my airfare, there are really good rates between Chennai or Colombo and Dublin via Duabi or Doha with emirates or Qatar at the minute if you want to same some money.
I'll pay for the hotel myself.

Gbear

If you're in favour of allowing elective abortions, the only way you can rationalise that and not be a monster by your own definition is to believe that a foetus is not a person and does not have the right to life.

So, if you wish to have an elective abortion, it really shouldn't matter what your motivation for doing so is, from a legal or moral perspective (up until a certain cut off date, but that's a separate issue).
Either you're making a decision about a part of your own body that has no rights of it's own or you're committing murder or some variant of it.

From a social point of view, terminating a pregnancy because of the gender of the child should have no more reaction than any other justification. Whether you're weighing it against some oblivious, microscopic cells, or a human life, the reasoning behind why you're doing it is irrelevant.

Either the cells don't matter* or they matter completely - they can't be arbitrarily designated value depending on the justification (i.e if you want to abort because of gender, the foetus doesn't magically become a human or, more controversially, if you want to abort because you were raped, a baby wouldn't magically become a trivial cluster of cells).

*"the cells don't matter", "the reasoning behind why you're doing it is irrelevant" and comments like that in my post are not comments on how the parents feel or the the actual rationality of the decision itself but comments on the legal and moral footprint of the action.
So it doesn't mean that their reason isn't stupid - it's just morally neutral and ought to be legal.

Leaving aside the morality of the issue and how it should pertain to law from that perspective, the other element sounds like social engineering and the sort of utilitarian tyranny you would've hoped we left behind in the last century.

If individuals in society decide they don't want sons, daughters, gingers, short babies or whatever, it's none of the governments buisness to interfere in that. We're not animals. We don't exist to breed at the behest of the government.

desertcircus

Gbear wrote: »

If you're in favour of allowing elective abortions, the only way you can rationalise that and not be a monster by your own definition is to believe that a foetus is not a person and does not have the right to life.

So, if you wish to have an elective abortion, it really shouldn't matter what your motivation for doing so is, from a legal or moral perspective (up until a certain cut off date, but that's a separate issue).
Either you're making a decision about a part of your own body that has no rights of it's own or you're committing murder or some variant of it.

From a social point of view, terminating a pregnancy because of the gender of the child should have no more reaction than any other justification. Whether you're weighing it against some oblivious, microscopic cells, or a human life, the reasoning behind why you're doing it is irrelevant.

Either the cells don't matter* or they matter completely - they can't be arbitrarily designated value depending on the justification (i.e if you want to abort because of gender, the foetus doesn't magically become a human or, more controversially, if you want to abort because you were raped, a baby wouldn't magically become a trivial cluster of cells).

*"the cells don't matter", "the reasoning behind why you're doing it is irrelevant" and comments like that in my post are not comments on how the parents feel or the the actual rationality of the decision itself but comments on the legal and moral footprint of the action.
So it doesn't mean that their reason isn't stupid - it's just morally neutral and ought to be legal.

Leaving aside the morality of the issue and how it should pertain to law from that perspective, the other element sounds like social engineering and the sort of utilitarian tyranny you would've hoped we left behind in the last century.

If individuals in society decide they don't want sons, daughters, gingers, short babies or whatever, it's none of the governments buisness to interfere in that. We're not animals. We don't exist to breed at the behest of the government.

It's entirely logically possible for someone to be opposed to sex-selective abortions despite not thinking of a foetus as being a life. If allowing sex-selective abortions causes social harm, then a case exists for the state to prevent it, independent of the legality of abortion itself. The rights being balanced are the right of the parent to choose their child's gender versus the right of the rest of society not to suffer whatever ills come of the exercising of that right, then it's a question of how severe the social ills are. Given that all evidence suggests legal sex-selective abortion leads to a heavy gender imbalance, we then have to figure out what happens in a society with a large cohort of young men with no prospect of finding partners (hint: it tends to be pretty bad from the information we can gather) and weigh whether that should override the right of the individual to choose their child's gender.

There you go. The entire case, made without reference to the legitimacy or otherwise of the act itself.

The Corinthian

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Did you not yesterday claim I was "an illiterate who would be better off logging off and going back to watching daytime TV."

Not an answer to the question I asked. Never mind. Wasted enough time on you for today.

Gbear wrote: »

If you're in favour of allowing elective abortions, the only way you can rationalise that and not be a monster by your own definition is to believe that a foetus is not a person and does not have the right to life.

Strictly speaking not true. Society can already accept someone is a person and still not have a right to life, or more correctly an absolute right to life.

For example John needs a kidney. Mary has the only available compatible kidney. Can Mary be compelled to donate a kidney, without which John would die?

By our commonly held morality, no. John does not have any absolute right to life, despite being a person. Lots of other examples exist - capital punishment, war - and so on, where being a person won't save your life.

If individuals in society decide they don't want sons, daughters, gingers, short babies or whatever, it's none of the governments buisness to interfere in that. We're not animals. We don't exist to breed at the behest of the government.

Who says we don't exist to breed at the behest of the government? There are numerous laws in place designed to coerce us to conform to certain lifestyles, whether we like it or not - the automatic nature of the consequences of the cohabitation act being a case in point.

We've a lot less freedom in reality than we realize.

Gbear

desertcircus wrote: »

There you go. The entire case, made without reference to the legitimacy or otherwise of the act itself.

I made reference to that in the 2nd part of my post.

I hope that the creepy, quasi-eugenic idea that the government's role is to shape the makeup of society is something that has largely been left behind in the last century for the majority of people.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Strictly speaking not true. Society can already accept someone is a person and still not have a right to life, or more correctly an absolute right to life.

For example John needs a kidney. Mary has the only available compatible kidney. Can Mary be compelled to donate a kidney, without which John would die?

By our commonly held morality, no. John does not have any absolute right to life, despite being a person. Lots of other examples exist - capital punishment, war - and so on, where being a person won't save your life.

Your analogies really don't work for abortion.
Donating a kidney vs. not donating a kidney isn't a choice between actions but a choice between action and inaction.
If a foetus is a person, an abortion is not akin to not donating a kidney but rather, not donating a kidney and then turning up the hospital and smothering the patient.

A criminal on death row has committed a crime and death is punishment, whereas a foetus has done nothing of the sort.

War is a whole different ballgame and a giant can of worms I'm not prepared to get into here.

Regardless, there doesn't need to be incontrovertible right to life for abortion to be murder.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Who says we don't exist to breed at the behest of the government? There are numerous laws in place designed to coerce us to conform to certain lifestyles, whether we like it or not - the automatic nature of the consequences of the cohabitation act being a case in point.

We've a lot less freedom in reality than we realize.

Certainly. But I prefer to argue with my idealist hat on first. Pragmatism comes later.

Eugene Norman

desertcircus wrote: »

It's entirely logically possible for someone to be opposed to sex-selective abortions despite not thinking of a foetus as being a life. If allowing sex-selective abortions causes social harm, then a case exists for the state to prevent it, independent of the legality of abortion itself. The rights being balanced are the right of the parent to choose their child's gender versus the right of the rest of society not to suffer whatever ills come of the exercising of that right, then it's a question of how severe the social ills are. Given that all evidence suggests legal sex-selective abortion leads to a heavy gender imbalance, we then have to figure out what happens in a society with a large cohort of young men with no prospect of finding partners (hint: it tends to be pretty bad from the information we can gather) and weigh whether that should override the right of the individual to choose their child's gender.

There you go. The entire case, made without reference to the legitimacy or otherwise of the act itself.

If you want to protect society you could force abortions in certain cases.

volchitsa

Gbear wrote: »

I made reference to that in the 2nd part of my post.

I hope that the creepy, quasi-eugenic idea that the government's role is to shape the makeup of society is something that has largely been left behind in the last century for the majority of people.

So what is the logic behind removing people's right to have a drink before they drive? Is that quasi-eugenic? Or is it about restricting people's freedoms for the good of society as a whole?
Or about banning dangerous drivers for that matter? Eugenics? Or is that just an attemptby you at dragging in a word that you hope will ring some quasi-Pavlovian bells? :rolleyes:

Gbear wrote: »

Your analogies really don't work for abortion.
Donating a kidney vs. not donating a kidney isn't a choice between actions but a choice between action and inaction.
If a foetus is a person, an abortion is not akin to not donating a kidney but rather, not donating a kidney and then turning up the hospital and smothering the patient.

But if a fetus is a person (is it? Starting from what point exactly?) then you would presumably agree with Dr Astbury in Galway that terminating a fetus whose heart is still beating is murder. After all, doctors are not normally allowed to choose which patients to kill in order to consecrate more time to the ones they think they can save, are they?

I mean, you just said that the issue with abortion is that it is an action, not inaction, so by your reckoning it's nothing like leaving a dying patient untreated (itself a very dubious course of action) and more like killing someone so as to free up resources for ones that are better bets. Hardly very ethical - if the fetus is a person, that is.

Of course if the fetus isn't yet a person....

The Corinthian

Gbear wrote: »

Your analogies really don't work for abortion.
Donating a kidney vs. not donating a kidney isn't a choice between actions but a choice between action and inaction.

So what? We typically treat inaction in exactly the same way as action morally and in law - negligence, for example. You'll need to find a better difference than a semantic one, because that's all you're presenting, TBH.

A criminal on death row has committed a crime and death is punishment, whereas a foetus has done nothing of the sort.

Again, so what? My purpose was to debunk your notion that to rationalize a termination you would have to believe that a the target being terminated is not a person. There are various reason it is considered moral to terminate people.

War is a whole different ballgame and a giant can of worms I'm not prepared to get into here.

Then the point stands.

Regardless, there doesn't need to be incontrovertible right to life for abortion to be murder.

I agree. Just because there is no absolute right to life for a person, doesn't mean that it has no right to life either. I never said abortion is not murder, only that the 'personhood' argument is a bit of a red herring.

Thing is, you didn't say that in your previous post, you specifically came out with the 'personhood' argument.

The Corinthian

volchitsa wrote: »

But if a fetus is a person (is it? Starting from what point exactly?)

Good question; TBH, I've never heard a good definition that allowed for it not to be post-conception.

After all, doctors are not normally allowed to choose which patients to kill in order to consecrate more time to the ones they think they can save, are they?

Well, hopefully not normally, but where resources are limited, they are; it's called triage.