nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Selective Abortion

Rev Hellfire

Ohh no another abortion thread you say, well its not kind of.

I’d to propose a question to you, its something that popped up in conversation with some of our friends who took a rather surprising negative view of the matter.
Like a lot of couples we’re financially limited on the size of a family we can have, for us the magic number is three, a not totally uncommon number as it happens. And have two daughters at this point, but would wish to complete the family with a boy.
So naturally we are looking to rule out any more future girls. What I find strange is that in our conversations with our peers we have all been agreed that embryonic foetus can not really be considered human much less sentient and as such see no moral reasons to disallow abortion based on that logic.
But they seemed to find the idea that we would selective abort on sex immoral. So that lead me to wonder how many others would have the same opinion, it seems totally illogical to me.

Now I know the abortion word is a red rag to the pro-life lobby, but try and contain your selves. The debate is not if abortion is acceptable, but rather is it acceptable to abort based on sex.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

simu

I find it very strange that you could do that and not feel terrible guilt tbh. Whilst I'm in favour of giving women a chance to abort because of extreme cases such as pregnancy after rape or a one night stand and being unsuited to single parenthood (and even then, I'm sure it's something that stays with a person forever and it's really not a decision to take lightly), I don't understand how a couple who are in love and have decided that they want to have a child together could then go on and abort it because it was the wrong sex.

I mean, when your wife was pregnant the other two times, did you not feel you were bonding with the future child straight away? I've found that even if you know the scientific facts about foetal development and all, you still feel an emotional contact with your unborn child, even very early on - and you can't even discover the sex of the child til the 2nd trimester which is far enough on! But maybe not all people are like this.

And, on a purely practical level, the practise of aborting female foetuses has led to severe and societally troublesome gender imbalances in countries like India and China and although this might be less of a problem in Ireland where there is less discrimination against women, it's still dodgy. Nature gave us a roughly 50/50 distribution of males and females - why not keep it that way?

simu

Well ,the abortion part of the problem could be reomved by advances in technology: http://www.xyinc.com/news/articles/old/seperate.html

There's still the question of whether it's advisable to give parents the choice, though.

athena 2000

simu wrote:

And, on a purely practical level, the practise of aborting female foetuses has led to severe and societally troublesome gender imbalances in countries like India and China and although this might be less of a problem in Ireland where there is less discrimination against women, it's still dodgy. Nature gave us a roughly 50/50 distribution of males and females - why not keep it that way?

I have Chinese friends that stayed in the US after getting their advanced educations so they could have two children without being forced to abort the second child. They would be the first to tell you of the real issues of too many boys in a society where only one child is allowed per family, and where the culture values the males first.

I think the balance that nature provides of a rough 50/50 ratio of males to females should be left alone. I realise the question is hypothetical, but I have a disturbed feeling about ending a pregnancy where two people that are deeply involved and trying to have a family abort their own foetus/child because it's the wrong sex. Would parents be willing to abort 1, 2, or 3+ more times after each 16 weeks gestation because the sex of the foetus isn't wanted? Would the mother be willing to do it over and over in order to achieve a child of the desired sex? Just the hormone changes and natural connection that women get with their forming child indicate that doing this would be very difficult IMO.

If sperm sorting would be available (link above) then maybe having a semi-guaranteed go for a boy after having many girls wouldn't be an issue, but to have sperm sorting technology available to everyone? I'd have to say no.

I also wonder if any thought has been given to the idea that younger children in a family could (and probably would) find out about a sex selected abortion if it were to occur and get a distorted viewpoint of their own value - whether they are loved and cared about. "They got rid of the baby, and they might get rid of me too."

Many interesting lines of questions occur...

Rev Hellfire

I think the argument that "They got rid of the baby, and they might get rid of me too." isn't really valid. For one you're talking about totally different things, firstly an early term foetus is not a baby, its not really even appropriate to classify it as human. Secondly people who have abortions don't go thing about murdering children you're playing an card to tug on heart strings, its no different than finding out your parent had played to have 3 kids and you're the fourth, doesn’t mean they're going to bump you off first chance they get.

As for the countries where foetus are aborted depending on sex, well surely its a woman right to do with body as they see fit, and for a couple to have the family they choose. Keep in mind that in certain societies having a girl can be a financial burden which they feel they cannot afford.

Anyway those are an aside from the issue, we're not talking about breaking 'natures balance' if anything we are looking to ensure it’s maintained within our (future) three kids by ensure that we have a male.

RE*AC*TOR

Rev Hellfire wrote:

For one you're talking about totally different things, firstly an early term foetus is not a baby, its not really even appropriate to classify it as human.

Its 100% human. It would be hard to classify it as anything else. Its a living thing with human DNA.
I think people can convince themselves of a lot of things to justify what they WANT to do. I reckon a lot of people do this all the time. But when you get down to it, its still ending a life. Simple cause and effect.

Rev Hellfire

An acorn isn’t an oak tree, it becomes one.

Now really you must try harder and not try to pull the thread off topic.

So let assume we’re talking hypothetically here for the pro-life contingent and say that for the duration of the thread we shall assume (hypothetically if you must) that a foetus is not a human. The question is it right to abort based on sex, not if abortion is right or wrong, start another thread on that topic if you must.

RE*AC*TOR

In that scenario, I would say you could abort for any reason you like.

Nevyn

I would personally view abortion on those terms as morally wrong.
I believe that fate has a certain hand to play in our lives and as happy and thrilled as I am to be blessed with a son and a daughter I would not have loved another son less then I do my daughter.
You either wish for another child in your life or you don't.
I don't have any objection to diets and timing of cycles or specail underwear or sperm sorting.
But creating embryoes just to sex them when a couple is healthy and concieve naturally would
also in my book be a no as well as terminating a pregnacny because you weren't gestating a child of a certain sex.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote:

What I find strange is that in our conversations with our peers we have all been agreed that embryonic foetus can not really be considered human much less sentient and as such see no moral reasons to disallow abortion based on that logic.
But they seemed to find the idea that we would selective abort on sex immoral. So that lead me to wonder how many others would have the same opinion, it seems totally illogical to me.

I find it rather strange too. To me abortion is justifed because the collection of cells in the woman is not yet a human being in the sense that we know it, ie a conscious self aware entity. No I am still in too minds about a lot of issues with regard to this, especially the issue of when the feotus's nervous system and brain develop to the point where consciousness is possible.

But if you allow abortion it seems rather illogical to allow it for certain reasons and not other. I am also rather disturbed by the position some people seem to have the the feotus is a human being from the moment of conception, but it is ok to kill it if it is the product of a rape.

If the foetus is a human being from the moment of conception I would have taught it isn't ever alright to terminate it for any reason.

Though i do take the point that selecting the sex of the child, taken to the extreme, could lead to a gender imbalance.

Rev Hellfire

Thaedydal wrote:

I would personally view abortion on those terms as morally wrong.....But creating embryoes just to sex them when a couple is healthy and concieve naturally would
also in my book be a no as well as terminating a pregnacny because you weren't gestating a child of a certain sex.

You see I just don't get that argument, we are not dealing with a child, at best its a complex grouping of cells which has the potential to become a child. Perhaps you could explain why its immoral, specifically when as proponents of abortion we acknowledge that the early embryo is not classifiable as a human. It’s a rather strange stance to take. Surely a woman/family should be empowered to take the required steps for the better meant of both themselves and/or their family.

rsynnott

First step on the slippery slope back to eugenics, really.

simu

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I think the argument that "They got rid of the baby, and they might get rid of me too." isn't really valid. For one you're talking about totally different things, firstly an early term foetus is not a baby, its not really even appropriate to classify it as human. Secondly people who have abortions don't go thing about murdering children you're playing an card to tug on heart strings, its no different than finding out your parent had played to have 3 kids and you're the fourth, doesn’t mean they're going to bump you off first chance they get.

And yet, most women who have miscarriages, even very early on, find it extremely upsetting and go through a grieving process. You might think this is an irrational response but these emotions are real and why would anyone put themselves through that willingly?

I imagine it could be quite traumatising for a child to find out that previous healthy potential siblings were destroyed because of their gender tbh.

As for the countries where foetus are aborted depending on sex, well surely its a woman right to do with body as they see fit, and for a couple to have the family they choose. Keep in mind that in certain societies having a girl can be a financial burden which they feel they cannot afford.

Well, it's causing major problems in those socities. You end up with huge number of men who have no hope of finding a partner and settling down and many of these turn to crime. The only reason having a girl is a burden in such countries is due to sexist practises and surely, it makes far more sense to try to abolish these.

Anyway those are an aside from the issue, we're not talking about breaking 'natures balance' if anything we are looking to ensure it’s maintained within our (future) three kids by ensure that we have a male.

You have three daughters, another family has three sons. If a pattern emerges that increases the probablity of a third child to be of one gender or another, you've started to skew the natural gender balance.

And you still haven't adressed the question of the psychological imapct on the mother. Maybe you don't see the child as anything more than a bunch of cells until it's born but a woman who has carried one for 20 weeks (the time at which it becomes possible to tell the sex using ultrasound) will probably feel quite different. By this stage, she will have a prominent bump and everything - how to expalin its disappearance?

We could possibly get to a stage where people would not feel so attached to their unborn kids and where a woman could pop into work and explain the sudden absence of her bump as "meh - it was a girl/boy so I got rid of it" but I don't think it would be for the benfit of society if such views were to become acceptable. You want to encourage parents to bond with their children as early on and as deeply as possible - such a practise goes against this completely.

Raytown Rocks

In my opinion the answer has to be " NO" it is not acceptable.( my opinion)
It is difficult to answer your question without bringing up the whole abortion issue, but to me it seems like selective breathing.
Will the next step be the that your son has to have blonde hair blue eyes etc, where do people draw the line.
To be honest to fall pregnant with what would be a perfectly healthy girl and to abort this based on the fact you would prefer a boy doesnt sit right with me.
Chef

Rev Hellfire

rsynnott wrote:

First step on the slippery slope back to eugenics, really.

On that score we're already there, aborting a foetus which may have handicap is acceptable practise, and can be done at a later term than normal. Now what the handicapped have to say on that matter is a topic in itself, but not here

On the topic of how early you can determine the sex of a child for ultrasound it is indeed 18 weeks (although sometimes can be determined at 16), there are procedures which are applicable at 10 weeks, and one I've heard of at 5 weeks. Naturally the earlier the better when selecting the sex you require so these are welcome developments.

Zombrex

chef wrote:

To be honest to fall pregnant with what would be a perfectly healthy girl and to abort this based on the fact you would prefer a boy doesnt sit right with me.
Chef

What reason for abortion would sit right with you?

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote:

I believe that fate has a certain hand to play in our lives and as happy and thrilled as I am to be blessed with a son and a daughter I would not have loved another son less then I do my daughter.

That’s a terribly subjective argument - fate plays a hand in any pregnancy, after all. Why would bucking fate be less acceptable in this case than in that of other abortions?

You either wish for another child in your life or you don't.

We’re discussing parents who do wish for another child, just of a particular gender. The reasoning behind it is economic too - they want a boy after two girls - so in principle it doesn’t differ from the majority of terminations.

simu wrote:

And yet, most women who have miscarriages, even very early on, find it extremely upsetting and go through a grieving process. You might think this is an irrational response but these emotions are real and why would anyone put themselves through that willingly?

You can say the same of any abortion, how does this differ?

simu

The Corinthian wrote:

You can say the same of any abortion, how does this differ?

Well, tbh I think people should try to avoid having abortions if possible - it ought to be a desperate measure such as in cases where people think the burden of giving birth the child is too much for them to bear. And the burden of "oh no - another daughter" doesn't strike me as quite equalling that of giving birth to a product of incest or rape.

Raytown Rocks

Wicknight wrote:

What reason for abortion would sit right with you?

I suppose there are a couple, leading to pregnancy
1. Rape
2. Incest

Reasons to abort once pregnant
1. Danger to the mother
2. Medicalally proven the child will not survive birth.

Theres a couple of reasons that spring to mind

Chef

The Corinthian

simu wrote:

Well, tbh I think people should try to avoid having abortions if possible - it ought to be a desperate measure such as in cases where people think the burden of giving birth the child is too much for them to bear. And the burden of "oh no - another daughter" doesn't strike me as quite equalling that of giving birth to a product of incest or rape.

Sorry, that’s not really the discussion we’re having here though. This discussion is predicated upon the assumption that abortion is not wrong and how there is a logical inconsistency between how selective abortion is morally perceived in comparison with more typical reasons for termination.

Of course the burden of "oh no - another daughter" isn’t quite that of giving birth to a product of incest or rape, but if we accept the premise that abortion is not wrong, then that reasoning makes no difference.

simu

The Corinthian wrote:

This discussion is predicated upon the assumption that abortion is not wrong and how there is a logical inconsistency between how selective abortion is morally perceived in comparison with more typical reasons for termination.

Well, if a person or society believes abortion is ok for any reason at all, then there's no reason not to have one on the basis of gender. Hell, why not do it because you want your kid born in say, August rather than May for that matter. The reason there is a logical inconsistency is that most people in Irish society have somewhat ambivalent attitudes towards it and hence the reactions of the OP's friends. Most pro-choicers would still agree that it is not a decision to be taken lightly.

Of course the burden of "oh no - another daughter" isn’t quite that of giving birth to a product of incest or rape, but if we accept the premise that abortion is not wrong, then that reasoning makes no difference.

I don't think there is any point classifying it as right or wrong - such absolute judgements don't help with managing it on a day to day basis imo. It makes more sense to me to see it as something unpleasant, to be avoided if possible, but to make allowances for cases where it is seen as the only choice*. You don't want a situation where women go to get it done illegally and dangerously but on the other hand, you don't want to encourage it as a free and easy procedure to be done without much thought.

*And yes, some people will proabably chose it for what most would see as trivial reasons but what can ya do! You have to give people the benefit of the doubt and hope that they have thought their decision through properly.

Zombrex

simu wrote:

I don't think there is any point classifying it as right or wrong - such absolute judgements don't help with managing it on a day to day basis imo. It makes more sense to me to see it as something unpleasant, to be avoided if possible, but to make allowances for cases where it is seen as the only choice.

I think there is a huge point, after all we don't define the standards of other moral issues such as murder, on a case by case basis.

Either abortion is morally wrong because you are killing a human being, or it isn't. The reason why you are having the abortion is largely immaterial to that.

If one decides that in fact a human being is not being terminated, just a collection of cells or organs no different than your arm or hair, then surely abortion is ok, what ever the reason. Destroying a collection of cells because it was produced through a rape or destroying a collection of cells because you don't want a girl right now is still just destroying a collection of cells that has no value as a human life.

If one decides that in fact it is a human being being terminated then surely abortion is never acceptable what ever the reason, even if its due to rape or incest or anything, because it is a crime to kill an innocent human.

simu wrote:

you don't want to encourage it as a free and easy procedure to be done without much thought.

Why not?

If it is not wrong in of itself why dictate justifiable and non-justifable reasons to do it. You wouldn't say "We should only sell condoms to people who have a damn good reason for using them" since using condoms isn't considered by most people as morally wrong.

simu

Wicknight wrote:

I think there is a huge point, after all we don't define the standards of other moral issues such as murder, on a case by case basis.

Either abortion is morally wrong because you are killing a human being, or it isn't. The reason why you are having the abortion is largely immaterial to that.

Well, sentencing is decided on a case by case basis, there are different degrees of murder (manslaughter, etc), there are grey areas like euthanasia and war-time killings... nothing is black and white.

Why not?

Well, it might weaken the bond between parent and child and to ensure a child is brought up properly, it's a handy bond to have in existence. Ultimately, it doesn't matter all that much - the human race will survive whether abortion is allowed or not but it could be argued that the way abortion is implemented in a given society can make that a better or worse place to live for its members.

nesf

Wicknight wrote:

Either abortion is morally wrong because you are killing a human being, or it isn't.

Eh, no. The vast majority of people in this country accept that there are cases where abortion is perfectly acceptable, ie when the mother's life is at risk etc. So going by that, the above view is at odds with what the majority of people believe in, it obviously isn't as simple as all that.

Plus killing a human being isn't always morally wrong either.

Sangre

Wicknight wrote:

I think there is a huge point, after all we don't define the standards of other moral issues such as murder, on a case by case basis.

Society always judeges things on a case by case basis. Even something like murder e.g manslaughter, euthansia, felony murder, infantcide, executions etc.

With regards the OP it is probably bad practice for society. Nature gives us a 103/100 men/women split for a reason.

Sure if you don't consider it as any form of life there is no real moral dilemma. Might aswell abort the foetus to look nice for someone's wedding.

Zombrex

nesf wrote:

Eh, no. The vast majority of people in this country accept that there are cases where abortion is perfectly acceptable, ie when the mother's life is at risk etc. So going by that, the above view is at odds with what the majority of people believe in, it obviously isn't as simple as all that.

Well I think the majority of people in this country are on the fence about abortion, as the X case and the flip flop abortion referendums imply, but even so I would love to hear the logic behind selective abortions.

nesf wrote:

Plus killing a human being isn't always morally wrong either.

Please tell me the time when killing a defenceless innocent human being is moral?

Zombrex

Sangre wrote:

Society always judeges things on a case by case basis. Even something like murder e.g manslaughter, euthansia, felony murder, infantcide, executions etc.

No it doesn't ... well maybe on Judging Amy, but in the current legal system the law is quite black and white. It is only deciding what law should be applied that it gets murky, ie was it murder or manslaughter, was it rape or consentual etc

But if it was murder the law if clear. If it was rape the law if clear etc

What the law doesn't do is go "well he clearly killed him in cold blood, he clearly knew what he was doing, but then the guy who was killed was suffering from depression and was missing his left arm from a car accident, so he probably didn't apprecate life that much so I think this murder is bad but it probably isn't that bad."

Tar.Aldarion

nesf wrote:

Eh, no. The vast majority of people in this country accept that there are cases where abortion is perfectly acceptable, ie when the mother's life is at risk etc. So going by that, the above view is at odds with what the majority of people believe in, it obviously isn't as simple as all that.

Consequentialism doesn't make an act right, it may make it acceptable in peoples opinion.

Plus killing a human being isn't always morally wrong either.

Some would disagree, some would not.

Nasty_Girl

At what point in the pregnancy does it become clear that the baby is a boy or a girl?
(Edit: I see the answer to this now back in the thread)
What if they get it wrong?
How many abortions are ye prepared to go through until you get the boy?
What if you get a boy but he is handicapped, sick blind etc?
Will you get rid off him then?
How much do abortions cost?
How much are you willing to spend on abortions?
What if they mess it up and your wife can never have babies again(unlikely)?

I don't think I agree with purposely making a child with it in mind to kill it...
But then I guess it comes down to at what point does it become "human" in your mind...

nesf

Wicknight wrote:

Well I think the majority of people in this country are on the fence about abortion, as the X case and the flip flop abortion referendums imply, but even so I would love to hear the logic behind selective abortions.

I agree, though people in this country seem to be on the fence about everything tbh.

The logic I imagine would go along the lines of: if we legalise abortion completely and allow abortions for all and sundry then they can have them for whatever reason they wish. i.e. if selective abortion is alright then so is left/right handed abortion (assuming you could test for this). It's just another line in the sand.

If we only allow abortions in the first trimester (which seems to be the general pro-choice position from threads on here) then it's not an issue since telling the sex before the second trimester is both unlikely to happen and very inaccurate if it does. (this is an example of limited rights to abortions, which seems to be the norm among people on both sides of the fence. Few seem to advocate completly free access to abortion or a complete ban.)

Wicknight wrote:

Please tell me the time when killing a defenceless innocent human being is moral?

Ahh who said defenceless and innocent? All you said was killing a human being. If in self defence I do this without any intention of this happening then it is hardly morally wrong is it?

Life doesn't apply well to absolute rules, that's why we tend to go with "case by case" judgements on these things. Saying all killing is wrong is all well and good, but there will be exceptions to that logic 99% of the time and you have to accept that.

Zombrex

nesf wrote:

Saying all killing is wrong is all well and good, but there will be exceptions to that logic 99% of the time and you have to accept that.

True, but the point I was making is the circumstances of the act of an abortion are always the same.

You are always terminating a foetus. The foetus is always defenseless and innocent by definition.

You are always doing it with consideration and forethought, it (if done properly, not throwing yourself down stairs) is never a heat of the moment decision.

etc.

The only varying factor you could have would be any threat to the mothers life. But these circumstances are rare.

So generally I still fail to see why the validity of abortions should be judged on a case to case basis.

If it is a crime it is always a crime, since the methods and situation rarely change, unlike something more general like killing a human which could happen in a huge amount of different fashions.

I fail to see how someone could say one abortion was ok and another was a crime.